I just had a deeper looks at reviews out there and also processed some RAW files.
Is it just me or are the results really that mediocre ?
The images are generally soft and the corners are mostly soso.
Maybe I have different standards but given all the rave about these cameras I expected way more (in fact I was about to consider the FZ1000 for my upcoming vacation).
I don't understand your reasons for looking at these cameras. RX10 is ~800g, isn't it? A small APSC DSLR (your A33) + 16-300 lens would weight roughly the same, so why bother?
I used to shoot with Minolta A2; the photos were sharp, but that indescribable small-sensor perspective made me feel like something is wrong. And the 1-inch sensor is not that much bigger.
Well, these DSLR extreme zoom lenses aren't that hot and we are talking about a Leica/Zeiss lenses in those camera (even though they may only have "certified" a external design). However, I was surprised that even in the image center, the results are nowhere as sharp as from a MFT camera for instance - which isn't really related all that much to the lenses.
Both the FZ1000 and the RX10 just use the Leica and Zeiss label on the lens for marketing purposes. Panasonic and Sony have been doing that to most compact camera lenses for eons, it seems...
Both have 2.73x crop sensors with 20.2mp (2.4 µm pixel pitch). A FF 20mp DSLR will start to lose resolution due to diffraction past f8. These 1" (no, I do not know why these sensors are called 1" when they are not 1") sensors of the FZ1000 and RX10 will start to lose resolution due to diffraction of light when you go past f2.9 or thereabouts.
I am guessing the lenses, being ultra zoom lenses (24-400mm FF equivalent for the Pany and 24-200mm for the Sony) will not be super wide open. And stopping down a stop or two will introduce quite some diffraction softening already. That should sharpen up quite ok though, with the right sharpening methods in PP.
For better results, with less of a diffraction resolution hit, look at the Sony RX100 III or the Canon G1-X Mark II, both with their own set of plusses and minuses of course.
I pretty much agree with Brightcolours. Before making a decision, I'd wait for Photokina though. It's rumored Panasonic might introduce the GM1 successor with an EVF.
If I had to travel super light with the smallest package, that's what I would take with me along 2 lenses: Pana 12-32 & 20mm f1.7.
Quote:I just had a deeper looks at reviews out there and also processed some RAW files.
Is it just me or are the results really that mediocre ?
The images are generally soft and the corners are mostly soso.
Maybe I have different standards but given all the rave about these cameras I expected way more (in fact I was about to consider the FZ1000 for my upcoming vacation).
I've been interested in the RX-10 for it's killer feature: flash sync at a minimum 1/1600s.
These reviewers have been able to make some nice snaps with the RX-10:
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0%2c2817%2c2429566%2c00.asp
http://blog.mingthein.com/2014/01/03/rev...sony-rx10/
Better than I can...
Quote:Well, these DSLR extreme zoom lenses aren't that hot and we are talking about a Leica/Zeiss lenses in those camera (even though they may only have "certified" a external design). However, I was surprised that even in the image center, the results are nowhere as sharp as from a MFT camera for instance - which isn't really related all that much to the lenses.
Still I think the images from a DSLR would be overall better.
OK, another try. You are taking A6000 with you anyway, don't you? And it looks like you want to add the super-zoom for the tele end, am I right? Then, if you can afford AF adapter, there's a very small telezoom Minolta AF 100-200 f/4.5; the reviews tell it's not worse than the famous 70-210 f/4; only the MFD is unfortunate 1.9m. I happened to hold a (scratched) copy of it on the second-hand market. It's small, lightweight and very cute. The only reason I still didn't buy one is that I already have three different 70-210 lenses. If I ever do a full switch from A-mount to E-mount, I get one.
Again, the adapter + 100-200 will weight less than the RX10.
Sorry but my DSLR times are over. Yes, full format cameras are still a benchmark but for my kind of photography they are way too heavy. And that also applies to the A7x, BTW (the Sony 70-200G is way too big). Image quality means much but the joy of photography is destroyed by the size & weight in my book. When carrying a 20kg backpack, big/heavy photo gear is completely out of the question. APS-C/MFT quality is easily sufficient for me. Your mileage may vary and that's perfectly Ok.
I didn't expect the RX10/FZ1000 to perform on full format level at all. But I was hoping that it could rival MFT or at least Nikon 1. Based on what I have seen, there are miles in between though - which puzzles me a bit because the popular review sites raved about these cameras. Makes me wonder what horse they were riding at the time ...
Anyway, for the time being I will be drifting between Fuji, Sony E (APS-C) and MFT. This time it'll be Sony (because of the Z16-70).
I will continue to do DSLR lens tests, of course, no worries here.
cheers
Klaus
So, what about A6000 + 16-70 f/4 + LA-EA4 (160g) + Minolta 100-200 f/4.5 (375g) ? The former two are "given", aren't they
? The latter two weight 535g, less than RX10. Everything is top quality, and you are still far away from 20kg bag.
I'm trying to reiterate that _you_ will not be satisfied by small-sensor cameras, even if the sharpness is excellent. When you look at a representative number of pictures from small sensor camera, even if they look technically perfect, there's a feel of something wrong with them. It's hard to explain. The best known to me attempt to do so was by David Kilpatrick; he wrote that if you shoot doll house with small sensor camera, it appears realistic, and dolls look like humans.
Quote:I'm trying to reiterate that _you_ will not be satisfied by small-sensor cameras, even if the sharpness is excellent. When you look at a representative number of pictures from small sensor camera, even if they look technically perfect, there's a feel of something wrong with them. It's hard to explain. The best known to me attempt to do so was by David Kilpatrick; he wrote that if you shoot doll house with small sensor camera, it appears realistic, and dolls look like humans.
Well... if you don't print huge, you won't notice anything between MFT, APS-C and full frame (except for specific very shallow DOF needs).
As a test, try this. Go through the photos on this page:
http://capturedbyflo.com/whatsnew
Now, try to guess which photos where shot with which camera. All of the following cameras were used:
- Panasonic G3 (most people as well as dxomark would think this is a "mediocre" sensor)
- Olympus E-PL5 (MFT)
- Olympus E-M1 (MFT)
- Pentax K5 (APS-C)
- Nikon D800 (full frame)
Good luck! I don't think anyone could pinpoint reliably what photo was shot with what (other than by random luck).
I hope this puts things in perspective.
The reality is that whatever people/marketing companies/full frame shooters/etc. want you to believe, any current "small" sensor camera can produce outstanding results, MFT included.