which is better as the 2nd camera?

EarthQuake wrote:

I had the 12-40/2.8 and now own the 12-35/2.8, neither feel particularly redundant, though if I had both cameras on me and was shooting with both (something I don't really do - it's generally one or the other), I would likely have the 7-14/4, 25/1.4 or 42.5/1.2 on the EM1 so I could get different styles of shots.

Really, the EM1 with a fast zoom is such a completely different beast, much bigger, much heavier, mechanical zoom, much better ergonomics, weather sealed, and of course I usually carry at least 3 lenses with me when I have the EM1 out.

The RX100 on the other hand, I generally slip in a pocket and leave the camera bag at home, or quite often, my wife will throw the RX100 in her purse when I'm shooting with the EM1.

Horses for courses.

Thank you. After getting used to my LX100, I always doubt about the necessity of MFT camera with a normal (24~70/80) range zoom. I know I would get better ergo (I'm mostly satisfied with LX100 except for lack of touch screen and the power zoom) but just can't make the decision when I compare the size of LX100 to something like EM1+12-40. EM1 body plus a F1.8 prime or a 35-100 f2.8 seems a better companion. Sorry, I digress.

how about rx100 vs ricoh gr?

both are about the same when it comes to portability.

gr has better image quality and handling, but it doesn't zoom. it does have the 35 and 50 crop mode.

rx100 does video better. but it handles like a point a shoot. and the electronic zoom is not so assuring.

Long story short, I sold my X100 and GR over the Thanksgiving weekend, with the intention to keep the RX100. I think I am getting realistic about its limitations and capabilities.

Then I noticed that Canon has their G7X refurb for $400, which is about $160 more than I paid for my RX100 original. I was tempted by the brighter lens and ordered one to try out. Got it tonight and have some observations to share.

1. at the closest focus distance, both are horrible wide open. The RX100 seems to be a bit better at f1.8, but still very soft. Both get really sharp at f2.8. I think it's safe to assume that, for close-up, one has to use f2.8 and up.

2. if back up a bit, f1.8 is actually usable at the wide-end. pictures do get sharper when stop down.

3. G7X is reasonably sharp wide open at the tele-end.

4. it seems that you can get a lot closer at the tele end with the G7X. Is this true? This will allow much better results for portraits, I think.

5. The brighter lens do matter, in terms of DOF and keeping ISO low.

6. maybe I did some settings wrong, but in A mode, these two act very differently. G7X seems to pick a faster shutter speed than the RX100. They rarely have the same shutter speed and ISO (set to auto) even while shooting at the same thing with the same aperture. The Sony seems to overexpose a bit.

6. G7X feels much larger than the RX100 original, although the difference on paper is very small.

The biggest drawback for me, is that G7X fit really tight into the case that I bought for the RX100 original. Bummer ... I will keep testing them out in the next few days. So far, I think the G7X is worth the extra ($160 for me) over the RX100 original. This is solely based on the lens itself. The battery died on the G7X, so I can't shoot more tonight.

These are nice compact cameras. But if you expect them to replace a 'real' camera, you will be very disappointed. this is not only because of the IQ, but also other things like 'closeup' shots. I included two pictures from my E-M1 with the 12-40mm f2.8. You can see the closeup shots are much better at the tele end. you'd be able to get much closer with the huge pro zoom ...