Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Greetings all.

 

I have a few questions for you RX100 shooters out there.

 

My Lumix LX5 is starting to get on a bit now, and, although the images still pass QC, its just a matter of time before QC blows me a raspberry and fails its images on Unsuitable Camera. Therefore I am looking towards a new walkabout camera (I say that with the casual ease of someone who hasn’t mentioned it to the Boss yet). I know the overwhelming vote here is for the Sony RX100 in any of its five versions. I have a couple of questions about it.

 

How do you get on with its dynamic range? One of the things that really limits my use of the LX5 is its low DR. In sunny conditions I very often get unrecoverably blown highlights and black shadows. I appreciate that this is a 7 yr old small sensor and I am spoilt with the huge range in my D750, but do you find the RX100 useable in sunny conditions or do you too get portions of the image that fall outside the DR?

 

Also, looking at sensor size comparisons, the one inch sensor is still quite small. You all say that your photos pass QC. But technology is only on the increase; do you think that anytime soon the 1” sensor will be outclassed by more up to date cameras to the point that it becomes, like my lovely LX5, suitable for family photos only?

 

Other reading has led me to look at a couple of other cameras. Is anyone on here using the Sony a6000 with its kit 16-50mm, or the Lumix LX100? From what I read the a6000 is great but the kit 16-50mm is ordinary. Most reviews of that lens give it average reviews (apart from Ken Rockwell, bless him, who rates it as equal to a Zeiss f2.8 zoom). Anyone here using this lens that can say what this lens is like, using RAW in the real stock world? I know there are some good lenses for it but buying a more expensive lens for it is not an option. 

 

Same for the LX100, this gets rave reviews, anyone here submitting using this camera?

 

All points of view are welcomed, this forum is one of the best places to get unbiased non-fanboy reviews on the internet. When I have come to a decision I will tell the Leader of the Opposition that I’m off to drop another $800. She will give me a Look and it will be back to his basket for Col. I’ll have to sell it on the great pics of the kids that I will be able to take.

 

Cheers

 

Colin

Edited by Colin Woods
Improved title
Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually here the Mk1 is $570 and the new Mk5 is $1200. The $800 is the price of the LX100, which is what I am leaning towards at the moment. Though I am still far from actually buying yet. Merely at the musing stage. 

Colin

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Colin

 

All I can say is that all of my images on Alamy (except the archive images) were taken with a Sony RX100 M1 and an M3.   The image quality is more than adequate for Alamy stock.

 

I always shoot RAW and don't suffer blown highlights.  CA is almost non existent with the M3 - just the occasional purple fringing (easily corrected) in extreme lighting.

 

John

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have touted the praises of my rx100 m2 many times on this forum. Haven't suffered any blown highlights yet, but only have about 250 images on Alamy with my M2.  I bought it used for $400 so was a deal.

 

Jill

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Colin Woods said:

Greetings all.

 

I Is anyone on here using the Sony a6000 with its kit 16-50mm --

 

I've used a Sony a3000 with its kit lens 18-55 and had photos taken with it pass QC.  My current walk around camera is a Sony a6000 with a Sony/Zeiss 24 mm f/1.8 lens.  I don't know how well the 16-50 kit lens performs, but I haven't been particularly impressed with the Sony APSC zooms other than the one I had with the a3000.  The current advice is to skip the a6000, but since that is the current advice, the a6000 can be had used for not much money.   Someone else may have a better opinion of the kit lens. I have no doubt that it would pass QC as I've passed QC with Sony's most maligned APSC lens ever, the 16mm f/2.8.  My feeling is that there are systems with better zooms out there for equivalent money, but the APSC Sonys have a decent selection of primes from the Sigmas at the low end to the Zeiss Tuits at the higher end that are quite good.  And the 55-210 zoom is surprising at short distances.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

a-native-crucian-or-cruzan-rides-his-staI’ve used the RX100 and then the RX100 MK3. I’m pleased with the quality of the images. About 4 years ago, I took my D800 and the original RX100 to St. Croix.  I took a lot of images with both, but more with the RX because it was with me every time I stepped out of my beachside cottage.

The quality of the images stacked up against the Nikon. Often I had to look at the file # to see which was shot with what.  And the beauty of it is I always shot the RX on auto!  But RAW, of course. I had to do less PP on them than with the Nikon, which was often underexposed.

I have never shot either RX on anything but auto. And I have a few hundred images from them on Alamy. I love those cameras.

Betty

three-beach-chairs-under-a-yellow-umbrel

Edited by Betty LaRue
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The 6000 is great value for money with an aps-c sensor in a very compact camera. Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be a good compact and reasonably fast, say f4, zoom apart from the Zeiss which gets mixed reviews for it to be used as a general purpose walk around camera.

I'm currently using the 100 Mk2 to complement Dslrs and find it generally good enough for stock. Also just put some landscapes from it on a pod site.

Hope this helps.

Joe

Link to post
Share on other sites

I occasionally use my RX100Mk2 for stock and the results seem just fine. Since getting it I wasn't all that impressed but to be honest I've warmed to it especially since switching it to use mainly in auto as Betty suggests above (in fact I think I did that in response to an earlier post from Betty - certainly someone on here - so thanks Betty).

 

The US photographer / reviewer Thom Hogan has always rated the RX100 and I think still uses one as a carry-round (or shirt-pocket camera as he calls it). But he also highly rates the LX100 (calling it more of a jacket-pocket camera so I presume it's a little bigger). I think he mentions the pros and cons for each but still likes them both which is pretty in keeping with most reviews for them. Don't think you'd go wrong with either.

 

As to the A6000 - another very good camera but I suppose you're starting to get into a bigger form factor so it probably comes down to if that is a deciding factor for you in terms of its intended purpose. Obviously there's the ability to use different lenses but then you have to make the decision about which one....

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Colin Woods said:

Other reading has led me to look at a couple of other cameras. Is anyone on here using the Sony a6000 with its kit 16-50mm, or the Lumix LX100? From what I read the a6000 is great but the kit 16-50mm is ordinary. Most reviews of that lens give it average reviews (apart from Ken Rockwell, bless him, who rates it as equal to a Zeiss f2.8 zoom). Anyone here using this lens that can say what this lens is like, using RAW in the real stock world?

 

 

 

I'm using a NEX6 with this lens. I bought it because that combination of camera and lens will slip into a (large) pocket. As you say, the lens is ordinary. Quite a few of the pics are borderline QC-worthy so I've never risked submitting them. I don't know if that's down to the lens or the camera but I suspect the former.

 

Alan

Link to post
Share on other sites

I bought the NEX 6 with the 16-50 and 55-210 lenses.  Neither lens is a complete dog, the telephoto being the better of the two. I've never suffered a QC failure using either of these lenses and have sold photos taken with the 16-50. However the reviews don't lie, the 16-50 is no star performer. It's reasonably sharp but the images lack punch, I only use it when travelling light, typically on those occasions when I bring the camera "just in case" there is a photo to be taken. I've secured a live news sale that way.

 

I have recently upgraded to the a6500, which, rumour has it, has a very similar sensor to the a6000. If so the a6000 is currently a bargain, as the sensor is very good indeed. I paid the extra to get in body image stabilization, very useful when using heritage lenses. Provided that you remember to select the correct focal length, that works  well.  I've just taken a few shots hand held shot at 1/8th sec on a 28 mm ( 42 equivalent) lens, about half of which  came out sharp. Another plus, the EVF is excellent, my only complaint being that contrast detect, even at the minimum setting, can sometimes be distracting, to the extent that I've programmed a key to take me to the relevant menu to switch it off.

 

If only the above mentioned Zeiss 16-70 f4 was a reliable buy, Sony would have a world beating combination, but sadly, that doesn't seem to be the case.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have several hundred photos here on Alamy that were shot with the A6000 and kit lens.  They were taken in Greece and Italy.  The kit lens is sharp and easily passes QC its only weaknesses are low light situations and at 16mm it has a lot of distortion which Lightroom easily corrects, but there is some loss of image area.  I have the Sigma MC-11 adapter and am able to use my Canon and old Olympus OM lenses on the camera.  The auto focus doesn't perform well on some of my lenses when using the adapter, there are other adapters available.   If you have any old manual lenses laying around you could start using them again.  The A6000 has focus peaking which highlights areas that are in focus when using a manual lens which make it easy to know what is in focus.  You can see the photos starting on page 2 of my photos.messina-sicily-on-a-beautiful-day-KD9J5A.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

I prefer the original Sony E 18-55 (F/3.5 - 5.6) to the 16-50 for my 16MP NEX-6 because it has a manual zoom and much less distortion. I get very good results with this lens at most focal lengths. No problems at all with QC. Main downside is that it is much bulkier than the 16-50. Also not sure how it would be on the higher resolution 24MP a6000.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Colin, I do want to say this. The image of the horseback rider was a pretty extreme DR challenge. If memory serves, I believe I used a layer in PS to over-lighten the whole image to bring out a bit of detail in the sand/shadow, and brushed the effect off the sunny parts. I want to be up front about results.

Sometimes hard shadows can be a bit dark but easily fixed in PP.

Betty

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm really interested in the RX100 and have a couple of questions.  Are the MKI and MKII still relevant in 2017?  Do they both shoot raw?  What kind of price should I expect to pay?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jill uses the 100. I have the 100 and mk3, and yes, the MK1 and 2 are both still relevant. There are still a lot of people buying the original because bargains can be had. I mostly use the 3 because it has the pop-up viewfinder that I prefer.

I can’t remember if the MK2 has the viewfinder or not.

I probably would still be shooting with the MK 1, but I thought I had left it in a restaurant. I bought the 3 because it was latest out at that time. A couple of weeks later I found the 100 under the passenger seat of my car.  That’s why I have two. I didn’t know whether to be happy I found the 1 or mad because I spent money on the 3 when I didn’t need to. Call it mixed feelings. :)

The MK1 has more reach...to 100. The three goes to 75. I kept the 100 because I thought I’d miss the reach, but I’m ok with the reach of the 3.

Betty

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Colblimp said:

I'm really interested in the RX100 and have a couple of questions.  Are the MKI and MKII still relevant in 2017?  Do they both shoot raw?  What kind of price should I expect to pay?

 

The mk2 has a flip-up screen, which is really useful and WiFi, which I find extremely useful in combination with Sony's remote app. But the competitors all have the same nowadays.

They can get dust on the sensor or at the back of the lens and there are instances after a fall or severe shock, something breaks. If everything still works, accurate focusing can be reset in the field, but a broken aperture had to be repaired in my case. All in extreme cases.

 

wim

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you Betty. One of my questions has been thoroughly answered. I don't mind digging for shadow detail, but with my little LX5 there is often no shadow detail at all, or rather so little that as soon as I try to lift it in PP it turns into a muddy purple noise-speckled mess. I am still reading and hopefully this week I will go and look at them for real. Quite often all the theories and reviews  go out of the window as soon as we pick up a camera and find the one that fits perfectly in the hand.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A quick snapshot from the rx100 mk3 widest angle f2.8-1/30th iso 125 first image is a jpeg at quality 85 from the original RAW.
The second picture is centre crop unedited and third is an edited crop to show highlight and shadow recovery with LR.
These are obviously too small to send up for Alamy.
 

 

 

 

p2634076836.jpg

 

p2634076821.jpg

 

p2634076850.jpg

Edited by mickfly
links protected
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, spacecadet said:

"Content protected by owner".

Thanks, I've tried again, but I'll delete if it isn't working.
Looks ok on mine, but, of course, I had permissions.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.