Ray Sachs
Legend
- Location
- Not too far from Philly
- Name
- you should be able to figure it out...
I did a brief comparison of the Nex 6 and the Fuji XM1 recently. Well, as long as I have a loaner of the Nex 6 and the Zeiss 24mm f1.8, I figured I should do a comparison of that setup to its big brother in the Sony family, the RX1. The RX1's 35mm f2.0 lens combined with full frame sensor should be a pretty good match for the focal length equivalent, or field of view, of the 24mm f1.8. Turns out the RX1 is noticeably wider, but close enough for government work, as I used to say during my days with the government (no, I didn't really say that then). Some of the points I make here are relevant to any Nex body with the 24mm lens, some are relevant to the Nex 6 sensor specifically.
The Nex 6 body with this Zeiss lens will run you about $1750, with the bulk of that (about $1100) from the lens. The RX1 will run about $2800 and if you add the EVF (which puts it on similar footing to the Nex 6), the total comes to about $3250. So the RX1 isn't quite twice the cost of this Nex 6 combination, but its pretty close. Without the EVF, its notably less, but then you wouldn't have the EVF, now would you?
In short there's a definite difference in quality between these two setups, but I'm not sure how well I can show it. The biggest differences are at the margins, as they always are. The RX1 has greater detail (mostly due to the higher megapixel sensor - 24 vs 16 - one presumes, but the lens may play a role as well), more DR and is better at higher ISOs than the Nex. It also has narrower DOF, but the Nex is quite good in this regard. For day to day shooting of landscapes, street-scapes, travel shots, abstracts, family, etc, the Nex 6 is a LOT of camera. Obviously if you want to use other lenses, its an interchangeable lens camera and the RX1 isn't, so there's that to factor in. And once the sensor is superseded by something better with the Nex 6, you can buy a new body but the lens will still be just as good (although at some point it may not live up to the resolution of the sensor?). Whereas, again, the RX1 is a fixed lens so the sensor will have to do until you're ready to upgrade the whole thing. That said, while I'm sure there will be notable upgrades to the RX1 in coming years, its hard to imagine it being very much better for the kinds of shooting I do with it.
First a couple of narrow DOF / bokeh samples from the two cameras, with both lenses wide open:
Nex at f1.8
View attachment 74832
RX1 at f2.0
View attachment 74833
You can see the narrower DOF from the RX1 is narrower with more of the bobblehead statue itself out of focus than with the Nex. That's down to math and is easily predictable. But the quality of the bokeh, to my eye, is remarkably similar, very soft, with just a bit of definition in the edges. Overall, both are very pleasant to my eye. Unless you're a real narrow DOF freak, this might not be a big enough difference to worry about. If you are, its hard to beat the RX1 for a compact camera.
Next, low light, high ISO shots. These are 100% crops on the Nex and the RX1 is what I call "eyeball down-sampled" to account for the difference between 16 and 24 megapixels. I simply tried to match the Nex crop with the RX1, at what will be less than 100%. The RX1 shows more noise than this at 100% (although still finer and more detailed than the Nex samples), but this should represent the difference at any given print size or display size. Needless to say, no NR was applied to any of these:
First at ISO 6400:
Nex:
View attachment 74834
RX1:
View attachment 74835
And at ISO 12,800 - I sometimes shoot the RX1 this high, I don't think I would with the Nex.
Nex:
View attachment 74836
RX1:
View attachment 74837
Clearly, the full frame sensor in the RX1 handles high ISO noise much better than the APS sensor in the Nex. This is significantly true even with the RX1 cropped to 100%, but overwhelmingly true once down-sampled to approximately the same crop. I've seen these great results from the RX1 in real world use as well - I haven't really done any real world very low light shooting with the Nex, so these test shots will have to do. This is a big part of what you get for so much more money - and you should...
Next, I did a bit of real world shooting with both, just taking a walk at one of my favorite agricultural preserves around sunset one day last week. These shots are processed the way I tend to process them. Some will find them over-processed but this also helps show how well the two files from the two sensors take varying amounts of pushing and pulling. The bottom line is both did very very well. You really have to pixel peep these to see much difference. When you do, you can see the difference in detail in the foliage, the additional noise in the darker parts of the Nex shots that have been pulled up, relative to the cleaner portions of the RX1 shots. But unless you're doing huge prints or pushing and pulling the shadows and highlights a lot harder than I am, there's not much to see between the two.
Nex:
View attachment 74838
RX1:
View attachment 74839
Nex:
View attachment 74840
RX1:
View attachment 74841
Nex:
View attachment 74842
RX1:
View attachment 74843
So, the RX1 is better around the margins of DR, low light, and narrow DOF. The RX1 is very clearly a better low light machine, but in good light and even marginal light, the differences are much harder to see. The lens is also pretty amazing in some subtler ways, but those don't come through particularly well in web-sized shots. The question, as always, is "is it worth the difference", and the answer, as always, is "it depends".
For me it was, mostly just to have one "no compromises" camera in my bag at a focal length I'm comfortable with. It was a financial reach but it was within reach. If it wasn't, I would be very happy with the Nex/Zeiss combination. Or for that matter, with the Fuji X100s, which I compared with the RX1 a few months back, here: https://www.photographerslounge.org/f38/sony-rx1-fuji-x100s-comparison-long-18002/. If I already had a Nex system, I'd just add the lens and upgrade the body periodically. As is, I have the RX1 and I hope I'll like it as much as I do now even when its not on the bleeding edge of what's possible anymore. Its a great camera and it won't be any worse when something better comes along. I guess the question will be how MUCH better, how MUCH will it cost, and whether it'll matter to me. Everyone has their own balance to reach on these types of questions...
-Ray
The Nex 6 body with this Zeiss lens will run you about $1750, with the bulk of that (about $1100) from the lens. The RX1 will run about $2800 and if you add the EVF (which puts it on similar footing to the Nex 6), the total comes to about $3250. So the RX1 isn't quite twice the cost of this Nex 6 combination, but its pretty close. Without the EVF, its notably less, but then you wouldn't have the EVF, now would you?
In short there's a definite difference in quality between these two setups, but I'm not sure how well I can show it. The biggest differences are at the margins, as they always are. The RX1 has greater detail (mostly due to the higher megapixel sensor - 24 vs 16 - one presumes, but the lens may play a role as well), more DR and is better at higher ISOs than the Nex. It also has narrower DOF, but the Nex is quite good in this regard. For day to day shooting of landscapes, street-scapes, travel shots, abstracts, family, etc, the Nex 6 is a LOT of camera. Obviously if you want to use other lenses, its an interchangeable lens camera and the RX1 isn't, so there's that to factor in. And once the sensor is superseded by something better with the Nex 6, you can buy a new body but the lens will still be just as good (although at some point it may not live up to the resolution of the sensor?). Whereas, again, the RX1 is a fixed lens so the sensor will have to do until you're ready to upgrade the whole thing. That said, while I'm sure there will be notable upgrades to the RX1 in coming years, its hard to imagine it being very much better for the kinds of shooting I do with it.
First a couple of narrow DOF / bokeh samples from the two cameras, with both lenses wide open:
Nex at f1.8
View attachment 74832
RX1 at f2.0
View attachment 74833
You can see the narrower DOF from the RX1 is narrower with more of the bobblehead statue itself out of focus than with the Nex. That's down to math and is easily predictable. But the quality of the bokeh, to my eye, is remarkably similar, very soft, with just a bit of definition in the edges. Overall, both are very pleasant to my eye. Unless you're a real narrow DOF freak, this might not be a big enough difference to worry about. If you are, its hard to beat the RX1 for a compact camera.
Next, low light, high ISO shots. These are 100% crops on the Nex and the RX1 is what I call "eyeball down-sampled" to account for the difference between 16 and 24 megapixels. I simply tried to match the Nex crop with the RX1, at what will be less than 100%. The RX1 shows more noise than this at 100% (although still finer and more detailed than the Nex samples), but this should represent the difference at any given print size or display size. Needless to say, no NR was applied to any of these:
First at ISO 6400:
Nex:
View attachment 74834
RX1:
View attachment 74835
And at ISO 12,800 - I sometimes shoot the RX1 this high, I don't think I would with the Nex.
Nex:
View attachment 74836
RX1:
View attachment 74837
Clearly, the full frame sensor in the RX1 handles high ISO noise much better than the APS sensor in the Nex. This is significantly true even with the RX1 cropped to 100%, but overwhelmingly true once down-sampled to approximately the same crop. I've seen these great results from the RX1 in real world use as well - I haven't really done any real world very low light shooting with the Nex, so these test shots will have to do. This is a big part of what you get for so much more money - and you should...
Next, I did a bit of real world shooting with both, just taking a walk at one of my favorite agricultural preserves around sunset one day last week. These shots are processed the way I tend to process them. Some will find them over-processed but this also helps show how well the two files from the two sensors take varying amounts of pushing and pulling. The bottom line is both did very very well. You really have to pixel peep these to see much difference. When you do, you can see the difference in detail in the foliage, the additional noise in the darker parts of the Nex shots that have been pulled up, relative to the cleaner portions of the RX1 shots. But unless you're doing huge prints or pushing and pulling the shadows and highlights a lot harder than I am, there's not much to see between the two.
Nex:
View attachment 74838
RX1:
View attachment 74839
Nex:
View attachment 74840
RX1:
View attachment 74841
Nex:
View attachment 74842
RX1:
View attachment 74843
So, the RX1 is better around the margins of DR, low light, and narrow DOF. The RX1 is very clearly a better low light machine, but in good light and even marginal light, the differences are much harder to see. The lens is also pretty amazing in some subtler ways, but those don't come through particularly well in web-sized shots. The question, as always, is "is it worth the difference", and the answer, as always, is "it depends".
For me it was, mostly just to have one "no compromises" camera in my bag at a focal length I'm comfortable with. It was a financial reach but it was within reach. If it wasn't, I would be very happy with the Nex/Zeiss combination. Or for that matter, with the Fuji X100s, which I compared with the RX1 a few months back, here: https://www.photographerslounge.org/f38/sony-rx1-fuji-x100s-comparison-long-18002/. If I already had a Nex system, I'd just add the lens and upgrade the body periodically. As is, I have the RX1 and I hope I'll like it as much as I do now even when its not on the bleeding edge of what's possible anymore. Its a great camera and it won't be any worse when something better comes along. I guess the question will be how MUCH better, how MUCH will it cost, and whether it'll matter to me. Everyone has their own balance to reach on these types of questions...
-Ray
Last edited by a moderator: