Ron Martinsen's Photography Blog

Showing posts with label XQ1. Show all posts

Tuesday, July 22, 2014

Sony RX100 III - The Best Quality Point and Shoot I’ve Ever Tested (Review Part II of II)

Sony Cybershot DSC-RX100 III Digital Camera - Selfie Mode

This is my third time reviewing a Sony RX100 series camera and I’ve reviewed quite a few Sony’s over the years. I always fall in love with the size and sexiness of the RX100’s, yet I always find myself at the end of the review feeling a bit underwhelmed thinking – is that it?

Don’t get me wrong, this is an excellent camera, but I immediately ask myself “for nearly $800 price tag (at the time this was originally written), is this really the best bang for the buck?” With that in mind, I did a search on B&H on July 21, 2014 to see what else is out there for the $800 – $900 USD range:

Canon EOS Rebel SL1 DSLR Camera with 18-55mm Lens Deluxe Kit
Probably a better video camera, but bulky and only native ISO 6400

Nikon D5300 DSLR Camera with 18-55mm Lens
Good camera with great features, but it’s bulky and this is definitely no Zeiss lens

Nikon 1 J4 Mirrorless Digital Camera with 10-30mm and 30-110mm Lenses
While these always underwhelm me too, at least you get decent interchangeable lenses

Nikon 1 V2 Mirrorless Digital Camera with 1 NIKKOR VR 10-30mm f/3.5-5.6 Lens Kit
Definitely more my style than he J4, but bulky and last gen technology

Canon EOS Rebel T5i DSLR Camera Kit with EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 and 75-300mm f/4.0-5.6 III Lenses
This is a pretty good camera with great video performance, but alas still bulky

Leica D-Lux 6 Edition 100 Digital Camera
Sexy, small and a Leica – hum, do we have a contender?

Fujifilm X-E2 Mirrorless Camera Body Only
Definitely better than the Sony, but you still need lenses and they aren’t cheap!

In this search, I definitely felt that only the Leica 100 stood a chance at really comparing well against all the things that make the Sony RX100’s great – including size. I haven’t reviewed that one yet, so I could be wrong, but it’s clear that this Sony is Leica priced!

The answer is that if you start comparing size and features, there’s a lot of great choices that are significantly less than the RX100 III. This begs the question that when you ignore price, what else is really a viable alternative to the Sony RX100 III, and funny enough one of the best answer is the previous generation Sony RX100 series which are now much more affordable!

RX100 ($498 on July 21, 2014)
See my RX100 Review

RX100 II ($649 on July 21, 2014)
See my RX100 II Review

There’s also other great cameras like the Fujifilm X20, Canon G16, Canon s120, and so much more in the sub $800 price range. So this begs the question – is the Sony RX100 III really worth nearly $800 when even it’s own predecessors are so similar and cheaper?

Image Quality

Now that I’ve beaten the price issue to death, let’s talk about the RX100 III vs its predecessors and the competition when it comes to image quality.

The image quality of this sensor is excellent for its size, but like its predecessors the in-camera noise reduction is pretty aggressive. At higher ISO’s it does a much better job than previous versions but I still I felt compelled to disable it for most (not all) of my bookshelf tests so you can see detail captured by the sensor.

The gallery contains a sample of images with and without noise reduction so you can better assess the image quality. For me, I prefer to do my own noise reduction with a product like Noiseware and then sharpen the images myself afterwards. Naturally, if you only process the RAW images you’ll do something similar too (even if it is just Lightroom/ACR only noise reduction).

With that said, here’s a close up of an image with noise reduction at ISO 125 that shows that this is a pretty decent point and shoot:

Click here for the full-size original

That’s pretty darn good for a camera that can easily fit in a top pocket or purse, so the next question becomes – how about high ISO performance? Well here’s what you get with noise reduction turned on at ISO 6400 (12,800 is pretty gnarly):

f/2.8 @ 8.8 mm, 1/15, ISO 6400, Noise Reduction On - Click for full size original

f/2.8 @ 8.8 mm, 1/15, ISO 6400, Noise Reduction OFF - Click for full size original

At web sites like 580x387 above or click to see 800x533,
you'll certainly be pleased with the results
ISO 6400 f/2.8 @8.8 mm, 1/15, ISO 640, Noise Reduction ON

However, pixel peepers will probably feel like ISO 3200 is as high as they want to go. That’s pretty good for a point and shoot, so I feel confident that most will be pleased with the image quality of this camera. The Zeiss lens is good too, so if that’s important to you then perhaps it’s worth the price.

To see more real world images, please be sure to see the first part of this review here.

Compared to the RX100 II and RX100

In my pixel peeping of all of my files on these three cameras I’ve noticed that the RX100 III has a much brighter and sharper lens which results in shorter exposure times and much more crisp images. This becomes significantly noticeable at full zoomed in, so the RX100 III is without question the sharpness king of the three.

I definitely think that the RX100 III is the best “all things considered” version of the RX100’s yet. Sony keeps taking a great formula and refining it with customer feedback to make it even better. Improvements like the full tilt display that allows selfies and a battery saving electronic viewfinder are sure to please to RX100 fans, and the image quality is definitely impressive for its size.

Conclusion

While I do struggle with the price, you are getting best of class performance for the premium price. If you just can’t get yourself to spend that much money, but love the compact size then consider now more affordable previous generation Sony RX100’s. They were great cameras that were overpriced at the time that I reviewed them, but now they are much more inline with the competition. In real world usage scenarios (i.e., small prints and mostly web size usage) I think some will have rather saved the extra $200 – $400, but for the pixel peepers the RX100 III will be your best bet.

I will say that the image quality is certainly significantly better than my x20, the LF1, XQ1 or G16. If you are trying to decide between those then know that the RX100 III is the hands down image quality winner. It’s also much SIGNIFICANTLY better than the competition at video too. It’s no DSLR or mirrorless camera killer, but it is very good.

For those who also can stomach a larger form factor, I think you’ll be much happier with a mirrorless or fixed lens big sensor camera when you do image overall quality comparisons.

In the end Sony has created something that is outstanding for the size – if you can afford it. As a result, I have to recommend it as the best compact camera I’ve reviewed at the time this article was written.

Where to order

Click here to learn more or order on the B&H web site. You can also save some money by ordering the cheaper Sony RX100 or RX100 II and still get a great camera.

Disclosure

If you make a purchase using links found in this article, I may make a commission. It doesn’t cost you a penny more, but it does help to support future articles like this.

Thursday, January 2, 2014

REVIEW: Fujifilm XQ1-The Ultimate Compact Point & Shoot? (Review Part II of II)

In the first installment of my Fujifilm XQ1 review entitled REVIEW: Fujifilm XQ1–A Canon s120 Killer or a Compact X20?, I posed the question if this is a Canon s120 killer or a Compact x20. The reason for this comparison was deliberate because Fujifilm users want to know if it is really a compact x20. Performance-wise, I’d say yes, but I’d also say that if you can handle the size of the x20 you’ll be much more satisfied with it than the XQ1. Canon users who lust for the gorgeous in-camera results from Fujifilm cameras will naturally want to know if they should get this camera or the s120, and in that case I’d have to recommend the s120 over the XQ1 because of s110/s120 touchscreen allows for quick autofocus adjustments on these compact cameras.

Personally I think the camera makers have gone overboard in cutting down cost and number of physical buttons, so no camera I’ve used is more irritating than the XQ1 due to this fact. Sure, it creates images that I prefer to its Canon S series counterparts, but the pain of changing the focus point via the E-Fn menu (which is a touch screen press on the s110/s120) is a showstopper for me. I couldn’t live with this camera, and even my non-geek wife found it annoying compared to her iPhone which allows for this functionality.

Bookshelf Test

The following shots are done on a tripod with all camera default settings except I do enable RAW when possible (ISO’s above 6400 are JPEG only). The full gallery of bookshelf images can be found at http://photos.ronmartblog.com/fujifilm/xq1/e254ef4e7, but I’ve included a few noteworthy images below. Please keep in mind that the images are not crooked – the camera is level, but the bookshelf has sagged over time due to weight so I use camera level instead of adjusting the camera for a level shot of the bookshelf. There’s also distortion when fully zoomed out to 6.4mm. It should also be noted that at 6.4mm I can’t get my close enough on a tripod to just get the one shelf, hence the extra space shown. Given the 4:3 aspect ratio of the images, I also can’t get just one shelf if I put the blue Mastery book to the left and the Excel book to the right as I try to do for all of my bookshelf shots.

f/1.8 @ 6.4 mm, 0.8s, ISO 100, No Flash
As is the case with most cameras, the zoomed out results offer the best overall results

f/4.9 @ 25.6 mm, 5.3s, ISO 100, No Flash
Zoomed in all the way is still good, but inferior to the wide angle dynamic range and sharpness

My findings were as follows:

After ISO 800 the in-camera noise reduction is so bad that it really destroys the images. As a result, my advice is to set Noise Reduction to –2 (Low) and use a product like Noiseware for the best results. Doing this will allow you to go to ISO 3200 and 6400 in a pinch and still get usable photos.
I found the image quality to be unusable after ISO 1600 due to horrible in-camera Noise Reduction and the quality was mediocre with external noise reduction after ISO 3200.
ISO 6400 and 12,800 are unusable with in-camera noise reduction and are barely useable with external noise reduction, so I consider this to really to be a camera with a maximum ISO of 3200 (1600 max with NR = 0).
The X20 has what appears to my eyes as one stop better high ISO performance (meaning that it goes to ISO 6400 with NR = –2 and it is still usable).
The Canon s120/G16 offer two stops of high ISO noise improvement over the XQ1 (meaning that ISO 800 on the XQ1 looks similar to ISO 3200 on the s120/G16 to my eyes).

Here’s a real world example of a shot taken at ISO 500 that looks okay from a distance, but if you click to look full view you’ll see massive artifacts that destroy the image:

f/1.8 @ 6.4 mm, 1/15, ISO 500

At 6.4mm, the 1/15 sec should have been sufficient stabilization to eliminate camera shake (and in fact it was shot from a fairly stable chest tripod. However, details on the ornaments are void even at this low ISO, so I think this camera will frustrate users who depend on it for important events.

Based on these findings, I was very disappointed with the image quality of the XQ1 so I’d recommend the following cameras in this order over this camera:

However, I prefer the in-camera color and processing of the Fujifilm over the Canon and Panasonic equivalents. The Sony is very similar in terms of in-camera performance.