How do high-end compacts like the Sony RX100 mk5 compare to DSLR's

>>3108524
The sensor is less than half the size, what do you think?

File: 1386005355823.jpg (28KB, 801x534px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 801x534px

>>3108524
>high-end compacts

>>3108526
No-one is disputing that it's worse, but I was hoping for better specifics. I need a compact, but I'm not dropping close to 1k on one if the image quality is any more than noticeably worse

They are worse in nearly every way than an entry level dslr you can buy for half the price. The rx100 series are essentially toys for rich tourists.

>>3108531
Would you say they're overrated because of the video feature, taking focus away from the lacking regular photo quality?

>>3108534

Slow autofocus, slow lens, tiny sensor with lousy image quality in anything besides bright daylight.

Ricoh GR is the only compact that can keep up with a same price range DSLR when it comes to quality

>>3108537
So, for quick shots when I go mountain biking, it shouldn't be too shabby? I'll still be using my main camera for most jobs anyway

>>3108524
good until iso 1600.
so basically m43 tier and older canon apsc.

File: 1481127678000_891105.jpg (75KB, 750x750px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 750x750px

>>3108524
I had a RX100 mk3, compared to a a6000 and A7 with kit/low cost SEL/FE lens? image quality is noticeably better than the a6k and comparable to A7 except in low light situations. When Zeiss/G/GM lenses is used on those body though the RX won't even come close. But the main selling point is it's better than all the PnS cameras while having the same size anyway. If you want true high end compacts that can compete with DSLR, get a RX1/rII.

>>3108527
They do exist.

>>3108546
You're right, but I'd never break the 1000eur mark for a compact. Never worth

>>3108550
I occasionally see people selling used RX1 for about $900-1k where I live, ~$1.1k on ebay and I always tempted to get one even though I have a FF camera already. I think they're very much worth it at that price. The 35mm/f2 Zeiss lense alone already cost that much so just think of it as buying the lense and get a dedicated body to go with that lens for free. Ez switching between 2 cameras seems nice when it's so compact.

>>3108524
The RX100 V has some serious burst rate and AF performance and more. It's a fun little camera.

But while decent for its size, the lens and sensor size can't really match a good combination on APS-C or especially FF for image quality.

>>3108546
>image quality is noticeably better than the a6k and comparable to A7

you're full of shit my dude.

>Ricoh GR II
>Panasonic LX100
>Fuji X100F

the only compacts worth a damn

>>3108530
> I need a compact, but I'm not dropping close to 1k on one if the image quality is any more than noticeably worse
The RX100 V is about as good as it gets on a compact.

Sure, there is the RX1R II which will actually do FF - like images because it is a FF camera... but you pretty much might as well get an A7 II or A7R II.

>>3108537
> Slow autofocus
Not true at all. The RX100 V has very serious AF capabilities, better than most entry-level DSLR for sure.

> lousy image quality in anything besides bright daylight
Also nope. It's a pretty good match for APS-C overall, despite the sensor's size.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IamlzZt-Imc

>>3108591
None of these is anywhere near a match for the RX100 V.

>>3108595
This might be the worst variety of Sony shilling on /p/

>>3108598
Still contains more true information than the post preceding it.

>>3108593
>Also nope. It's a pretty good match for APS-C overall, despite the sensor's size.

It's actually worse than basically every APS-C camera ever, with very few exceptions. . The Canon 20D, 13 fucking years old, smashes it.

Go shill your delusion elsewhere, I'm sorry you got swindled into spending $1000 on a toy.

>>3108585
When compared to kit lenses nigger. It IS better with Zeiss optics when there's enough light.

>>3108591
X100f is not a compact. I would wait for the successor to the x70 if it ever appears.

>>3108622
> The Canon 20D, 13 fucking years old, smashes it.
Absolutely no chance against the rx100 v. The AF is nowhere near a match, burst rate and buffer isn't a match, IQ isn't a match, video and general capabilities aren't.

It's halfway comparable in some ways to the first rx100 if you put a really good prime on that 20D.

>>3108642
>Canon 20D
>Absolutely no chance against the rx100 v
>halfway comparable in some ways to the first rx100 if you put a really good prime on that 20D
In comparisons to mk2 and mk3 I didn't had the impression that iq is getting much better. I was able to convince myself of thinking there are only new features, gimmicks that aren't worth the price difference. Still mk1 user here.

Please, lead me to my new faith, master!

>>3108642
>>3108658
http://www.imaging-resource.com/cameras/sony/rx100/vs/sony/rx100-v/image-quality

I'd say, mk1 is still justifiable. Especially since this is only my everyday carry camera, where it is badly treated too.

>>3108591
Sure, if you're a hipster street shotter

>>3108593
Sonyfaggotry at its finest.
AF better than entry level DSLR, lol the delusion is strong with you.
>>3108524
You are better off using your phones camera, the crappy image quality is about the same. At least you get more than one use out of the phone.

>>3108658
> I didn't had the impression that iq is getting much better
I don't remember on what model(s) they changed the lens, but the newest lens on the RX100 V is definitely better than the one on the original RX100.

The sensor also gained slightly better low light capability and a bit of DR - but it's nothing monumental in good light on that end.

> I was able to convince myself of thinking there are only new features, gimmicks that aren't worth the price difference.
Not to me. The buffer and AF alone is worth it already, and there's also the EVF, faster + fully electronic shutter modes, WLAN & ports and many more features.

But if you only care about IQ it's probably better to simply buy a FF or MF camera next.

>>3108680
Canicuck at its finest. So delusional

>muh DSLR is so good there's no way Sony technology can make smaller sensor size better no way I refuse to believe XDDD

https://www.wired.com/2016/10/new-sony-rx100-camera-adds-worlds-fastest-autofocus/

>>3108680
> AF better than entry level DSLR, lol the delusion is strong with you.
Easily so. The V has very quick PDAF with a lot more coverage and reliability than some entry-level DSLR turd.

Sure enough, from the Canon 80D to the Nikon 5D you actually do get more reliable AF systems on DSLR. But apart from them obviously not being compact cameras, even these don't actually generally have the coverage and burst rates this little thing has with AF fully enabled. Basically, it's not perfect yet, but it's a little monster anyhow.

>>3108680
Video of burst and af incoming
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ScsDFZ8DQQU
Here a vid to eye af
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ao8o2mLQOj4

>>3108693
I'd say Sony AF is reliable with native lenses.

>>3108627

"Image quality" has a very specific meaning and has nothing to do with lenses you mong.

>>3108591
Look at some fucking sample shots for God's sake. You're retarded. These are nothing compared to the RX100 V

File: Снимок экрана 2017-07-07 в 18.47.54.png (317KB, 578x296px) Image search: [Google]

317KB, 578x296px

>>3109155
>These are nothing compared to the RX100 V
If we are talking about how shitty the iq can be.

Get a Ricoh or don't bother with compacts.

>>3109190
will there be a new one coming out this year?

>>3109187
Wow like 1/2 a stop for something that fits in a pocket vs something that doesn't. That's epic dude. You want to exchange your phone for a brick while you're at it?

RX100 = traveldad cam

>>3109197
it's easily the cam I'd tell my parents to buy, but that's not a bad thing

>>3109197
I bought it for my mom and she actually uses it since it just barely fits in her purse.

>>3109194

Keep moving those goal posts my man.

>>3109187
what website is that?

>>3108531
That entry level DSLR with kit zoom does not fit your pocket.

In good light the RX100 also take roughly the same quality (often better) images as your average canon rabal with kit lens.

IDK about you, but for me that seems like a decent trade-off.

File: la-et-mn-x-men-peter-dinklage-five-memorable-movies-20140523.jpg (535KB, 2048x1355px) Image search: [Google]

535KB, 2048x1355px

>>3108524
>high-end
>MSRP $1000

>>3109271

Pocketability is extremely overrated marketing babble,and the rx100 is pushing the limits of what I would want to put in my pocket anyway. It's a bulky little fucker.

File: Снимок экрана 2017-07-07 в 18.47.19.png (321KB, 578x294px) Image search: [Google]

321KB, 578x294px

>>3109228
dpreview

>>3109288
yeah sure add on a red dot and increase the price by 10x why not

>>3108546
>No viewfinder
>In the garbage

>>3109314
that cropped m43 is shit at 6400 anyway.

>>3109194
t. sony shill

>>3109187
>>3109314
The camera with twice as many smaller pixels looks more pixelated at extremely high ISOs when you crop to 1:1 rather than equal fractions of the image and don't even apply correction for color noise?

Who'd have known!

Try the same fraction of the image frame with correction. Or just, you know, don't push the ISO beyond what either camera can actually do.

>>3109334
>extremely high ISOs
>beyond what either camera can actually do
>6400
Top level of "ninuzhno" lol