NEX-5T in 2023

[Adam-T]

OK, so I had a NEX5 at launch and loved the camera but was frustrated with the lack of optical quality of the 18-55 but the primes were fine even the much hated 16mm pancake if you use it at F5.6 (made the NEX5 super pocketable too) .. the NEX5 series has stayed that super small size and wow is it tiny compared to a Panasonic GX80 (16Mp M43) or even the canon M100 ..

I`m tired of RX100 handling, the Mk1/2 lens wasn`t up to much either, the Mk3 was better but only at the wide end - the canon G5/7X series are optically challenged at the wide end so I gave up on 1" and as I was after something on the cheap, I thought again of the NEX5 series, the last one being the "T" which is an N with a flip up/down screen, a command dial and NFC - and yes it has a Touchscreen which is more than can be said of most of the A6000 series or 1st two gens of the A7/A7R .. it does more than focus point too , it`s fully operational in menus etc (I don`t remember the A7R-III doing that ! - Sony are weird with the whole touchscreen thing) , also its pressure sensitive rather than capacitive so it works with gloves on and is hard to mess stuff up by accident ..

OK to get this small it needs the 16MM F2.8, the too narrow but very good 20MM F2.8 or the much hated 16-50-PZ .. I`ve had a number of copies of this lens over the past 8 years and apart from one dreadful copy I`ve never found it to be too bad, it`s better at the wide end than most of the 1" compacts (the RX100 MK3/4/5 are better here) and way better than the comically overrated Canon M 15-45 which I`ve never seen a usable copy of . this one came boxed complete with a decent copy of this much bashed lens and its better at "24mm" than the canon G5X Mk2 let alone the G7X . the long end is poor at long distance as always much like the RX100 but its not unusable .

Sensor is 16MP Sony APS_C so on a par with Nikon's much lauded D7000 and there`s plenty of shadow pulling ability in RAW and high ISOs are decent in RAW too . AF is snappy enough and has Phase detect like the A6000 . the only operational downer really is the startup and shut down times, it takes a while before it even motors the lens out ..

This was £100 to the door from a UK mainstream camera shop boxed complete, you`d be hard pushed to get a tatty Mk1 RX100 for that (forget any other 1" cam) , it`d not get you much in Micro-4/3 either, certainly nothing with a sensor remotely in the same ball park so real bang for buck ............ also has the added benefit of an optional (if comically expensive even second hand) OLED EVF which the A5000 and 5100 don`t

So------ I`d deffo reccomend the 5R or 5T as a cheap second cam, the sensor is still up to it and the things are TINY - the 16-50 isn`t that bad and actually decent when compared to other Sony made standard zooms for the system (like the dreadful "Zony" 16-70 F4 and the old 18-55) and it`ll take the modern Tamron 17-70 F2.8 or the 16-50 F2.8 id needed .

--
** Please ignore the Typos, I'm the world's worst Typist **

 

[Nielk Mike]

OK, so I had a NEX5 at launch and loved the camera but was frustrated with the lack of optical quality of the 18-55 but the primes were fine even the much hated 16mm pancake if you use it at F5.6 (made the NEX5 super pocketable too) .. the NEX5 series has stayed that super small size and wow is it tiny compared to a Panasonic GX80 (16Mp M43) or even the canon M100 ..

I`m tired of RX100 handling, the Mk1/2 lens wasn`t up to much either, the Mk3 was better but only at the wide end - the canon G5/7X series are optically challenged at the wide end so I gave up on 1" and as I was after something on the cheap, I thought again of the NEX5 series, the last one being the "T" which is an N with a flip up/down screen, a command dial and NFC - and yes it has a Touchscreen which is more than can be said of most of the A6000 series or 1st two gens of the A7/A7R .. it does more than focus point too , it`s fully operational in menus etc (I don`t remember the A7R-III doing that ! - Sony are weird with the whole touchscreen thing) , also its pressure sensitive rather than capacitive so it works with gloves on and is hard to mess stuff up by accident ..

OK to get this small it needs the 16MM F2.8, the too narrow but very good 20MM F2.8 or the much hated 16-50-PZ .. I`ve had a number of copies of this lens over the past 8 years and apart from one dreadful copy I`ve never found it to be too bad, it`s better at the wide end than most of the 1" compacts (the RX100 MK3/4/5 are better here) and way better than the comically overrated Canon M 15-45 which I`ve never seen a usable copy of . this one came boxed complete with a decent copy of this much bashed lens and its better at "24mm" than the canon G5X Mk2 let alone the G7X . the long end is poor at long distance as always much like the RX100 but its not unusable .

Sensor is 16MP Sony APS_C so on a par with Nikon's much lauded D7000 and there`s plenty of shadow pulling ability in RAW and high ISOs are decent in RAW too . AF is snappy enough and has Phase detect like the A6000 . the only operational downer really is the startup and shut down times, it takes a while before it even motors the lens out ..

This was £100 to the door from a UK mainstream camera shop boxed complete, you`d be hard pushed to get a tatty Mk1 RX100 for that (forget any other 1" cam) , it`d not get you much in Micro-4/3 either, certainly nothing with a sensor remotely in the same ball park so real bang for buck ............ also has the added benefit of an optional (if comically expensive even second hand) OLED EVF which the A5000 and 5100 don`t

So------ I`d deffo reccomend the 5R or 5T as a cheap second cam, the sensor is still up to it and the things are TINY - the 16-50 isn`t that bad and actually decent when compared to other Sony made standard zooms for the system (like the dreadful "Zony" 16-70 F4 and the old 18-55) and it`ll take the modern Tamron 17-70 F2.8 or the 16-50 F2.8 id needed .

The NEX5R or T are good cameras - but I would strongly suggest the add-on EVF. In bright sunlight, the LCD Screen is all but useless. Do not pair the camera with the 16-50 kit, or 18-55 kit. Go for the 18-135 or the Sigma 18-50f2.8.

The only thing that I really dislike is the slow start up and wake up time.

 

[Adam-T]

The NEX5R or T are good cameras - but I would strongly suggest the add-on EVF. In bright sunlight, the LCD Screen is all but useless. Do not pair the camera with the 16-50 kit, or 18-55 kit. Go for the 18-135 or the Sigma 18-50f2.8.

I was after compactness as an alternative to a compact and that means 16-50PZ, 16mm or 20mm , the 16-50 is stabilized and better than the old 16mm F2.8 prime optically , the 20mm decent but too narrow (I`ll probably get one or the Sigma 19 for street) - the 18-135 is rather large even on an A6600 (that combo looks like a modern day DSC-F717 - LOL) ..

The prob with the EVF is the cost, Used on Ebay or in dealers it bizarrely goes for more than the camera and the lens together despite the 5T being the last and best camera to use it .

The only thing that I really dislike is the slow start up and wake up time.

Yeah, agreed

--
** Please ignore the Typos, I'm the world's worst Typist **

 

[Nielk Mike]

The NEX5R or T are good cameras - but I would strongly suggest the add-on EVF. In bright sunlight, the LCD Screen is all but useless. Do not pair the camera with the 16-50 kit, or 18-55 kit. Go for the 18-135 or the Sigma 18-50f2.8.

I was after compactness as an alternative to a compact

Try the Sigma trio f2.8. Much better IQ than the kit and still small. One lens on the camera, two in the pocket Covers WA, normal and short tele.

 

[Adam-T]

The NEX5R or T are good cameras - but I would strongly suggest the add-on EVF. In bright sunlight, the LCD Screen is all but useless. Do not pair the camera with the 16-50 kit, or 18-55 kit. Go for the 18-135 or the Sigma 18-50f2.8.

I was after compactness as an alternative to a compact

Try the Sigma trio f2.8. Much better IQ than the kit and still small. One lens on the camera, two in the pocket Covers WA, normal and short tele.

I had the 19 back in the NEX7 days, was decent ! ..

For those who don`t know what an F717 is - here`s one next to the A6600/18-135 Combo :-D

Can`t post images on the forum now

https://s3.amazonaws.com/masters.galleries.dpreview.com/4359158.jpg?X-Amz-Expires=3600&X-Amz-Algorithm=AWS4-HMAC-SHA256&X-Amz-Credential=AKIA4NPXSRZNQROQQFIW/20230413/us-east-1/s3/aws4_request&X-Amz-Date=20230413T155300Z&X-Amz-SignedHeaders=host&X-Amz-Signature=9075348454f5def5d018925588522d705526301d74fcd4969a2dfe416279caaa

 

[Nielk Mike]

The NEX5R or T are good cameras - but I would strongly suggest the add-on EVF. In bright sunlight, the LCD Screen is all but useless. Do not pair the camera with the 16-50 kit, or 18-55 kit. Go for the 18-135 or the Sigma 18-50f2.8.

I was after compactness as an alternative to a compact

Try the Sigma trio f2.8. Much better IQ than the kit and still small. One lens on the camera, two in the pocket Covers WA, normal and short tele.

I had the 19 back in the NEX7 days, was decent ! ..

For those who don`t know what an F717 is - here`s one next to the A6600/18-135 Combo :-D

Can`t post images on the forum now

https://s3.amazonaws.com/masters.ga...8925588522d705526301d74fcd4969a2dfe416279caaa

Those were the times. Still have that dImage 7. The 18-135 looks large - but it is well balanced on an a6xxx body. Just spent a whole weekend carrying the the a6400 with that lens. Can't stuff it into my jeans pocket. But my overcoat pocket was big enough. What makes it attractive is the range. Fuji doesn't have a good one in this range. The color fringing is very noticable (magenta and green), but can be fixed in post. Sharpness is good but falls off towards the very edges. Posted some samples here: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/66999389

 

[Adam-T]

balanced on an a6xxx body. Just spent a whole weekend carrying the the a6400 with that lens. Can't stuff it into my jeans pocket. But my overcoat pocket was big enough. What makes it attractive is the range. Fuji doesn't have a good one in this range. The color fringing is very noticable (magenta and green), but can be fixed in post. Sharpness is good but falls off towards the very edges. Posted some samples here:

There always was an issue with not being a single really decent standard zoom for APS-C E mount, the 16-50 F2.8 is excellent apart from the crazy vignetting and distortion which takes lots of correcting in RAW (Automatically in Adobe I believe) , I`ve not tried the 18-135 but it gets better reviews than the old weird and massive , comically pincushioned 18-105 PZ , I`ll take a look .. as I say, I`m after being an alternative to a compact and the 5T + 16-50 loses nothing to the 1-inchers , costs loads less and gains a lot in sensor, handling and flexibility (also the Canon G7X and MK1/2 RX100s and the Pan LX10 dont have EVFs either) . thanks for your input - I may grab a used 18-135 when one pops up

--
** Please ignore the Typos, I'm the world's worst Typist **

 

[NorCal Jim]

My move to mirrorless cameras came after the NEX series and during the first year of the a6000's release. I ended up with two a5100s that I used for short video clips. Although the 2nd was purchased due to my desire to avoid the overheating issues in video. In practice, I kept my videos from 3 to 5 minutes and the 2nd a5100 was never needed. The a5100 is also tiny and that's probably while I haven't sold my two.

I have had a total of four of the 16-50mm kit lenses and really like the fact that they are so compact when retracted and are equipped with OSS stabilization. Despite the poor reputation, they can provide good results in favorable lighting and stopped down plus these lenses are pretty decent for video.

I remember the old threads on this forum with complaints about the Sony/Zeiss 16-70mm f/4 lens. It was notorious for sample variations and quality issues. Shortly after purchasing the a600, I purchased a very good copy from a photographer moving to FF backed by his guarantee that the lens was a good copy. I eventually sold it but ended up getting an even better copy after I ramped up again after downsizing a few years ago. I keep the 16-70 lens on my a6300 and mainly use primes with my ZV-E10, which is my current choice for at home, tripod-mounted video.

Jim

 

[Nielk Mike]

Thought you may find this interesting as well: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/66917211 .

There are images in the posts called "update".

Started the thread just before the closure of dpreview was announced and didn't continue because of that (and here we are now ). It is about the NEX 6 ad NEX5R with the Sigma f2.8 trio.

 

[Adam-T]

video. In practice, I kept my videos from 3 to 5 minutes and the 2nd a5100 was never needed. The a5100 is also tiny and that's probably while I haven't sold my two.

I`d probably have gone for a 5100 for the sensor but the price used is almost A6000 level , I got a boxed complete NEX5T from a shop with 2 spare 3rd party batteries with just over 2000 shots on the clock for £100 from a mainstream high street camera shop to the door - they`re wanting £250 for A5100 bodies alone .. also the Touchscreen is as functional as a panasonic or Canon unlike the A series even now ! .

I have had a total of four of the 16-50mm kit lenses and really like the fact that they are so compact when retracted and are equipped with OSS stabilization. Despite the poor reputation, they can provide good results in favorable lighting and stopped down plus these lenses are pretty decent for video.

I`ve never understood the hatred for this lens ... given how bad the "Zony" 16-70 is and the original 18-55 are let alone the dreadful canon M 15-45 which the reviewers here overrate painfully, you`d think the Sony 16-50 was junk but its far from it at the wide end at F5.6 and I`ve only seen one really bad one and that had been dropped , never seen a single canon M 15-45 which was as good out of about 7 used over the years .

I remember the old threads on this forum with complaints about the Sony/Zeiss 16-70mm f/4 lens. It was notorious for sample variations and quality issues

I`ve never seen a good one of those either and used a few, the best one was far worse than the worst 16-50PZ I`ve tried which was dropped and had to have the extending lens snapped back onto its rails

--
** Please ignore the Typos, I'm the world's worst Typist **

 

[Adam-T]

[No message]

 

[NorCal Jim]

I remember the old threads on this forum with complaints about the Sony/Zeiss 16-70mm f/4 lens. It was notorious for sample variations and quality issues

I`ve never seen a good one of those either and used a few, the best one was far worse than the worst 16-50PZ I`ve tried which was dropped and had to have the extending lens snapped back onto its rails

It's easy to understand your view of the 16-70 given your experience. Although this lens definitely deserves its reputation for sample variation (really good to really bad), it sounds like you have had experience with some damaged lenses. I am aware of various complaints (usually a decentered lens or poor quality control). However, I lucked out with an excellent copy. I have also seen some reviews (years ago) like Marteen Heilbron's excellent review of the a6000 in which he had a loner copy of the 16-70 lens.

I have a high regard for my 16-70 lens, especially since I really like the focal range even though I wouldn't recommend it to others as there is no reason these days to gamble on a purchase in the hope of getting a good copy given the availability of some excellent alternatives.

Regarding the 16-50mm kit lens, I ended up with four through camera purchases and planned to keep only one after selling the first two. I got my latest 16-50 kit lens because I dragged my feet on a decision to buy a ZV-E10 until the body only option was sold out, leaving the next choice to buy it with the 16-50 for an extra $100. I can definitely state that there are sample variations with this lens as my latest two are noticeably better. Judging only from my latest purchase, I would also wonder why the lens has such a bad reputation.

My conclusion? Although sample variations in a lens model is always possible, I think it was much more likely to happen with older models such as the Sony 10-18mm f/4 lens. Conversely, I think new model lenses are less likely to have noticeable performance variations.

Jim

 

[GaryW]

balanced on an a6xxx body. Just spent a whole weekend carrying the the a6400 with that lens. Can't stuff it into my jeans pocket. But my overcoat pocket was big enough. What makes it attractive is the range. Fuji doesn't have a good one in this range. The color fringing is very noticable (magenta and green), but can be fixed in post. Sharpness is good but falls off towards the very edges. Posted some samples here:

There always was an issue with not being a single really decent standard zoom for APS-C E mount, the 16-50 F2.8 is excellent apart from the crazy vignetting and distortion which takes lots of correcting in RAW (Automatically in Adobe I believe) , I`ve not tried the 18-135 but it gets better reviews than the old weird and massive , comically pincushioned 18-105 PZ ,

I don't recall any tests showing that the 18-135 is superior to the 18-105 G. However, I don't think there's a great deal of difference between lenses at this level, so I expect that they are close in performance. Then the 18-135 is cheaper, smaller, and with a longer range, so I think that goes far to why it's more popular. Well, and it was also included in some kits. But what's great about the 18-105 is that it's really good at f5.6, even out to the edges, over most of its focal length.

Distortion correction, either in-camera or in post, takes away most of the distortion, although I think Sony leaves some at the long-end on the 18-105 G. But overall, I think most of us have gotten over worrying about the distortion pre-correction. Many newer lenses rely on the software correction -- even the top normal zoom, the 16-50/f2.8, as you mentioned. Despite the distortion, it's superior to any of the other zooms, at least on APS-C Emount.

I`ll take a look .. as I say, I`m after being an alternative to a compact and the 5T + 16-50 loses nothing to the 1-inchers , costs loads less and gains a lot in sensor, handling and flexibility (also the Canon G7X and MK1/2 RX100s and the Pan LX10 dont have EVFs either) . thanks for your input - I may grab a used 18-135 when one pops up

This is something I come back to every so often. I like the idea of having an even smaller, pocketable camera, but it's always a compromise, isn't it?

 

[Adam-T]

It's easy to understand your view of the 16-70 given your experience. Although this lens definitely deserves its reputation for sample variation (really good to really bad),

It`s nice to know that good ones actually exist , they`re not expensive used in dealers in the UK, but as I say I`ve yet to see a usable one let alone excellent

I have a high regard for my 16-70 lens, especially since I really like the focal range

the focal range, aperture , build and excelllent OSS are massive pulls to this lens , it`s not overly large either but they ought to have assembled them consistently , it wasn`t cheap new

was sold out, leaving the next choice to buy it with the 16-50 for an extra $100. I can definitely state that there are sample variations with this lens as my latest two are noticeably better. Judging only from my latest purchase, I would also wonder why the lens has such a bad reputation.

I`ve seen quite a few copies but only one was really bad and that had been dropped . the others varied from usable to pretty damn good at the wide end - the long end isn`t great at infinity but at closer range is fine .. the lens as a whole doesn`t deserve the bad rep it has - from my experience, it`s been better than the 16-70 copies I`ve tried and a lot better than the old 18-55 too

 

[Adam-T]

included in some kits. But what's great about the 18-105 is that it's really good at f5.6, even out to the edges, over most of its focal length.

I had one before Capture one handled the distortion correction and one thing it was good at was sharpness throughout but with nothing to correct the horrendous pincushion , it wasn`t a lot of use to me, it`s also very large (would be more at home on an A1 than the NEX bodies it was made alongside sizewise) ..

This is something I come back to every so often. I like the idea of having an even smaller, pocketable camera, but it's always a compromise, isn't it?

Indeed, I`ve given up on 1" compacts , the 5T + 16-50 loses nothing optically to the various Sony / Pan / Canon options at the wide end anyway - the sensor is better and you get to swap lenses - and its cheap

 

[GaryW]

I remember the old threads on this forum with complaints about the Sony/Zeiss 16-70mm f/4 lens. It was notorious for sample variations and quality issues

I`ve never seen a good one of those either and used a few, the best one was far worse than the worst 16-50PZ I`ve tried which was dropped and had to have the extending lens snapped back onto its rails

It's easy to understand your view of the 16-70 given your experience. Although this lens definitely deserves its reputation for sample variation (really good to really bad), it sounds like you have had experience with some damaged lenses. I am aware of various complaints (usually a decentered lens or poor quality control).

Maybe this reputation explains why the 16-70 is so cheap these days on the used market. Back when I bought my 18-105G, the 16-70 seemed a lot more expensive. I saw a comparison between the two, and I didn't see much difference overall. I think the 16-70 might be cheaper than the 18-105G, used, these days.

However, I lucked out with an excellent copy. I have also seen some reviews (years ago) like Marteen Heilbron's excellent review of the a6000 in which he had a loner copy of the 16-70 lens.

I have a high regard for my 16-70 lens, especially since I really like the focal range even though I wouldn't recommend it to others as there is no reason these days to gamble on a purchase in the hope of getting a good copy given the availability of some excellent alternatives.

It did seem to have an unusually large number of complaints that sounded like an unusual amount of sample variation. And yet, there are those who swear by it. It sounds like such a useful range and with the high-quality CZ badge.

Regarding the 16-50mm kit lens, I ended up with four through camera purchases and planned to keep only one after selling the first two. I got my latest 16-50 kit lens because I dragged my feet on a decision to buy a ZV-E10 until the body only option was sold out, leaving the next choice to buy it with the 16-50 for an extra $100. I can definitely state that there are sample variations with this lens as my latest two are noticeably better. Judging only from my latest purchase, I would also wonder why the lens has such a bad reputation.

I have two 16-50pz lenses, and they are both in the same ballpark of image quality, although one is better on the wide end, and the other is better on the long end. Both measure worse than my other lenses. The newest one is still probably a few years old by now (it was part of a 6500 kit). But how bad are they? Maybe 10% to 2% worse than my other lenses, depending on focal length, etc.? They have a bad reputation because they're consistently worse than everything else! :-D And yet, they are often good enough. I've used the 16-50pz a lot, and printed at even larger than normal sizes, results are perfectly fine. If I didn't know ahead of time which lens was which, I'd have a hard time deciding. If you start to get closer to the edges, or blow it up enough to see small details, you can start to see differences sometimes. I am just reminded of how high the bar is, these days.

On the other hand, I do occasionally like to print larger or push to have more details, so I prefer to use better lenses when I can. I tend to not use the 16-50pz much anymore. For some travel, I might consider it, but these days, I just try to use other lenses.

My conclusion? Although sample variations in a lens model is always possible, I think it was much more likely to happen with older models such as the Sony 10-18mm f/4 lens. Conversely, I think new model lenses are less likely to have noticeable performance variations.

Jim

 

[GaryW]

included in some kits. But what's great about the 18-105 is that it's really good at f5.6, even out to the edges, over most of its focal length.

I had one before Capture one handled the distortion correction and one thing it was good at was sharpness throughout but with nothing to correct the horrendous pincushion , it wasn`t a lot of use to me, it`s also very large (would be more at home on an A1 than the NEX bodies it was made alongside sizewise) ..

Without software correction, I'd be unhappy with a lot of my lenses! But yeah, that would be nearly unusable.

When you consider that a big part of the Nex line was compactness, it seems large, but I don't think it's particularly large, in general, but when you compare it to the kit lenses, it does look big. I've even taken it on short hikes, no problem.

Lately, I've been using an adapted a-mount f2.8 zoom, and it's maybe about the same length, and a lot heavier. Neither allows me to stuff the camera in my pocket. I could sometimes kinda do that with my old 18-55.

This is something I come back to every so often. I like the idea of having an even smaller, pocketable camera, but it's always a compromise, isn't it?

Indeed, I`ve given up on 1" compacts , the 5T + 16-50 loses nothing optically to the various Sony / Pan / Canon options at the wide end anyway - the sensor is better and you get to swap lenses - and its cheap

Try the 20mm/f2.8 pancake -- it's really good, and compact.

 

[Adam-T]

saw a comparison between the two, and I didn't see much difference overall. I think the 16-70 might be cheaper than the 18-105G, used, these days.

About the same in the UK, around the £300 mark

my other lenses, depending on focal length, etc.? They have a bad reputation because they're consistently worse than everything else! :-D

Except the 18-55 and too many copies of the 16-70 ?

so I prefer to use better lenses when I can. I tend to not use the 16-50pz much anymore. For some travel, I might consider it, but these days, I just try to use other lenses.

For me it makes the NEX5T into a 1" compact beater at far less money - having to beat canon`s G7/5X series at the wide end isn`t hard , neither is it hard to beat the RX100 Mk1-5 at the long end (though I`ve found that the 16-50s weakness is at the long end at distance)

 

[Adam-T]

Try the 20mm/f2.8 pancake -- it's really good, and compact.

I had one in the NEX7 days and agreed about the optics but I find the 35mm FOV a bit tight and it`s of course unstabilized, so not great in less than good light on a non-EVF cam

--
** Please ignore the Typos, I'm the world's worst Typist **

 

[GaryW]

saw a comparison between the two, and I didn't see much difference overall. I think the 16-70 might be cheaper than the 18-105G, used, these days.

About the same in the UK, around the £300 mark

my other lenses, depending on focal length, etc.? They have a bad reputation because they're consistently worse than everything else! :-D

Except the 18-55 and too many copies of the 16-70 ?

My 18-55 measured much better than both of my 16-50pz lenses at almost every focal length and aperture. Go figure! The 18-55 approaches the 18-105 in center sharpness; it's the edge/corner sharpness where it falls behind the 18-105.

so I prefer to use better lenses when I can. I tend to not use the 16-50pz much anymore. For some travel, I might consider it, but these days, I just try to use other lenses.

For me it makes the NEX5T into a 1" compact beater at far less money - having to beat canon`s G7/5X series at the wide end isn`t hard , neither is it hard to beat the RX100 Mk1-5 at the long end (though I`ve found that the 16-50s weakness is at the long end at distance)

Yeah, both of my 16-50pzs seem weaker at the long end (one worse than the other).

But with the 16-50pz, it sounds like (not just what you're saying, but what I recall from reviews) maybe some all-in-one camera might be better or at least not a lot worse, but when you swap the lens to something else, APS-C starts to look a lot better. But then you don't have a compact camera anymore.

There are some venues which disallow use of cameras with interchangeable lenses, so that might be a good argument in favor of a 1" compact.