I am prioritizing small size AND photo quality. Choosing between RX100ii and Alpha NEX 5t. Is the larger sensor Nex 5t worth the added weight??
1588521
the hex-5TL is way smaller than Leica M-series & does not have the fragility 0f a leica. What other option would you go for/want?leitz
1588522
Probably not. RX100 M2 is about the same compared to the NEX-5T at any ISO level (difference of megapixels count more of a concern on small sensors, but RX models are somehow 'perfectly' optimized--like comparing iOS to battery-fasting Android), although the speed of the 5T is quite something ideal, as it has phase detection. Look, consider the upcoming A6000. It is a little pricier against the 5T, plus you get the hot shoe and internal flash. Speed is the same, in spite of more contrast and phase points. It is very difficult to improve because Sony is already ahead of every other camera maker in terms of sensor and processing = remarkable image clarity. Value wise, they are about the same. Maybe RX100 is the better choice, unless shooting sports and low light where the 5T is the best bet. For video work, RX100/M2 is the only ideal choice because NEX always will overheat, shutting down the camera. This is because the large sensor and processor do not have a heat sink as required to prevent the issue, although in consequence the point of a DSLR's size does reflect more room to breathe.
1421743
I went from shooting with a bridge camera with a pretty small sensor to the A7's full size sensor, and the change was significant. I was back to my old days with a 35mm camera. You won't have trouble getting nice bokeh, even with the kit lens. You'll actually have to make sure you have enough depth of field with certain shots, especially if you've been shooting with anything smaller than a micro four thirds camera.
1864518
No. But it's close. The nex6 uses an AP-C size sensor where the 10 only uses the 1 inch sensor. Bigger sensor will always out shine a smaller sensor in image quality. But again, not by much in this case. Now, the RX10 has many more things going for it though. If you don't care about it being bigger I would recommend rx10 in a heartbeat!
1823885
It is a bit of a subjective answer, but yes it is better due to the larger 4/3 image sensor and ability to change lenses. It really comes down to which features are important to you.
1581805
You have to weigh that against the Sony's excellent optics and continuous F2.8 minimum aperture. No 50x optical zoom is going to be worth much. I love the RX10.
2078344
I own both. Bought one of first 18-200s made in Japan to go with my first dslr: D50 that I got for a trip to the Bahamas. Have wonderful images I still enjoy. Now have lightweight D5000 and super D7000. Bought 18-140 for light weight to hike w/D5000. Use 28-200 w/D7000 otherwise. Both focus quickly, iq is similar. Both have VR but 200 has active mode for shooting while moving, which I love. So 140 wins on weight, price, while 200 adds focal length and versatile VR.
1963665
Short version.... bigger sensor on the rx100 (better picture quality) versus faster/wider lenses on the lx7 (better low light performance and a more versatile zoom). Both are great cameras, if budget is not a problem go with the rx100. If you go otherwise with the lx7 you will get better Low light performance and a more versatile lenses for your money. Never the less... both are awesome cameras.
57766
Marsha, I have been most pleased with the Sony DSC-RX100 for quality pictures in a small but versatile camera. Alender S. White's book "Photographer's Guide To The Sony DSC-RX100" is invaluable should you purchase the camera. Happy hunting! Dennis
1132960
Because LX 7 and RX100 are the top two smaller camera on the market disregard the price difference. LX7 has bigger lens, better night photo. Sony has bigger sensor...
1420056
Hi Carrie,Picture quality with the nex-5 is great- I think it might be the flash that's an issue. The Nex-5's flash is small and quite delicate. If you're doing a lot of interiors, you might look at the Nex-6, which I believe has a more traditional shoe for the flash. The nex-5 flash is finicky to attach (it works fine) and doesn't appear rugged enough for me to comfortably leave attached to the camera.
309946
The SX120 at ISO 800 and 1600 is way better than the SX110, this is the biggest difference I've seen. Search for some reviews that have the same shots at ISO1600 for both cameras and compare the two side by side and it'll jump out at you. I'm not so sure the slightly smaller sensor has much difference, sensor technology improves very slowly too, so maybe it has better signal to noise ratio even though it's more MP on a slightly smaller surface area.I don't like the SX200 for a bunch of reasons, the always up flash is annoying. It has a slower lens than the SX110/120, and it's way more expensive. The SX120 at ISO 800 and 1600 is way better than the SX110, this is the biggest difference I've seen. Search for some reviews that have the same shots at ISO1600 for both cameras and compare the two side by side and it'll jump out at you. I'm not so sure the slightly smaller sensor has much difference, sensor technology improves very slowly too, so maybe it has better signal to noise ratio even though it's more MP on a slightly smaller surface area.I don't like the SX200 for a bunch of reasons, the always up flash is annoying. It has a slower lens than the SX110/120, and it's... » Read More The SX120 at ISO 800 and 1600 is way better than the SX110, this is the biggest difference I've seen. Search for some reviews that have the same shots at ISO1600 for both cameras and compare the two side by side and it'll jump out at you. I'm not so sure the slightly smaller sensor has much difference, sensor technology improves very slowly too, so maybe it has better signal to noise ratio even though it's more MP on a slightly smaller surface area.I don't like the SX200 for a bunch of reasons, the always up flash is annoying. It has a slower lens than the SX110/120, and it's way more expensive. « Show Less
1963666
Isn't the RX100 smaller as well? Big plus. I had a Lumix LX5 and my RX100 is smaller than that one.
1691038
Michael, I own a Panasonic DMC-FZ30. If I had the money I would switch to this S100 for one main reason, that being low light capability. The 30 is limited to ISO 400, I see the 50 can go all the way up to 1600 so that may do the trick. Other than that I'm quite happy with the 30. I've had it three years, taken 1000's of photos of which I'm pretty happy. However the low light limits me quite often. The 30/50 have sensors much smaller than the s100. I think Fuji would have been better off with the large sensor they used but with 8 megapixels which would have improved photo quality, especially at the higher ISOs. The megapixel race is one of the biggest problems in the digital camera arena today. There again the 50 and S100 aren't that far apart in the megapixel race but look at the size of the Fjui sensor - wow! I would enjoy the 2 1/2 inch LCD over the 30/50's 2". I wouldn't miss the rotating feature on the Panasonic as I mostly use it in vertical modes and the Fuji provides that. Another thing I'd want is better video. Even though the three cameras have the same specs I'm disappointed with the Panasonic results. The video from my 30 aren't as good as my wife's Sony W50 point-and-shoot. I guess I'd have to hold them in my hand to compare the Fuji 100 vs the Panasonic 50. My conclusion for you? If I had the 50 in hand already I wouldn't be looking to upgrade. The Panasonic is bound to have more noise due to the smaller sensor. The Fuji looks like it has less noise but there are rampant complaints about purple fringing although most say it only shows up on hard contrast shots. The Panasonic is better at purple fringing but worse on noise - choose your weakness. Battery life is awesome on my 30 and it is indicated to be lower on the S100. Are these differences worth the difference in price (50=$579 S100=$655 9/19/08 on Amazon). If it was me purchasing today I'd go for the S100. What did you decide?
2043277
Oh yes. This has APS-C sensor, larger than any typical compacts. As for price, Sony frequently do discounts on the bundles. If you don't want to buy lenses, look at cameras like Sony's own RX100.
391683
Thanks for the opinion on the LX3, I think I'll wait for one of the these new Canons. Agree with your point on megapixels too, it's seems like 12mp is probably overkill for these small image sensors, so I expect I'll probably crank mine down to 10 or 8 to see if I get less noise. Digic 4 sounds pretty cool too, hopefully that will help.
1936971
I went through the same dilemma, and while I can't remember all the pros and cons my choice was the 6D. It seemed like the 7D was better for action and video. I already had a crop sensor in my Rebel xsi, and wanted a full frame, plus I was looking for more of an ISO range. Love the 6D. If you are interested in images from this camera I have a Facebook page, Wyoming Willow Sticks. You probably can't go wrong with either camera, just depends on what features fit you. Good luck.
2256504
The Sony RX100 is the best compact around for the time being (and you can now go for the RX100 II for which they added some nice and useful goodies) if not considering kind of compact cameras with fixed lenses with a fixed focal distance (no zoom) as the Nikon Coolpix A. But if the image quality of the RX100 is not enough for you, forget about compact cameras and try with a semi-compact with a bigger sensor, for example, something as the Sony NEX 7. If that does not still fulfill your expectations, you can always go for a full-frame or you could spend about 7.000 U$S and update to the Pentax 645D (which is a medium format camera). You can always check and compare camera sensor ratings done (benchmarked) by DxOMarks for different cameras, at this site http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Camera-Sensor-Ratings