Home · Register · Search · View Winners · Software · Hosting · Software · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username   Password

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Sony Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1      
2
       3       end
  

Archive 2012 · RX100 versus LX7 - quick test.
  
 
DavidWEGS
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #1 · p.2 #1 · RX100 versus LX7 - quick test.


OK…

I am a little conflicted when looking at real world stuff.

Here is what I have done so far. LX7 is the top pic and RX below in all cases:
























Aug 25, 2012 at 04:52 PM
DavidWEGS
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #2 · p.2 #2 · RX100 versus LX7 - quick test.


And for FOV comparison… to show what it looks like going from 24mm eq. to 28mm eq. I kept the left and bottom lines equal as best I could hand held.












Aug 25, 2012 at 04:53 PM
DavidWEGS
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #3 · p.2 #3 · RX100 versus LX7 - quick test.


Dog details...












Aug 25, 2012 at 04:54 PM
DavidWEGS
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #4 · p.2 #4 · RX100 versus LX7 - quick test.


Macro is a no contest situation for me… the LX7 is hands down the best. I am just showing the 100% crop from each since that is where the rubber meets the road...







Aug 25, 2012 at 04:56 PM
DavidWEGS
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #5 · p.2 #5 · RX100 versus LX7 - quick test.


For DR test, I shot this with strong sunlight and a dark background (ish)..












Aug 25, 2012 at 04:57 PM
FlyPenFly
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #6 · p.2 #6 · RX100 versus LX7 - quick test.


You have far more DoF on the LX7 shots.

You should also resize all the files to a common size before doing your crops. Upsample the LX7 to 20mpx or downsample the RX100.

Are your exposures even the same?



Aug 25, 2012 at 04:58 PM
DavidWEGS
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #7 · p.2 #7 · RX100 versus LX7 - quick test.


And finally, low light. I let the RX do its thing with the widest aperture, and allowing ISO to go auto and the SS to sit where ever it wanted. I limited the ISO to 1600 as I find it pasty after that anyhow. I then set the LX7 to the same SS and its widest aperture which gave me an ISO of 400. Here are the results...












Aug 25, 2012 at 05:00 PM
DavidWEGS
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #8 · p.2 #8 · RX100 versus LX7 - quick test.


Hope that is interesting to someone.

I am feeling a little more enlightened about each after doing this.



Aug 25, 2012 at 05:01 PM
millsart
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #9 · p.2 #9 · RX100 versus LX7 - quick test.


FlyPenFly wrote:
You have far more DoF on the LX7 shots.

You should also resize all the files to a common size before doing your crops. Upsample the LX7 to 20mpx or downsample the RX100.

Are your exposures even the same?



I don't think there much real world advantage in doing that. I mean really, is any RX100 shooter always going to downsize their files to the LX7 or conversely, is any LX7 shooter always going to uprez ? Of course not.

Likewise, is anyone going to stop down their RX100 to get a more P&S look ? No again


If you want resolution, you want to see the maximum detail the RX100 can give and how that differs from the LX7

Its no different than my D3x and D800e. Darn right I'm going to look at the D800e files at full resolution because thats what I paid for.

Why would I want to downsize them to the D3s size ? If I wanted just 12 meg files I would of stuck with the D3s and not spent $3300 on another camera.

I simply want to see the best of what both cameras can do with no handicaps provided.

I, like hopefully any other person viewing these files, knows that the LX7 is going to have more DoF at some focal lengths, even with the faster aperture, and I also know the RX100 has a megapixel advantage.

The point here isn't to make them as close to the same, but rather to see just how DIFFERENT they are, and leave it up to the end consumer to pick which of those differences are the most meaningful.



Aug 25, 2012 at 05:15 PM
DavidWEGS
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #10 · p.2 #10 · RX100 versus LX7 - quick test.


I did use the same exposures except in the Low light shots.


Aug 25, 2012 at 05:17 PM
 

Search in Used Dept. 



DavidWEGS
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #11 · p.2 #11 · RX100 versus LX7 - quick test.


FlyPenFly wrote:
You have far more DoF on the LX7 shots.

You should also resize all the files to a common size before doing your crops. Upsample the LX7 to 20mpx or downsample the RX100.

Are your exposures even the same?


Geez, no pleasing you is there?



Aug 25, 2012 at 05:18 PM
FlyPenFly
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #12 · p.2 #12 · RX100 versus LX7 - quick test.


No, I think its great you're doing tests but perhaps you should try to control your variables to make it a more valid comparison.


Aug 25, 2012 at 05:27 PM
FlyPenFly
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #13 · p.2 #13 · RX100 versus LX7 - quick test.


millsart wrote:
I don't think there much real world advantage in doing that. I mean really, is any RX100 shooter always going to downsize their files to the LX7 or conversely, is any LX7 shooter always going to uprez ? Of course not.

Likewise, is anyone going to stop down their RX100 to get a more P&S look ? No again

If you want resolution, you want to see the maximum detail the RX100 can give and how that differs from the LX7

Its no different than my D3x and D800e. Darn right I'm going to look at the D800e files at full resolution because
...Show more

I don't disagree but he's doing 100% comparisons which are meaningless unless you're comparing at the same resolution. If you resize to a common size, it's much more apparent what each camera is capable of.



Aug 25, 2012 at 05:28 PM
millsart
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #14 · p.2 #14 · RX100 versus LX7 - quick test.


Hard to fully judge til we can process RAW's from both cameras but to my eyes the RX100 seems to deliver what I would consider the overall "better" files.

There is some resolution advantage, though not always huge, as I think overall the Panny has the better lens technically speaking, and at times I'm not sure how much of what we are seeing is edge softness vs limited DoF.

LX7 looks like it does pretty well in terms of DR and overall optics. Its darn lucky its got such a fast lens because it looks pretty noisy even at ISO400 and given its a typical Panny, I'm sure the detail smearing at high ISO isn't pretty.

All and all the LX7 looks pretty much like what I get from my LX5, in fact I don't really see too much to tell them apart in samples I've seen. LX7 is the better camera for sure, but its a question of do I want to sell the LX5 which I'm not even shooting these days and buy a new $500 version of it ? Probably not


End of the day the LX7 still looks like a point and shoot. A really nice one, with fantastic ergonomics and well implemented shooting modes such as an AEB mode thats useful in the real world unlike Sony's sad +/-.7EV crap. Build in ND filter etc is all icing on the cake.

RX100 files just seem to have a certain larger camera look them, and there really is a bit of Zeiss "pop" in there as well. Its not a perfect lens, as its got some soft corners, color shifts and could be faster on the long end, but darn if theres not some magic, especially on the wide end.

I just see some clarity and pop to its files I'm not seeing in the LX7 which looks a bit flat.

The shot of the dog (admittedly the first shot looks like it was done in overcast light vs sun for the RX100) or the shot of the field or the girl with her hands on the table. The LX7 just seems to look flat and muted with no real depth.

Technically I might find some LX7 shots better, but aesthetically I think the RX100 wins it for me in most every frame.


Thanks so much for taking the time to shoot this and then post all the images. I know that can be a bit of a chore




Aug 25, 2012 at 05:36 PM
millsart
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #15 · p.2 #15 · RX100 versus LX7 - quick test.


Not to take away from David's thread here but Ray Sachs (a photographer who's work I've known for quite some time) has some street images from the LX7 and RX100 posted along with his thoughts on both cameras.

Everyone has an opinion of course, but I find myself typically in agreement with Ray's thoughts on a lot of the same camera's we've owned so was really interested in what he thought of the LX7, as both a LX5 owner and a RX100 owner

He has a unique style of PP, which admittedly makes it harder to judge the cameras on pure IQ but the end results are really what matters at the end of the day.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1009&thread=42336918



Aug 25, 2012 at 05:39 PM
rscheffler
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #16 · p.2 #16 · RX100 versus LX7 - quick test.


millsart wrote:
Hard to fully judge til we can process RAW's from both cameras but to my eyes the RX100 seems to deliver what I would consider the overall "better" files.

There is some resolution advantage, though not always huge, as I think overall the Panny has the better lens technically speaking, and at times I'm not sure how much of what we are seeing is edge softness vs limited DoF.

LX7 looks like it does pretty well in terms of DR and overall optics. Its darn lucky its got such a fast lens because it looks pretty noisy even at ISO400 and given
...Show more

Yes David, thanks for doing this.

I was going to write up something, but I think you've summed up a number of points (as highlighted) that also impressed me.

For the extra $165 I feel the Sony brings quite a few additional features to the table that allow the photographer more flexibility in how to approach shooting situations. It can look like a larger sensor camera (because it is), yet also simply be a P&S. The LX7 looks great at base ISO from the various previews/reviews I've seen, but definitely looks like a P&S at even moderate ISOs. And often there will never be a way around that deep DOF look.

As you stated about the LX5, that is what I felt about it vs. my LX3... not enough to persuade me to update. Instead went for the XZ-1, though its lens is quite poor compared to the Panny's.

BTW, Boris just started a thread about his holiday to Croatia, which he shot with the M9 and RX100... another interesting comparison (for me). http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1143342



Aug 25, 2012 at 06:06 PM
LowellH
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #17 · p.2 #17 · RX100 versus LX7 - quick test.


To: David Wegs: Excellent posting on your part

To: A.Y.: Wouldn't you have to take into account the MP differences between the RX100 and the LX7 to determine which one has a light capturing advantage (if that's what you mean by high-ISO)? I come up with there is little or no difference between the two cameras at the wide end, where you have a 0.8 stop advantage for the RX100. From my limited knowledge on this subject, the pixel size and not the actual sensor size determines the light capturing capability of the sensor. My math is as follows:

If I look at the sensor size difference between the two, the RX100 has a sensor size of 116 mm2 (based on a sensor size of 13.2mm x 8.8 mm), while the LX7 has a sensor size of 34 mm2 (based on a 4:3 aspect ratio giving an effective sensor size of 6.7 mm x 5.1 mm). So the RX100 sensor is about 3.4 times larger (116/34) than the LX7 sensor. But the RX100 sensor has 20 MP resulting in each pixel being about 5.8 microns2, while the LX7 has only 10 MP resulting in each pixel being about 3.4 microns2 in size. So the RX100 pixels are about 70% larger (5.8/3.4) than the LX7 pixels, and therefore 70% more light capture per pixel. This 70% more light capture is equivalent to about a .77 stop advantage for the RX100 just based on pixel size. But at the wide end of the lenses, the f/1.4 of the LX7 is about a 0.72 stop advantage over the f/1.8 of the RX100. So taking into account the pixel sizes and the lens speeds, the RX100 has a 0.77 stop advantage due to the pixel size, minus the 0.72 stop disadvantage of the slower speed to be almost no advantage. And at the long end of the lens, the advantage would go to the LX7.

Am I missing something, or is my thought process and math just all screwed up? I have a LX7, but don't have an RX100 to compare it with on a back-to-back test.



Jan 02, 2013 at 03:22 AM
Uncle Mike
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #18 · p.2 #18 · RX100 versus LX7 - quick test.


In all of the outdoor shots, I liked the LX7 better, the colors looked better. And the LX7 pictures look sharper and have less chromatic aberration.

In indoor flourescent lighting maybe the RX100 looks better.

At the long end, the LX7's extra two f-stops more than makes up for the RX100's bigger sensor.

Overall, I think that at half the price the LX7 is a real bargain compared to the RX100. When this post was originally written, the LX7 cost more, but the LX7 price drop makes it a compelling bargain.



Jan 02, 2013 at 01:26 PM
DavidWEGS
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #19 · p.2 #19 · RX100 versus LX7 - quick test.


Uncle Mike,

I agree. When I saw the LX7 at $299, I got one to try it again. My impressions remain about the same and I could not get the wide open shot to look sharp at close quarters with the subject. Sent back again I'm afraid.

Now, If it would fit my pocket the way the RX does, we might be onto something more interesting...



Jan 03, 2013 at 02:17 AM
Uncle Mike
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #20 · p.2 #20 · RX100 versus LX7 - quick test.


Hmmm... strangely I've only used the camera for outdoor scenery type shots... I"ll have to experiment with the up-close blurry issue to see if I have it. Uh oh....


Jan 03, 2013 at 04:38 AM
1      
2
       3       end




FM Forums | Sony Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1      
2
       3       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username   Password    Reset password