Thread: Quick comparison : RX100 vs EOS 7D vs IXUS 870

I'm enjoying my new RX100. I just made some test shots between it and my "serious" camera, an EOS 7D. Also I added my previous compact into the mix, an Canon IXUS 870 IS. Suffice to say that the RX100 comes out looking good.

Comparison at ISO1600 : RX100, 7D and IXUS870 | Flickr - Photo Sharing! ISO1600

Comparison at ISO800 : RX100, 7D and IXUS870 | Flickr - Photo Sharing! ISO 800

Comparison at ISO100 : RX100, 7D and IXUS870 | Flickr - Photo Sharing! ISO 100

The RX100 and 7D shots were made from RAWs, processed with DxO Optics Pro. No NR or sharpening applied (which is maybe why they seem a little soft).

Interesting that the 7d does not control noise as well as the RX100, especially chroma noise

Cheers!

I would love to have someone who understands the geeky stuff about cameras explain to me why in this test, the RX100 looks as good or better than the Canon, but so many shots I see taken by the little Sony look so unremarkable (smeary more often than not).

My first impression from looking at the images was that the Sony does have some kind of noise reduction applied, based on the level of detail and texture in the bushes, road and grass at the top of the image.

Originally Posted by Luckypenguin

My first impression from looking at the images was that the Sony does have some kind of noise reduction applied, based on the level of detail and texture in the bushes, road and grass at the top of the image.

Not as far as I can see. I processed in DxO from raw, and the sharpening option was off. I converted to tiff and put into photoshop to make up the composite images. I normally find it's better to do sharpening at the end of any post-processing. I can post a raw if you'd like to try yourself..

Here's the 100iso pic sharpened. (Maybe a little too much, but not much). You can see that it takes a bit of sharpening quite well.

ISO100 version, sharpened. | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

When I get a moment I will try processing with the Sony RAW converter.

Luke: Well this was sitting on a tripod for a start! Also processing from raw does give you more sharpness. I find that raws processed with no sharpening often look sharper than jpegs sooc.

IMHO RX100 in JPEG and RX100 in RAW are like two different cameras.

Thanks for the comparison, beautox. Obviously, one can only draw so much from a single scene comparison, but nonetheless, I think your samples prove the RX100 is truly outstanding. I have a Canon 5D Mk II and I've owned several digital cameras before (compact, bridge, aps-c and full frame), and I am still impressed by the RX100 quality. Of course the ISO performance and selective focus capabilities of my bigger cameras are playing in a different league, but honestly, I've been "spoiled" by the excellent IQ and sharpness of the RX100 up to the point that when looking at many of my Canon 5D MK II shots, sometimes I miss the consistent sharpness and definition of my RX100 shots (when in low iso and high enough shutter speed, needless to say). AGAIN: not saying at all RX100 beats a full frame! Just pointing out that it's amazing that such a small camera can hold up so well against cameras with much higher specs.

Just shows that the RX100 IQ is killer for a compact, and can also hold it's own against the big boys, though the 24-105 is not a strong lens. Also, WB is off on the 7D which could harm your perception of the camera's abilities. How old is the 7D sensor now? Going on 3 1/2 years now, I think. (announced Sept 2009). Or about 2 1/2 years older than the RX100.

The 24-105mm actually tests very well on APS-C sensors, where it doesn't suffer from the same distortion, vignetting, and softer edges that show up on a 135 format sensor.

Good point. My use of the 24-105 has been on full frame. There are still likely sharper lenses, though. I think it's also softest at 105mm if I remember correctly. What FL were the test shots done at?