Page 1 of 1

RX-1 vs FF SLR: Please Pile On!

Posted: Wed Feb 20, 2013 9:54 pm
by digitalhecht
Looking for some input/advice... I first bought an RX-1 (and love it) a few months ago. Having a bit of buyer's remorse (due to price only), I bought an RX-100 shortly after that to compare. The thought was to return the RX-1 within the 45 day return period ( if I found the RX-100 had similar low light performance. (Unfortunately, the RX-1 got a TINY nik on the LCD. So with such a high price tag, I didn't dare try to return it with this minor flaw. A shame as it's otherwise like new.) Prior to both of these models, I have had an a65 with 4 Konica/Minolta lenses (Sigma macro, Konica Beercan, Konica 50mm prime, Rokinon fisheye-all used from eBay). I've been generally really happy with the results. So as much as I love the RX-1's IQ, I am considering selling it off AND the a65 kit/lenses to finance a Canon D6. (I would also be able to replace a few of the lenses with used EF lenses.) I can't afford to buy the D6 before selling the RX-1 and a65. My quandary is this: I am afraid, that despite providing the versatility I'd like, that the 6D may disappoint in IQ or even low light, compared the the RX-1, thereby leaving me with buyer's remorse a second time. I'd love to hear some of your thoughts. (The alternative is to keep the RX-1 and a65 just sell the RX-100.) Please, lay it on me, fellow Sonyites!

Re: RX-1 vs FF SLR: Please Pile On!

Posted: Wed Feb 20, 2013 10:47 pm
by David Kilpatrick
I tested the RX-1 alongside the 6D with Sigma 35mm f/1.4, so a very similar combo. I took similar images on both cameras, including using extreme raw adjustments and working at high ISOs. I can tell you there's no real difference at all, except the slightly higher res of the RX-1. Both are equally good and the 6D files are MUCH better than earlier Canon files, free from banding and stuff. However to match the RX-1 you need a lens like the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 - very few lenses can match the Zeiss, but this one is possibly even better (geometry).


Re: RX-1 vs FF SLR: Please Pile On!

Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2013 2:26 am
by digitalhecht
Thanks for your reply, David. I had forgotten another consideration with holding onto the RX-1 was the added expense of $450 (US) for the EVF.

Re: RX-1 vs FF SLR: Please Pile On!

Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2013 11:29 am
by artington
I jumped ship to Canon for their lenses, in particular the 24mm TSE (although I have retained 3 decent alpha lenses so may return some day). Initially, I had the Canon 5D MkII which I didn't like much, mainly because of its ergonomics, which didn't suit me, and the poor high ISO performance. When the 6D came out, I traded in the 5D II as I was particularly attracted by the wifi capability with the EOS Remote, which enables easy remote focusing and triggering with awkward tripod positioning. This works fantastically well. The other big improvements have been the ergonomics - smaller camera, better located on-off switch - and the high-ISO performance, which is brilliant (3200 no problem for me). The big surprise has been the significantly better IQ compared with the 5D MkII. The low light focusing (at -3 EV) and the highly accurate and sensitive centre point provide the icing on the cake. So unless you need a large array of focus points for action photography it is, to my way of thinking, a better choice than the 5D MkIII. I have been delighted with it, more so than with any other camera I have used, including my once cherished a900.