Anyone go from M4/3 to Sony rx100?

[rhincodon]

Just curious if anyone has switched from using interchangable lense system to using the RX100 and have regreted it? I am really impressed with results people are getting from the RX100. I realize the macro is not as good as dedicated macro lenses on ILC, but I dont do super macro anyways. I'm use to using OMD EM5, and concerned it might be a let down to go the compact camera route. Any input would be appreciated.

Cheers

 

[kkfok]

I shot mainly video and I switched from GH2 to RX100. No regret, RX100 can MWB better underwater, has a very bright lens so actually has better low light performance and it has less color banding.

 

[bvanant]

I think you will be disappointed. The image quality at least to me is not comparable and the ability to control things like DOF is much reduced. If you are not interested in macro at all and only shoot medium size fish for example then it is fine, but for me at least, not worth it.
Bill

 

[rhincodon]

Thanks for the feedback, good points!

 

[Interceptor121]

I was on a trip with Alex Mustard and people were shooting OMD-E1 E5 and the E10 and I was shooting the RX100 Mark II (do not recommend the III for photos)
At wide angle there was no difference in performance except in low light where the Olympus as roughly one stop. However using the Inon Lens I was able to get good sharpness at f/4 so this was irrelevant.
I was however able to shoot sunballs at 1/2000th of a second that you can't do on a 4/3 or DSLR.
I would say at wide end the RX100 has actually an edge due to versatility however in terms of sharpness with a good lens the Olympus were better
For portraits and close up again there was no difference.

At macro the lack of depth of field of the RX100 shows best results come with a +10 achromatic diopter but then you have to crop also the RX100 performs best around f/5.6 but at that aperture you have zero DOF at the highest magnification

Check my flickr red sea gallery for a view

https://www.flickr.com/photos/interceptor121/sets/72157645375379256/

 

[rhincodon]

Great information! I'm still impressed with the quality of images people are getting with this camera. Great pics!

 

[mjh]

I have shot the Nikon D7000 and 4/3 Olympus EM5 underwater. I also shoot the Sony RX100 and now RX100II. Without a doubt the larger cameras have the advantage when it comes to speed of autofocus, working distance with macro, and being able to be creative with DOF. Through in there shooting over/unders due to a 4" dome vs. 10" with a DSLR. I now own the Sony A7, mainly for dry land. Taking both to Solomon's and we will see what they can do. As Interceptor said the RX is great overall and now my primary camera.

The following gallery was taken with the Sony RX http://www.aquabluedreams.com/#/gallery/fiji/dsc00942/

 

[rhincodon]

After reading many posts, especially mjh and interceptor, it seems there is not a huge difference in IQ and performance with RX100 and m4/3s. I have both the Oly 60mm and the Panasonic 45mm and almost exclusively use the 45mm. I think using the rx100 with wet lenses may be similar to using 45mm in that you have to get close, and maybe a little slower to auto focus, obviously not going to be as sharp. Right now the only deal breaker for me is the recycle time on the inboard flash is really slow. If only we could control the flash manually like the Olympus cameras. Has anyone tried using sync cords with the RX100ii? This could solve the flash recycle time problem.

By the way mjh, can't wait to see how your pics from Solomon's turns out. Are you taking the A7 underwater?

---------- Post added November 24th, 2014 at 03:05 PM ----------

Just found out you can't use sync cords with rx100ii. Not enough room in housing. Probably old news, but first time I heard about it.