Choice of compact: OM-D em5 vs Sony RX 100

[te4o]

I am stuck between theese two for my wife, I know they are different in size and target different group but having a good FF DSLR spoiled me. now I need to make a choice for a smaller camera.
The RX looks stunningly good. The OMD, with a Pany 25/1.4 and Oly 45/1.8 is better but by how much? Four x price?

Has anyone compared the IQ and usability of these two? Does the RX100 reach to the high end 4/3?

The OMD is very much more a camera but most of it's customisation will be set once and never changed. EVF? Never had one. LiveView with touch focus on 35 fields! Sounds good and easy. The OMD will be closer to the MarkIII. More artistic options.

I am afraid that the Sony will still have the issues with dust on sensor and into the lens (my first and only P&S Casio died by a sand corn). For family photos it is more than enough. But zoom is not necessary. Video either.

I Need advice. Thanks

[akiskev]

The possibilities with OM-D are endless. You can use so many great lenses with it! If money is not a problem, go for it! If you don't want to carry around lenses etc, go for the Sony. I think it is simple as that!

[elflord]

I am stuck between theese two for my wife, I know they are different in size and target different group but having a good FF DSLR spoiled me. now I need to make a choice for a smaller camera.
The RX looks stunningly good. The OMD, with a Pany 25/1.4 and Oly 45/1.8 is better but by how much? Four x price?

Has anyone compared the IQ and usability of these two? Does the RX100 reach to the high end 4/3?

The OMD is very much more a camera but most of it's customisation will be set once and never changed. EVF? Never had one. LiveView with touch focus on 35 fields! Sounds good and easy. The OMD will be closer to the MarkIII. More artistic options.

I am afraid that the Sony will still have the issues with dust on sensor and into the lens (my first and only P&S Casio died by a sand corn). For family photos it is more than enough. But zoom is not necessary. Video either.

I Need advice. Thanks

There are a number of other micro 4/3 cameras if the OM-D is too expensive. The Sony has a big sensor for a point and shoot but between the smaller sensor and the limited aperture (f/4.9 at the telephoto end), you don't have the same shallow depth of field options that you get with an m43 camera.

A m43 camera won't be pocketable but your wife could fit the whole kit (the camera + lens + extra lens) in her handbag and have room for everything else.

[zim]

For that kind of money the NEX-7 would have to be on my list and the Fuji X-Pro 1 but what really matters is what your wife feels comfortable and happy with when she tries them out. They are all capable of great pictures. Why would she not want a FF too or a 650D?
Of course it could also be argued that for this price range if she is so disinterested in researching this herself then a P&S would probably do very nicely!
When I see an ‘I’m buying a camera for my wife’ post I always wonder just who it’s really for?

My advice… It’s not you that needs to make the choice!

[aloper]

I can offer a little advice, having a Panasonic G3 m4/3 camera and a few lenses for that...and I just picked up the Sony RX100 two weeks ago. I would say overall image quality, they are very similar and that includes noise at higher ISO's. Obviously, the G3 has the advantage in flexibility when it comes to lens selection...But I've been impressed by the RX100 as well. Yes, it's a little slow on the long end. But you can still get some decent depth of field, throughout the range.

I think you need to think of your choice differently...it isn't so much about specs but your intended use...If you own no other camera, then go with the OMD. You have more lenses to choose from and more flexibility. To me, the RX100 is the step up for a low-end point and shooter OR...it's an excellent second camera for a more serious photographer who already owns a higher end DSLR.

If I'm heading out for the day and my goal is it strictly shoot photos, my Canon 5D Mk3 and a few lenses come along for the ride. The G3 used to be my "I want a good quality camera, just in case camera"...meaning, I wanted a good camera with me, but my focus that day might not be in taking photos. Now, the RX100 has filled that role...especially given it's size, I can literally put it in my pocket and go. No camera bags, no lenses...just a good tool I can have on me to take good photos.

[te4o]

Thanks, plenty of wise words. Yes, I use a really good setup otherwise and see the point of not only overspending money on 4/3 body + lenses but making my FF kind of redundant... So, probably a RX100 will do the job. When I see the fredmiranda thread (http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1119847/13) I can't wish for more IQ.

[And-Rew]

What i find strange about this thread is - you're asking for Canon boys to advise on non Canon kit.

Not saying you can't - just that the best people to comment on Olympus and Sony gear should be those groups, or an independent forum such as "Talk Photography".

Canon users tend to be some what biased in their views 

[Zlatko]

I don't have either camera, but if you're choosing a camera for your wife, then it would be important to know what her photographic priorities are.  The Olympus, with it's interchangeable lenses and many options, seems more like a photography enthusiast's camera.  The Sony, with it's compactness, seems more like a casual camera to keep in the bag and take everywhere.  I can see the advantages of both, but I think the ultimate user's perspective would be decisive.  Also, there is a big price difference, which might be decisive for me.

[pdirestajr]

Perfect excuse to buy an EOS-M! Then she can borrow your lenses

[distant.star]

.
A little wordy, but dead on....

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/06/the-rashomon-effect-and-my-small-camera-choice

[Mt Spokane Photography]

There are two very good and practical reviews at the Luminous Landscape.  I was interested in both of them. 
Both are good cameras, but ...
 The RX100 controls are too small for my big hands
The OM-D sounds good, but there are no or very few 1st line micro 4/3 lenses formicro 4/3, so you have to adapt a 4/3 lens or another lens.  That defeats the whoe purpose for me.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/sony_rx100.shtml
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/olympus_om_d_e_m5_review.shtml
I'm still looking.
However, If you want to adapt some $1300 lenses to the OM-D and invest $$$ in a second system, you might want it.  With the RX100, at least you do not have to spend thousands on new lenses.

[colin1984]

http://help.orf.at/stories/1701956/

on this page you can download some images with full size ported via sony included sony Software to jpg;

You find in on the left side

The Sony looks great, but I´m not really a fan of Sony, and you can´t change any lenses,


The Olympus is well build has a touchscreen, and what i like espeacially on Olympus: You can change everything without entering any menu: Its body is better I think Magnesium Alloy body; You can set up different lenses, not only olympus by far as I know; The EVF is the sharpest I´ve ever seen, and she´s lying good on Hands, Unfortunattly i havent taken any Pictures.

[MARKOE PHOTOE]

I can offer a little advice, having a Panasonic G3 m4/3 camera and a few lenses for that...and I just picked up the Sony RX100 two weeks ago. I would say overall image quality, they are very similar and that includes noise at higher ISO's. Obviously, the G3 has the advantage in flexibility when it comes to lens selection...But I've been impressed by the RX100 as well. Yes, it's a little slow on the long end. But you can still get some decent depth of field, throughout the range.

I think you need to think of your choice differently...it isn't so much about specs but your intended use...If you own no other camera, then go with the OMD. You have more lenses to choose from and more flexibility. To me, the RX100 is the step up for a low-end point and shooter OR...it's an excellent second camera for a more serious photographer who already owns a higher end DSLR.

If I'm heading out for the day and my goal is it strictly shoot photos, my Canon 5D Mk3 and a few lenses come along for the ride. The G3 used to be my "I want a good quality camera, just in case camera"...meaning, I wanted a good camera with me, but my focus that day might not be in taking photos. Now, the RX100 has filled that role...especially given it's size, I can literally put it in my pocket and go. No camera bags, no lenses...just a good tool I can have on me to take good photos.

This is EXACTLY how I would approach this decision since I too have, from what it sounds like, the same equipment and methods of operation as posted above.  Since buying the RX-100 I will be selling off all my M43 lenses and G3 bodies. They do have excellent IQ but the M43 bag has gotten to be now the size of my DSLR bag and lenses.  It now defeats the  original purpose of downsizing. The RX is a great point and shoot camera and that is all I intended it to be.

[te4o]

Thanks guys, good advice is expensive and there is plenty for free here! I appreciate it.
@colin: how did you know that German is my second language! Anyway, what you say further down is very true:
The making of the OM-D is a different world. Looks like a better investment. I live close to the South Pacific: sand, humidity, salt, wind, heat... I think the Sony even though a very good camera will suffer like a Smart car in the Aussie desert. Someone mentioned that it's not that easy for an amateur or beginner to make good photography with it like we see on the forums at the moment - these are from advanced testers. A simple user will have the standard 0815 P&S imagery with some better IQ which will go unnoticed.
I discussed it with my "target users" and we settled on a OM-D with three primes:  Ol 45/1.8, 25/1.4 PL and a 14/2.5. No expensive zooms to keep weight and costs lower and to promote photographic skills.
What is convincing is the touch screen focus&shoot: this is more like my wife who struggles with the joystick on my gripped 5D3. Another argument was the IBIS with video.
For me it was essential to have IQ output from JPEG and RAW which I'll enjoy processing : no matter who shoots with the compact it will be only me working on the files ... At least initially - with a 8 weeks old boy on her arms no mother even thinks of PP.
The price is like four times the Sony but hey, the Aussie ist so strong now and only now.
The silly thing is that no store in 150 km radius has any of these on display, that's why I was asking this forum even if both contestants are non-Canon products. I think though that many of the canon users tend to look into nonCanon alternatives in sensor technology...
MtSpokane, I agree there are very expensive native lenses but RCicala just put it right: the non-native options are just as good or even better, if I get a EF adapter I can shoot all my big lenses as well. I enjoyed the story of the Rashomon effect a lot, it applies everywhere!
Thanks for your input!

[qurgin]

I think if you have an RX100 the chances are that the heavier the other camera is, the more you note it and the bigger the chance that camera starts to gather dust. I have seen this happen many times when people kept their DSLR when they switched to a m43 or other smaller cam. I personally would get the RX100 because of great IQ for its size, and other pros mentioned at http://www.squidoo.com/sony-rx100