Big sensor?

[Kagari]

i hope this is the right section

long story very short. going on a japan trip need dslr replacement. hence i did some research and came up with the following

1. Sony RX100II
2. Panasonic LX 7

still sitting on the fence. any advise would be good. I am looking to take closeups, landscape, panorama.

 

[Rashkae]

i hope this is the right section

long story very short. going on a japan trip need dslr replacement. hence i did some research and came up with the following

1. Sony RX100II
2. Panasonic LX 7

still sitting on the fence. any advise would be good. I am looking to take closeups, landscape, panorama.

Both cameras will do what you want. But Sony has been really nailing it with the rx100 series, and their sweep panorama is excellent.

Also, the sensor in the rx100 is bigger.

 

[heshanj]

for pure image quality, i don't think it gets much better than the RX100 (or RX100 II). i've used the RX100, plan on getting the RX100 II somewhere down the line - it's just the best compact i've ever used. so small too. that's what i'd recommend. for controls and handling, the LX7 is probably better, though

 

[TWmilkteaTW]

unless the rx100 is too small or out of your budget.
else..its all good. for what it can do.

 

[pinholecam]

Pentax Q/Q7?
Tokyo Story -http://www.clubsnap.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1292695
Key differences,
1. ILC (has lens options)
2. option for fast f1.9 normal
3. option for fast f2.8 70-200mm equivalent
Other stuff is better covered in my linked review.

Some landscape shots from a friend, showing off what can be done with the camera.
http://www.clubsnap.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1296705&p=8608474#post8608474

Other user impressions and samples for travel shots here :
http://www.clubsnap.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1296705



Of your 2 listed, RX100 has a bigger sensor; LX7 has a bit better handling and controls.


I don't think there is a wrong choice to any of them, just preference of handling/features/functions/camera system/design philosophy.

 

[rhino123]

i hope this is the right section

long story very short. going on a japan trip need dslr replacement. hence i did some research and came up with the following

1. Sony RX100II
2. Panasonic LX 7

still sitting on the fence. any advise would be good. I am looking to take closeups, landscape, panorama.

Both are excellent cameras... however... RX100II would have a better IQ as compared to LX7 (having a larger sensor).

Do look into the following cameras too,

1) Nikon V1/J1 series of mirrorless camera (going off at pretty cheap prices nowadays).
2) Panasonic GM1 and Olympus EPM2 (EPM1 if you can find one, the last I got is S$3xx for the EPM1 with kit lens), and both the Panasonic and EPM2/ EPM1 are very, very small, excellent cameras with big sensor (bigger than the 1 inch sensor)

 

[swifty]

The RX100 has the sensor and overall advantage at the wide end.
However the max aperture drops quickly as you zoom in.
The LX7 will claw back some of the RX100 advantage towards the tele end, eg. at 90mm, the LX7 is still f2.3 whereas the RX100 would be closer to f4.9 (I don't know exactly what the aperture will be at 90mm since the RX100 is a 28-100mm equivalent).

So in real use, when the light is plentiful the RX100 will always have an advantage.
When the light levels drop and you're shooting at your fastest aperture all the time, the RX100 still has an advantage at the wider end but evens out if you need a longer focal length.

 

[Rashkae]

The RX100 has the sensor and overall advantage at the wide end.
However the max aperture drops quickly as you zoom in.
The LX7 will claw back some of the RX100 advantage towards the tele end, eg. at 90mm, the LX7 is still f2.3 whereas the RX100 would be closer to f4.9 (I don't know exactly what the aperture will be at 90mm since the RX100 is a 28-100mm equivalent).

So in real use, when the light is plentiful the RX100 will always have an advantage.
When the light levels drop and you're shooting at your fastest aperture all the time, the RX100 still has an advantage at the wider end but evens out if you need a longer focal length.

The larger and better sensor on the RX100 more than makes up for the smaller aperture at zoom.

 

[swifty]

The larger and better sensor on the RX100 more than makes up for the smaller aperture at zoom.

Are you sure about that?
There's ~2 stop aperture advantage to the LX7 at the tele end.
The 1"sensor in the RX100 has a surface area ~123 square mm whilst the LX7's 1/1.7" has a surface area ~43square mm, implying less than a 2 stop difference (closer to 1.5 actually).
DXOmark data also correlates well with this:
http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Comp...nd)/Sony/(appareil2)/817|0/(brand2)/Panasonic
If RX100 II's sensor has 2 stops advantage you'd expect to see the sports (ISO) score to be ~4X that of the LX7, or just under 600. The LX7 scores 147 whilst the RX100 II scores 483, if the above link doesn't work.

So it'd appear the LX7 has a slight upper hand at the tele end unless there's data to prove otherwise.
There are other IQ parameters of course, eg. dynamic range which is better on the Sony sensor but I think my assertion still stands.

 

[Rashkae]

You can do all the theoretical number analysis all you want. I go by actual picture quality and performance.

Also, do note that sensor size impacts the equivalent aperture as well.

 

[swifty]

You can do all the theoretical number analysis all you want. I go by actual picture quality and performance.

Also, do note that sensor size impacts the equivalent aperture as well.

The sensor area are theoretical numbers. The DXO mark data are actual measured numbers. Since they correlate I would tend to believe it.
But if you have experience with both then fair enough.
Maybe you can show us where an RX100 II sensor has a 2 stop advantage over the LX7, or point me to a source?

I'm aware of the equivalence theory. I'm only referring to light capture, not DOF differences.

 

[Rashkae]

The sensor area are theoretical numbers. The DXO mark data are actual measured numbers. Since they correlate I would tend to believe it.
But if you have experience with both then fair enough.
Maybe you can show us where an RX100 II sensor has a 2 stop advantage over the LX7, or point me to a source?

I'm aware of the equivalence theory. I'm only referring to light capture, not DOF differences.

Light capture is only one small aspect. It's what the sensor can do with the light that matters. I'm talking overall image quality. So what if you get more light if the image quality still sucks? Blown highlights, missing detail, etc?

Sigh. Here we clearly see how a gearhead thinks vs. a photographer.

 

[swifty]

Light capture is only one small aspect. It's what the sensor can do with the light that matters. I'm talking overall image quality. So what if you get more light if the image quality still sucks? Blown highlights, missing detail, etc?

Sigh. Here we clearly see how a gearhead thinks vs. a photographer.

Oh dear.. no need for name calling now, is there. It's quite possible to be a photographer but understand what goes on in the imaging pipeline when you press that shutter button.
If you want to refute a point, I'd suggest you stick to the point.
I don't claim to have used both cameras or be very familiar with files of both. All I provided was an educated guess based on specifications alone and backed it up with some measured data others have provided online.
My only claims were that the the relative smaller size disadvantage of the LX7 is offset at the longer end of the focal length by the faster aperture, not much more than that.

Since you insist on bringing more aspect of the image quality equation into it then ok. These weren't part of my claims btw.
Please tell me why an image would 'suck'? Blown highlights are far more the function of the photographer's own exposure choices but if you're referring to the dynamic range, then yes, all the latest Sony sensors are better in that respect (I already stated the dynamic range advantage above). In this case the differences are around 1 and 2/3 stops. Most of which won't be in the highlights btw, it'll be in the shadows. And yes, I know you can underexpose to protect the highlights and have more shadow recovery.
Missing detail? Again you'll have to be more specific. Are you talking about the resolving power of the lens or sensor resolution.
Be more specific in what you're claiming than just: 'its better'. Better at what?

I'll repeat my request from before. If you say that the 'larger and better sensor on the RX100 more than makes up for the smaller aperture at zoom', then you should be at least quite familiar with both cameras at the focal lengths we're talking about.
So show us why this is so? Do you own, both, or one, or have researched both? It shouldn't be difficult to point me to a source if you know both the cameras well.

 

[nitewalk]

Oh dear.. no need for name calling now, is there. It's quite possible to be a photographer but understand what goes on in the imaging pipeline when you press that shutter button.
If you want to refute a point, I'd suggest you stick to the point.
I don't claim to have used both cameras or be very familiar with files of both. All I provided was an educated guess based on specifications alone and backed it up with some measured data others have provided online.
My only claims were that the the relative smaller size disadvantage of the LX7 is offset at the longer end of the focal length by the faster aperture, not much more than that.

Since you insist on bringing more aspect of the image quality equation into it then ok. These weren't part of my claims btw.
Please tell me why an image would 'suck'? Blown highlights are far more the function of the photographer's own exposure choices but if you're referring to the dynamic range, then yes, all the latest Sony sensors are better in that respect (I already stated the dynamic range advantage above). In this case the differences are around 1 and 2/3 stops. Most of which won't be in the highlights btw, it'll be in the shadows. And yes, I know you can underexpose to protect the highlights and have more shadow recovery.
Missing detail? Again you'll have to be more specific. Are you talking about the resolving power of the lens or sensor resolution.
Be more specific in what you're claiming than just: 'its better'. Better at what?

I'll repeat my request from before. If you say that the 'larger and better sensor on the RX100 more than makes up for the smaller aperture at zoom', then you should be at least quite familiar with both cameras at the focal lengths we're talking about.
So show us why this is so? Do you own, both, or one, or have researched both? It shouldn't be difficult to point me to a source if you know both the cameras well.

To be fair, i think gearhead is quite commonly used. It is easy to sit on moral high grounds and point at that, coming from Rashkae, and call it name calling. Dxo figures are also to be taken with a pinch of salt. U must understand the test procedures for it to be meaningful data reading. Hell, if i take the sharpness test at its face value i'd think the nikon 18-35G (cost 800) is as sharp as the legendary 14-24.

 

[swifty]

To be fair, i think gearhead is quite commonly used. It is easy to sit on moral high grounds and point at that, coming from Rashkae, and call it name calling. Dxo figures are also to be taken with a pinch of salt. U must understand the test procedures for it to be meaningful data reading. Hell, if i take the sharpness test at its face value i'd think the nikon 18-35G (cost 800) is as sharp as the legendary 14-24.

Point taken. I'll disregard it.
Yes, I'm only using DXO mark as a guide. The model seems to fit. But If Rashkae says real world is different, then I invite him/her to back up the claims.

 

[nitewalk]

Point taken. I'll disregard it.
Yes, I'm only using DXO mark as a guide. The model seems to fit. But If Rashkae says real world is different, then I invite him/her to back up the claims.

So what if he does so what if he doesnt. In the end, as long as u like what u use can already. A better sensor may not be what u want or need. My x20 sensor is small. But i love its imperfection and i love using it at night to shoot in b&w. thats really pushing it and not ideal usage. But i like. Thats all it matters right? I dont go dxo and find how good it is compared to others. Imho, sometimes we do compare too much and pay too much attention to minute differences.

 

[swifty]

So what if he does so what if he doesnt. In the end, as long as u like what u use can already. A better sensor may not be what u want or need. My x20 sensor is small. But i love its imperfection and i love using it at night to shoot in b&w. thats really pushing it and not ideal usage. But i like. Thats all it matters right? I dont go dxo and find how good it is compared to others. Imho, sometimes we do compare too much and pay too much attention to minute differences.

He doesn't need to. I just invited him to do so since he responded to my post.
If he just wants to disagree then we'll agree to disagree then.

I'm not sure what the OP wants exactly. I just provided some information that I think is right and maybe of help that's all. I only brought up the numbers cos someone challenged to say its incorrect so I gave evidence why I think it is correct.

To the OP, sorry to stray off topic.
I don't want to imply the RX 100 II isn't any good or anything. In fact, currently that's my recommendation to friends generally if they want a compact P&S, provided they can afford it. I have a friend who bought three RX100 (Mark I) for himself, brother and dad.
But I don't believe any one camera is universally better than another at all aspects. So I just pointed out that the Rx100 II's aperture drops quickly through the zoom range and in the tele end, it gives up most of the larger sensor advantage.
This illustrate my point quite well:
http://www.dpreview.com/previews/nikon-coolpix-p330/images/EquivAperture.png
Its expressing the aperture in full frame equivalent'. Note that by 35mm there's already a large drop in max aperture and crosses over with a number of smaller sensor models as you move up the zoom range.
I won't know how you use your camera but from observing most of my friends, the wider focal lengths are probably used more frequently so the advantage stays with the RX100 II most of the time.
Hence why I still recommend the RX100 II, if price is less of an issue.
I have no brand allegiance either. I call it the way I see it and if I'm wrong, I'll happily concede.

 

[Rashkae]

Yes, my way of expressing myself can be exceedingly blunt. I did not intend to name-call.

I'll need to see if I have backed up the test shots I took. But to my tastes, the rx100mk2 had better overall IQ

 

[swifty]

Yes, my way of expressing myself can be exceedingly blunt. I did not intend to name-call.

I'll need to see if I have backed up the test shots I took. But to my tastes, the rx100mk2 had better overall IQ

Yes, thanks for that. I appreciate it. Re-reading what I've wrote, I probably came across too aggressively too so apologies if that was what you felt. Sorry.. long week, sick and still stuck at work now so maybe I'm a bit grumpy. A few smileys in my previous posts would probably have helped.
Cheers

 

[Rashkae]

Yes, thanks for that. I appreciate it. Re-reading what I've wrote, I probably came across too aggressively too so apologies if that was what you felt. Sorry.. long week, sick and still stuck at work now so maybe I'm a bit grumpy. A few smileys in my previous posts would probably have helped.
Cheers

Same here.