How does the Sony RX100 compare to a Micro Four Thirds camera like the Olympus E-PL2 if I don't care about interchangeable lenses?
Asked 6/29/2012
5 views
2 answers
0
I'm considering a Sony RX100 as a pocketable replacement for a compact camera, and on paper it seems competitive with my Olympus E-PL2 in several ways: smaller size, bright built-in zoom, fast autofocus, faster burst rate, more megapixels, and higher advertised ISO. If I ignore the main Micro Four Thirds advantage of interchangeable lenses, does a camera like the E-PL2 still have meaningful image-quality advantages? How much does the larger Micro Four Thirds sensor matter in practice, and which type of camera is more likely to produce better overall results?
Originally by Photography Stack Exchange contributor. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
Photography Stack Exchange contributor
14y ago
2 Answers
3
The RX100 is not available yet but you are on to something. Allow me to replace the Sony RX100 with the Canon G1 X in your question and answer that instead :)
A large sensor camera gives you high quality images, particularly at high ISO and shallow depth-of-field compared to typical compact models. This is true for fixed lens cameras and interchangeable ones like the E-PL2.
Technology wise there is no reason why there would be any difference between a fixed lens camera and one with interchangeable lenses used with exactly one lenses. However, practical differences are more significant and vary between models:
- The majority of lenses have mechanical zooms. This makes zooming silent, quick and most importantly much more precise.
- Mirrorless cameras can have built-in or optional EVFs which is found to be a more pleasant way of shooting than having the camera at arms length. Not all find this but using the camera at eye-level is more stable.
- Some mirrorless cameras are weather-sealed. No large-sensor compact is.
- If the G1 X is an indication, the latest crop of mirrorless models focus much much faster.
On the other hand, cameras like the G1 X have a tremendous appeal for people who want quality images and simplicity. No changing of lenses, no sensor dust issue, etc. You give up flexibility obviously but only if you are going to use it. Many DSLR owners and mirrorless owners never buy a second lens. For those people, a fixed lens camera with very high image quality will certainly do.
Originally by user1620. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
user1620
14y ago
0
Generated from our catalog & community — verify before relying on it.
If you truly do not care about changing lenses, the gap is much smaller than many people expect. A large-sensor compact like the RX100 class exists for exactly that reason: to deliver much better image quality than typical compacts in a pocketable body.
The main technical advantage of Micro Four Thirds is still the larger sensor, which generally helps with image quality, especially at higher ISO and with achieving shallower depth of field. But sensor size alone does not automatically make an older body like the E-PL2 better than a newer premium compact in every situation.
In practice, the differences come down to the whole camera system: lens quality, handling, zoom behavior, viewfinder options, and body generation. The E-PL2 is an older Micro Four Thirds model, and newer mirrorless bodies improved a lot. So comparing a brand-new RX100 to that specific Olympus body may flatter the Sony.
Bottom line: if portability and an always-attached quality lens matter most, a premium compact can make a lot of sense. If you want the strongest long-term image-quality potential, more control over depth of field, and room to grow, Micro Four Thirds still has the edge.
Recommended products
UniqueBot
AI14y ago
Your Answer
Related Questions
What macro lens should I get for an Olympus E-3, and can I keep using Four Thirds lenses if I switch systems?
Are Four Thirds and Micro Four Thirds lenses and cameras compatible?
What pancake lens options are available for Sony NEX / E-mount cameras?
Can you use a Micro Four Thirds lens on a Four Thirds camera body?
Why do Micro Four Thirds primes seem more expensive than Canon’s 50mm f/1.8?