Sony Cyber-shot RX10
-
-
Written by Gordon Laing
Quality
Sony RX10 vs Olympus STYLUS 1 vs Panasonic Lumix FZ200 quality at 28mm
|
Sony Cyber-shot RX10 | Olympus STYLUS 1 | Panasonic Lumix FZ200 | ||
f4, 125 ISO | f4, 100 ISO | f4, 100 ISO | ||
f4, 125 ISO | f4, 100 ISO | f4, 100 ISO | ||
f4, 125 ISO | f4, 100 ISO | f4, 100 ISO | ||
f4, 125 ISO | f4, 100 ISO | f4, 100 ISO | ||
f4, 125 ISO | f4, 100 ISO | f4, 100 ISO |
Sony RX10 vs Olympus STYLUS 1 vs Panasonic Lumix FZ200 quality at 50mm
|
Sony Cyber-shot RX10 | Olympus STYLUS 1 | Panasonic Lumix FZ200 | ||
f2.8, 125 ISO | f4, 100 ISO | f2.8, 100 ISO | ||
f2.8, 125 ISO | f4, 100 ISO | f2.8, 100 ISO | ||
f2.8, 125 ISO | f4, 100 ISO | f2.8, 100 ISO | ||
f2.8, 125 ISO | f4, 100 ISO | f2.8, 100 ISO | ||
f2.8, 125 ISO | f4, 100 ISO | f2.8, 100 ISO |
Sony RX10 vs Olympus STYLUS 1 vs Panasonic Lumix FZ200 quality at 100mm
|
Sony Cyber-shot RX10 | Olympus STYLUS 1 | Panasonic Lumix FZ200 | ||
f5.6, 125 ISO | f4, 100 ISO | f4, 100 ISO | ||
f5.6, 125 ISO | f4, 100 ISO | f4, 100 ISO | ||
f5.6, 125 ISO | f4, 100 ISO | f4, 100 ISO | ||
f5.6, 125 ISO | f4, 100 ISO | f4, 100 ISO | ||
f5.6, 125 ISO | f4, 100 ISO | f4, 100 ISO |
Sony RX10 vs Olympus STYLUS 1 vs Panasonic Lumix FZ200 quality at 200mm
|
Sony Cyber-shot RX10 | Olympus STYLUS 1 | Panasonic Lumix FZ200 | ||
f4, 125 ISO | f4, 100 ISO | f5.6, 100 ISO | ||
f4, 125 ISO | f4, 100 ISO | f5.6, 100 ISO | ||
f4, 125 ISO | f4, 100 ISO | f5.6, 100 ISO | ||
f4, 125 ISO | f4, 100 ISO | f5.6, 100 ISO | ||
f4, 125 ISO | f4, 100 ISO | f5.6, 100 ISO |
Olympus STYLUS 1 vs Panasonic Lumix FZ200 quality at 300mm
|
Olympus STYLUS 1 | Panasonic Lumix FZ200 | |
f4, 100 ISO | f5.6, 100 ISO | |
f4, 100 ISO | f5.6, 100 ISO | |
f4, 100 ISO | f5.6, 100 ISO | |
f4, 100 ISO | f5.6, 100 ISO | |
f4, 100 ISO | f5.6, 100 ISO | |
Panasonic Lumix FZ200 quality at 600mm
|
Panasonic Lumix FZ200 |
100 ISO, f3.9 |
100 ISO, f3.9 |
100 ISO, f3.9 |
100 ISO, f3.9 |
100 ISO, f3.9 |
Sony RX10 vs Olympus STYLUS 1 vs Panasonic Lumix FZ200 Noise JPEG
In my first noise comparison I’ll take a look at the JPEGs from each camera using their default settings, while on the next page I’ll compare their RAW results using the same processing settings. As always I matched the vertical field of view and have reproduced crops at 1:1 for comparison below. The STYLUS 1 and FZ200 crops show the same area as both share the same 12 Megapixel resolution, while the RX10 crops show a smaller area due to its higher 20 megapixel resolution. All three cameras were set to f4 here and used the same shutter speeds, so the crops are directly comparable. Sometimes it’s important to factor in differences in maximum apertures too if they allow one camera to use lower ISOs than another, but with all three sharing maximum apertures of f2.8, each ISO value below is directly comparable. Below you’re looking at crops from three cameras with different sized sensors: 1in type for the RX10, 1/1.7in type for the STYLUS 1 and 1/2.3in type for the FZ200. These descriptions don’t really explain their relative sizes, but you can see how they literally measure-up in the diagram below, where it’s clear the RX10’s sensor has roughly 2.7 times the surface area of the STYLUS 1’s sensor and roughly four times the surface area of the FZ200’s sensor. You’d therefore assume in this test that the RX10 will have the least noise, followed by the STYLUS 1, leaving the FZ200 in last place, but there are some (small) surprises.
Starting with the largest sensor camera, the Sony RX10 unsurprisingly delivers the cleanest results of the three, enjoying a visible advantage at every sensitivity. While the RX10’s quality falls a lot in the jump from 400 to 800 ISO, it remains superior to its rivals, and at 1600 and 3200 ISO it’s noisy but remains useful whereas the STYLUS 1 and FZ200 look pretty horrible at that point. Remember you can also downsample the Sony’s images to the same 12 Megapixels as the STYLUS 1 and FZ200, and enjoy an even better result. I would however say the RX10 at 6400 ISO is a step too far, and at 12800 ISO it’s a mess. Moving onto the STYLUS 1, it enjoys a nice clean result at 100 ISO, but exhibits a big leap in visible noise at 200 ISO, and quality that reduces noticeably with every increase in sensitivity. The interesting thing is the Lumix FZ200 actually looks a little better at 200 and 400 ISO, despite a smaller sensor, although as you’ll discover on my RAW page, this is more down to JPEG processing than actual superior sensor performance. At 800 ISO the STYLUS 1 enjoys a lead over the FZ200 of around a stop, which increases as the sensitivity is increased. The Olympus may not look great at 1600 ISO and 3200 ISO, but it’s significantly preferable to the FZ200. So as expected the RX10 enjoys the best results across the entire sensitivity range, even before you consider downsampling its images to the same resolution as the other two. Meanwhile the FZ200 enjoys a small lead over the STYLUS 1 between 100 and 400 ISO thanks to cunning JPEG processing and careful noise reduction, but the STYLUS 1’s slightly larger sensor allows it to deliver decisively lower noise and more detail at 800 ISO and above. So what’s going on behind the scenes? Find out in my RAW noise results where I’ve processed them all using the same settings. Or perhaps you’d like to check out my sample images or skip straight to my verdict on all three cameras!
|
Sony RX10 vs Olympus STYLUS 1 vs Panasonic Lumix FZ200 Noise RAW
In my second noise comparison I’ll take a look at the RAW output from each camera processed using Adobe Camera RAW, using the same settings: sharpness of 50 / 0.5 / 36 / 10 and all noise reduction turned off. You wouldn’t normally sharpen images this much nor apply zero noise reduction, but it’s a useful technique for seeing exactly what’s going on behind the scenes. As always I matched the vertical field of view and have reproduced crops at 1:1 for comparison below. The STYLUS 1 and FZ200 crops show the same area as both share the same 12 Megapixel resolution, while the RX10 crops show a smaller area due to its higher 20 megapixel resolution. All three cameras were set to f4 here and used the same shutter speeds, so the crops are directly comparable. Sometimes it’s important to factor in differences in maximum apertures too if they allow one camera to use lower ISOs than another, but with all three sharing maximum apertures of f2.8, each ISO value below is directly comparable. Below you’re looking at crops from three cameras with different sized sensors: 1in type for the RX10, 1/1.7in type for the STYLUS 1 and 1/2.3in type for the FZ200. These descriptions don’t really explain their relative sizes, but you can see how they literally measure-up in the diagram below, where it’s clear the RX10’s sensor has roughly 2.7 times the surface area of the STYLUS 1’s sensor and roughly four times the surface area of the FZ200’s sensor. You’d therefore assume in this test that the RX10 will have the least noise, followed by the STYLUS 1, leaving the FZ200 in last place.
The first row shows what we’d expect: the cleanest result from the RX10, a slightly noisier one from the STYLUS 1 and a noisier one still from the FZ200. Likewise at 200 ISO, although I’d still say all three are recording a decent amount of detail. The higher resolution RX10 is resolving most detail, but the STYLUS 1 and FZ200 are roughly similar. At 400 ISO and up, the order continues but the gaps widen. At this point you’d have to apply more noise reduction to the FZ200, resulting in potentially softer images than the STYLUS 1. Meanwhile the RX10 remains comfortably cleaner than either of them as expected. At 1600 ISO there’s visible chroma noise on all three, but again it’s the smaller sensors of the STYLUS 1 and especially the FZ200 which are suffering most. At 3200 ISO it’s arguably game-over for the FZ200, at least when viewed 1:1, but the STYLUS 1 is just clinging on a little longer. The RX10 at 3200 ISO is noisy, but usable. At 6400 ISO, all three have lost a lot of detail from noise, and I’d say it’s too late for the STYLUS 1 now, although again the RX10 bravely hangs onto more detail. Looking at the RAW noise levels, I’d say the STYLUS 1 enjoys around a one stop advantage over the FZ200 from 400 ISO upwards. I’d say the gap is wider between the RX10 and STYLUS 1, definitely more than one stop and approaching two stops at times. This is pretty much what you’d expect. The STYLUS 1 only has a slightly larger sensor than the FZ200 and this is reflected in its noise levels which are only a little better. Meanwhile the RX10 has a comfortably larger sensor than the STYLUS 1, so its noise performance is more decisive. And again this is before taking downsampling into consideration which would give the RX10 over two stops advantage over the STYLUS 1. Bottom line? If you shoot at 100 or 200 ISO, all three deliver respectable results. If you regularly shoot up to 1600 ISO, the STYLUS 1 will give you slightly cleaner results than the FZ200, but not by a massive amount. If you shoot at this level and want noticeably cleaner results then you’ll need to spend the extra on the RX10 and carry its heavier weight. You kinda saw that coming, didn’t you? Well done for making it this far! Now check out my sample images or skip straight to my verdict on all three cameras!
|