Big sensor?

[nitewalk]

Graciousness displayed . Well done to both!

 

[kei1309]

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.

Graciousness displayed . Well done to both!

 

[zaren]

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.

you can compare image quality between the two cameras at the Imaging Resource website. To my eyes, the 2-stop difference (say iso400 vs iso1600) did not negate the RX100's advantage in image quality compared with the LX7. At best, the LX7 might claim a draw with the RX100II at the tele end in terms of IQ. IMHO, the RX100 is overall the better choice for TS.

 

[swifty]

you can compare image quality between the two cameras at the Imaging Resource website. To my eyes, the 2-stop difference (say iso400 vs iso1600) did not negate the RX100's advantage in image quality compared with the LX7. At best, the LX7 might claim a draw with the RX100II at the tele end in terms of IQ. IMHO, the RX100 is overall the better choice for TS.

I do agree that the RX100 II has overall the best sensor in a P&S. No disputes from me.
For straight out of camera jpegs, I agree IR is a good reference. And for the OP I guess this would be more relevant than RAW samples so I'll go along with it.

I downloaded the still life ISO 400 LX7 and compared it to the ISO 1600 RX 100 II. I compared the RX100 II files natively as well as resizing down to close to the LX7's (the aspect ratios didn't quite fit, something funny about the LX7 files in this instant).
I can't say I fully agree with your assessment. There are areas that the LX7 did better I think, and areas where the RX100 II did better.

Again, not trying to be difficult but there are some flaws in this comparison.

The RX100II files are disadvantaged due to the fact that they are shot at the same aperture. There's more DOF in the LX7 shot putting the RX100 II at a slight disadvantage.
In the area where they are sharp (around the bottles), the RX 100 II shows more detail and betters the LX7.
Around the periphery, I don't know if its DOF or lens but I think the LX7 performs better. Eg. the lower right white cloth that the mug sits on.
Some of the cloth patches also favour the LX7 IMO, especially the red and white patches on the upper left.
Most areas are pretty close though.

Lastly, the Sony sample was shot at 1/320 of a second instead of the 1/400 as you'd expect since the LX7's is at 1/100. So the ISO 1600 is slightly overstated (relatively speaking, we don't know if its the LX7 understating or RX100II overstating). I'm assuming IR has lit the scene exactly the same way.

 

[iarshad]

Check for Canon G15/16 it's a wonderful traveling camera with excellent ergonomics fast lens and lots of dials and switches. Image quality is also superb

 

[swifty]

I think to prevent this staying off topic, I've done a little research. I don’t normally look at things this closely but this is as accurately as I can put it.

I'm unable to find RAW samples from the RX100 II in comparison to the LX7 so the closest I can find are from the mark I vs LX7.
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonic-lumix-dmc-lx7/11
Here we can see the RAW output of both. Using LX7 ISO 400 and RX100 ISO 1600 again for comparison, unfortunately the settings are all over the shop:
LX7 - f4.5 @ 1/160 vs RX100 - f11 @ 1/200.
If you care to do the calculations, you'll again see the RX100 should be at 1/250 but its close enough (1/3 stop). Here the DOF is evened out too.

I’m using LR4 for my conversions and comparison.
In LR, the histograms are similar enough to say they are equally exposed, but the actual image composition is slightly different.
To my eyes the images are similar with more chroma noise in the RX100 sample but more luminance noise in the LX7. The differences are small enough such that I'll just say the RX100 at 1600 is about an LX7 at 400.

BUT, there's an impressive amount of detail in the RX100, more than that of the LX7. So the RX100 is keeping the 2 stop advantage despite having a fair bit more pixels. With only modest NR the RX100 starts to better the LX7.
The mark II's sensor is slightly better than the mark I so we can extrapolate that the RX 100 II moves the bar ahead even more, noise wise.
The scene doesn’t really stretch the DR all that much but in these DR seem comparable.

What about the overstated ISO settings. Well it turns out they both do it.
http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Camera-Sensor-Database/Sony/Cyber-shot-DSC-RX100-II
http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Camera-Sensor-Database/Panasonic/Lumix-DMC-LX7
The Sony does it very slightly more, but small enough to be ignored. From the comparison pictures it seems its less than 1/3 stop difference between an LX7 and RX100 II relatively.

So on the basis of that, especially when we add in factors such as sensor resolution I will concede that despite the aperture advantage it appears the LX7 will only narrow the gap at the tele end and RX100 II maintains an advantage due to superior sensor.
The studio results should give us a good guide to real life shooting but its difficult to tell how they perform under various lighting condition but I doubt there will be much discrepancies.

Phew!!! I hope this settles it

 

[keithwee]

That's a whole lot of info , technical data often bewilders me though I definitely appreciate the sharing of it.

For me, user experience matters a lot more. Its what i get out of the camera out of the day.

I had the RX100II and used it for around 3 weeks before letting it go for a D-Lux 6. The RX's larger sensor definitely is an advantage coming to low light shots but I found navigating the menus a problem for me (I too stupid haha) and handling wise, it was too small. The D-Lux 6 though having a smaller sensor makes up for it with its f1.4 to f2.3 vs the RX's f1.8 to f4.9. For me, the f4.9 vs f2.3 at the telephoto end mattered quite a bit. I found handling the DLux6 much user friendly for me too and the ND filter is definitely a welcome addition.

I must then say I shoot the D-Lux 6 in jpeg and that's the main reason why I got the D-Lux 6 over the LX7. RAW wise both camera outputs the same but jpeg wise, the D-Lux 6's output and colors is definitely an improvement over the LX7's. Had done a side by side comparison for the 3 cameras at the shop before deciding on this

 

[nitewalk]

I think to prevent this staying off topic, I've done a little research. I don’t normally look at things this closely but this is as accurately as I can put it.

I'm unable to find RAW samples from the RX100 II in comparison to the LX7 so the closest I can find are from the mark I vs LX7.
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonic-lumix-dmc-lx7/11
Here we can see the RAW output of both. Using LX7 ISO 400 and RX100 ISO 1600 again for comparison, unfortunately the settings are all over the shop:
LX7 - f4.5 @ 1/160 vs RX100 - f11 @ 1/200.
If you care to do the calculations, you'll again see the RX100 should be at 1/250 but its close enough (1/3 stop). Here the DOF is evened out too.

I’m using LR4 for my conversions and comparison.
In LR, the histograms are similar enough to say they are equally exposed, but the actual image composition is slightly different.
To my eyes the images are similar with more chroma noise in the RX100 sample but more luminance noise in the LX7. The differences are small enough such that I'll just say the RX100 at 1600 is about an LX7 at 400.

BUT, there's an impressive amount of detail in the RX100, more than that of the LX7. So the RX100 is keeping the 2 stop advantage despite having a fair bit more pixels. With only modest NR the RX100 starts to better the LX7.
The mark II's sensor is slightly better than the mark I so we can extrapolate that the RX 100 II moves the bar ahead even more, noise wise.
The scene doesn’t really stretch the DR all that much but in these DR seem comparable.

What about the overstated ISO settings. Well it turns out they both do it.
http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Camera-Sensor-Database/Sony/Cyber-shot-DSC-RX100-II
http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Camera-Sensor-Database/Panasonic/Lumix-DMC-LX7
The Sony does it very slightly more, but small enough to be ignored. From the comparison pictures it seems its less than 1/3 stop difference between an LX7 and RX100 II relatively.

So on the basis of that, especially when we add in factors such as sensor resolution I will concede that despite the aperture advantage it appears the LX7 will only narrow the gap at the tele end and RX100 II maintains an advantage due to superior sensor.
The studio results should give us a good guide to real life shooting but its difficult to tell how they perform under various lighting condition but I doubt there will be much discrepancies.

Phew!!! I hope this settles it

I was like "dude! Seriously?". Haha you should go write reviews man. I cant explain in such technical details why i get so shiok with my x20 colours even though it has a small sensor and lots of noise at iso1600

 

[daredevil123]

I do agree that the RX100 II has overall the best sensor in a P&S. No disputes from me.

I think that honor still goes to the RX1...

 

[lewissac]

Irregardless of RX100 or LX7 (big vs small sensor), both of them are very capable compact. Both of them able to capture great image quality. Sometimes deciding which is a better camera would make u too obsessed with camera rather than the process of taking image.