SAR reader Mike made that unusual comparison between the A7r with Otus lens and the first generation RX100 compact camera. And at the end the difference between the two are surprisingly small:
What I find astonishing is how little difference there is between the two, considering the vast difference in size, weight, sensors and price. Sure, the A7R/Otus combination wins, but not by that much. Besides, it bloody well better win! It’s up against a two-year-old pocket camera that weighs and costs a small fraction as much.
Full article can be read at Randolphimages.com/otus/.
0 Responses
Meanwhile, Canon will make 750D with electronic viewfinder
http://www.dailycameranews.com/2014/10/canon-750d-rebel-t6i-rumors/
May this be an SLT design?? If so, Canon can push Sony into irrelevance with one fell swoop…
Are U kidding your self ? Canon is missing one most important component, … processing chip/sensor ….
So? They have a complete lens line-up, sane prices and sure as hell aren’t going to phase out EF in favor of EF-M. Outdated sensors is bad, but if that was the only catch…
Canon does have processing chips and it’s own sensor.
I don’t know where you’ve been in last 10 years or so, but certainly not around.
You should know, that new upcoming CANON DSLR is going to have SONY sensor. I think, that cam is already out …
So basically a camera that Sony has sincearound 4 years? If that is all that Canon can come up with in 2015, then good night Canon 😉
By the way this is Sony rumors and not Canon rumors. You trolled the wrong page.
Sony have done great damage to their reputation lately by alienating its userbase. Who’d want to wait and see if 2017 is finally the Year of the A-Mount, if you were able to buy SLT from Canon now?
I lol’d when I read your comment about Canon pushing Sony into irrelevance. I have to admit, A-mount might be on the way out, but their mirrorless technology has progressed heaps in the space of 4 years.
With sony A6000 being compared to Canon D1x for AF, A7r for Sensor, A7s for Low light. I doubt Sony has much to worry about from Canon.
Also I’d like to see this 750D compared to the A6000 when it comes out. both aps-c, both EVF, both dual AF and Canon will be behind in STM lenses.
750D would be a DSLR (maybe SLT?), A6000 is a mirrorless. There’s as much sense compairing them as the topic guy compairing Otus to RX100.
If Sony keeps fiddling with mirrorless and Canon starts making SLTs, Sony will lose their remaining DSLR share and be relegated to the mirrorless leagues to compete with the likes of Fuji / Olympus / Samsung.
I’d say they have a lot to worry about, unless one of two things happened:
* Either at some point they gave up and said ‘we can’t compete with Canikon, let’s try to beat Olympus’;
* Or they have some revolutionary tech getting ready for production that will allow them to somehow replace DSLR with mirrorless. Everything they’ve shown so far were a number of bodies crippled by the abscence of mirror, but in a smaller package.
you don’t find comparing a Mirrorless and a DSLR makes senses? They are both just cameras and take pictures. If I can do the same thing at half the size and weight, why buying a DSLR?
And SLT is just a transition technology, an improved DSLR with less moving parts and full time autofocussing and EVF. It can’t do more than the A6000 can do at just about half the body size.
Why are people so obsessed with that mirror? It’s just a useless moving part waiting to be replaced by “nothing”. This mirror doesn’t mean better pictures or anything!
You can also take pictures with a compact P&S or a medium format or a film camera. All are cameras and take pictures. But as products, those are very different for different use cases and differend needs.
As for ‘why DSLR’, I don’t see how current gen mirrorless can do ‘the same thing’ (can iPhone do ‘the same thing’ too?) and I want a bigger camera, not smaller.
Lets compare both DSLRs and Mirrorless cameras and see how much differences there are between them:
DSLR: interchangeble lens : Mirrorless Interchangeble lens
DSLR: APS-C and FF : Mirrorless 1″, M43, APS-C and FF
DSLR: PDAF : Mirrorlewss PDAF & CDAF
DSLR: OVF : Mirrorless EVF
DSLR: big, heavy : Mirrorless: small and light
DSLR: Capable of taking high quality pictures Mirrorless IQ is at the same high level.
As you can see Mirrorless and DSLR are very close in many ways. There are 3 things where they realy are different:
1. AF tracking speed: DSLR has vey high AF speed in the top end cameras (over $3000) The AF speed of mirrorless is lower, but not by much any more.
2. Lenses: DSLRs have a larger selection of lenses then Mirrorless but mirrorless is closing in.
3. Size: Mirrorless can be much smaller then DSLRs can ever be.
In the end mirrorless can have less moving parts, so it can be build more affordable (like the $600 A6000) it can be build more reliable and it can be build smaller.
Mirrorless and DSLRs are in the same price range, they are in the same IQ range, they are in the same flexability range, so they are very competative to each other.
P&S are not as flexible, most are way cheaper, IQ is lower So these cameras are in a lower range.
Medium format is as flexible, but the price range is much higherand IQ is better.
Thanks for the smile! This is a joke isn’t it? Let’s look, when the 750D is a DSLT, will it be better then the Sony DSLTs? Or will it be the EOS-M under the DSLRs? Will it be rediculed by every real Canon lover and will it be rediculed by every Sony lover? So will it end in the cheap camera bin where it will sell as a forgotten camera?
Mirrorless on the other hand (Canon said they will get in it seriously again…) is where the future is. It is a growing market, wherre the DSLR is a slowly shrinking market.
Sony was fast to see the benefits of mirrorless, started investing in that tyoe of camera. Designed a mount that is capable of taking both a APS and a FF sensor and capable of using almost every lens in the world with an adapter. They came and have now over 40% of the mirrorless market. And Canon (very serious with their EOS-M disaster) what market share does they have?
It might take some years from now befor mirrorless is realy shrinking DSLR market share, but that time will come and then people will say: Canon did they not go the same way as Kodak?
Obviously, 750D in itself won’t change anything. But if Canon starts making SLTs, Sony will lose the main advantage they have in DLSR (not that they managed to capitalize on it so far).
DSLR market will shrink, but it’s still part of the future. And given that it shrinks upwards (to high-end ethusiast / professional segment), it will still be a lucrative, albeit smaller, piece of market with expensive high-margin bodies and lenses.
Lol, so if there’s no much sense comparing them, because they are so different, then how come Canon will push Sony into irrelevance? You can’t even troll adequately.
Ha. Alienating its user base? Have you visited a Canon rumors site lately? “Chirp… Chirp……… Chirp…… Wait… Hey everyone! Canon is updating the legendary 7D with something that really isn’t any better (to 2/3 of its potential customer base) than the 5 year old 7D. But let’s find a way to get excited about it! A replacement for a classic DSLR, 5 years in the making, that sees really no improvement to image quality, eh… it will be AMAZING for birders!”
Does Canon care (or understand the implications) that a successful indie film that received big (relative) distribution– Like Crazy– was shot entirely on the 7D? Or that their entry level cameras are worth putting competitive features into instead of intentionally crippling them to obsolescence?
How were all the lessons of the 5D MKII revolution lost on them? They MADE that camera. It changed everything– from who shot what, to distribution, to the cost of production, on and on, and Canon is standing around with its thumb up its arssse, blinking slowly.
I have an a-mount SLT that is about 3 years old and I still use it and love it. I’d pick up an a7, a7R or a7S if I had time to get a little more serious with photography. I don’t feel abandoned. The a65 I own is still better than most APS-C DSLR’s (IMHO).
I don’t care what Sony’s strategy is– they are exciting to watch, and they’re putting out hugely risky (and amazing) products like the FS7. Canon wouldn’t have taken half the chances Sony just did with a camera like that.
And so now, anyone with a couple brain cells to rub together should see the entire Canon cinema line: the C100/C300/C500/1DC line as obsolete– because at those price points, they are a massive waste of potential per dollar spent. (Unless you can’t be bothered to put your Canon glass on an e-mount and focus manually like a professional.)
I’ve owned over 10 Canon cameras, 6 video cameras, and still own one of their DSLRs and 2 video cameras. I started both my photo and video career with them. And I don’t actually have anything against Canon– except that they seem to be behaving like a slow, inept, greedy, and out-of-touch bureaucracy.
Canon appears to be only marginally more effective than the US congress right now. Maybe that was a low blow, but I hope they get their sh** together and put out some exciting products for *people,* not production companies, because that’s how a lot of us got started (as a freelancer or part-timer or small collaborator). Canon doesn’t seem to understand a very fundamental piece of how the new creative video industry works.
You don’t have to sell me on Sony. I’ve been in the fan club for about 5 years already. But I’m coming to realize that consistency may be as important as latest tech. Sony is putting out a lot of “exciting innovative stuff”, but no complete system. I own the A65 too and I know it’s a great entry-level; but when you do ‘get a little more serious with photography’, you realize Sony has two half-baked systems, none of which looks like a good buy.
You write about 5D MKII and the revolution that it was; Sony had their own revolution with the SLT technology, but when asked about it lately they their managers say something along the lines of “Look, we got A7x! And those QX things that attach to your phone! What DSLR? Oh, you mean our big flagship line with 30 year old history? Yeah… we’re supporting that too…”
I’d rather live with an outdated sensor, that will inevitably improve at some point, rather than read a ~450 page thread on a local forum on whether Sony will keep A-Mount. Such questions shouldn’t arise at all.
must be frustrating times for A-mount users those days… Didn’t you just get an A77mkII update?
The biggest point you’re missing is that Canon hasn’t brought out a great sensor (capable of both stills and video) since the 5D MK II in 2008. The 5D MK III shoots soft 720P-ish video and only does stills well.
Canon hasn’t released a decent stills and video sensor in *6* years. That doesn’t mean they can’t (they will at *some* point- as you mentioned) but given that the top 11 sensors (minus 1) on DXO Mark are all Sony designed sensors, I don’t see Canon instantly making Sony irrelevant. Sensors are a bigger deal than you understand. You think Canon wanted to license Sony’s 1 inch sensor for their “me too” point and shoot? Talk about eating humble pie.
Point is, people can freak out about Sony focusing on mirrorless- the e-mount- but that is the future and where their money and energy should be right now. Sony would have a very hard time bringing out an a-mount SLT that could compete with the D810 or the brilliant new D750, especially given Nikon’s consumer base, lens portfolio, etc. Selling them the sensor and working on the future (mirrorless) is actually a brilliant strategy.
I’m pretty sure Sony will bring out a 42mp a-mount (or hybrid a/e mount) camera in January. If they decide not to license the new sensor tech then they could easily have an advantage in the “DSLR” market with the a-mount, but not if they decide to compete against Nikon with the same sensor.
The a99 and the a77 MK II are both very capable cameras. It’s not as if Sony has abandoned anything. A-mount people need to chill out and look at the entire situation. I’m considering the D750, but if I don’t pick that up, I’ll wait to see what Sony does with the a-mount in January. Canon can suck it for now.
If you want to panic and lose it over the lack of a shiney new a-mount camera, you can sell all your gear and buy into something better. But I bet you won’t if you’re truly invested in Sony lenses. Pick up an LA-E4 adapter and an a6000 or a7 (for less than a grand) and have fun. Oddly, Sony is one of the best systems to own if you relax your thinking a bit. Learn to focus manually. Unless you shoot weddings or sports professionally, it’d be good for you.
I’m mostly into event photography / reportage. People doing stuff 🙂 Fast focusing is essential to capture the moments.
I understand why Sony would focus on FE right now and less on A. Like, you know, 4 lenses for FE, 1 lens for A. That would be perfectly fine. But Photokina did freak people out a little bit, with the FE 35mm f/1.4 and no mention of A-Mount at all.
A99 has APS-C AF with all AF points in the centre. I wouldn’t call that a very capable camera. Maybe above entry-level, but not 5d3 / d800 level.
I’m not invested into Sony lenses, but I’ve been planning to buy my first professional-grade kit by New Year. FF body, f/2.8 zooms, all that. But if you’ve been reading this forum (the “A-Mount frustration thread” etc.), you know why one’d have second thoughts. E-Mount doesn’t have f/2.8 zooms, and Canikon bodies are OVF. That’s why I kind of jumped at this rumor of a Canikon EVF camera 🙂
This is totaly BS and you knows it. Sony came out with the a77m2, a camera as exiting as the Canon 7dm2 (better focussing system and some better features, but not realy much) Sony said they will continue supporting both A-mount and E-mount. They said it out loud and clear. Did Canon say out loud and clear they keep on supporting the EOS-M in the US? Will they give you all the lenses for the system when you live in the states or Europe? Or did they told you they go serious with a new mirrorless mount? Tell me what camera builder to trust!
More likely EVF will work in mirror lockup mode (with STM lenses and Dual pixel AF you don’t really need old AF). Also it will be useful for playback.
But hey, all AF DSLR feature semi-transparent mirror 😀
So it’ll have both EVF and OVF? Sorry, your comment doesn’t make sense..
Which is what I’ve been saying since Dual Pixel AF came about… it completely nullifies the existence of SLT. It’s the elegant solution to getting rid of the mirror.
If I understood correctly, Dual Pixel AF is about smoothly focusing in video mode and assisting contrast AF in LV. Nobody said it can replace PDAF so far (as in 70D and 7DM2). SLT is different – full-time PDAF in LV and video.
And this PDAF sensors are now on image sensor itself. Wouldn’t you be happy to get rid of the semitransparent mirror, even in you a-mount Cameras?
There is so much other AF technogy from Panasonic, Olympus and Fuji, all used in mirrorless and greatly improving every generation. It’s just a matter of maybe another year until the DSLR/DSLT AF system is obsolete!
If Sony wouldn’t be convinced that the mirrorless E-mount is the better tech then why would they promote it like that? They know they can replace 7000$ D1x with a 3 times smaller body tomorrow. The tech is all there, they just need to combine it…
“And this PDAF sensors are now on image sensor itself.” – and they’re shit. Totally useless in a low-light situations where every camera using them switches to standard CDAF. Sorry, but on-sensor PDAF is limited by physics. It’ll never match full-size sensors.
“And this PDAF sensors are now on image sensor itself.” – and it sux. Sorry to bring a bad news to you, but every camera using it switches to CDAF in a low light simply because on-sensor PDAF cannot handle that. This technology is already limited by physics. It’ll never reach performance of a full-size PDAF.
This whole talk about “DSLR/DSLT AF system is obsolete” is pure baseless BS.
It is just how you look at it. For many people the aF of their smartphone (the one witht he worst AF speed) is fast enough. The handling and the ergonomics of the smartphone is good enough. The only things that are not good enough in the smartphone is the IQ and flexability. So they go to a camera store and tell they want a camera that gives them both, high IQ and lenses they can switch. The man in the store will sell them a new mirrorless camrea, as it is cheap (Sony A6000) It is of high IQ (24 MP milady) and you can chage lenses (and the camera is sold. AF is better then the smartphone, IQ is way better then the smatrphone, handling is better etc.
Remember thet for most people AF speed is less important then you think…
And you are saying for these same people the difference in IQ between SLT land no SLT will be relevant? You can’t even see it in the majority of shooting situations.
Even if there’s only one exception until now, the Olympus E-M1, it proves your claim wrong. Its sensor-based PDAF is the only AF method used for focusing Four-Thirds-Mount DSLR lenses, and (especially at the latest firmware revision level) it is even slightly quicker and more precise, even in low light, than what the most advanced Olympus DSLR used to be able to with its dedicated AF module. The Panasonic-made sensor has no image-quality or high-ISO disadvantages compared to the same-resolution Sony-made E-M5/10 sensor, either.
>If Sony wouldn’t be convinced that the mirrorless E-mount is the better tech then why would they promote it like that?
Simple – FE is a market segment where they have no competition, and they need to milk this cow until Canikon come up with their own.
Dual Pixel AF is PDAF… using any photosite on the sensor… so millions of PDAF points.
Canon wouldn’t want to introduce the disadvantages of the SLT mirror after that used to be one strong reason for A-Mount to lose attractiveness.
Until now, there is one EVF camera on the market that can use DSLR lenses without disadvantages like worse AF, loss of light or reduced sharpness, by using on-sensor PDAF: the Olympus E-M1.
Since Canon has been developing PDAF-capable sensors for some years now, the same approach would be what to expect there.
For their camera to become interesting, though, the sensor would need to be significantly better than that 20 MP sensor they have now – both in PDAF functionality and image quality.
And of course the same would be the way to go for Sony, too. A Mount and E Mount have to be merged someday, and that will only be possible if no SLT mirror is needed anymore. And Sony should really think about introducing IBIS in E-Mount cameras, too.
Care to show us some proof of a-mount losing attractiveness?
http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/japan-2013-overall-sales-numbers-sony-dslrslt-presence-shrinks-mirrorless-share-increases/
It’s CR1 rumor. I’ll believe it when I’ll see it.
Sony chip ROCKS plus ZEISS Optics ? WOW what a combination ….
2 minutes time of our lives wasted. And no, I won’t go on his site to check the 100% crop. I was only interested in iPhone 3G vs the Otus. I think the iPhone wins, check my site to see the 100% crop…
horrible
I’m surprised that they didn’t stop Otus to f16 for an even more dramatic comparison!
Also Zeiss clearly stated the Otus line is a step to bring MF quality to D800 (and future higher-res 35mm sensors). Otus at f1.4-f2.0 should be as good or better than MF lenses at f2.8, and cheaper too (even more so if you consider the cost of a MF camera/back)
LOL you made my day!
That’s silly. At least should have used 20 mp camera like 6D for the Otus.
but RX100 is 20mp camera
I think that’s his point.
My HX400V is even much better! I would have zoommed in 1200mm (!!!) on the weed and everything would be super huge sharp! This is great pro test not like other stupid lab tests! Sony rules bigtime!
And Mike is awesome Sony shooter so very much pro and funny and cool! Real pro!
Buy the way: Opus is 12 times HX400V!!! That’s 85mm verses 14000mm!!! 14 thousand mil! Like shooting Moon from Mars!
Silly it may be, but it does make a valid point. The gap in sharpness between expensive lenses like this Otus and compacts like the RX100 is closing. Yes, when pixel peeping the differences are still large, but that is not how you enjoy a picture normally. You tend to look at the whole picture instead.
.
So why expensive lenses? Because of their unsharpness! Point and shoots with smaller sensors will never get the same bokeh and DOF as fast lenses on large sensors. I cannot be bothered with the exact math at the moment, but a 85mm f/1.4 on FF would have to be something like a 85mm f/0.6 on a 1″ sensor to get the same DOF. I do not see that happen any time soon.
well, the OTUS is intended for the 1% photographer group who demand the highest possible level of sharpness on a FF 35mm camera
Sharpness? My Min 100/2.8 macro is incredibly sharp, but I find the bokeh not the best, at all. I doubt the Otus was designed with only sharpness in mind.
You’d need a 31mm f/0.5 on a 1″ sensor to get the same DOF.
Ah yes, forgot to divide the focal length as well. Thank you for doing the math for me. It even further underlines for me what the real strength of big expensive fast lenses is.
Srsly? This remind me of when one of your mates would buy a DSLR and complain that it’s not as good as his old compact camera because, like, bits of the picture are out of focus and the colours aren’t as bright…
Ok, I must be dense and missing something really obvious here…and I know that optometrist appointment is perhaps overdue…
I’ve looked and looked again and again. I’ve looked really close at the 100% crops.
I can’t really see any difference…
At a first brief look I thought the rx100 looked better but that’s probably just because it’s slightly darker. Ok, if you held a gun to my head I MIGHT see a tiny tiny bit more detail in the Otus but…IS THAT IT?????
I understand there are other aspects to consider, but REALLY, IS THAT IT?
Yes, you’re missing something obvious. The shots are jpeg (who knows what settings), hand-held, at f/5. It’s not a comparison you can begin to take seriously. The people freaking out about not being able to tell the difference wouldn’t know enough to use the Otus close to its potential anyway, so the lens is not for them.
The main lesson to take from this “comparison” is that for people who don’t know or care about the details and technicalities, they’re best off buying a point-and-shoot.
while im not a big fan of otus (mf, big, price, etc)
come on!!!
take a picture with both cameras wide open
otus was designed to shot at f1.4, not f5
f1.8 vs f1.8 i would love that…
but i get your point…
any photo bigger than 2mp if you had FULL HD or 8mp if you had 4K its a waste of resolution.
all extra pixels go to oblivion unless you like navigating phots at 100% pixel view… i like to look the whole frame not tiny parts of the photo, but thats just me
Told you. Large sensor compacts will kill mirrorless. It’s bound to happen.
OMG seriously? Compare it at F1.4, compare DOF, compare Bokeh.
Try to take a nice portrait with that RX100 that comes close to the Otus or other fast lenses…
If you really give a **** on that comparison then compare everything to a iPhone at F22.
iPhone will win! So what does this teach us?
Think!
You miss the point.
People care about the quality till it’s “good enough” – and RX100 offers quality that’s indistinguishable for good 3/4 of population from Sony A7 – quality gap between these two cameras is by far lower than between iPhone and RX100.
No I think you miss the point. It is about the art. If you want portraits with sharp foreground and sharp background then the iPhone and the RX100 are pretty close together.
If you want to have a shallow DOF and best quality then it is a completely other story.
It has always been like this. My parents had a “point and shoot”. Fixed lens, fixed aperture, film, click, click, click…
Now professionals 30 years ago used the same film but the result was still different, why? Becouse of the possibilities and the freedom their equipment offered.
Of course, if they would have used their pro gear with same apperture and focal lenght like the P&S from my parents with the same film the results would have been identical. But why on earth should someone do that? Restrict their possibilietes to the lower standards just to compare it and then come to wrong conclusions?
This test is useless, it is just there to create clicks and to impress people who have no clue about photography. Or maybe to make owners of cheap cameras happy: “See you cheap gear can do the same. In fact you have best camera in this universe, others are just stupid becouse they waste their money on expensive crap… … now you are a happy guy, right? Click my website now!”
You either never shot with iPhone or never shot with RX100 if you think that they’re comparable in terms of DoF. But that’s irrelevant.
QUALITY IS NOT DEPTH OF FIELD. Some of the best photographs in a history of mankind were made with no bokeh and they got nothing to deal with “point and shoot” or “click, click, click”. Get some grip on reality and stop being a bokeh fetish.
RX100 is capable of creating some decent portraits with proper bokeh while at the same time doesn’t offer razor-thin DoF which is more of a problem for average amateur than an advantage. See for example this photo: http://www.flickr.com/photos/29065834@N08/8674651503 RX100 isn’t a camera that’s restricting creativity of average amateur – quite contrary, it’s freeing him from avoiding many problematic situations that would occur if he’d toy with Sony A7 or any other similar camera.
Quality is not depth of field, I know, but quality isn’t also only sharpness, especially when stopped down a lot and only watched at middle of the frame. I don’t know what your problem is? I never did say that you need to shoot with razor thin DOF but the point is, with the Otus or other fast primes you can if you need to, but you can also stop down the Otus and have more DOF when you need.
It is the possibility and the freedom to can if you need that you pay for.
To test the Otus vs the RX100 with F4 while watching only the middle of the frame is very biased and completely useless.
I am just questioning what the point is in this comparison? And I can’t believe that people really believe the author that crap. I also can’t believe that the SAR Admin is posting every Sony Fanboy CRAP he can find out there in the nets. This does not give this site a very good reputation.
Compare this site and see the info that is given there to the followin:
http://www.dailycameranews.com/category/sony/
SAR is filled too much with useless fanboy-stuff nowadays… (sorry Admin, but true)
Please note the background blur is created by post processing in the above image.
Check the comments on Flickr.
Still not bad all things considered.
Thanks…someone on here who can take the comparison with a grain of salt and see it for what it is. What you stated was I think the guys point- “good enough” is actually pretty good these days.
Retarded test…
… people do all kind of BS just to receive some klicks.
Really Andrea, do not make these posts. They are better off ignored.
This guy is a troll that if any, diminuishes the site integrity and value.
I love to read your website and find it to be a very good source of info. But posts like these just bring garbage . Stupid stupid comparison, not even worth to mention why !
seriously? that is a very silly comparison! the otus is not a lens that will automatically make your pictures better, sharper especially in the corner wide open than any other lens, but in the center at f/5 there will be lots of lenses that are just the same even at 100% (though if you would measure with imatest you could “see” differences, but what do these differences mean?)
I think I should make a site where i just put the useful links (those with rumors or news if they are really new(s)) of all the rumor sites, I bet I could make a lot of money that way….
No, it’s not seriously. I’m not sure if you missed the part of the article that says not to take this seriously.
A better comparison would have been the Nokia phone with 41mp sensor and a Zeiss lens, no?
And the winner is…… the iPhone!!! 🙂
The iPhone has surprisingly good image quality considering most people think Apple can only make crap.
Because Sony is making them.
Even Zeiss didn’t expect the sales of their 55mm 1.4 Otus to be what they were. They thought it would do more to promote the brand and point people toward more sensibly priced Zeiss glass. I guess there are more people out their with wads of cash then they thought. This comparision- while light hearted- makes a good point though. If your not going to use your high end gear in the right context your wasting your money. You have to work in the extremes to truly appreciate what it is capable of. Looking at crap on facebook- stick with the RX100 and save your money.
Maybe people are expecting > 50Mpix cameras coming out…
Well, people seem to miss that the Otus will still perform reasonably well even if you put a 100mp sensor behind it. What about the RX100 lens? There will be almost no difference if the 1-inch sensor was 40mp instead of the actual 20mp because the lens as well as diffraction will limit what is going to be resolved.
There is no free lunch.
Let’s see the RX100 do this. In fact let’s see any other lens in the world do this. https://www.flickr.com/photos/112477224@N05/15245433320/in/photostream/lightbox/
So that’s the only photography meaning to you?
What was it taken with?