RX10 or Nex ?

[John Mitchell]

I believe that the RX is a fixed lens camera as opposed to the NEX which is obviously a system camera. My experience is only with the Canon G9, another fixed lens semi compact, with which I have never been happy. IMVHO a fixed lens has the inherent problems of:

1. not having a filter thread and therefore no UV protection filter can be used and should the lens be scratched or worse the whole camera must be replaced.
2. there is no way of getting access to the sensor should cleaning be necessary.

I would suggest that a system camera such as the NEX6, or even the Alpha a5000 NEX3 replacement, would not suffer from the above potential problems.

 

Just my experience and others may be happy with the compromise.

 

Good luck whatever you decide.

I was considering buying the less expensive a5000 rather than the NEX-6, especially after reading David K's assessment of the a5000's image quality. However, the poor viewfinder and low-res screen eventually turned me off the a5000. If Sony adds a decent EVF and tilting high-res screen to the next version, I think this could be a really good camera. You can never tell what Sony is up to, though. They work in mysterious ways.

 

CORRECTION: Sorry, I was referring to the Sony a3000 (not a5000 as stated) that David has reviewed. I hadn't heard about the a5000, which looks like a very different camera.

[John Mitchell]

I noticed the price of the Sony 10-18 f/4 OSS zoom has jumped $100 here in NYC. Nasty. 

The loonie has taken a significant nosedive lately, so I imagine prices will rise here in Canada as well.

[Ed Rooney]

I believe that the RX is a fixed lens camera as opposed to the NEX which is obviously a system camera. My experience is only with the Canon G9, another fixed lens semi compact, with which I have never been happy. IMVHO a fixed lens has the inherent problems of:

1. not having a filter thread and therefore no UV protection filter can be used and should the lens be scratched or worse the whole camera must be replaced.
2. there is no way of getting access to the sensor should cleaning be necessary.

I would suggest that a system camera such as the NEX6, or even the Alpha a5000 NEX3 replacement, would not suffer from the above potential problems.

 

Just my experience and others may be happy with the compromise. On point 2, why would there be a need to clean? 

 

Good luck whatever you decide.

 

What you are saying is mostly true, Joe. But it's not the whole story and it's not the conclusion I came to. I don't see a filter protecting the front element of a lens; a lens hood is the better chose. If a UV or skylight filter smashes, the likelihood of that event scratching the front element of the lens is very high. 

 

On Point 2, you do not need to clean a locked in lens. 

 

There are people who send their cameras for cleaning five times a year.; they need medical attention. 

[John Mitchell]

 

I believe that the RX is a fixed lens camera as opposed to the NEX which is obviously a system camera. My experience is only with the Canon G9, another fixed lens semi compact, with which I have never been happy. IMVHO a fixed lens has the inherent problems of:

1. not having a filter thread and therefore no UV protection filter can be used and should the lens be scratched or worse the whole camera must be replaced.
2. there is no way of getting access to the sensor should cleaning be necessary.

I would suggest that a system camera such as the NEX6, or even the Alpha a5000 NEX3 replacement, would not suffer from the above potential problems.

 

Just my experience and others may be happy with the compromise. On point 2, why would there be a need to clean? 

 

Good luck whatever you decide.

 

What you are saying is mostly true, Joe. But it's not the whole story and it's not the conclusion I came to. I don't see a filter protecting the front element of a lens; a lens hood is the better chose. If a UV or skylight filter smashes, the likelihood of that event scratching the front element of the lens is very high. 

 

On Point 2, you do not need to clean a locked in lens. 

 

There are people who send their cameras for cleaning five times a year.; they need medical attention. 

 

Speaking of dirty/scratched lenses, here's an eye-opening article:

 

http://kurtmunger.com/dirty_lens_articleid35.html

 

P.S. I still like using a UV filter for protection, even if it is old-fashioned and probably not necessary.

[mickfly]

Nice image samples here which can be accessed at 100% via Flickr., alongside some video samples and a short review... http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Sony_Cyber-shot_RX10/sample_images.shtml

[Joe Gaul]

Hi John,

 

I totally agree with you about the viewfinder and am still looking at the 6 myself, more mp don't really interest me but I find a viewfinder essential.

[Joe Gaul]

Hi Ed,

 

You are indeed correct that a lens hood is excellent protection, and I always use both lens hood and UV filter. I had forgotten about the hood factor when posting, thanks for reminding me; how do you get a hood on the RX again?

 

Interesting article. Funny how my recent pics in rain show spots. I must be doing something wrong.

[Ed Rooney]

I'm saying that a UV or any filter is not protection. If it shatters the chances are it will scratch the front element of the lens. Think about it.

 

The Rx10 comes with a hood. At B&H it's under 'What's in the Box.' 

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1009156-REG/sony_dscrx10_b_cyber_shot_dsc_rx10_digital_camera.html

[Joe Gaul]

Ed you may be right about the RX10 coming with a hood but I can find no mention of this on the WEX site or in the Sony promotional video.

I have been using UV filters for 30 years and never had one shatter but I do have a G9 with a scratched lens (and no it is not evident in the photos but that isn't really the point).

I was simply highlighting the differences between two types of camera to a potential purchaser.

 

Another thing I forgot  was that the zooming action of the G9 lens has drawn dust onto the sensor that there is no way of cleaning.

[John Mitchell]

Hi Ed,

 

You are indeed correct that a lens hood is excellent protection, and I always use both lens hood and UV filter. I had forgotten about the hood factor when posting, thanks for reminding me; how do you get a hood on the RX again?

 

Interesting article. Funny how my recent pics in rain show spots. I must be doing something wrong.

 

I took this and several others like it through a very dirty and scratched (almost opaque) plexiglass window in smoggy Mexico City:

 

:

[Joe Gaul]

You obviously have more success than I do John. If I could work out how to post a pic I could show you a different story.

Non of this however helps the guy choose a camera so I'm leaving it here.

If you are really interested which I suspect you aren't the pic can be seen on www.flickr.com/photos/periscopephotography , the rain drop is clearly visible on the lens.

[AndyMelbourne]

With reference to the RX100, I suggest looking at some actual samples first. IMO it is a great little compact that is destroyed by a toy lens.

I am somewhat disappointed in mine. It is what it is.... A hyped up compact.

[John Mitchell]

You obviously have more success than I do John. If I could work out how to post a pic I could show you a different story.

Non of this however helps the guy choose a camera so I'm leaving it here.

If you are really interested which I suspect you aren't the pic can be seen on www.flickr.com/photos/periscopephotography , the rain drop is clearly visible on the lens.

Just right click on the flickr image and then copy the image location. You can then click on the "image" icon above this answer box and pop the URL into the box that appears. That should work, assuming Alamy hasn't blocked flickr.

[Ed Rooney]

Hey, Joe, how is it going?

 

Jay Maisel has been kicking back on the business of using a UV or skylight lens for decades. He's a neighbor of mine. I've gone back and forth on this issue myself. I used the UV with film, I don't with digital. I think there will always be two points of view. 

 

With regard to the original post, I'm looking forward to using both my RX10 and my NEX cameras. 

[Mark Baigent]

I always assume that people know the website below, but just in case.

 

http://www.dpreview.com/

[Bryan]

Late to the party with this one. I have had a 5D and it was a dust magnet. I also have a 5DII and it also suffers from dust, worse that the NEX but better than the 5D1.

 

Besides the wonderful portability, the main strengths of the NEX 6 are the EVF and the reasonably good high ISO performance. I'm not sure that any camera handles shadow noise all that well, (my 5DII produces some truly horrible results if you push the shadows).

 

 

NEX 6 at 1600

 

Be aware that there are replacement NEX cameras coming out shortly, I guess using what is becoming a standard 20 MP sensor. 

 

Lenses do remain a problem however, either gruesomely expensive or not all that brilliant. With the exception of the reasonable Sigma 19mm, I am now using old manual focus glass that I have had for years. For the stock photos that I take I rarely miss auto focus, as the EVF with contrast detection or 10X magnification does all that is required.

[Ed Rooney]

 

As we move from the larger, heavier DSLR's to smaller, lighter cameras we seem to be inventing some odd highbred shooting techniques. The young lady in this image above who's using a DSLR could easily be using her viewfinder, but she's not. I, you, any and all of us might make use of the rear screen on occasion . . . but like this? I wouldn't. Is this what happens when a young shooter moves from a P&S to a DSLR pro camera.  She was shooting a fashion model. 

[John Mitchell]

Hey, Joe, how is it going?

 

Jay Maisel has been kicking back on the business of using a UV or skylight lens for decades. He's a neighbor of mine. I've gone back and forth on this issue myself. I used the UV with film, I don't with digital. I think there will always be two points of view. 

 

With regard to the original post, I'm looking forward to using both my RX10 and my NEX cameras. 

I used to use skylight filters for protection with my film cameras for their slight warming effect. However, I switched to UV with digital cameras because I heard that skylight filters might (?) affect the white balance settings. Personally, I don't find some of the hoods supplied with today's lenses (assuming one is provided at all) offer very much protection. Fortunately, I've never had a UV filter crack or smash (touch wood). Something else to consider is that even a small scratch on the front element of a lens can significantly lower its resale value. I guess it's all a matter of perception, as they say.

[John Mitchell]

 

As we move from the larger, heavier DSLR's to smaller, lighter cameras we seem to be inventing some odd highbred shooting techniques. The young lady in this image above who's using a DSLR could easily be using her viewfinder, but she's not. I, you, any and all of us might make use of the rear screen on occasion . . . but like this? I wouldn't. Is this what happens when a young shooter moves from a P&S to a DSLR pro camera.  She was shooting a fashion model. 

That's a fashion statement in itself (Dare I say, "very NYC"?). I spent over a year using the viewfinder-less NEX-3 almost exclusively and found that I got quite used to composing with the screen. It actually has some real advantages -- e.g. you can keep an eye on what is going on around your subject. I also made frequent use of the lower and higher perspectives made possible by the tilting screen. Have to say, though, that now I'm using the NEX-6, it's great to have the viewfinder back, although I'll still be using some of the weird shooting positions (point-and-shoot yoga?) that I developed while surviving without an EVF. It's a hybrid world out there now.

[John Mitchell]

Late to the party with this one. I have had a 5D and it was a dust magnet. I also have a 5DII and it also suffers from dust, worse that the NEX but better than the 5D1.

 

Besides the wonderful portability, the main strengths of the NEX 6 are the EVF and the reasonably good high ISO performance. I'm not sure that any camera handles shadow noise all that well, (my 5DII produces some truly horrible results if you push the shadows).

 

 

NEX 6 at 1600

 

Be aware that there are replacement NEX cameras coming out shortly, I guess using what is becoming a standard 20 MP sensor. 

 

Lenses do remain a problem however, either gruesomely expensive or not all that brilliant. With the exception of the reasonable Sigma 19mm, I am now using old manual focus glass that I have had for years. For the stock photos that I take I rarely miss auto focus, as the EVF with contrast detection or 10X magnification does all that is required.

That's one very scarey looking dude depicted in the centre of the dome. I'm hoping it isn't who I think it is.

 

P.S. I guess this is the first of the 20 MP NEX-like cameras that you mentioned. Will what happened in Vegas really stay in Vegas? I guess that's the big question now.

[Ed Rooney]

 

 

As we move from the larger, heavier DSLR's to smaller, lighter cameras we seem to be inventing some odd highbred shooting techniques. The young lady in this image above who's using a DSLR could easily be using her viewfinder, but she's not. I, you, any and all of us might make use of the rear screen on occasion . . . but like this? I wouldn't. Is this what happens when a young shooter moves from a P&S to a DSLR pro camera.  She was shooting a fashion model. 

That's a fashion statement in itself (Dare I say, "very NYC"?). I spent over a year using the viewfinder-less NEX-3 almost exclusively and found that I got quite used to composing with the screen. It actually has some real advantages -- e.g. you can keep an eye on what is going on around your subject. I also made frequent use of the lower and higher perspectives made possible by the tilting screen. Have to say, though, that now I'm using the NEX-6, it's great to have the viewfinder back, although I'll still be using some of the weird shooting positions (point-and-shoot yoga?) that I developed while surviving without an EVF. It's a hybrid world out there now.

 

 

I used the NEX-3 for a long time, too, John. The screen, particularly one that can be twisted around, is a very useful tool. But what this young lady is doing here is shooting  a fashion model, and she will not see the subtle changes in the model's eye using the screen. The shooter is posing, trying to look cool. Let's let the model look cool. 

[John Mitchell]

 

 

 

As we move from the larger, heavier DSLR's to smaller, lighter cameras we seem to be inventing some odd highbred shooting techniques. The young lady in this image above who's using a DSLR could easily be using her viewfinder, but she's not. I, you, any and all of us might make use of the rear screen on occasion . . . but like this? I wouldn't. Is this what happens when a young shooter moves from a P&S to a DSLR pro camera.  She was shooting a fashion model. 

That's a fashion statement in itself (Dare I say, "very NYC"?). I spent over a year using the viewfinder-less NEX-3 almost exclusively and found that I got quite used to composing with the screen. It actually has some real advantages -- e.g. you can keep an eye on what is going on around your subject. I also made frequent use of the lower and higher perspectives made possible by the tilting screen. Have to say, though, that now I'm using the NEX-6, it's great to have the viewfinder back, although I'll still be using some of the weird shooting positions (point-and-shoot yoga?) that I developed while surviving without an EVF. It's a hybrid world out there now.

 

 

I used the NEX-3 for a long time, too, John. The screen, particularly one that can be twisted around, is a very useful tool. But what this young lady is doing here is shooting  a fashion model, and she will not see the subtle changes in the model's eye using the screen. The shooter is posing, trying to look cool. Let's let the model look cool. 

 

Unbeknownst to her (I assume), she was your model. Good street shot. I could see it having a number of stock uses. A New York minute.

[george]

Thank you to everyone that has contributed their thoughts and experiences.

 

I 'think' for the moment I am going to run with the Canon M for a number of reasons. The reviews I have read from people using it have been on the whole positive. As I have mentioned I have quite a number of Canon lenses which I will therefore be able to utilise and not spend out more money. Plus flash etc etc. Part of me does not want to go along that route as I almost see it as a bit of a step down, but I also am only looking at it as a temporary 'fix'. I will out the 5D whilst it will still bring me some money back. I have been 'wishing' for a Nex for some time now having seen all the positive feedback on this forum, BUT, do have concerns about the lenses. I would like to be able to afford good lenses for it if I bought it but that pushes the price too high for me at the moment. I like the thought of the RX10 with the fixed lens but would probably still go with a Nex given a choice, which takes me back to the lens issue/money required.

 

So, I am erring on the Canon M, pancake lens and adapter for my existing lenses. If anyone out there has experiences of it I would love to hear before I take the plunge later this week.

 

Thanks again everyone much appreciated.

[Mark Baigent]

George, that sounds like a good choice.

 

Mark

[george]

Thanks Mark, I hope I won't regret it, but if I do, at least its not too expensive !