RX100 vs A6000 in low light. Or something else?

[Telly Madelly]

Hey guys,

Please advise me if i'm on the right path or there is a better way to go:

I do a lot of streetphotography in developing countries and use a RX100 (version 1) for this. Its small, versatile, stealthy and easy to always have it on you. And quality wise: under good light circumstances it beats even mid-range DSLR's setups so im more than happy with my baby.

The problem however (maybe you guessed it) when it get dark outside, (even late afternoon or when its cloudy) or inside lowlight rooms the camera becomes unusable. Over ISO 800 quality moves from exceptional to 'typical compact camera'. Other problem with light: when its too light the cam tends to blowout fast.

I need something better. Im not looking for a cam that will allow nightlife photography but at least something that will perform when its 'shady/cloudy' and will give me an extra quality boost during daytime over the RX100. Its also important it will be a relatively small camera/body because i want to carry it always and not look like a 'pro' in public. I wont use flash.

So i figured: what about an A6000 with the 35mm 2.8 Zeiss lens?

Will this setup, compared to my RX100, give me:

1. better quality during daytime?
2. better performance when it 'gets darker'?

(i know there is an 35/1.4 lens available but i have reasons not to go that high).

Or will the difference be so minimal that i better go for a REAL lowlight camera like the A7S?
I'll be happy with 20% better performance.

Or is there another option i should research?

Thanks in advance!

Chris

 

[chuasam]

Lumix LX100, Lumix DMC-GM1 and Coolpix A to name a few.

 

[goodguy]

With the right lens the a6000 will be very good for low light BUT f2.8 will not be enough for serious low light, my advise is getting an f1.8 or f1.4 lens.
The sensor on the a6000 is fantastic, much bigger then the one on the RX100 and far better in low light.
Going for the A7s is really going all the way, its best in low light and with very fast lens (f1.8 or f1.4) its unbeatable in low light!!! but this is not a cheap camera and suffers like all other Sony's from a lack of good fast zoom lens.

 

[jaomul]

I'd look at Olympus m4/3 system also. There are options with or without viewfinders. The oly em5 is going cheap at the moment. There are many good lenses in this system and the image quality is fantastic, while being very customizable and weather resistance with some lenses. Just another option

 

[rudimaes]

The Sony A6000 is certainly better than the RX100 III, but the lowlight champion is the Sony A7S.
Rudi

 

[Logician]

I think your should also consider RX100 2 or 3 too. You may think its same as RX100 1 but its not. Sony started using backlit illumated CMOS sensor in RX100 2 & 3 and it REALLY makes a big difference in low light.

Many people thinks if sensor size is bigger, it automatically makes a better camera and although this is usually true in most cases, as a RX100 2 owner, I think RX100 breaks this general rule in many cases. Its low light and high ISO performance is better than a lot of other cameras including many APS-C sensored cameras. I know this sounds "unbelievable" but believe me I tested it with many cameras simultaneously.

Here is some comparisons. This is NEX6 vs. RX100 2 and IMO they are pretty close and plese note NEX 6 has APS-C sensor. Again with APS-C sensor Sony A55 does not stand a chance against RX100 2 here. But IMO most surprising of all, RX100 2 is even competing with Sony A99 which is a Full Frame Camera BTW! Even though its not a match, IMO its still surprising how its doing against A7 too.

I personally never change my RX100 2 to any other camera I own when it gets dark. I found its ISO performance very remarkable and better than many other cameras including some that are from upper leagues.

On the other hand even though I did not use A6000 myself, I also heard good things about it in ISO. So if you choose it, I think it can also satisfy you well. But if you are not shooting portrait IMO RX100 2 still a better shot because it will give you deeper depth of field in its F1.8 aperture. If you choose A6000, your best bet would be a 2.8 lens which is 3/4 stop slower than RX100 and even if you get a 1.8 lens (like the magnificant Zeiss 55mm 1.8), it will kill the background in that big sensor camera and long focal length. If you shoot portrait you may like this but if you shoot landscape and candid daily photos (like parties, dinners etc.), you'll want shorter focal lengths and bigger depth of fields which A6000 can not provide.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[Tinderbox (UK)]

Have you looked at the Nikon 1 System camera`s they are small light and the focus and exposure in auto get`s it right 99% of the time, great for street photography, and you can take full sized photo`s while shooting video at least on my V2 you can, and the entry level version are a great price, but i love the evf on my v2.

Nikon 1 Cameras | Interchangeable Lens Cameras from Nikon

John.

 

[Telly Madelly]

I think your should also consider RX100 2 or 3 too. You may think its same as RX100 1 but its not. Sony started using backlit illumated CMOS sensor in RX100 2 & 3 and it REALLY makes a big difference in low light.

Many people thinks if sensor size is bigger, it automatically makes a better camera and although this is usually true in most cases, as a RX100 2 owner, I think RX100 breaks this general rule in many cases. Its low light and high ISO performance is better than a lot of other cameras including many APS-C sensored cameras. I know this sounds "unbelievable" but believe me I tested it with many cameras simultaneously.

Here is some comparisons. This is NEX6 vs. RX100 2 and IMO they are pretty close and plese note NEX 6 has APS-C sensor. Again with APS-C sensor Sony A55 does not stand a chance against RX100 2 here. But IMO most surprising of all, RX100 2 is even competing with Sony A99 which is a Full Frame Camera BTW! Even though its not a match, IMO its still surprising how its doing against A7 too.

I personally never change my RX100 2 to any other camera I own when it gets dark. I found its ISO performance very remarkable and better than many other cameras including some that are from upper leagues.

On the other hand even though I did not use A6000 myself, I also heard good things about it in ISO. So if you choose it, I think it can also satisfy you well. But if you are not shooting portrait IMO RX100 2 still a better shot because it will give you deeper depth of field in its F1.8 aperture. If you choose A6000, your best bet would be a 2.8 lens which is 3/4 stop slower than RX100 and even if you get a 1.8 lens (like the magnificant Zeiss 55mm 1.8), it will kill the background in that big sensor camera and long focal length. If you shoot portrait you may like this but if you shoot landscape and candid daily photos (like parties, dinners etc.), you'll want shorter focal lengths and bigger depth of fields which A6000 can not provide.

Just my 2 cents.

Love that response: specially concerning the RX100 MK2/3.

I figured the MK2 and 3 have no advantages over the RX100 (i dont need a viewfinder or flexible LCD and its even a bit bigger bulkier even) so i figured why spending a few hundred extra on that. However now that you mention there IS a difference in the sensor and lowlight performance this gets very interesting. And is there also a difference between the MK2 en MK3 ? As i mentioned: i want 20% extra 'performance' low light. This difference is there?

Choosing the 2.8 over the (cheaper but by sony) 1.8 was because exactly the same reasoning you used: the sensor will blow out all background. So 2.8 seems great middleground for daytime while leaving enough sensitivity for when its lowlight.

Im now on assignment in Ukraine and dont have the luxury right now to walk into a store and fiddle around with some lenses. Would you say "take the risk and get a Rx100 mk2/3 instead" ?

 

[goodguy]

I think your should also consider RX100 2 or 3 too. You may think its same as RX100 1 but its not. Sony started using backlit illumated CMOS sensor in RX100 2 & 3 and it REALLY makes a big difference in low light.

Many people thinks if sensor size is bigger, it automatically makes a better camera and although this is usually true in most cases, as a RX100 2 owner, I think RX100 breaks this general rule in many cases. Its low light and high ISO performance is better than a lot of other cameras including many APS-C sensored cameras. I know this sounds "unbelievable" but believe me I tested it with many cameras simultaneously.

Here is some comparisons. This is NEX6 vs. RX100 2 and IMO they are pretty close and plese note NEX 6 has APS-C sensor. Again with APS-C sensor Sony A55 does not stand a chance against RX100 2 here. But IMO most surprising of all, RX100 2 is even competing with Sony A99 which is a Full Frame Camera BTW! Even though its not a match, IMO its still surprising how its doing against A7 too.

I personally never change my RX100 2 to any other camera I own when it gets dark. I found its ISO performance very remarkable and better than many other cameras including some that are from upper leagues.

On the other hand even though I did not use A6000 myself, I also heard good things about it in ISO. So if you choose it, I think it can also satisfy you well. But if you are not shooting portrait IMO RX100 2 still a better shot because it will give you deeper depth of field in its F1.8 aperture. If you choose A6000, your best bet would be a 2.8 lens which is 3/4 stop slower than RX100 and even if you get a 1.8 lens (like the magnificant Zeiss 55mm 1.8), it will kill the background in that big sensor camera and long focal length. If you shoot portrait you may like this but if you shoot landscape and candid daily photos (like parties, dinners etc.), you'll want shorter focal lengths and bigger depth of fields which A6000 can not provide.

Just my 2 cents.

Love that response: specially concerning the RX100 MK2/3.

I figured the MK2 and 3 have no advantages over the RX100 (i dont need a viewfinder or flexible LCD and its even a bit bigger bulkier even) so i figured why spending a few hundred extra on that. However now that you mention there IS a difference in the sensor and lowlight performance this gets very interesting. And is there also a difference between the MK2 en MK3 ? As i mentioned: i want 20% extra 'performance' low light. This difference is there?

Choosing the 2.8 over the (cheaper but by sony) 1.8 was because exactly the same reasoning you used: the sensor will blow out all background. So 2.8 seems great middleground for daytime while leaving enough sensitivity for when its lowlight.

Im now on assignment in Ukraine and dont have the luxury right now to walk into a store and fiddle around with some lenses. Would you say "take the risk and get a Rx100 mk2/3 instead" ?

A lens with f1.8 can shoot at f2.8 but a lens in f2.8 cant shoot at f1.8
In v ery low light situation f2.8 is just not enough and I am talking about full frame camera so on a tiny 1" sensor it really be bad, you want lens as fast as possible.

 

[greybeard]

I have the A6000 and so far I'm impressed with it's low light performance. I would think it would be awesome in low light with the sony 35mm 1.8 or the Ziess 32mm 1.8. It does some low light tricks that are pretty cool too.

 

[Logician]

Choosing the 2.8 over the (cheaper but by sony) 1.8 was because exactly the same reasoning you used: the sensor will blow out all background. So 2.8 seems great middleground for daytime while leaving enough sensitivity for when its lowlight.

Im now on assignment in Ukraine and dont have the luxury right now to walk into a store and fiddle around with some lenses. Would you say "take the risk and get a Rx100 mk2/3 instead" ?

I haven't tested mk3 myself so can't say anything about it. But I know its sensor is exactly same (backlight illimunated) like mk2. So I'd guess it will perform as good as mk2.

Regarding mk2, I'd suggest it as I mentioned above. IMO whether you go with A6000 or RX100 2/3 should depend on what you shoot and the compactness you are looking after. A6000 has the advantage of customizing it with different lenses and excel in small depth of field needs like portrait shoots. However RX100 2/3 is tiny and you can even carry in your shirt's pocket so its compactness beats any camera anytime. It also produces photos with larger depth of field so if this is what you are after, it will be a better choice.

Let me give you are demo shot from my archive:

This is shot by Sony RX100 mk2 in the top of a mountain in pitch black. It was so dark that the items in the photo (which are about 20 meters far away) were not visible with your bare eyes. RX100 shoot this scene in ISO 800 and only in 30 seconds. But what is really important is that Aperture was only F1.8!

You can take any camera and lens there and shoot the same scene as good as this one, maybe even better if you have FF camera and fast lens. But no other camera in the world can give you this depth of field in F1.8. Bigger sensor cameras would kill the background in this landscape shot when you wide opened the aperture and if you stop down, then you would wait several minutes to get this amount of exposure with them. Only RX100 can shoot such a scene in 30 seconds and F1.8!

 

[goodguy]

I still think you should go with the a6000 but if you still decide to go with the RX100 then DONT go with the Mark II get the Mark III
The lens on the Mark II is SLOW!!! ,very slow.
The Mark III has a considerably faster lens which will make a huge impact on low light performance!!!

 

[Logician]

The lens on the Mark II is SLOW!!! ,very slow.
The Mark III has a considerably faster lens which will make a huge impact on low light performance!!!

On the wide end both cameras are F1.8. Its only tele end where mark 2 is slow and I really doubt one uses zoom in low light. Besides mark2 has a longer zoom against mark 3 and needless to say more reasonably priced.

 

[Gary A.]

The Fuji X100T. Not as small as many of the aforementioned (it will fit in a jacket pocket but not a pant or shirt pocket), but extremely capable. Looks like a old film rangefinder camera, great high ISO performance and exceptional IQ.

ISO 2000

 

[Telly Madelly]

Hey Guys,

To give you an update: from all your input and samples i decided to go for the A6000 with the Sel24F18 'Zeiss' and the Sel1670F4 'Zeiss'.

The latter i use during daytime/normal shooting as a full replacement for what i used to do with the RX100.

The F4 on the 1670 is really borderline slow but the compensation by better the sensor and a cleaner ISO saves the day.
I would say this setup gives me 20-30% better IQ compared to my RX100 during good light/daytime shooting with ISO 1600 max while focal lengths remain almost the same.

On the other hand: its a real camera with a heavy lens that doesnt fit in my pocket anymore so it becomes more of a burden / less natural to always have a camera on you.
The A6000 makes me even more impressed with my RX100 thats for sure.

Early morning, late afternoons or inside shooting: the Sel24f18 crushes the RX100 ofcourse when there isnt bright light. Also no more blowouts with light or white areas.
And i love the fast focuss ofcourse. So im very satisfied with this.

I wish there was a wider, fast lens. The 'Zeiss' 12mm is not a real option at $2k with 2.8.