Nhờ dày hơn và báng tay cầm lớn, G7X sẽ cho bạn cảm giác tự tin hơn khi cầm bằng 1 tay. Tuy nhiên cách bố trí các nút bấm chưa hợp lý khiến việc thao tác bằng 1 tay khó khăn. 2. View Finder  3. Pin Viên pin của Sony RX100 V có dung lượng xấp xỉ chiếc Canon, nhưng thực tế thì thời lượng sử dụng của chiếc Sony thấp hơn khá nhiều. Tuy nhiên bù lại, máy của Sony nếu hết pin vẫn có thể cắm sạc dự phòng vào và tiếp tục vừa chụp vừa sạc. Còn máy Canon khi hết pin, cắm sạc dự phòng vào thì chỉ cho phép vừa sạc vừa xem ảnh, không thể chụp. Đây là một tính năng quan trọng chỉ có trên các máy mirrorless cao cấp vài năm trở lại đây. IV. Tổng kết Trong phần lớn bài thử nghiệm, chiếc Sony RX100 V cho chất lượng ảnh cao hơn ở độ bão hoà màu, cân bằng trắng đúng hơn và khử nhiễu tốt hơn nhiều so với chiếc Canon G7X II. Bên cạnh đó, máy của Canon lại cho độ sắc nét cao hơn nhờ xử lý đẩy độ sharpness. Đối với những người dùng có kiến thức về nhiếp ảnh lẫn người dùng chưa có kinh nghiệm, Sony RX100 V đều xử lý tình huống tốt ở chế độ Auto, giao diện và thao tác máy của Sony có tính thực dụng cao, tuy nhiên lại yêu cầu người dùng phải mất một thời gian để làm quen. Trong khi đó chiếc Canon GX7 II lại có giao diện thân thiện hơn, dễ làm quen hơn. Rõ ràng Sony RX100 V không chỉ đáp ứng những nhu cầu chụp ảnh cơ bản mà còn hướng đến nhóm đối tượng có nhu cầu chụp nghiêm túc, dùng làm máy dự phòng (backup), trong khi đó Canon G7X II là sự lựa chọn tốt cho những ai thích sự đơn giản. Về giá bán, mức giá tham khảo của Canon G7X II là 18.5 triệu đồng và giá của RX100 V dao đọng từ 20.5 đến 25 triệu tuỳ cửa hàng. thinking about a small compact for occasional use when not using DSLR. Worried the rx100 may be too small for my man hands. leighton w • Senior Member • Posts: 2,064 Re: Sony rx100 4 vs LX100 Kevin Coppalotti wrote: I'm also in the same market. I think the Sony will be too small for me, plus, I like the bigger sensor, better EVF and form factor of the LX better. Just wish the LX had a flip up touch screen. Re: Sony rx100 4 vs LX100 2 Both attracted me. In the end I went for the RX100mk4, upgrading from the mk3 (the LX100 was not around when I purchased the mk3). I think both can produce good IQ (good optics). The new Sony sensor is remarkable, but smaller than the LX100's. The LX100 has better controls and a more usable EVF. But for me the clincher was that I would have the RX100mk4 with me more often than the larger LX100. I admire the cameras produced these days be both companies; I think they are the technology leaders. Currently have the RX100mk4 and a Sony A6000, with a Panasonic FZ300 pre-ordered. I've also owned Panasonic's FZ1000, GH4, GH3, GH2, GH1, FZ200, etc. -- and the Sony A55. Before that mostly Canon models (400D, 20D, 40D, 60D, 7D DSLRs among them. So a very long story Canon PowerShot ELPH 330 HS Panasonic ZS100 Sony RX10 IV leighton w • Senior Member • Posts: 2,064 Re: Sony rx100 4 vs LX100 PC Wheeler wrote: You said "had" the FZ1000. Why not any longer? jdshaw • Regular Member • Posts: 169 Re: Sony rx100 4 vs LX100 Same here. Does anyone know when Panasonic will release a LX100 refresh model? camfan1 • Contributing Member • Posts: 934 Re: Sony rx100 4 vs LX100 I own the DLUX Typ 109/LX100. IMHO the only way to be sure about this is try both cameras in a shop. Personally, I always prefer small(er) ... until it gets in the way of usability. The EVF is a big plus, for both cameras, and also that has to be tested/viewed thru before making a choice. If I had to make a choice again, today, I too would probably have a hard time choosing between both ! Leica D-Lux (Typ 109) Panasonic LX100 II Jay • Regular Member • Posts: 197 Re: Sony rx100 4 vs LX100 In reply to camfan1 • Aug 20, 2015 2 I would love to have both the rx100iv and lx100, but sony is so expensive. I've had rx100ii in the past and currently have lx100. I just use my smartphone when I have no choice, but otherwise, I usually tote my lx100 everywhere in a small camera bag. I never quite liked the controls of the rx100. Then again, I really just used AUTO. Hence, not that big of an annoyance. With LX100, it's always on shutter priority based on the recommendation of others not to use iAuto. I think the LX100 is really nice. I'm pretty satisfied even with ISO3200 pictures. I find the 4k video just OK. I think I'll be sticking with LX100 for quite a while. Probably until the next big performance/quality jump in 4k video. Olympus TG-5 Sony RX100 VI Sony a7 IV Tamron 70-180mm F2.8 Di III VXD Tamron 28-75mm F2.8 Di III VXD G2 +1 more Re: Sony rx100 4 vs LX100 leighton w wrote:PC Wheeler wrote: Currently have the RX100mk4 and a Sony A6000, with a Panasonic FZ300 pre-ordered. I've also owned Panasonic's FZ1000, GH4, GH3, GH2, GH1, FZ200, etc. -- and the Sony A55. Before that mostly Canon models (400D, 20D, 40D, 60D, 7D DSLRs among them. So a very long storyYou said "had" the FZ1000. Why not any longer? With the A6000 and the lenses I have, I found the FZ1000 was not getting used. So I sold it. The FZ300 was announced later the same day, so I turned around and pre-ordered that. For my shooting pattern, I will use it more than I would have the FZ1000 -- and it gives me back DFD AF, 4K video, and a few other things. The FZ200 was really one of my all-time favorites, so opting for the FZ300 was an easy decision. Canon PowerShot ELPH 330 HS Panasonic ZS100 Sony RX10 IV camfan1 • Contributing Member • Posts: 934 Re: Sony rx100 4 vs LX100 ... both ? no way ... In reply to Jay • Aug 20, 2015 2 Both the RX as well as LX ... IMHO ... overkill. Both target about the same kind of user and use case being (again IMHO) casual-, travel- and street- photography. Using your smartphone when the LX is too big / annoying to carry or have with you ? ... I do that too, as many people I guess. Getting a FF mirrorless AND the LX100/RX100 would make sense to me, but as a non-pro I can live/cope without the additional PQ. 4K is the future and both these camera's have it, so any of these will do. The difference in IQ between these cameras and sensors (LX/RX) is probably not big anyway. Getting an extra RX ... I personally don't see any need for that. Leica D-Lux (Typ 109) Panasonic LX100 II Torq • Regular Member • Posts: 160 Re: Sony rx100 4 vs LX100 I thought a lot about the LX100 (well, the Leica version) as I already had the RX100 M3. In the end, I'm happiest having both. The RX100 goes everywhere. The girlfriend loves it, since it's selfie capable and gets excellent results on fully automatic. It's a bit fiddly when I want manual control, but it does do the job, has pretty much every feature I could ask for, touch screen excepted, and is, I think, the most complete single camera on the market. The LX100/D-Lux 109 I have for when I want easier manual control (i.e. I'm planning on taking pictures that go beyond capturing "memories"), a bit more capability for subject isolation, or I need better low-light capability. Both are excellent. If the LX100 had a selfie-capable screen and a built in flash, I might be able to let the RX100 go ... but despite the size difference not being very big, it's the difference between pocket or holster ... Sony RX100 V Sony RX10 IV Sony Cyber-shot DSC-HX99 Sony RX100 VII Leica M Typ 240 +17 more ChrisLumix • Veteran Member • Posts: 3,469 Re: Sony rx100 4 vs LX100 I think both cameras have very high scores in Dpreview and both are probably about equal in IQ potential. What it comes down to is handling : For me the LX100 scores because it's the right size in the hands, and it has the best direct user input of all compacts - nothing gets in the way of quickly dialling in your desired exposure values and shooting. The Sony would be way too small for me, and the menu system would be too inhibiting to making quick adjustments. Having said that, I like its tilt LCD and I only wish the LX100 had one. -- hide signature -- Panas0n!c Lum!x FZ38, LX100 Re: Sony rx100 4 vs LX100 1 I am also agonising over this. For me the things I'm agonising over are a little different to what's been mentioned already. Here's my things in order of importance to me: 1. Depth of Field. This is probably the thing I want most of all. When I had my Panasonic GF1 with the incredible 20mm pancake I pretty much had it at 1.7 constantly and the DoF was lovely. I've never been too happy with what the RX100 i has offered in that department. 2. Time Lapse. I've recently got into tramping (I live in Christchurch, New Zealand) and I love the idea of getting into time lapse landscape work. This is a standard feature of the LX100 and not in the RX100. I understand you can download some plugins to the RX100 but I'm just not comfortable with that, feels like a hack to me. I had considered getting a GoPro for tramping time lapse work because it's weather sealed and all that, but that more money again, more to carry and I doubt the results would be comparable. 3. Slo Mo Video. I love the idea of doing very short 'moving portraits' and the RX100 would make this so much easier. Having said that HD 60p video from the LX100 processed in Premiere I'd imagine would give great results also and that workflow would also open up the ability to do some creative work (e.g. colour correction, vignette) which I'd probably to do anyway if I had the RX100. Regarding pocketability, I already have a RX100 i and to be honest I find I rarely have it in my trouser/pant pocket as I'm one of those people who doesn't even like the feeling of an iPhone 6 in my pocket. And articulated screen? My personal view is they are over-rated in what they can do for the photographer. I can't think of many shots Ive not managed to get because I didn't have one. In fact I rather like the magic of shooting blind from the hip. Less to go wrong? So common sense tells me that the LX100 is the way to go. BUT, I really respect the reviews and opinions of Steve Huff, and he didn't have much good to say about the LX100 and the thread over there had a number of people complaining about various niggles, especially to do with poor focus. Darn, still no closer to a decision but hope this helps someone here. ln Strewth, steve Huff gave the lx100 a blast. Is the lx100 really that bad?? http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2015/01/26/my-panasonic-lx100-thoughts/ ChrisLumix • Veteran Member • Posts: 3,469 Re: Sony rx100 4 vs LX100 MadeInUK66 wrote: Yes, the LX100 trounces the Sony there. 2. Time Lapse. I've recently got into tramping (I live in Christchurch, New Zealand) and I love the idea of getting into time lapse landscape work. This is a standard feature of the LX100 and not in the RX100. I understand you can download some plugins to the RX100 but I'm just not comfortable with that, feels like a hack to me. I had considered getting a GoPro for tramping time lapse work because it's weather sealed and all that, but that more money again, more to carry and I doubt the results would be comparable. I cannot understand this obsession with 'pocketability' you read from all the Sony users. Back in the day of serious 35mm film photography the only cameras that were pocketable (apart from expensive specialists like Minox, or bling like the Rollei) were those awful 110 Pocket Instamatics. I find the LX100 about as small as it's practical to get ... and I have small hands! And articulated screen? My personal view is they are over-rated in what they can do for the photographer. I can't think of many shots Ive not managed to get because I didn't have one. In fact I rather like the magic of shooting blind from the hip. Less to go wrong? I do have to admit I could use a tilting screen - especially shooting hands above my head, or low down near the ground. So common sense tells me that the LX100 is the way to go. BUT, I really respect the reviews and opinions of Steve Huff, and he didn't have much good to say about the LX100 and the thread over there had a number of people complaining about various niggles, especially to do with poor focus. Steve Huff is the only reviewer I've seen - and I read LOADS - who marked the LX100 down. Other reviewers did come up with a few negatives, but they all concluded "fantastic camera". As for the so-called 'poor focus', I have a theory ... to lock focus you have to half-depress the shutter as is normal, but I find the LX100 half-press is far too sensitive; by the time I've recomposed, quite often the 'lock' has gone because I may have relaxed my finger by a nano-gram. So I have changed the AF setting to AFF which means the camera re-focuses when you take the shot. If I need to lock the focus I won't use the 'half press', I'll use the AE/AF lock button which I've set to AF only. That's my theory anyway. Darn, still no closer to a decision but hope this helps someone here. ln -- hide signature -- Panas0n!c Lum!x FZ38, LX100 (unknown member) • Veteran Member • Posts: 6,192 Re: Sony rx100 4 vs LX100 Why not buy a small mirrorless ILC which will have a larger sensor but still be small and not lock you in to these lenses with the same reach as a kit lens. They are both nice cameras but now compacts and ILC's are meeting in the middle the ILC is always going to be the more flexible option and larger sensored. I do not see why a compact is the only alternative to a DSLR. The LX100 is a nice camera but it is difficult to see the point of it since it is not going in your pocket so any size advantage just seems pointless. Kevin Coppalotti wrote: Re: Sony rx100 4 vs LX100 2 Greynerd wrote: not a fan of kit lenses, so i would need to outlay on a good f2.8 lens if i went the ILC route. Never shove anything in my pockets, - dust, lint, coins, car keys, 10 rounds of ammo and hunting knife already in there. lol axlotl • Senior Member • Posts: 2,286 Re: Sony rx100 4 vs LX100 1 Kevin Coppalotti wrote: Kevin, Having used both the RX100 (original) and the LX100 my conclusion is: That any of the Sony RX100 versions are significantly smaller (half the box volume as w x h x d) than the Panasonic. Therefore they are easier to carry when not in use and will fit in a (large) pocket, small pouch, handbag etc. The LX100 is easier to carry around in the hand ready for immediate use, has better holding, viewing and operating. So the LX100 is better as an all day carry around/walkaround street and field shooter. Any of the RX100 versions are better for occasional use where compact dimensions when not in use are more important. Picture quality is the same. With regard to the adverse comments by Steve Huff referred to in posts on this thread, I think Mr Huff got a bad copy. My LX100 does not suffer unduly from flare, makes very sharp pictures at infinity and reliably focusses in almost all conditions. The only exception is when there are bright light sources in the AF box. But several cameras have trouble with this situation. Andrew Re: Sony rx100 4 vs LX100 1 leighton w wrote:Kevin Coppalotti wrote:I'm also in the same market. I think the Sony will be too small for me, plus, I like the bigger sensor, better EVF and form factor of the LX better. Just wish the LX had a flip up touch screen. I agree on the LX100 being better the the RX100 IV. First and foremost, Sony generally tends to be pricier on their products versus Panasonic. But also, I don't like the design. For one, slippery, box-shaped body without any minimal grip, easy to drop, is undesirable. I also don't like the EVF design such that every time I might want to use it I would have to pop it open, pull it backwards and then reverse the two-state process to close it. That is a big factor why I would choose the LX100 versus Sony's RX100-IV. It is also why I selected Panasonic's TZ70 (ZS50 in U.S. markets) versus Sony's HX90V in the travel zoom sector. I like to have my EVF immediately available whenever I want to use it. I have the Sony Alpha-6000 and that's OK. Decent grip and the EVF is directly accessible. -- hide signature -- Jerry Suppan (a.k.a. tokyojerry) Tokyo, Japan Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 40-150mm F4-5.6 R Panasonic Lumix G X Vario PZ 14-42mm F3.5-5.6 ASPH OIS Panasonic Leica DG Summilux 15mm F1.7 ASPH Re: Sony rx100 4 vs LX100 I admire the cameras produced these days be both companies; I think they are the technology leaders. Currently have the RX100mk4 and a Sony A6000, with a Panasonic FZ300 pre-ordered. I've also owned Panasonic's FZ1000, GH4, GH3, GH2, GH1, FZ200, etc. -- and the Sony A55. Before that mostly Canon models (400D, 20D, 40D, 60D, 7D DSLRs among them. So a very long story I also agree. The technology from both Panasonic and Sony are very good, and Sony is the leader in sensor technology. They even OEM sensors to Nikon and other camera makers for that matter. And, since I treat video capability in cameras just as important as photographic ability, Panasonic and Sony are the only choices for video. The Panasonic TZ-70 (ZS50) I just ordered to have compact zoom for an upcoming Alaskan cruise trip. I also currently own the Sony A6000 with Sony's G-series 18-105mm and the 16-50mm pancake kit lens. Because of this fact I am still on the fence as to whether or not to get the LX100 or not for the around town, walkaround camera for 70-80% of my shooting or just be content with the Sony A6000 and 16-50mm pancake. I am leaning towards just being content with Sony A6000 as I have a gut feeling there will be a sequel to the LX100 announced soon since CEATEC Show (Japan's equivalent of CES in the U.S.) coming up in October. I also have owned several Panasonic (GH1, GH2, FZ1000, etc) and Sony (NEX7, NEX6, A7) in the past as well. -- hide signature -- Jerry Suppan (a.k.a. tokyojerry) Tokyo, Japan Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 40-150mm F4-5.6 R Panasonic Lumix G X Vario PZ 14-42mm F3.5-5.6 ASPH OIS Panasonic Leica DG Summilux 15mm F1.7 ASPH Re: Sony rx100 4 vs LX100 Greynerd wrote: Because some people just like convenience of having a compact camera with semi-professional capabilities and don't want bother fumbling around with changing lenses all the time. In a word, 'convenience' factor. I have the Sony Alpha 6000 which, as you point out, has the larger sensor, and is a relatively small and very capability mirrorless camera. And as I stated in a previous message here I am considering the LX100 if I considered any, but because the consumer electronics show (Japan) is coming up in October, I'd rather just stay content with my Sony A6000 for now and see what transpires as a sequel to the LX100 by that time. To have a dedicated compact camera for dedicated objectives I think sometimes is better then trying to have, or find, one almighty does everything type of camera, which does not exist. I purchased the Panasonic TZ70 for relative super zoom capabilities in a compact size. Someone might want to buy a compact camera, say for snorkelling, scuba diving etc., so then you get a separate compact with waterproof to x-meters to accommodate that function and objective. And, because they are small and compact, it's no big deal to carry a couple of small compact cameras alongside my relatively compact Sony Alpha 6000 all in a reasonably small camera bag. -- hide signature -- Jerry Suppan (a.k.a. tokyojerry) Tokyo, Japan Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 40-150mm F4-5.6 R Panasonic Lumix G X Vario PZ 14-42mm F3.5-5.6 ASPH OIS Panasonic Leica DG Summilux 15mm F1.7 ASPH You may also likeLatest sample galleriesLatest in-depth reviewsThe Sony a9 III is the world's first full-frame mirrorless camera to feature a global electronic shutter with simultaneous readout. We've been using a full production version of this 120 fps sports camera, to see what you gain (and, perhaps, lose). The Aura Carver 10.1" HD Digital Frame is a great way to put your portfolio on display and a great way to surface forgotten memories. The colors are vibrant, and the build quality is solid, but the Carver isn't without a few quirks. With a bigger battery and better video capabilities, the Fujifilm X-S20 could be the vlogging machine content creators have been waiting for. The Sony a7CR is a high-resolution addition to the company's compact full-frame a7C series. So what did we make of it and where does it leave the a7 IV that it sits just above? Lomography's LomoChrome '92 is designed to mimic the look of classic drugstore film that used to fill family photo albums. As we discovered, to shoot with it is to embrace the unexpected, from strange color shifts to odd textures and oversized grain. Latest buying guidesIf you want a compact camera that produces great quality photos without the hassle of changing lenses, there are plenty of choices available for every budget. Read on to find out which portable enthusiast compacts are our favorites. What's the best camera for travel? Good travel cameras should be small, versatile, and offer good image quality. In this buying guide we've rounded-up several great cameras for travel and recommended the best. 'What's the best mirrorless camera?' We're glad you asked. What’s the best camera for around $2000? This price point gives you access to some of the most all-round capable cameras available. Excellent image quality, powerful autofocus and great looking video are the least you can expect. We've picked the models that really stand out. Above $2500 cameras tend to become increasingly specialized, making it difficult to select a 'best' option. We case our eye over the options costing more than $2500 but less than $4000, to find the best all-rounder. |
