Jump to content

Photo
- - - - -

The miniaturisation war - Sony RX1 vs 5D Mark III


  • Please log in to reply
28 replies to this topic

#1 EOSHD

EOSHD

    Andrew Reid - British Filmmaker - Editor EOSHD

  • Administrators
  • 3,264 posts

Posted 25 August 2013 - 09:38 PM

Canon 5D Mark III and Sony RX1 size comparison

Canon's competitors are waging a miniaturisation war against DSLRs. The Sony RX1 is not a DSLR replacement but Sony's same technology is building towards a full frame mirrorless system.

This mouthwatering prospect may well turn up in Berlin this September at the IFA show where the NEX 7 was launched some years ago.

Read the full article here

#2 halfmac

halfmac

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 7 posts
  • LocationPacific North West

Posted 25 August 2013 - 10:23 PM

I must take exception with the statement, "The problem is, F2.8 on Micro Four Thirds is equivalent to about F5.6 on full frame in terms of depth of field control and low light performance, so the 12-35mm F2.8 and Canon 24-70mm F2.8 is not really a like-for-like comparison, and a 24-70mm F5.6 for full frame would be much smaller than the Canon 24-70mm F2.8."  Yes, in depth of field control.  No, in low light performance.  F2.8 is F2.8 on any sensor, Period, end of discussion.   Some sensors do have more sensitivity to light.

 

http://frugalfilmmak...century-camera/


  • Ernesto Mántaras and mjones41 like this
Alan Halfhill

#3 ntblowz

ntblowz

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 93 posts

Posted 25 August 2013 - 10:27 PM

Too bad the cost will be same as RX1 with body only, a lot more expensive than $1500 6D

 

Btw there is separate mic slot on E-M1, I hope they really tweak the video to Sony quality at least. (hey that what partnership is for right?)

 

 

For 24-70mm 5.6 being "much" smaller that will have to be seen, there is a sensor area that need to be covered, no magic can change physical limit



#4 richg101

richg101

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 894 posts
  • LocationBristol. UK

Posted 25 August 2013 - 10:41 PM

when the full frame nex arrives it really will be game over for canon and nikon as still photography cameras for use with manual focus lenses.  The only advantage canon will have over sony will be magic lantern.  Word is the full frame nex will be a similar sensor to the d800....  

 

if metabones can integrate the fast AF of canon L lenses to work with the phase af on the full frame nex it will not only be the best digital camera for creative photography, but will also trump everything Canon have on offer in a professional sense where af is key.   



#5 Paul Watt

Paul Watt

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 24 posts
  • LocationSquamish, BC

Posted 25 August 2013 - 11:23 PM

I must take exception with the statement, "The problem is, F2.8 on Micro Four Thirds is equivalent to about F5.6 on full frame in terms of depth of field control and low light performance, so the 12-35mm F2.8 and Canon 24-70mm F2.8 is not really a like-for-like comparison, and a 24-70mm F5.6 for full frame would be much smaller than the Canon 24-70mm F2.8."  Yes, in depth of field control.  No, in low light performance.  F2.8 is F2.8 on any sensor, Period, end of discussion.   Some sensors do have more sensitivity to light.

 

http://frugalfilmmak...century-camera/

Well, if you're gonna nitpick, T-Stop is the same on any sensor, F-Stop is gonna vary depending on the lens.



#6 PhinioxGlade

PhinioxGlade

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 5 posts

Posted 25 August 2013 - 11:35 PM

If you want to experience Full Frame NEX it already exists, has for a year.

The Sony Nex VG900 uses the same sensor as the A99 and RX1.

Yes its in a Camcorder body but its a stills camera, 24mp raw snap.

Price is ~3500, has no in body IS and switches to a crop sensor with standard e-mount lenses



#7 EOSHD

EOSHD

    Andrew Reid - British Filmmaker - Editor EOSHD

  • Administrators
  • 3,264 posts

Posted 26 August 2013 - 12:02 AM

I must take exception with the statement, "The problem is, F2.8 on Micro Four Thirds is equivalent to about F5.6 on full frame in terms of depth of field control and low light performance, so the 12-35mm F2.8 and Canon 24-70mm F2.8 is not really a like-for-like comparison, and a 24-70mm F5.6 for full frame would be much smaller than the Canon 24-70mm F2.8."

 

Yes, in depth of field control.  No, in low light performance.  F2.8 is F2.8 on any sensor, Period, end of discussion.   Some sensors do have more sensitivity to light.

 

http://frugalfilmmak...century-camera/

 

Full frame has a low noise advantage over Micro Four Thirds due to larger photo sites, that's what I mean by "low light performance". Didn't say "sensitivity".



#8 EOSHD

EOSHD

    Andrew Reid - British Filmmaker - Editor EOSHD

  • Administrators
  • 3,264 posts

Posted 26 August 2013 - 12:03 AM

If you want to experience Full Frame NEX it already exists, has for a year.

The Sony Nex VG900 uses the same sensor as the A99 and RX1.

Yes its in a Camcorder body but its a stills camera, 24mp raw snap.

Price is ~3500, has no in body IS and switches to a crop sensor with standard e-mount lenses

 

Tried it at Photokina. Was rubbish. Form factor is a joke for stills. Video quality was a joke for video shooting :)



#9 EOSHD

EOSHD

    Andrew Reid - British Filmmaker - Editor EOSHD

  • Administrators
  • 3,264 posts

Posted 26 August 2013 - 12:06 AM

Too bad the cost will be same as RX1 with body only, a lot more expensive than $1500 6D

 
You know the price of the NEX 9? Link please!?

 

For 24-70mm 5.6 being "much" smaller that will have to be seen, there is a sensor area that need to be covered, no magic can change physical limit

 

Look at Canon 24-70mm F4... Smaller than the F2.8 version. Look at size of F2.0 200mm lens compared to F4 also. Wide aperture lenses are always bigger, all else equal.



#10 Ernesto Mántaras

Ernesto Mántaras

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 236 posts
  • LocationSanta Fe, Argentina

Posted 26 August 2013 - 12:51 AM

I must take exception with the statement, "The problem is, F2.8 on Micro Four Thirds is equivalent to about F5.6 on full frame in terms of depth of field control and low light performance, so the 12-35mm F2.8 and Canon 24-70mm F2.8 is not really a like-for-like comparison, and a 24-70mm F5.6 for full frame would be much smaller than the Canon 24-70mm F2.8."  Yes, in depth of field control.  No, in low light performance.  F2.8 is F2.8 on any sensor, Period, end of discussion.   Some sensors do have more sensitivity to light.

 

http://frugalfilmmak...century-camera/

 

 

Full frame has a low noise advantage over Micro Four Thirds due to larger photo sites, that's what I mean by "low light performance". Didn't say "sensitivity".

 

Still I think it's kind of misleading. I've read many times over how people actually mean to say that f/2.8 on Micro Four Thirds is equivalent to full frame f/5.6 in light gathering terms, which is absolutely wrong. I say do not feed those "arguments".

I agree full frame has an advantage on how good the noise performance is in higher ISOs but that's an entire different matter that even has to do more with each particular camera or sensor rather that full frame as a whole and that isn't clear in the article.


Sites:   @Vimeo   |   @Facebook   |   @Twitter

SIGNATURE_THIN.gif

 


#11 epyonxero

epyonxero

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 3 posts

Posted 26 August 2013 - 12:58 AM

The RX1 is great because of its integrated lens which lets it keep a compact size. A full-frame, ILC with a EVF and high end glass attached is still going to be a big camera; probably close to the size of an SL1 and you still have to carry full size lenses. I prefer small M43 cameras as second bodies because with a 14mm or 20mm lens theyre small enough to carry in a pocket. 


  • mjones41 likes this

#12 Andrew Benton

Andrew Benton

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 32 posts

Posted 26 August 2013 - 01:42 AM

A small body with big lenses, now that's... less usable. Though, I'd love an RX1 for travel, as 35mm is my fav FL I can stick with, but I'm one of those guys that can't live without an ultra wide and a fast telephoto in my work bag, and then stick on a flash, now that compact FF MILC just turned it's ugly head. And of course, current price point, battery life (how many extras are needed?) and wrist pain from a 70-200, which unless Sony figures out how to make a compact one for FF... and the RX1 has disappointing video yeah? What incentive does Sony have in that department? If they really do something, like have ML like usability and recording, then yes Canon can be beat



#13 ntblowz

ntblowz

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 93 posts

Posted 26 August 2013 - 03:14 AM

Well it was from SAR

http://www.sonyalpha...iss-lens-specs/

 

 

 

 
You know the price of the NEX 9? Link please!?

 



#14 MattH

MattH

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 94 posts

Posted 26 August 2013 - 03:23 AM

Still I think it's kind of misleading. I've read many times over how people actually mean to say that f/2.8 on Micro Four Thirds is equivalent to full frame f/5.6 in light gathering terms, which is absolutely wrong. I say do not feed those "arguments".

I agree full frame has an advantage on how good the noise performance is in higher ISOs but that's an entire different matter that even has to do more with each particular camera or sensor rather that full frame as a whole and that isn't clear in the article.

 

It actually is equivalent in light gathering terms.  The light per unit of area is different by a factor of 4, but the area of full frame is 4 times greater, so the total amount of light energy is the same.   On equally efficient sensors the noise will also be the same even with the full frame at a higher iso to compensate.   Micro four thirds generally still has a weight advantage overall though.



#15 mjones41

mjones41

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11 posts

Posted 26 August 2013 - 03:53 AM

That E-M1 has gone from ugly duckling to beautiful swan with these new leaked photographs.  Can't wait to see what the silver looks like.  And yes I know it's what's inside that counts, but we are artists and we like pretty things ;)



#16 Reesebomb

Reesebomb

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 2 posts

Posted 26 August 2013 - 07:52 AM

Still I think it's kind of misleading. I've read many times over how people actually mean to say that f/2.8 on Micro Four Thirds is equivalent to full frame f/5.6 in light gathering terms, which is absolutely wrong. I say do not feed those "arguments".

I agree full frame has an advantage on how good the noise performance is in higher ISOs but that's an entire different matter that even has to do more with each particular camera or sensor rather that full frame as a whole and that isn't clear in the article.

 

Agreed. The Iphones f/2.4aperture is equivalent to about F/19 in 35mm, but we all know that the images coming from Iphone are not pitch black.



#17 Julian

Julian

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,023 posts
  • LocationNetherlands

Posted 26 August 2013 - 08:04 AM


This mouthwatering prospect may well turn up in Berlin this September at the IFA show where the NEX 7 was launched some years ago.

The fullframe nex is expected by the end of september:

http://www.sonyalpha...ble-in-october/

http://www.sonyalpha...oducts-to-come/

 

At IFA we will see the camera modules for smartphones a new NEX-5T and the ILC-3000: http://www.sonyalpha...announced-soon/



#18 vforvedad

vforvedad

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 7 posts
  • LocationSarajevo, BiH

Posted 26 August 2013 - 08:43 AM

The title of this topic is misleading.



#19 stephen

stephen

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11 posts

Posted 26 August 2013 - 08:52 AM

IMHO at this price point NEX 9 or whatever Sony calls it won't be very successful. Rumors say price for body only will be close to RX1. 
 
For amateur photographers there is no point to buy NEX 9 when Canon 6D and Nikon D600 are much cheaper now at 1500$. Even D800 can be found at around 2500$. For the price of NEX 9 body they will come kitted with lenses and everything. 
 
My take is NEX 9 will cater for PRO, semi PRO photographers flock and there will be nothing exciting on the video front. Combined with some Zeiss lenses in 24 - 80mm range where size can be kept in control and lenses can be reasonably small (big), it would appeal to the pros and semi pros looking for highest possible image quality in smallest possible package but at high price. This is not a big market but there is some money to be made and Sony will take any opportunity.
 
There are cheaper tools for stealth photography too: 
 
Miniaturization doesn't seem to be an important factor for the majority of photographers and/or usage cases. Sales figures seem to prove such a conclusion.
So far expectations that mirrorless interchangeable camera systems with electronic viewfinder will blow DSLRs out of the water doesn't seem to materialize. Yes there is a sound logic behind mirrorless - removal of mechanical parts and as result cheaper, smaller, lighter bodies, better suited for video etc., but sales reports and analyzes doesn't indicate such a shift
 
One interesting thing for the majority of us in NEX 9 could be RAW video. But Sony has serious video camera business to protect. Their recent track record on video in NEX and ALPHA systems is rather appalling. Don't expect any revolutionary changes.
 
Having in mind that market will be flooded with affordable 4K cameras in next 6 months and most likely this will be true for RAW as well, it's better to wait and see.
 
 
My bets are on Nikon. If you remember they started this whole video DSLR frenzy with D90. They don't have video business to protect. Rumors are upcoming D400 will have a very large buffer which kind of hints for possible RAW video. V3 may use the new Aptina 1'' sensor, which can output 60p in 4K and will be announced in next month. So let's just wait and see but I doubt NEX 9 will be my next camera.


#20 araucaria

araucaria

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 255 posts

Posted 26 August 2013 - 09:54 AM

I must take exception with the statement, "The problem is, F2.8 on Micro Four Thirds is equivalent to about F5.6 on full frame in terms of depth of field control and low light performance, so the 12-35mm F2.8 and Canon 24-70mm F2.8 is not really a like-for-like comparison, and a 24-70mm F5.6 for full frame would be much smaller than the Canon 24-70mm F2.8."  Yes, in depth of field control.  No, in low light performance.  F2.8 is F2.8 on any sensor, Period, end of discussion.   Some sensors do have more sensitivity to light.

 

http://frugalfilmmak...century-camera/

Imagine you put an 35mm 1.4 on a 1.6x tele converter, is it still 1.4? It's not.

Now put the same lens on an APS-C canon, you will have the same image with what you call 1.4.

Imagine both have the same megapixels, you will have exactly the same amount of light  on the pixels, but the FF is around f2.2 (do the math right if you want).

So unless the small aps-c pixels are much better than the FF ones, the aps-c equivalent in terms of performance to full frame would be f2.2. The lens is still 1.4.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users