PM2 + 20mm vs Sony RX1

[tjdean01]

I'm sorry to be yet another person who has hated Sony until recently. Anyway, there are a lot of m4/3s users who need nothing more than a m4/3s camera and the Panasonic 20mm f1.7. A great combo for OMD users and a small combo for the compact users.

I just realized that the RX1 is nearly the the same FL, nearly as small, the lens is supposedly just as sharp, and the ISO performance, DR, etc., would be a bit better. Probably not as good in low-light if m4/3s uses IBIS, but it would definitely give us more background blur. Sony RX1 cons, however, are mainly the $1500 pricetag, a half stop, and you're stuck with 35mm (cropping is not my plan unless if it's on the fly, which only the A7 can do). But if you're using the 20 all the time, then you're probably good with 35mm.

Below are the size comparisons. What else am I missing here? I'd keep the m4/3s camera, but I'd just not get the 17/1.8 or the 20/1.7 lenses. Due to the cost, however, I probably also would not ever get an A7 (and if I did the get the A7, I would still get the 20 for m4/3s).

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

 

[darrellc]

I have m4/3, A7 and RX1. The RX1 is magnitudes of order better than any m4/3 and equivalent focal length combo from an image IQ perspective. It may be the best 35mm lens ever. You certainly can't match it on the A7 with any native or alt glass.

Ergonomics, AF, etc won't match your Oly body.

Look at the RX1 image thread in Fred Miranda to see what the camera is capable of and the various threads on the alt forum trying to find any glass at any price that matches the RX1's lens.

 

[gswpete]

I have the RX1, E-M5, E-PM2 with 20mm 1.7, 17mm 1.8, 15mm 1.7, 14mm 2.5 (yes, too many at this focal length range, going to sell some of these).
The RX1 lens coupled with the 24mp sensor is just so much sharper. No knock on the m43 gear, but the RX1 produces some amazing images. I can also do some crazy crops and still come up with really sharp looking images.

AF speed wise, the E-M5 and E-PM2 are much faster. The RX1 is just acceptable. More of a static subject camera.

 

[ijm5012]

If you can afford it, definitely go with the RX1 (assuming all you'd ever shoot with is the 20mm on your PM2). As others have said, the images are just fantastic out of that camera, you'll definitely be able to tell the difference.

Just a couple notes about the RX1: That 1/2 stop of speed won't matter at all. If you're in need of shutter speed, just bump the ISO up by 2/3 a stop, and your image will still be better from the RX1. Also, I see the 35mm vs 40mm FoV as an advantage, as it isn't nearly as tight as 40mm. If you do need to crop for tighter framing, the resulting image will still look fantastic.

 

[BeyondTheLines]

There was a recent thread very similar to this one that might be worth looking at. I'm interested in the RX1 but not sure if I'll ever get one or not. It's still pricey for me and although I think the RX1 would be my preferred choice I may someday end up with a Sigma DP1 Merrill instead. Not sure, we'll see what I think next time I'm ready to put money into gear

 

[stripedrex]

I was considering getting the RX1 even for the lens alone. One of the best looking 35mm I've seen in regards to character and can be the body I go for most of the time. I'm a Sony A7 shooter and in the spring they have on the roadmap for release a Zeiss 35mm f1.4 Distagon. The current 35mm f2.8 is actually great just want more dof control and low light performance (output is similar to o17 in regards to dof, albiet much better color and oof characteristics in the Zeiss). I'm currently using an adapted A-Mount 35mm F2 from Minolta which is actually awesome just missing camera's more advanced autofocus. Just mentioning this as potential future option for you. I agree with others here the P20 is not really comparable to the RX1 lens. The added DR, resolution and DOF control is very evident. I have photographer I follow on Flickr that seems to use the RX1 a lot with good success, his rx1 shots are great:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/yugus/

 

[Livnius]

The RX1 is not without its weaknesses and quirks. It doesn't have the blazing fast autofocus of your modern m43 camera, but given you you are comparing it against th Panasonic 20/1.7, a slow m43 lens, then the difference will be negligible and keep in mind that 'slow' AF for just about any modern camera is fast, just 'less' fast than the 'real' fast...as long as you're not hoping to shoot sports with it.

I never did quite like the RX1's predisposition to always want to shoot at 1/80...I would have much preferred if it's just maternal logic tended more towards 1/250.

But, in terms of IQ in its own right, well, it really is something out of the very top drawer...some call it the best 35mm ever made, even more believe that the lens alone is worth the price of the RX1 (and then some)

Keep in mind though, that in real terms, it's not actually a true 35mm...more like a 32mm.

 

[usayit]

* You shouldn't judge the optics simply by focal length and max aperture. Many will agree that the RX1 is supurb (and better than the 20mm/MFT combo) and much of that is because of the optics.
* R&D folks can do some really nice things when the design doesn't have the requirement of an interchangeable lens mount. In that case, I don't see "stuck at 35" a real disadvantage.

No camera is perfect... each individual has to weight the cons/adv against their own requirements.

For me, if Sony would produce a line of RX1s with a choice of focal lengths (fixed), then I'd pretty much be sold on two:

RX1 with a fixed 28mm
RX1 with a fixed 50mm

 

[QualityBuiltIn]

I'm sorry to be yet another person who has hated Sony until recently. Anyway, there are a lot of m4/3s users who need nothing more than a m4/3s camera and the Panasonic 20mm f1.7. A great combo for OMD users and a small combo for the compact users.

I just realized that the RX1 is nearly the the same FL, nearly as small, the lens is supposedly just as sharp, and the ISO performance, DR, etc., would be a bit better. Probably not as good in low-light if m4/3s uses IBIS, but it would definitely give us more background blur. Sony RX1 cons, however, are mainly the $1500 pricetag, a half stop, and you're stuck with 35mm (cropping is not my plan unless if it's on the fly, which only the A7 can do). But if you're using the 20 all the time, then you're probably good with 35mm.

Below are the size comparisons. What else am I missing here? I'd keep the m4/3s camera, but I'd just not get the 17/1.8 or the 20/1.7 lenses. Due to the cost, however, I probably also would not ever get an A7 (and if I did the get the A7, I would still get the 20 for m4/3s).

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Have a look at this from Steve Huff to see how an Oly compares with and RX1
http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2013/...sony-rx1-vs-leica-m-240-with-35-zeiss-biogon/

 

[D MATIC]

What else am I missing here?

I've been thinking about this too.

I could be wrong (someone please correct me if I am) but I believe the RX1 has a crop mode. And at 24mp if you take an image at 35mm and crop it to match a 50mm FL, you get 16-17mp of image. And that is almost the same as the M43 16mp sensor. So essentially, your getting a 50mm in crop mode, which is equal or better then a M43 equivalent, and also a 35mm at full frame.

 

[Rudy]

I've been thinking about this too.

I could be wrong (someone please correct me if I am) but I believe the RX1 has a crop mode. And at 24mp if you take an image at 35mm and crop it to match a 50mm FL, you get 16-17mp of image. And that is almost the same as the M43 16mp sensor. So essentially, your getting a 50mm in crop mode, which is equal or better then a M43 equivalent, and also a 35mm at full frame.

Actually you lose more than half the pixels when cropping to a 50mm equivalent (it's a factor of 0.7 in both directions).
But I'm sure the images are still quite nice at that.
Rudy

 

[tjdean01]

Actually you lose more than half the pixels when cropping to a 50mm equivalent (it's a factor of 0.7 in both directions).
But I'm sure the images are still quite nice at that.
Rudy

Really? This is actually great news. So, if we can do this IN-CAMERA the SHOOTING EXPERIENCE (not talking PP here), if we crop the center 25% of the photo, would be the same as having a 70mm f2.0 lens on a 6MP FF sensor. Not that shabby, actually. And if it were cropped to 50mm, we'd get, say, 10MP? I could definitely live with that. Can someone explain how the crop works (i.e., what focal length it crops to, how many MP you get, and if that is what you see in the viewfinder)? Thanks!

 

[Serhan]

Approx 24/(1.5*1.5)~10.67MP will give you 35mmx1.5~52.5mm f2.8 equiv dof
Approx 24/(2*2)~6MP will give you 70mm f4 equiv dof...

There is no crop mode in RX1, so you need to crop it on the computer after you take the picture. Sony A7 series has 1.5 crop for apsc lenses. That is what I am thinking with 36MP A7R & coming 28mm f2 lens, eg will give me 42mm at 16MP and 56mm at 9MP... But then I hardly crop it eg since I do the composition by looking to FF view...

Really? This is actually great news. So, if we can do this IN-CAMERA the SHOOTING EXPERIENCE (not talking PP here), if we crop the center 25% of the photo, would be the same as having a 70mm f2.0 lens on a 6MP FF sensor. Not that shabby, actually. And if it were cropped to 50mm, we'd get, say, 10MP? I could definitely live with that. Can someone explain how the crop works (i.e., what focal length it crops to, how many MP you get, and if that is what you see in the viewfinder)? Thanks!

 

[tjdean01]

Approx 24/(1.5*1.5)~10.67MP will give you 35mmx1.5~52.5mm f2.8 equiv dof
Approx 24/(2*2)~6MP will give you 70mm f4 equiv dof...

Not to say you're wrong or anything, but since my last post I went and found this: http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/50274473

So maybe you can do it in camera (or maybe that's just the RX1R version?)? The f2.8 and f4 equivalent DOF isn't too appealing though

 

[Serhan]

http://pdf.crse.com/manuals/4469573111/EN/contents/04/04/17/17.html

You cannot use smart teleconverter in the following situations:
In [Sweep Panorama] mode
When [Quality] is set to [RAW] or [RAW & JPEG]

That is why I don't know/use it, since I shoot raw+jpg. Clear zoom is digital zoom which is available on all Sony cameras...

Not to say you're wrong or anything, but since my last post I went and found this: http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/50274473

So maybe you can do it in camera (or maybe that's just the RX1R version?)? The f2.8 and f4 equivalent DOF isn't too appealing though

 

[Ulfric M Douglas]

Hmm, a crop mode crippled to Jpeg makes logical sense when you undertand RAW files must be decoded in order to turn them into an image and then crop, but cannot be turned back into RAWs from there.
An optical viewfinder with both 35ish and 50mm-ish framelines might help with composition, then crop later.
Does the Sony OVF have both?

 

[Serhan]

Sony has evf and might work w/ zoom modes. It might be easier and better then buying multiple vf unless you have them. Also Sony has 35mm optical vf but it is expensive. I bought a used Oly 17mm vf which is 34mm equiv and much cheaper... To get black color, I covered it w/ black electrician tape..

Also KEH had 40% sale on all accessories yesterday. You can check it is still valid. CODE is STOCKING ... 40% off plus free shipping.

 

[pellicle]

What else am I missing here? I'd keep the m4/3s camera,

only that to some people its more about a badge of entry that is recognised by those in the know than it is about quality of images. There is this sort of unequal continuum which resembles a hysteresis where price and quality change with respect to each other. As price rises so does quality, but eventually you get a point where there is a big move in quality for a small move in price. Then you get a small move in quality for an ever increasing price change ... like this

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Those who are more interested in the "badge of entry" and how it looks and what others will say about it (who I call Wangers) buy on one end, folks who express sentiments as you have buy on the zone of best return ...

As to price, well used prices are $1800 and new seems to be $2798
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/891105-REG/Sony_dscrx1_DSC_RX1_Full_Frame_Point.html

I see at bhphoto a E-PL1 with a Oly 17mm for under $300 used in EX condition. Add a Oly 45mm to that and you have a great outfit for a fraction of the price

So it comes down to bang for buck or pride of ownership.

 

[pellicle]

Hi

... would be the same as having a 70mm f2.0 lens on a 6MP FF sensor.

not quite. F numbers are a ratio of the focal length over the diameter, so if you were to crop that down it would be the equivalent of having a 70mm f4.5 lens ... the diameter not actually changing and still being 17mm (it being a 35mm f2 lens). Further DoF is a function of aperture diameter not strictly f-number. See this post (the mouse overs on the images make it clearer).



which still isn't real bad but I'm not sure that it would be as good as a you may think. Take some internet sample and do the operation yourself to see ... I'd still prefer my m43 with an Oly 45mm and a Pana 20mm (or even an Oly 17mm)

 

[kevinparis]

I am a lucky guy... between myself and my partner we have at hand a stupid range of picture taking devices.

I have e-1, e-p1, em5 em1, gh2, canon 5d Mk2, she has Leicas M8,M9,Monochrome, Fuji x100, sony RX1 and A7s, most of the ricoh grds'

our collective lens collection encompasses some of the best from Leica, Zeiss, Nikon, Olympus

What I have learned from playing with all these toys is that its never the camera/lens that stops you taking a good photo... yes certain camera/lens combinations offer a unique look, or a level of quality... but at the end of the day its what is in the picture not how it was made that finds an audience.

If you are taking photos without an audience then that to me is strange... I know some of you will quote vivien maier... but it does sadden me deeply that she , for what ever reason did not seek an audience

K