 |
| Sony RX100 on the left, Canon G12 on the right |
Two very different approaches to the Advanced Compact concept
Why am I testing two superseded cameras ? Over the last few weeks my daughter has been preparing for a 1500 kilometer hike, without support and carrying a full pack including tent. This will only be possible if she utilises ultra lightweight hiking strategies. Part of the plan has always been for her to take a compact camera to record the journey. She had a Canon Powershot G12 but the weigh in showed that at 750 grams, the G12 with carry pouch, 2 batteries, charger and power cord was too heavy.
So the search was on for a lighter option. She wanted a small camera with USB charging to eliminate the separate charger. She wanted sufficiently high picture quality to support the production of a coffee table style large format book with full bleed images of places and people encountered on the journey. An impossible quest ? Maybe not.
 |
| Canon G12 on the left, Sony RX100 on the right |
Enter The Super Mini Camera: Sony RX100 Actually our research led us to the RX100 Mk 2, but we were unable to find one for sale in Sydney so had to settle for the original RX100 of which one was available at the time of our search. In fact the original RX100 is 2 mm thinner and 41 grams lighter than the Mk2, which for most users will not be an issue but for the ultralight hiker every gram and millimeter counts.
The RX100 with spare battery, carry pouch, charger and power cord, weighed in at 345 grams, less than half the weight of the G12 kit and saving 405 grams.
I had a chance to test the RX100 together with the G12 before the RX100 went on it's long walkabout.
 |
| Shop G12 |
 |
| Shop RX100. Apart from the different aspect ratio and color balance there is not much difference between the two renditions of this subject. Were we to go indoors however the balance would shift very strongly in favour of the Sony. |
General description and market position Each of these cameras is aimed at the user who wants high image quality in a compact package and is prepared to pay for it. Canon and Sony have approached the design brief in a very different way.
Sony has squeezed a large (by compact camera standards) sensor, good but not quite excellent quality zoom lens and workable user interface into a very small package. The Canon uses a much smaller sensor in a considerably larger body. The Canon lens has a greater zoom range and better optical quality. The Canon is easier to hold with a more comprehensive interface suitable for the expert user.
| Model | Width mm | Height mm | Depth mm | Box Vol cc** | Mass with batt | Lens DAV* degrees | Lens fstop | Zoom | Sensor size, diag mm, area squ mm | M-Pixels total, effec-tive |
| Sony RX100 | 102 | 58 | 36 | 213 | 240 | 75-24 | 1.8-4.9 | 3.6x | 13.2x8.8 15.9 116 | 20.9 20 |
| Canon G12 | 112 | 76 | 48 | 409 | 395 | 75-17 | 2.8-4.5 | 5x | 5.6x7.5 9.4 42 | 10.4 10 |
 |
| On the left, Sony RX100 with pouch. Center, Canon G12 with carry pouch. On the right Panasonic Lumix GH3 with Lumix 12-35mm f2.8 lens and shoulder bag. |
Picture Quality
Sharpness/resolution With twice as many pixels you might expect this would be a walkover for the Sony. But in my tests of real world subjects I found that the Canon sometimes delivered slightly better resolution with better rendition of fine textural details. The Sony lens was a bit soft at the edges and in the corners, especially at the long end. The Canon lens delivered very good resolution into the corners at all focal lengths and apertures.
Exposure The Sony consistently gave a little and sometimes a lot less exposure to matched scenes. This enabled the Sony to protect highlights from blowing out although in some shots the mid tones were rather dark.
Dynamic Range The Sony had the edge here, although not by a huge margin.
Color Both camera reproduced colors well but with a typically different color balance.
Noise/Grain The Sony was far ahead here. Canon photos at ISO 800 had about the same noise levels as those from the Sony at ISO 3200, a two stop advantage to the Sony.
Chromatic Aberration Both the RX100 and G12 produced liberal amounts of CA at high contrast margins. This often persisted in the JPG's.
DXO Mark scores (dxomark.com)
| Camera/DXO Score | Color depth | Dynamic Range | Low Light ISO | Sensor Overall | Lens ** P-Mpx | Lens* Overall |
| RX100 | 22.6 | 12.4 | 390 | 66 | 6 | 12 |
| G12 | 20.4 | 11.2 | 161 | 47 | N/T | N/T |
** Please go to dxomark.com for an explanation of their concept of Perceptual Megapixels.
No DXO Mark test is available for the G12 lens.
You can see the Sony sensor is well ahead of the Canon on DXO Mark points. Real world testing gives results generally consistent with the DXO Mark score.
Note the DXO Mark score of only 6 Perceptual Megapixels for the Sony lens. This indicates that although the sensor has 20 Mpx, the lens is only resolving 6 of them. This also is consistent with my real world findings.
 |
| Casuarina, Canon G12 |
 |
| Casuarina, Sony RX100 |
Performance Overall the Sony is the more responsive camera. It acquires autofocus faster. The procedure for moving position of the focus area is a little better implemented. Shot to shot times are faster.
Auto ISO is better implemented in the Sony, which in P Mode and Auto ISO reliably selects an appropriate aperture, shutter speed and ISO for the conditions. Auto ISO in the G12 is frustrating. The camera often sets ISO too high or low for the conditions. I found myself using manual ISO all the time with the Canon to prevent inappropriate settings such as ISO 800 in bright sun.
Ergonomics
Holding You can get a reasonable hold on the Canon. Not so the Sony which is so small that one clings a little precariously to the edges of the thing. The wrist strap is a must.
Viewing The Canon has a fully articulating monitor which I find very useful and an optical viewfinder which I find very much less useful as it shows only 77% linear field of view, has no camera data readout and is affected by parallax error and intrusion of the lens into the field of view.
On the Sony all you get is a fixed monitor. Fortunately it's a good one, reasonably easy to see in sunlight which the Canon's is not. In addition camera data is located in a strip below the preview image in the Sony but the same data is overlaid on the preview image of the Canon and therefore frequently impossible to read. Overall the Sony provides the best viewing experience.
Operating The Canon is festooned with dials and buttons just like the expert's tool which it is designed to be. The user interface generally works well with no major problems apart from the Auto ISO. The Sony has a more spartan interface, there not being sufficient real estate available for anything more. I would not describe the Sony as enjoyable to use, rather it is utilitarian. It was designed to meet certain objectives and it does. Its' control modules are small and cramped but carry out their duties efficiently.
Comparison with Panasonic Lumix G6 I happened to have a Lumix G6 available at the time of testing, fitted with a Lumix 14-45mm lens. I made quite a few matched shots of the same subject with the G12, RX100 and Lumix G6. The RX100 has a higher DXO Mark score (66) than the G6 (61). I wondered how the two would compare in real world conditions, outside a test laboratory. In brief, the G6 delivered better picture quality, performance, holding, viewing and operating in all conditions. G6 high ISO noise levels were about one stop lower than the RX100. The G6 /14-45mm delivered clearly better resolution/sharpness with all subjects in all conditions. I am just making the point that DXO Mark scores describe the performance of some aspects of a camera in prescribed and controlled conditions. Real world results may, and in my experience often do, reveal a different picture (pun intended).
Summary With the RX100, Sony has shown the other camera makers what can be done and in the process may have revitalised consumer interest in the compact camera category which seemed in danger of vanishing under the onslaught of smart phone cams.
I would say the RX100 is both a category killer product and also creator of a new category; namely very small body, large(ish) sensor, general purpose zoom lens, high picture quality. I suspect most people will find it a much more versatile photographic tool than some of the recent release compacts which have an even larger, 28mm diameter, sensor but a single focal length, wide angle lens.
It needs a better lens to match the sensor's pixel count and I wonder if it might be possible to improve ergonomics within the existing envelope of dimensions. I will make some mockups and experiment with this.
I think Sony could expand the RX100 franchise to include a modestly larger version with a better lens having more reach and wider aperture at the long end, a small built in handle and an EVF.
The G12 is not disgraced even though it is now two generations old. It continues to make very nice photos in all but dim indoor conditions.
The just released G16 provides a partial answer to the RX100 challenge. It is smaller and lighter than the G12, with a wide aperture f1.8-2.8 lens. But it loses the articulated monitor and retains that horrible old optical viewfinder. If the Canon G cams are going to stay with a fixed monitor they desperately need an EVF, like the Nikon P7800, or even better, like the swing up one on the Panasonic Lumix GX7.
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar