Can't decide: Sony RX-100 or Sony NEX 5R

[Kobayagi]

Title says it all, can't decide between these nice cameras.

At the moment I own a simple Sony point and shoot, but I want to get more involved with my photography and try to be more creative. I've been reading a lot about photography and about the basics: aperture, ISO etc. So now I want buy one of these to test it all out. . I don't want a full fledged DSLR because I'm just starting out and it's just a hobby, I don't want to start spending too much on the body + lens.

Sony RX-100

Sony NEX 5R

I really like them both and I don't think the 5R will be too big to carry around. I only intend to use it during my vacations and special occasions. But I like how simple the RX-100 is looking and I don't have to worry about other lenses. As I don't intend to buy more of them (maybe a pancake in the future).

The 5R does have a bigger sensor, but from the image examples I've seen, the IQ doesn't seem to be big or even noticeable. Maybe even better on the RX 100. At night, the 5R will have the advantage.

I've read a lot on these cameras and know probably every bit of into about them, but it doesn't help too much without actually using them for a while and seeing how it feels when comparing. So I'm asking the people who own any of these cameras, are you happy it with and how do you know they compare to each other.

Thanks.

 

[fitshaced]

There's a lot to be said for a lens that has a constant aperture. If the Nex 5R has a lens that has that, I'd go for the Nex 5R. With the RX100 you'll find that you'll be using it mostly at it's widest.

I don't know if the Nex 5R has a viewfinder but that would be a feature I'd be looking for.

I have the RX100 and find that I don't use it much. It's not so small that it will fit in your pocket and so you'll need a means of carrying it, just like you will with a Nex 5R. But, obviously the RX100 is easier to carry around.

 

[Kobayagi]

The kit lens is a 18-55 F3.5-5.6, so not fixed.
A separate viewfinder is available, but I don't see my self using it tbh.

Are you happy with the IQ the RX100 delivers?

 

[fitshaced]

The kit lens is a 18-55 F3.5-5.6, so not fixed.
A separate viewfinder is available, but I don't see my self using it tbh.

Are you happy with the IQ the RX100 delivers?

Yep, happy with it. But coming from a DSLR, it feels very awkward to use and takes a bit of patience to get a steady shot, but thats true of all compacts. The Nex has a nice grip and also allows for more support by holding the lens. Better image quality comes from the steadiness of the shot first, then image sensor second. Well thats how I see it.

A 100% viewfinder should be included in every camera in my opinion.

 

[coldsweat]

I had an NEX5 & now have the RX100

The NEX will give better quality results & offer slightly easier manual control & it obviously has interchangeable lenses, so is far more flexible. However I found that it was too bulky to take out regularly - even with the pancake lens it isn't really pocketable (comfortably) & by the time you add a flash & the Lim bounce accessory you will need a bag or a huge jacket pocket to carry it.

At the other end I find the RX100 slips easily into the pocket & gives great quality results & even has built in bounce flash as well! It's great for family gatherings and quick snaps & I must say I love it - but remember it's a Point & Shoot, nothing more! Your stuck with that lens & that small sensor, if you want bokeh forget it & get the NEX + Prime (35 1.8 is awesome).

So my advice is.... If you like the point & shoot form factor, the RX100 will do you proud (and give you manual controls). If you want a camera system that can grow & you don't mind lugging a big lump with you - get the NEX5. Ultimately only you can decide what fits your needs. (You could always buy both on ebay & quickly re-sell the one you don't want to keep, as both cameras are holding their prices quite well at the moment!)

 

[Kobayagi]

I had an NEX5 & now have the RX100

The NEX will give better quality results & offer slightly easier manual control & it obviously has interchangeable lenses, so is far more flexible. However I found that it was too bulky to take out regularly - even with the pancake lens it isn't really pocketable (comfortably) & by the time you add a flash & the Lim bounce accessory you will need a bag or a huge jacket pocket to carry it.

At the other end I find the RX100 slips easily into the pocket & gives great quality results & even has built in bounce flash as well! It's great for family gatherings and quick snaps & I must say I love it - but remember it's a Point & Shoot, nothing more! Your stuck with that lens & that small sensor, if you want bokeh forget it & get the NEX + Prime (35 1.8 is awesome).

So my advice is.... If you like the point & shoot form factor, the RX100 will do you proud (and give you manual controls). If you want a camera system that can grow & you don't mind lugging a big lump with you - get the NEX5. Ultimately only you can decide what fits your needs. (You could always buy both on ebay & quickly re-sell the one you don't want to keep, as both cameras are holding their prices quite well at the moment!)

Hi, thanks for the reply.

Doesn't the RX 100 offer easier manual control? Because it had a few customizable buttons + the control ring on the lens.

The aperture on the RX100 is 1.8 at the wide end, so shouldn't it deliver a more shallow depth of field photos comported to the 5R kit lens?

You mentioned the prime for the 5R, and that's my problem, that lens is almost the price i'll play for the RX100 alone. Is it worth it since the RX100 already does 1.8?

 

[leighonigar]

A middle ground would be one of the Nikon 1 series. Interchangeable lenses, small, fast, easy to use. Some models with viewfinders too.

I am very happy with my V1 and its lenses are probably the sharpest I own and much smaller than the Sony NEX. If you can live without flash the V1 is cheap. All the Nikon 1 lenses are great - there are no clangers among them.

 

[swordio777]

The aperture on the RX100 is 1.8 at the wide end, so shouldn't it deliver a more shallow depth of field photos comported to the 5R kit lens?

You mentioned the prime for the 5R, and that's my problem, that lens is almost the price i'll play for the RX100 alone. Is it worth it since the RX100 already does 1.8?

There's much more to depth of field than aperture. DOF is affected by aperture, focal, length, and subject distance.

The RX100 may have a wider aperture, but the focal distance will ALWAYS be much wider on that camera (the small sensor means the lens needs to be wide to create a useable field of view).

I've never used either camera, however if you're looking to get shallow depth of field then the 5R will definitely be able to produce better results - it's simply the laws of physics.

Hope that helps.

 

[Sylon]

I was looking at the 5R when I was shopping for a smaller camera, but I couldn't pull away from the RX100. It easily fits in your pocket if you're not wearing something like skinny jeans but I still need a death grip on it when pulling it out of my pocket, just in case of any freak accidents that want to occur. I ended up going with the RX100m2 model. Sure some people may think that the added features are gimmicky, but I've used the NFC and internal wifi every time I've gone out to shoot with it.

I already have a DSLR, but I wanted a camera I would feel comfortable carrying around while traveling in an area I'm not familiar with. I was going to Vegas last month until some things came up, and I didn't want to lug a big camera around the downtown there. The 5R didn't give me the "pocketability" that I needed. The RX100(m2) gave me that and all the flexibility I needed. I just wish the zoom was better. My only gripe.

 

[Kobayagi]

There's much more to depth of field than aperture. DOF is affected by aperture, focal, length, and subject distance.

The RX100 may have a wider aperture, but the focal distance will ALWAYS be much wider on that camera (the small sensor means the lens needs to be wide to create a useable field of view).

I've never used either camera, however if you're looking to get shallow depth of field then the 5R will definitely be able to produce better results - it's simply the laws of physics.

Hope that helps.

Thanks, so 5R with the kit lens (not a pancake one) having f/3.5 will for sure deliver a more shallow dof? That's the effect I like and want to experiment with.
As you see I'm a beginning photographer, but I don't the lower the f number, the more of that dof effect you could achieve.

I was looking at the 5R when I was shopping for a smaller camera, but I couldn't pull away from the RX100. It easily fits in your pocket if you're not wearing something like skinny jeans but I still need a death grip on it when pulling it out of my pocket, just in case of any freak accidents that want to occur. I ended up going with the RX100m2 model. Sure some people may think that the added features are gimmicky, but I've used the NFC and internal wifi every time I've gone out to shoot with it.

I already have a DSLR, but I wanted a camera I would feel comfortable carrying around while traveling in an area I'm not familiar with. I was going to Vegas last month until some things came up, and I didn't want to lug a big camera around the downtown there. The 5R didn't give me the "pocketability" that I needed. The RX100(m2) gave me that and all the flexibility I needed. I just wish the zoom was better. My only gripe.

Sure, it is a lot smaller, but I don't mind the 5R being a little bigger as don't intend to bring the camera with me everywhere I go.

 

[shinji]

Go with the larger sensor and interchangeable lenses.

 

[PhillyAnt]

I am completely satisfied with my RX100ii. The pictures it takes are fantastic, especially the low light. The video is also superb. If you have the money I would recommend getting the RX100ii over the regular RX100. The tilt screen alone makes it worth it for me but it also has the improved sensor and the hot shoe (that I'll probably never use).

 

[lcseds]

I have the Nex6 and the RX100. When I'm going out "looking" for photo art, I'll take the Nex with zooms. If I'm going out to just grab a couple photos, I have the RX100 in a belt pouch. The great thing is, if I come across "art", the RX100 will do great when the Nex is home. Not quite as much flexibility, but very convenient and great quality shots. Nex and RX, two great quality cameras. Sure beats having a nice SLR and then grabbing a $100 P&S to go out with. I'm not rich, but I spent the money knowing this arsenal will meet my needs for many years.

 

[swordio777]

Thanks, so 5R with the kit lens (not a pancake one) having f/3.5 will for sure deliver a more shallow dof? That's the effect I like and want to experiment with.
As you see I'm a beginning photographer, but I don't the lower the f number, the more of that dof effect you could achieve.

Not necessarily. While sensor size does not affect DOF directly, larger sensors do let you get closer to your subject and use longer focal lengths - both of these things will help you create the shallow depth of field you want.

The RX100 has a tiny sensor - this means you'll need to be far away from your subject, or use very wide focal lengths. Doing either of these will mean your images have more depth of field (ie - more in focus). I suspect it'll be almost impossible to get a shallow depth of field with the RX100, despite its f1.8 aperture.

If you really want to experiment with shallow DOF get a used Canon 350D or Nikon D40 and put a 50mm f1.8 prime on it. They'll be a bit bulkier than the cameras you suggest, but you'll never look back.

 

[Kobayagi]

I am completely satisfied with my RX100ii. The pictures it takes are fantastic, especially the low light. The video is also superb. If you have the money I would recommend getting the RX100ii over the regular RX100. The tilt screen alone makes it worth it for me but it also has the improved sensor and the hot shoe (that I'll probably never use).

Yeah, the tilt screen does look handy, that's also one (next to the IQ) of the reasons I'm having trouble deciding between the cameras, since the 5R screen can even tilt downwards. I think I'll go for both cameras, try them out for a few days, then return the one I like less, seems to be the best solution.

I have the Nex6 and the RX100. When I'm going out "looking" for photo art, I'll take the Nex with zooms. If I'm going out to just grab a couple photos, I have the RX100 in a belt pouch. The great thing is, if I come across "art", the RX100 will do great when the Nex is home. Not quite as much flexibility, but very convenient and great quality shots. Nex and RX, two great quality cameras. Sure beats having a nice SLR and then grabbing a P&S to go out with. I'm not rich, but I spent the money knowing this arsenal will meet my needs for many years.

From what I've seen, the RX100 really makes great photos, some people are not too happy about it. But a lot of them are professionals who must have the best equipment for the job. I think they also notice stuff on the photos a beginner as me wouldn't. ^^

Not necessarily. While sensor size does not affect DOF directly, larger sensors do let you get closer to your subject and use longer focal lengths - both of these things will help you create the shallow depth of field you want.

The RX100 has a tiny sensor - this means you'll need to be far away from your subject, or use very wide focal lengths. Doing either of these will mean your images have more depth of field (ie - more in focus). I suspect it'll be almost impossible to get a shallow depth of field with the RX100, despite its f1.8 aperture.

If you really want to experiment with shallow DOF get a used Canon 350D or Nikon D40 and put a 50mm f1.8 prime on it. They'll be a bit bulkier than the cameras you suggest, but you'll never look back.

I have seen great dof examples made with the RX100, so it seems it's possible. Though a 5R will be more future proof with the choice to get more lenses. Not to sound like a complete noob, but what distance do you consider as ''far away'' for a shallow dof photo?

I think I'll stick with these choices for now as I'm looking for a smaller (compared to a DSLR) allround camera but with the possibilities to be more creative than with a simple p&s.

PS. I just saw I made a typo in my last message, I meant to say: ''but I thought the lower...''

 

[monokakata]

The RX100M II has a 1" sensor. That's not "tiny."

The NEX 6 has an APS-C sensor, which is larger but perhaps only a little larger.

I haven't handled the RX100 but I'm thinking about buying one, for when I don't want to carry my D800. I've been using a Canon SX260 (which really does have a tiny sensor) sometimes and have been wanting a superior P&S.

 

[shinji]

The RX100M II has a 1" sensor. That's not "tiny."

The NEX 6 has an APS-C sensor, which is larger but perhaps only a little larger.

I haven't handled the RX100 but I'm thinking about buying one, for when I don't want to carry my D800. I've been using a Canon SX260 (which really does have a tiny sensor) sometimes and have been wanting a superior P&S.

It's more than a little larger:

Rx100 is an excellent portable camera. But there's no comparison to an APS-C interchangeable lens camera.

 

[Kobayagi]

It's more than a little larger:

Image

Rx100 is an excellent portable camera. But there's no comparison to an APS-C interchangeable lens camera.

Is there a chance the RX100 successor (maybe june next year, since thats the date the RX100 ii was announced.) could have the APS-C sensor? I'd like that combo, a small form factor with a great sensor.

Sony sells the RX1, it's a full frame, but also super expensive. Around

 

[shinji]

Is there a chance the RX100 successor (maybe june next year, since thats the date the RX100 ii was announced.) could have the APS-C sensor? I'd like that combo, a small form factor with a great sensor.

Sony sells the RX1, it's a full frame, but also super expensive. Around

That would be pretty cool, but I haven't heard anything suggesting that. It might also cannibalize NEX sales to some extent, so I'm not sure they'd go there.

I don't know how much you're looking to spend, but you might want to consider the Fuji X100/X100S, too.

 

[monokakata]

It's more than a little larger:

Image

Rx100 is an excellent portable camera. But there's no comparison to an APS-C interchangeable lens camera.

You are of course correct, but "no comparison" covers a lot of ground. I shot with Nikon DX spec sensors for years, and now with FX, so I'm aware of these differences.

I didn't want the OP to be put off by the references to "tiny" sensors, where we're thinking about something like the 1/1.7" sensor in the link you gave.

The spec I saw (good old Wikipedia) specified APS-C as 20 mm to 28 mm, which would put 1" (25mm) right in the middle. As I'm sure you know, manufacturers interpret APS-C differently. I couldn't quickly find the dimensions of Sony's APS-C sensor, which of course would be the comparison we're looking for.

But I'll stress again that my intent is to make sure the OP isn't put off by "tiny."

 

[Kobayagi]

That would be pretty cool, but I haven't heard anything suggesting that. It might also cannibalize NEX sales to some extent, so I'm not sure they'd go there.

I don't know how much you're looking to spend, but you might want to consider the Fuji X100/X100S, too.

Yeah I was thinking about that as well, but it still is in a different category. The NEX series still offers more versatility with lenses and people who own these will probably stay with these series of cameras

About het budget, I could get the 5R for around €570 (here in The Netherlands), and the RX100 for around €440. So I think €600 would be the max. I was also intentionally looking for a Sony camera since I have a few of their products and I was always satisfied with them.

You are of course correct, but "no comparison" covers a lot of ground. I shot with Nikon DX spec sensors for years, and now with FX, so I'm aware of these differences.

I didn't want the OP to be put off by the references to "tiny" sensors, where we're thinking about something like the 1/1.7" sensor in the link you gave.

The spec I saw (good old Wikipedia) specified APS-C as 20 mm to 28 mm, which would put 1" (25mm) right in the middle. As I'm sure you know, manufacturers interpret APS-C differently. I couldn't quickly find the dimensions of Sony's APS-C sensor, which of course would be the comparison we're looking for.

But I'll stress again that my intent is to make sure the OP isn't put off by "tiny."

I've read many review and watched videos about these cameras, so I'm aware of the size differences between these sensors, but I know the 1'' sensor would never be considered ''tiny''. So that's no problem, it's quite a bit larger compared to a standard point and shoot camera.

My purpose to this thread is to hear if people who own one of these cameras (or both) are happy with it and could give info about the stuff they don't like. It's still different from watching a review where a guy just talks about the specs.

 

[blueroom]

I'm also on the fence about the RX-100mk2 and the NEX-5T although I'm leaning towards the 5T.

 

[Kobayagi]

I'm also on the fence about the RX-100mk2 and the NEX-5T although I'm leaning towards the 5T.

You should then consider the 5R, the model before the 5T. The 5T doesn't really offer much more than the 5R, just nfc. With the 5R being a year old now it's also cheaper.

But if you really need nfc, go ahead. ^^

 

[shinji]

My purpose to this thread is to hear if people who own one of these cameras (or both) are happy with it and could give info about the stuff they don't like. It's still different from watching a review where a guy just talks about the specs.

I have a NEX-3N that I'm happy with, which was an upgrade earlier this year from a Canon G12 point and shoot. Great image quality and as portable as I need it to be.

A bunch of people here gave me good feedback when I was making a decision, including some other NEX owners: https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/1621311/

 

[monokakata]

I hunted around for more specs, because I didn't feel that "1 inch" was what it seemed to be.

The RX100 ii sensor measures 13.2 x 8.8 mm, and the Sony "APS-C" sensor measures 23.5 x 15.6 mm.

Big difference, and the confusion seems to be for historical reasons. What's commonly callled a "one inch" sensor isn't anything like 1" in any dimension.

http://www.spotimaging.com/iq/image-sensor-format.html

From the link: "The inch-based image sensor format originated in the 1950s and stems from the physical size of the vidicon tube sensor used in cameras at that time. The outside diameter of the vidicon tube was equal to 1” and the imaging area of the tube was 16mm diagonal. The sensor was commonly referred to as a 1” sensor and shortly thereafter it was commonly known that a 1” sensor had an imaging diagonal of 16mm. This resulted in the seemingly odd image sensor inch format: 1” = 16mm."

Sony's 1" sensor's diagonal is 15.9 mm, close enough.

I don't know how I feel about this -- I think it's deceptive to anyone who doesn't trouble to look up the actual sensor size.

Now, if I'm the only one in this thread who didn't know that "1 inch" isn't "1 inch," then I need to apologize.