1. Reminder: Please use our affiliate links for holiday shopping!

Want a Sony RX10II or III, but bought a Panasonic GX85 w/45-200mm Lens!

Discussion in 'Panasonic Cameras' started by hionhifi, Aug 7, 2016.

  1. hionhifi

    hionhifi Mu-43 Regular

    53
    Oct 21, 2012
    California
    I wanted to buy the Sony RX10II/III but ended up with a Panasonic GX85+45-200mm lens. I wanted the reach and versatility and all-in-one package of the RX10II/III series but in the end valued the versatility of interchangeable lens of the GX85 package. I could basically simulate the RX10II/III system with the GX85 (with obvious ergonomic differences, such as changing and carrying lens). And, in many ways, I could better the RX10II/III with the GX85 plus a few choice lens.

    Have you came to this cross roads? If so, which camera did you choose and why?
     
  2. agentlossing

    agentlossing Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Jun 26, 2013
    Andrew Lossing
    First off, great choice of camera! Comes with a very sharp kit lens, and it sounds like you've got the telephoto covered as well. Take a look at some of the absolutely tiny, and high-quality, prime lenses when you want to expand on that area.

    I originally bought a closeout GF3 with kit zoom in a whim, since my previous Nikon DSLR was decrepit and soon to bite the the dust. The idea of tiny size and high quality with interchangeable lenses was brand new to me, and it kicked off an obsession!
     
  3. drd1135

    drd1135 Zen Snapshooter

    Mar 17, 2011
    Southwest Virginia
    Steve
    I was giving serious consideration to an RX100 iv but ended up buying a refurb Pen F. In my defense they are both cameras and had similar prices. :redface: The GX85 should be great and I have the 45-200 which has been a faithful long zoom for a long time.
     
  4. Danny_SWE

    Danny_SWE Mu-43 All-Pro

    Apr 30, 2013
    Sweden (Gothenburg)
    I bought a GX80 and then a G7X II for trips. I felt I wanted something I could put in my pocket. Though it's very frustrating shooting with a compact when used to a system camera. The "macro" mode that only works in wide end, the power zoom, the lesser image quality. You have to compromise a little. I have used both a compact AND some m4/3 body with a more special lens, like supertele, macro, ultra fast or something, that is also a good combo. I tend to use the compacts only on trips, and otherwise m4/3 with or without it.
     
  5. hionhifi

    hionhifi Mu-43 Regular

    53
    Oct 21, 2012
    California
    From reading other posts in this forum my experience is echoed by many other users. My choice is validated by the fact that several of those users where larger format shooters before switching to M43.
     
  6. ijm5012

    ijm5012 Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Oct 2, 2013
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Ian
    Wait, so you wanted a camera with either a 24-200mm f/2.8 lens, or a 24-600 f/2.4-4.0 lens, and ended up with a 90-400mm f/4-5.6 lens (and probably the most maligned m43 telephoto available).

    I'm sorry, but this just makes no sense at all IMO. The Sony is going to give you sharper photos, with more control over DoF. Yes, the Sony's are more expensive, but the adage "you get what you pay for" wasn't founded on lies...

    The GX85 is a great camera. The 45-200 is not a great lens.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  7. Turbofrog

    Turbofrog Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Mar 21, 2014
    I also kind of want a RX10 III after a hiking trip where I constantly had the wrong lens (14-140 vs. 100-300) on my GX7. After a few misses (couple of deer, blue jays, family of 3 pileated woodpeckers!) I switched to just keeping the 100-300mm on, and then (of course!) never saw another animal for the rest of the 10km that we were out hiking...and had to deal with a heavier, more awkward lens that kept creeping out to the full 300mm, and wouldn't let me capture any snaps of the nice environment I was in.

    ...but then I looked at the price of the RX10 III ($2000 in Canada!), and the size, and weight. Holy jeez, I had no idea it was that much bigger and heavier than the combos I am used to. Obviously that wonderfully flexibility comes at a steep price! I also have not heard good things about its AF performance, and with the lack of any kind of way to move the AF point quickly by touch (like a touchscreen or joystick) I am worried that the extra reach wouldn't come with nearly as much additional flexibility as I hope it would.

    Here's hoping there's an FZ2000 coming soon with a touchscreen, and maybe weather sealing like the FZ300 below it? The FZ1000 is currently half the price of the RX10 III, and more responsive in terms of performance, but obviously doesn't have the same reach...
     
  8. agentlossing

    agentlossing Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Jun 26, 2013
    Andrew Lossing
    So, technically, you have a G7X ii and a GX7 ii...
     
  9. hionhifi

    hionhifi Mu-43 Regular

    53
    Oct 21, 2012
    California
    I ended up with the kit lens, 25mm F1.7, 42.5 F1.7, 30mm F2.8 Macro and aforementioned 45-200mm. Light gathering ability of the primes makes up for the lack of in the 45-200mm which I'll be using outdoors mostly anyway.

    Thomas
     
  10. Danny_SWE

    Danny_SWE Mu-43 All-Pro

    Apr 30, 2013
    Sweden (Gothenburg)
    Edit: ok. Now I see. Read wrong. Yes tje GX80 is even called GX7 Mark II in Japan :)
     
  11. agentlossing

    agentlossing Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Jun 26, 2013
    Andrew Lossing
    Yep, it's called being a smarty-pants :)
     
    • Like Like x 1
  12. tkbslc

    tkbslc Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    I don't see how an average lens covering 90-400mm equivalent at f4-5.6 is very comparable to very sharp Zeiss lenses covering 24-200 2.8 or 25-600mm 2.4-4. You'd need something like a G7 and a pair of f2.8 lenses to beat the RX10 II over it's range.



    Obviously with a bag of gear you can meet or beat the capabilities of the RX10 series, but that's not really the same, is it?
     
  13. Turbofrog

    Turbofrog Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Mar 21, 2014
    Honestly, the closest analogue would really be the G7 + 14-140 3.5-5.6 + 100-300 f4-5.6, with the obvious caveat that you're missing out on the 12mm end. The RX10 III aperture drops off very quickly, to the point that at 28mm equivalent it's already f2.8, f3.2 @ 35mm, and f4 @ 100mm. The f2.8 zooms on M4/3 are serious overkill.

    RX10III_Equiv.

    And that G7, 14-140, and 100-300 is actually a really fascinating comparison, because it demonstrates really well that there's no such thing as a free lunch, because together those three items weigh nearly the same as the RX10 III, and cost nearly the same as well! So as truly impressive a piece of engineering as the RX10 III is (and surely much nicer to use than constantly switching lenses), you're functionally forced to always carry around those "extra lenses" even when you don't need them. And making it into one single piece of kit doesn't do much to reduce the weight, cost, or even the size by a big margin.

    The RX10 II is a slightly different story, with no easy analogue yet in the M4/3 system, since all of our cheap telephotos go farther but end up a little slower by the 200mm mark. I guess the closest will be when the Olympus 12-100/f4 PRO comes out, which is basically the identical "equivalent" lens.
     
  14. stratokaster

    stratokaster Mu-43 All-Pro

    Jan 4, 2011
    Kyiv, Ukraine
    Pavel
    I'm perennially tempted by high quality superzoom / bridge cameras such as Sony RX10 or Panasonic FZ1000. There is only one thing that puts me off: you can't make them smaller! At least with an ILC you could put a pancake lens on it, but those bridge cameras are forever bulky, so to speak.

    Still, Panasonic FZ1000 is a very good camera and I might pick one up when Panasonic releases FZ1100 and FZ1000 goes on clearance.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  15. mattia

    mattia Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    May 3, 2012
    The Netherlands
    I often think that if I were minimalist backpacking the globe for 6 months or more, I would very seriously consider the RX10 mk III (not the mk II or I) as a 'do it all' solution the size of a compact APS-C DSLR with a bulky lens.
     
  16. dougpayne

    dougpayne Mu-43 Rookie

    17
    Mar 2, 2016
    C.D. Payne
    Fixed lens cameras also can be a problem if you get dust on the sensor. Those big zooms suck in a lot of air.
     
  17. Sherry5245king

    Sherry5245king New to Mu-43

    3
    Apr 6, 2016
    Sherry
    First let me say that I had / or have the RX 10, RX 10 ii and the RX 10 iii. We originally got the RX 10 because it was compact, weatherproof, and did not require changing lenses or taking a lot of lenses. How many shots of you lost while changing lenses? And we were downsizing.

    The last two years we have gone on River cruises in Europe. We needed a wide range - wide-angle to telephoto. However, on both trips rain was forecast so we wanted something that was weatherproof. I love all three cameras. They are light, they held up in the damp weather - including rain, and we were able to shoot landscapes from our cruise ship across the river. But we were also able to get close to things and take macro shots. If the range wasn't long enough, there's enough megapixels so you can easily crop and still have excellent quality photos.

    These cameras were not so heavy that we were tired after hiking them around all day. They were small enough to slip into a small camera bag or even my carry bag.

    We do still have micro-4/3 cameras but for travel, I like the RX 10 iii.
     
    Last edited: Aug 13, 2016
  18. hionhifi

    hionhifi Mu-43 Regular

    53
    Oct 21, 2012
    California
    Great comments. I've actually just added the Panasonic 14-140mm F3.5-5.6 to my stable and will be comparing that to the Sony RX10II. As you can see from my screenshot, the aperture equivalence in terms of total light is in favor of the Panny combo in the 28-50mm range, but favor the Sony combo in the 70-200mm range. Of course the Sony goes a bit wider and focuses closer than the Panny combo, not to mention the lens is powered and is more compact on the Sony.

    I am specifically focused here on total light and so by favor, that is the measurement I'm using; light on the sensor.

    In terms of price the two are comparable. Each has it's benefits features, price, and ergonomically-wise.

    Apeture Eq.JPG
     
    Last edited: Aug 15, 2016
  19. Turbofrog

    Turbofrog Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Mar 21, 2014
    Not to derail this conversation too much with an equivalence argument, but I do caution against making straight comparisons that way that don't take into account the individual sensors.

    For instance, the 1" Sony sensors punch well above their weight in terms of actual signal-to-noise ratio compared to their total light. They are only half the size of M4/3 sensors (i.e. 1 EV theoretical deficiency) but in practice they are only 1/2 to 2/3 EV behind M4/3 performance. And in terms of dynamic range, have almost no deficit at base ISO.

    Likewise, full-frame sensors almost categorically are underperformers relative to their sensor size. The only full-frame sensors that perform according to equivalence is the A7r II (that costs $3200) and the 12MP A7s, with less resolution than any current M4/3 camera, and poor AF, and a host of other compromises. Most FF sensors give somewhere between 1 1/3 EV improvement (Leica, Canon), 1 1/2 EV improvement (basic A7 / A7 II) and 1 3/4 EV improvement (Nikon) when compared to modern M4/3 sensors.

    So yeah, equivalence is ideal for napkin calculations, but needs to be calibrated according to the actual cameras you're using, or else the results are deceptive.
     
  20. hionhifi

    hionhifi Mu-43 Regular

    53
    Oct 21, 2012
    California
    Of course the argument could get long and drawn out but I'm thinking on a simpler level. How well does a GX85/14-140mm perform against with a Sony RX10II in terms of light on the sensor?

    At the core of this I believe is a qualitative vs a quantitatively argument. Your thoughts?

    I have an RX10II to compare the useability of the two cameras.

    Thomas