Quick “Just for Fun” Comparisons: Sony RX100, Olympus OM-D and Nikon V1 (With an X2 detail shot thrown in for fun)
Working on the Sony RX100 review but until then check out some quick comparisons I did between it and the Nikon V1 and Olympus OM-D. Since the Nikon and Sony use Zoom lenses, either kit or built-in, I used the 12-50 for the Olympus to be fair. BUT, in a shot or two the Olympus accidentally slipped into P mode from A mode so the test is not a fair one as the Oly lens was stopped down much more than the others in a couple of the test shots.
[ad#Adsense Blog Sq Embed Image]
I will be doing new test shots for the RX100 review that are matched but thought some of you may enjoy seeing these, just for fun.
I also took a detail shot that you can download in full size from the V1, OM-D, RX100 and Leica X2 and these are at the bottom. Just for fun of course 🙂
Finally, these are all OOC JEGS ONLY! There is no RAW support for the RX100 yet from Adobe so to be fair, all were shot JPEG. So this test is a “just for fun” JPEG test 🙂 Again, I will have more detailed tests in my RX100 review soon. For now, enjoy these and be sure to click the images for larger views and to see the true 100% crops!
Click images for large size with 100% crop – 1st shot is from the RX100 at f/4.5 – 2nd shot is form the Nikon V1 at f/4 and third is OM-D
Again, RX100, Nikon V1 and then OM-D – CLICK THEM FOR LARGER and 100% Crop! ALL JPEGS! But this one is not fair as the last shot (OM-D) was set to f/11 by accident. Still, you may find it useful for color, etc.
1st – RX100 – 2nd – Nikon V1 – 3rd – OM-D
one more set – f/4 on all cameras this time! – ALL JPEGS!
Now some high iso, tripod used, low light – ISO 3200 – JPEG only in this test (No RAW support for RX100 yet)
and below are full size direct OOC JPEG files from each camera just to test for detail and what you would get out of camera shooting JPEG. Click them for full size. Each camera was set to “Standard” color mode, same aperture. Camera chose exposure as this is how 95% of people use them.
It’s now June 2015 and the RX100 version IV is available to pre-order. And I’m in the throws of researching cameras. In the above comparisons the M43 IQ beats out the RX100 but only by a slim margin. It is especially evident in the last picture of the wall & screen mesh when viewed in photoshop at 100%. I’m unashamedly a pixel peeper and want the holy grail. I wonder what the difference is now in 2015 with the new iterations of both cameras, new sensors, processing engines etc? Do you think it’s still the same result ?
Sony’s inaccurate WB/color/tone curve just ruins it for me every time. I have an RX100 and even in post, you cannot completely fix the color output from the RX100 raw files. The nearly non-existent IS and horribly inconsistent exposure system are points of contention as well, but it’s still the color that really eats away at me.
Better and fairer if you had used a good quality lens on the OMD rather than the 12-50 kit lens which I hear is pretty crappy. I came here searching for a colour rendition comparison so still a very useful page for me, thank you very much.
The Sony looks overly contrasty in the JPEGs, particularly compared to the OM-D, which had a broader dynamic range and reveals more detail from quarter-tones through to the highlights.
I own both these cameras, and the Sony’s LCD viewfinder is all but useless in bright daylight; you simply cannot see what you are shooting. The OM-D on the other hand, has one of the best and most useful EVFs I’ve ever used.
I plan on selling my RX100…this camera does virtually nothing for me. And, there’s no magic in the files like there is with the OM-D.
Can anybody please help me compare between RX-100 & NEX-F3? Quite confuse bout it… THX
I wish to complement my Nikon D700 camera when I am tired to carry and I hesitate between R100 and Leica D-Lux 6. I do landscapes and macro pictures. I do use video. I like sharp and good quality images and need, even if it is occasionnaly, to be able to print at 300 pp (book).
Can I ask you Steve how the noise reduction and filter settings were on the Om-d?
I always have NR turned to OFF on ALL cameras I use.
thanks steve for the review on RX100. I bought mine a week ago..been doing some shooting and my goodness…this camera surpasses my expectations…i’m a hobbyist with OMD-EM5, X100 and old Canon 20D. So this will now be my carry around camera, thanks to your work on the review, I was convinced to buy it despite the relatively small sensor to the cameras I am used to. I actually like the RX100 images than OMD’s, X100 rendition of JPGs still the best in my opinion. It focuses fast, well much better than X100 but I haven’t missed shots as much as X100. The detail in the images are just breathtaking. Now…waiting for your review on RX1.
Hi Rafidea, I have the RX-100 and just bought the OMD E-M5. I’m not sure if I should keep it – and you’ve had a few months on me as another hobbyist. Preferences?
The 12-50mm is not the sharpest lens, anyway the OMD win here.
Thanks for this interesting comparison series. I found the V1 images sharper and the color tones warmer, to my eyes more pleasing. The stop sign in RX100 image doesn’t seem nearly as sharp as in the other images. The V1 wall image is the anomaly, very low on shadows. I suspect reducing EV might improve things quite a bit.
The RX100 is obviously the most portable of the lot, I’m not sure I could be satisfied with the short focal range 28-112mm and the slow lens speed f4.5 at max focal length. I would like to see some samples at maximum zoom, if I was only shooting wide angles I would be more tempted to get an LX7.
To me the best ones are all from the Nikon V1 – except perhaps the white wall and I’m not sure which of those looks ‘best’. I am really impressed with those V1 shots – and this is swaying me even more in favour of the Nikon V1. Logic tells me I should get micro 4/3 or something with an APSC sensor – but the choices are either not what I want (Fuji X100) or out of my price range (Fuji X1 Pro) or camera doesn’t appeal (Nex 7 – not sure why!). Whereas I have handled the Nikon V1 in a shop and loved it immediately, especially the viewfinder, size, shape and weight. But I still keep coming back to ‘format’ or sensor size – maybe I have to just forget this and look at the pics. I can understand why so many reviewers were frustrated at Nikon for not using a bigger sensor – just imagine the Nikon V1 with APSC! But then the camera would be a lot bigger I guess.
Price-wise I could get a second-hand E-P2 kit with 20mm panasonic lens, flash and evf – for the same price as the Nikon V1 with 10mm lens. But it seems that despite the bigger sensor, the micro 4/3 doesn’t necessarily have better IQ than the Nikon V1. Incidentally, I worked out that the Nikon V1 could also work out quite an expensive kit once you start adding things – like the grip and the flash gun. But then I can do without a flash and get Mr You-Know-Who’s grip. Anyway – am thinking more and more about the Nikon V1 as Leica X2 is out of reach, Leica X1 second hand is a possibility if I fork out a bit more but can’t quite fork out that much for a used camera! Or should I get the Ricoh gr digital iv, which has an even smaller sensor?!
The more I think about it, the more I miss 35mm – whichever camera you got, the film format was the same!
I have almost exact same feeling like you. I have been struggling with NEX-5N vs Nikon V1 for a couple of weeks.
I went to stores, looked at details of both, and some others. I found NEX-5N body and lens
are not very balance. I actually prefer NEX-F3 or NEX-6 body size(a little bigger), relevantly they are more balance with the lens. I feel V1 is more balanced with its lens too. I really like some of the fancy features on V1, such as 60FPS continues shooting, and super high speed video(400FPS).
Its fast auto focus is another important for me to consider because I will use the camera to take a lot of video. From all the pictures I think V1 pictures are as good as Sony’s. Some case I even prefer V1’s color tone.
Anyhow, the price for the V1 these few days dropped to $299 with 10-30mm lens at B&H. That just helped me make decision. I spent extra $150 to get 30-100mm lens.
Did you shoot these on a tripod? Or just hand held it? Thanks.
The little guy has little trouble keeping up with the Olympus and appears to beat it in terms of color depth and dynamic range in high ISO performance. The Nikon is overexposing outdoors something I’ve noticed out of most of their cameras but with clear tendencies to blow out highlights and unnatural colors. The Nikon is also adding its own color in the high ISO shot, just as the Leica does in the outdoors shot. RX100 appears to be quite good.
skycolour by nikon looks more natural, 2nd oly & 3rd sony,
IMO, the most natural and has pleasant exposure: 1st Sony, 2nd Oly, 3rd Nikon.
The Nikon has least natural color of the three cameras. It is overexposing quite a bit.
First picture of Nikon (red gravelway, at 100% crop) shows massive oversharpening with its telltale white lines at the top of the entrance and around the black box (?) at the top. RX100 seems to be comparable with the OMD at this level of light. Impressive.
I agree with the observation that there is not a lot to choose between the three when viewing OOC JPEGs (especially at the resolutions typically used online) with the default settings which is how the majority of people will probably use them. For most, it would be a matter of what features are most important.
Something is rotten about these comparisons:
1. The outdoor scenic shots were taken from inside a car through the windshield of a vehicle. In fact, you can even see the hood/bonnet in some shots as well as the reflection of the dash. You are asking us to compare images taken through a window that is so distorted that it actually blurs some pics from being taken too close to the curved left edge of the windshield?!
2. The high ISO comparisons are highly suspicious. Both the Sony and Nikon samples are supposed to be taken at the same ISO and aperture, but if you examine the EXIF, the Sony shutter speed is 1/125 while the Nikon is 1/50.
As always, question everything you see on the ‘net…
You must have missed it or just not read any of the text but it clearly said “Just For Fun” and also this:
“I will be doing new test shots for the RX100 review that are matched but thought some of you may enjoy seeing these, just for fun. ”
I did new comparisons in the RX100 review. With that said, I always use the same aperture and shutter speed where noted. I do NOT match exposure as each camera rates ISO differently, so matching exposure would throw them off. I ALWAYS, and have done so for years in comparisons, let the camera choose exposure as that is how 99% of people shooting these cameras will use them. That is fact. Why would I change the exposure from what the camera chose? That is not what someone would get it with in the real world.
Match aperture and ISO. Then camera can choose exposure as each camera exposes differently and rates ISO differently. Some cameras ISO 100 is equal to others at ISO 200. The image of the house was NOT through a window nor was the last one with full size images. So now you have a mix 🙂
just for your fun, only. Through some stuff at them, they’ll love it and it keeps your blog active. That seems to be the recipe of you and many on the net.
the way you’re presenting the cams is often misleading, wrong beta firmware (uups), through the window (uups, j4f), …
I wondered why the Nikon J1 is so blurry in the pictures, Now I know, don’t trust any of the pictures or messages you indicate or write.
There’s still a lot of room between crappy presentation, just 4 fun, good comparison and perfectionism.
Steve we need more fun comparison like these.
Most people who complaints and scrutinises just hog on websites like this to express their ‘expert’ opinion. Don’t we all always meet one or two of these experts in a party.
Keep up the fun work.
Thanks, will do for sure! How about a Nikon V1 vs RX1 vs Fuji X-E1? That is what is coming next 🙂
Well that’s that then. I am selling my x100 for the rx100. Half the price, and I get an extra consonant! In all seriousness, the value of the RX100, is that it actually IS a take everywhere camera. The X100, which I love, is not.
That being said, I still have the X-Pro for more critical shooting.
Steve – could you add to you future review of the RX100 a sample of two how do the photos look when down sampled in camera to some 6 – 10 Mpix? In particular higher ISO. One often does not need 20 Mpix photos from a vacation. Thank you.
clearly the olympus leads that.
x2 give a over-saturated wrong colour.
olympus quiet naturally saturated
nikon flashy colours, not resolving enough
sony flat colours resolving nearly as much as the olympus.
Yes, I agree. I think OM-D has a good balance. They are all good though so I think I would simply buy according to my needs.For versatility and full system with ability to take a wide variety of lenses I’d choose Olympus, Ease of use and for fast moving subjects I’d go Nikon. I wouldn’T personally go Sony unless it had an EVF but if you’re ok with that and want small size get the Sony. All great choices.Can’t go far wrong with any of these.
Is it my imagination or does there seem to be light fall off at the edges on the Sony ?
Steve’s full review is going to be very interesting eh?
The IQ of the Sony seems excellent especially comparing it to the Nikon.
However, I just love the character of the Nikon JPEGs – the OOC colours are amazing (those blues are so vibrant with no purple cast like in the Sony; the same goes for the greens comparing to the brownish greens of the RX-100). Nikon definitely looks inferior in the IQ department (corners are soft and mushy – probably due to the mediocre 10-30mm zoom lens used in the test).
The Olympus EM-5 seems to have the best of both worlds – excellent IQ (slightly better than Sony) and good colours (to my eyes they are less attractive than Nikon but better than Sony).
It doesn’t shock me that the RX does so well against the V1 (I am loving the detail from my RX, especially results from RAW using RPP), but what shocks me the most is the so-so performance from the OM-D + 12-50. Maybe its just the underachieving default JPEG settings or the JPEG engine overall. I’ve seen a lot of fantasticly sharp images from OM-D RAW conversions.
I agree about the look of the Oly shots. But this is the same as we have seen before – Olympus tends towards too strong sharpening with too large radius (and probably combined with too strong noise suppression that destroys the fine detail further). Things get much better when you shoot RAW – just check out Steve’s review of the OM-D.
But what is more important in my opinion with OOC JPGs are the color, tones and contrast. And there OM-D does a very good job. If I plan to print large I would shoot RAW anyhow.
Sorry about the boring subjects… Just got the cam. Some are blurred because it was getting dark. PP with snapseed for Windows…
Wow…I think some of you failed to click on the links or something. The actual full 100% views show the RX100 showing significantly more fine detail and no more noise than the V1. The only way I could come to the conclusion that the V1 looked better was to limit myself to the 680pix wide placeholders on here. At that resolution, the exceedingly strong default settings of the V1 looks almost good, whilst it looks quite nasty at 100% (very strong sharpening halos everywhere and over-the-top contrast level).
I’d even place most of these RX100 images as better than the OM-D, upon actually following these links and, again, not relying on the postage-stamp place-holders.
Just a note: In order to judge these you MUST click the photos for larger views, otherwise you are not seeing the 100% crops or the quality of the files.
I love the rx
true and the ipad first gen does not cut it…lol. At ISO 3200, the OM-D wins for the rest, the RX100 is just as good if not better (I prefer its rendering which is more ”slides” looking)
At full size the V1 is seriously outclassed, but for the multitude of buyers who never examine their pictures closely, the V1 may be a fine choice. They’ll look just as nice on the digital picture frame, on a tv screen, or printed for Grandma. The ooc images are vivid and contrasty and the camera is fast, accurate, compact and well made.
Of course, the Sony is all of those and gives better images. No viewfinder and no interchangeable lenses, but for a compact those aren’t expected and the lcd is uncommonly bright. I’d take the RX100 as a vacation camera in a flash. I was concerned whether I’d find the zoom range too limiting, but that much clean resolution gives plenty of room to crop. Wish it went a bit wider, but on trips I usually find myself working more at the tele end. And Sony makes very good panoramas.
Steve is absolutely right. When viewed at @100%, the RX100 is resolving more detail than the V1 & the OM-D! The RX100 100% crop on the 3rd set of images is a clear winner.
I can’t wait to read Steve’s full review! If the glass on this little guy lives up to the Zeiss name, this is going to be one heck of a pint-sized powerhouse.
Might even cannibalize the low-end of the NEX line?
Steve, the best comparison tests ever! Just for fun? I think you chose the test subjects VERY well.
Blue skies, clouds, landscape, textures on the wall. This beats test charts any day. definitely real world that’s for sure.
My impression is that all of these cameras do just great. You could use any of them and be MORE than happy. Nice work.
the sony is a beast
The Sony X100 RAW files are going to be the bomb.
I hope so too. The quality difference between RAW and JPEG is substantial with the NEX7, If the RX100 will be similar, its RAW files will be great.
Doesn’t the camera come with Sony raw software?
You have to download it, no CD in the box. The Sony software…I can not stand it. It is slow, cumbersome and gives me a headache just loading it up. I always wait for Adobe compatibility.
Actually, the software is in the camera…lol….plug it and install it, after you can download the RAW to you computer. I just got SNAPSEED for windows. Same as for the iphone, some effects are not as dramatic though.
in the “nice camera” pool.
Thanks for the useful and very timely comparison. The Sony and Olympus are very close in my view for detail. Hard to tell if the Olympus is slightly more contrasty OOC than the Sony for JPEGs that gives the impression of ever so slightly greater detail. Still, the Sony is remarkably good. The RAW story will tell the tale though once Adobe updates Camera Raw. Either way though, the Sony’s other virtues will tilt the scale in its favor for obtaining high quality images for screen and/or not overly large prints with a camera you can keep discretely in your pocket.
wow, the V1 really sucks. The edges are horribly smeared and soft. As expected… I’m glad I never got the V1.
That’s the car’s windshield distorting the image, not the camera. The pictures were taken from inside a car.
the Sony looks very good – not quite as detailed as the OM-D, but much better than the Nikon imho.
Quite a difference in the colour treatment in some of the shots – it would be good to have Steve’s opinion as to which is the truest.
looks like the RX100 put up a good fight against the 1series and the larger sensor OM-D there..
yep, I better start put in a pre-order on this beauty 😀
I have been a 4/3 user since 2004. It’s nice to see someone use the word “larger” when referring to a 4/3 sensor!
The RX100 is certainly an interesting camera. I was holding out for LX7/D-Lux 6, but I’m reconsidering that now. Thanks to Steve for the crazy comparison.
Interesting comparison. I know you get a lot of grief for doing these, but I for one appreciate them! Looks like the new Sony RX100 will be a nice pocketable companion for a DSLR or mirror less user looking to travel light. Would love to see some portraits next time…
Can you do a comparison with NEX-5N
they are from the same family and I am really curious how much it lag behind with 1/3 the senor size
Sony actually looks pretty good…really natural and not too overly processed. Wonder if it’s the same sensor as the NEX 7 which I ended up really not liking after using it extensively, terrible colors and lots of noise in the RAWS even at 100.
I mean same implementation. I know it’s not the same size.
Hey John! I’m with you. I was struck by how digital the V1 and OMD shots look in comparison. As to the NEX 7, I agree that the stock color needs to be worked to get the most of that sensor but at least it has great detail and a similar subtle rendering.
Still not sure I will be picking up an RX100 – want to see what Ricoh is going to do with the GRD V – but damn that little camera looks like a winner.
All three are quite close to the quality. I feel Nikon did a little better. I will bang on V1 because it is more versatile of the three. There are option to change lens, go super telephoto and super macro. To compromise all these function for a small sensor, Nikon has more to play. I am just waiting for a wider lens for landscaping photography. It is not a 100% fit for nature photography but it can deliver the job.
Thanks so much, Steve. I always love the crazy comparisons.
The V1 images are pleasant, contrasty and vivid, but they don’t have anywhere near the detail of the others and the high-iso shot is pretty bad. They still look quite nice overall, but the Sony gets far more from a sensor of the same size.
What blows me away is how close the Sony is to the Olympus. The colors are a bit more muted, but seem quite accurate, and that can easily be adjusted to taste. They also look like they could stand a bit of sharpening, also easily adjusted. But wow, the detail that little guy gives! It seems able to use all 20mp to advantage. I’m also impressed that the lens is giving decent sharpness at the edges even at f4. The OM-D is better, but not as much as I expected, and in some shots I’d pick the Sony for overall sharpness, especially that last landscape.
I expected the big difference to be the ISO 3200 shot, but even there I’m not sure I’d pick the OM-D, as the colors look to be losing some saturation. The Sony might have slightly more noise, but it’s fine, even luminance noise. I can live with that.
The sharpness of the Leica is terrific, but I’m bugged again by the color. That lovely warmth is pretty, but never looks accurate to me. Damn, the Sony is calling to me. I can’t imagine paying three times as much for the X2.
For those who are getting tangled up, the OM-D has the biggest sensor, with the RX-100 the same size as the V1. However, they are very different, with the Nikon sensor 10 mp and made by Aptina, the Sony is 20 mp, made by Sony, and the Olympus is 16 mp and reportedly also made by Sony. Sony sensors continue to amaze me.
Thanks for sharing Steve… I think the Sony is less contrasty than the Nikon, which I prefer, you see more nuances. The Sony seems warmer ( contrary from a previous reply). Just got my RX 100 in the mail, snapped about 30 pics today. Looking at this, if younlook at the form factor, the rx100 is better suited to my needs than the v1 and the images are ofbequal quality with slightly different rendering. The RX100 is definitely my backup from now on, we will see what leica has up its sleeves to attach my M lenses to… The rx 100 will be fine for 90% of my traveling needs… We will see how frustrating the remaining 10% is… 🙂
I’m kinda blown away by how good the V1 is. I’m in the process of selling my Canon gear, and am sticking with the A65, but man, I’m liking the JPEG color rendering. Surprisingly, the Oly has almost a ‘haze’ over the first few shots. My epl-2 sometimes does that as well. Weird.
But again, V1. Wow!
Wasn’t the ding on that one the low light performance? At what point does low light become a problem for the V1?
V1…agreed. Wow! Never would have thunk it!
I really like the colour of the Nikon. And of course they’ve always been known for their great metering, and AF!
@donthasslethehoff low light performance of the V1 is relative to your experience or expectations. I have a V1 and personally would rate it’s hi iso as just fine for my needs. I have come from a D80 and from film before that, so in comparison to tmax 3200 or 1600 print film or the D80, higher iso with the V1 is great. I’m happy to leave it on auto/3200 iso. Hopefully they will release an affordable 50mm equiv f1.4 lens with VR and it’s low light performance will get spectacular.
People who have come from newer sensors (than the D80) may not agree with my point of view, but they may also have enough money to buy whatever they want.
V1 looks a little ove-rprocessed to me compared to the others, otherwise it seems like a good camera.
Hi John, could be, but in practice I won’t be taking side by side comparisons so it won’t matter. I’ve made my purchase so I can just get on with taking pictures, don’t have to worry for a good while I hope. People should be happy with the image quality out of any of these cameras.
It seems like OMD has better DR than the other two, though not surprisingly since the sensor is much larger.
Well….looks like the RX100 is finally the camera to replace my Canon S90 for ‘throw in the wife’s purse, go everywhere P&S’. The S90 was great but this large sensor RX100 will be a no compromise do everything camera when I don’t want to carry my XPro/5D2.
Those are my thoughts as well – I kept looking at the S100 until I noted this coming out. Only issue I have is the price being significantly more than other direct competitors.
Going Japan next week though – do you reckon its cheaper there?
Well, the comparison depends where you’re from don’t it? I have found that Japanese camera prices in Japan are certainly not lower than Hong Kong, Australia or, in some cases, Shanghai. But then, I just bought a Leica 25mm f1.4 in Germany for around $500 more than the lowest eBay price ( I needed to shoot there and then). Its about what the locals can afford to pay.
I own an RX100 and gotta say it completely blows away my X10 in IQ and Autofocus, the build quality is amazing too. This looks to be it, the camera line that could allow Sony to finally muscle itself as king of the sub $1k camera. I also own a Leica M9(yes), Sony Nex 5n and Nikon D7000, the RX100 is filling the niche that the X10, S95, XZ1 and others have failed to do so. Only the Fuji F200exr back in early 2009 came to remotely the same amount of (whoa thats a pocket cam?) levels of IQ, even then its not even close. The RX100 is the death of ‘1/1.7-2/3″ sensor premium compacts’, only a 2/3″ BSI could remotely entertain competing, and even then at 14mp or lower.
RX100 = best quality that will fit into a shirt pocket. I wish it were wider, like the Panny LX5, but then there’s that sweep panaroma. I wish it had an EVF, but the screen is bright enough to use in daylight. I downloaded the manual from Sony’s website, and there are lot’s of features not really mentioned in the manual! Of course we’re all used to resorting to third party manuals even with Canon. I have yet to try mine in low light environments, but the detail blows me away in daylight. The megapixel race is over. We won.
This is great, a pocket camera, with a very usable lens, and great IQ. Its not going to replace my main camera, but it will be great for everything else in between
Aha – you finally included a full street sign for me (in the 2nd set of images) – thank you!!
Hmmm… in your crop of the RX100, my tired eyes can almost make out the street name (‘Long XX?) and part of the number on the building xxx-49?)
I can’t make out any of the street name or building number on the V1 shot.
And likewise I can’t make out the name or number from the OM-D shot either.
BTW – my RX100 just arrived and I’m looking forward to doing similar comparisons between the V1 and RX100. In particular, I love using the V1 with 30-110 lens (300mm equiv) for candids. The RX100 only reaches that far using digital zoom. I know that conventional wisdom says that you shouldn’t use digital zoom, but with Sony’s techno-know-how and the MP count of the sensor… well… how can I resist that ‘fun comparison!’ 😀
Because the OMD has a larger sensor it has a shallower depth of field at similar apertures to the RX100 and V1 hence the sign will be clearer in the smaller sensor cameras as the point of focus is fairly near to the photographer.
I’m not sure that the DoF would explain it. In that particular series, Steve mentions that the OM-D shot was taken at f11 (or, the equiv. of f22 in 35mm terms). The RX100 and V1 shots were taken at f4 (or about f12 in 35mm terms with respect to DoF).
Maybe the un-readable sign in the OM-D shot is due more to that particular lens being out of its ‘sweet-spot’ for sharpness???
On the OMD diffraction would set in from f/5.9, reducing image quality:
Hello Steve – Can you add to this comparison a few pics showing the avility to get the defocused background showing that 3D effect with the same cameras and lenses.
The Nikon V1 seems much warmer in colours compared to the Sony RX100. Especially if you look at the blue clouds. Is that in the settings? Can you get the same warm colours with Sony? I thought they both had the same sensor.
Some preliminary advice in the forums indicate that the default RX100 settings need the sharpening at +2. In other words the jpeg engine is not set too strong, that can yield kinder portraits, who needs a dermatological exam, better some feelings. I am confused in that the pictures in the article show the RX100 as softer but when you click on the pics and see them larger in full res the RX100 looks sharper.
At any rate, the RX100 looks great.
The RX100 holds its own really well, imo, but it’s striking how different the color balance is between them, particularly in the last two sets.
Wow, I am amazed how the little RX100 owns the stage up there… Give me any amount of money and I would actually buy the Sony, preferring it to any camera up there. Say what you want about megapixel races, but resolution is resolution – you can finetune colour etc. later after your taste anyway. Or in camera. Sick shit, we live in a cool age for photographers 🙂
The Oly looks the best, but imho, the V1 looked at least as good as the Sony, if not better. Odd that. They’re both the 1″ sensor, but the V1 has half the pixels. They just look cleaner.
Is it just me?
Harry, this might just come down to personal preference. I prefer the Sony images by a wide margin as they are not so contrasty yet hold more detail than the others. I love that the highlights are controlled and the shadows open. A file like that gives you much more room to make edits, unless you want the camera to do all the work for you and enjoy the final output of the jpeg. Much positive has been said about Olympus jpegs but to me the Sony just nails the blues in a more realistic rendering. To each their own and it is nice to have so many options for a compact these days.
Actually, I feel the same. The pictures from V1 looked as good as the more expensive RX100.
Now V1 with 10-30mm lens price has dropped to almost steal, $299 at B&H.
I definitely will go with V1 because it has more potential with different lens unless some one really have issue with the size.
Thank you very much Steve. I have to say that I am impressed by the level of detail (just the right amount of sharpening) and color balance of the RX100. High iso is great too – in particular realizing that this is 20 MPix camera …
Looking forward to a full review. But so far the RX looks really good.
Seems like you can’t go wrong with any of them just for image quality. I am guessing every review of any good camera from now on will end with; “…depending on what you are looking for.”
True. But you still have to pay for quality.
Although an interesting comparison, kind of thought it was of little relevance given that both the O-MD and the Nikon V1 have interchangeable lenses… Yeah yeah, I get that the idea is to see how a little so called point and shoot stacks up against the the mirror-less crowd but still… That said, on my monitor it would appear that despite the larger 1″ sensor in the RX100, that the O-MD led the group in terms of image quality with the Nikon next up?!? I too am very impressed with the tiny little RX100 however.
The Olympus’ sensor is bigger than both the Sony and the Nikon, if I’m not mistaken. And, aren’t the Sony/Nikon’s both a 1″ sensor?
Just a point of clarification!
Actually, the O-MD has a 17.3mm x 13mm sized sensor which equates in inches to less than 3/4 of an inch (.681). That said, the Sony RX100 breaks new ground with Sony opting to put such a relatively huge sensor in what is essentially a glorified (albeit seemingly amazing) point-and-shoot camera! In comparison to the Nikon V1 which has a sensor that is significantly smaller than the O-MD (13.2mm x 8.8mm), the Sony’s 1″, 20MP sensor is essentially TWICE the size!
On the other hand, perhaps the sensor size is measured in a different way than in which I’m calculating! Yikes…
Sensor size nomenclature is VERY confusing – forget all the 1″, 2/3″, 1/1.7″, 4/3, etc – the only way to make sense of it all is to compare actual sensor dimensions.
Sensor sizes explained:
It’s the diameter of the white circle!
Don’t link to Dpreview article as it is cheating and leaving the only factors what matters off, a digital technology and electronics.
The dpreview article is written by bunch of 35mm admirers who can’t accept DSLR is dead in the water.
OM-G! You people! Sensor size! sensor size! Enough already It’s NOT the point.
It doesn’t matter whether you get there by car, horse,on foot or starship Enterprise as long as you get there! ALL of these cameras get there.. and can enjoy the party.
I agree 100%
Unless you’re shooting a pro gig, there really is no need to focus so much on a sensor in a camera. Just have fun and shoot shoot shoot.
Despite ~2X the pixel count compared to the V1, the size of the RX100 sensor is 13.2mm x 8.8mm too.
Thank goodness! Now i know that I can sleep well tonight. 🙂
Sony’s RX100 sensor size is 1.0″ (13.2 x 8.8mm) Exmor™ CMOS sensor, aspect ratio 3:2, confusing.
Yes. The Sony and Nikon will share the same sensor as Sony make all Nikons senors. The processing will be different though. Usually Nikon do a better job but in this case I prefer the Sony from these samples.
The 4/3 OMD sensor has about twice the area of the 1″ sensors. The 1″ sensors are nearly twice the area of a Fuji x10 which is about 30% larger than a Canon G12/S100 etc.
An APS-C sensor (most DSLRs) are about 30% larger in area than 4/3 and full frame is nearly twice the area of APS-C.
See here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sensor_sizes_overlaid_inside_-_updated.svg
Aptina makes Nikon V1 sensor .
BTW , Thank You for the cool comparison Steve. I have been enjoying my Nikon V1 for 10 months now.
Looking forward to your full review of the rx-100.
Sign up here folks! Advanced studies in the molecular science of sensor sizes as applied to small cameras. 🙂 sorry, I can’t resist.
RX-100 sensor is not bigger than OM-D…
Sensor size comparisons may ultimately turn out to be be as endless as the universe itself. 🙂
All that matters is that the RX100 sensor is smaller then my mico 4/3s sensors, which means I’m more of a man than all RX100 owners!
for a P&S the RX100 looks pretty good, I think I’ll be putting in pre-order