UKC

Given how good high-end compacts are, are there any major advantages to taking an SLR or MFT body into the mountains these days? (aside from working professionally)

So I shoot on an OMD EM5 II and its small, granted, but I am seriously contemplating trading it in for a high end compact to save the faff of a bigger body when climbing. A high end compact with a good fast lens and full manual control, RAW etc will produce just as good images as my OMD.

I do realise that it's the tool behind the tool that makes the image, but purely from a technical standpoint, what do you think?

I was tempted to reply with something trite like "rubbish photographers produce rubbish photographs irrespective of kit," but you sort of said this anyway.

I've been using quite high end kit (Canon 5D3 & L lenses, and Fuji XT2) for a few years and recently dusted off my beloved old Lumix LX3 to use as a pocket camera when snapping in Pyrenean towns. I shot in RAW and processed everything from all three cameras in Capture1 Pro. While the LX3 delivers very sharp images, the level of detail and dynamic range that you can recover is minuscule compared to the other two (and the Canon isn't known for its DR strengths). This has a massive bearing on what you can create from your RAW file*, and I ended up with a few images that would have been quite nice if I'd been able to recover more highlights. High ISO performance differs a lot too, even being able to shoot at 1600 in dim light, say on a miserable Scottish winter day, without having to choose between noisy images or risking shake.

Fuji aside, I'm don't know much about modern 4/3 and APS/C sensors but you certainly don't need to cart around a DSLR brick to produce stunning images, (though if you are wearing gloves a big camera will be a lot easier to control).

Here's a good article: 

https://alpineexposures.com/phototips/tips-from-the-pros-which-camera-gear

*I should have said what 'I' can create from my RAW file. There are quite a few people with a lot more nous than me about this on here and hopefully some will reply.

I would say that all sensors have moved on a long way from the LX3 (which I've never owned), so the DR on the high end compact should still be good. Might thoughts on this are that a high end compact could potentially match (or come close to) a mft or aps-c camera with a bog standard kits lens. But they will not match a mft or aps-c camera fitted with a quality lens or specialty lens e.g. prime, long zoom or wide angle, that's the benefit of an ILC, you can change the lens to suit the situation. This is what I often feel is that the RX100 doesn't quite have the reach so I end up cropping and losing sharpness. 

I think Stuart is right though that generally speaking the bigger the sensor the better the image. All user dependent as you've already said. 

I had an RX100m4 and an A6000 with the 16-50 kits lens, i felt that i got better (sharper, less noisy) images from the RX100. 

I can best answer your dilemma..

I used to have film compacts (Oly)..light small, rugged etc...fantastic..

Then got SLRs, sharper, more control, bigger, heavier..

Got fed up & moved to compact digitals..ended up with an Oly TG4..best camera I have ever owned, & still have. Fantastic pictures best small camera out there, f2.0 lens, close focus of 10mm in microscope mode, live composite mode, exposure comp, shoots RAW...

However as I shoot for microstock, some pictures are not as full depth sharp due to the lens just having 3 elements....so to appease the pixel counters I got an Oly OMD EM1mk2....& the 14-40mm f2,8 lens....feck me its sharp...all under 1kg & bigger battery & more IPX water/dust resistance than the EM5 etc..

Now I did compare on dpreview the EM5 16MP with the TG4 16MP studio pictures side by side & there is a noticeable difference at 100% zoom..all due to lens...

this is my first winter with the new camera so I will see how I get on..I have got a special front mount rucsac style pouch for it for instant access...much better than my old SLR set up..

The difference in size/weight between TG4 & your EM5 not much really when looking at the kit you carry in the rucsac...but huge difference in picture quality at pixel level..

Sensor size is not 100% important...the Oly TG4 has the same size sensor as in the NIkon P1000?..the camera with the huge zoom lens which produces fantastic images..all because of the lens...

Not sure I can say much from a *technical* point of view, but I think my X-E1 takes better photos than my RX100 Mk2. This judgement is based on what I can get out of RAW images (there's no comparison between the two for JPEGs; the Fuji is *way* better), but another factor is ease of use fully manually. The Sony is great (and in comparison with compact film cameras, remarkably good) for cragging but if I want really satisfying images, it has to be the Fuji. On the other hand, even to make the comparison flatters the Sony.

Another vote for the Sony RX100. We’ve got the mark1 and also the mark 4 with the viewfinder. Impressed with the results; finding reluctant to haul full frame SLR & fast lenses around these days.

What’s the weather proofing like on the Sony? I have heard of them going t£&s up if damp/exposed to weather, my Oly em 5 has taken most weathers without a hiccup. My brother has the Sony and likes it, but he’s a fair weather walker rather than mountaineer. I personally find the M4/3 the perfect compromise between size and image quality, DR and usable high iso are real dealbreakers for early starts and gloomy winter days.

I've heard/read similar issues to you. 

I'd be worried about my RX100 if there was a lot of water about. I've never used it in seriously damp conditions, so can't really answer. Personally I'd only use it in fairly dry conditions and be a little protective in the damp (though not obsessive compulsive.

I have used both SLR and compacts in action sports photography and the good compact wins every time because you do take it, you do have it easily to hand, with my Oly TG4 I don't have to mollycoddle it because it is water/freeze/drop proof, I can belay (one hand locked off) and take pictures and change all the settings and drop if needed on a lanyard, and you do take pictures with it - as opposed to the SLR which stays at home/in the bag unless you are going to set out with the idea of taking pictures. If I was going for a walk on a nice day I would take the SLR, but I don't.

I and others on here have had them die after getting wet. I would now be reluctant to use my replacement in wet conditions.

I'm very happy with my Canon G7X II. It has so far survived getting fairly damp and getting squashed only protected by a Crumpler bag attached to a gear loop when I've been climbing off widths and chimneys. It's the obvious alternative to the Sony.

I think much depends on the fields of view you're shooting. If I'm mountain walking I have my e-m5 with a 7.5mm fisheye, 12-40 pro, and 40-150 on me. If I'm via ferrataing I might change the 12-40 for the 17 f1.8 because the 12-40 is too bulky to have dangling round my neck in chimneys.  I'm highly likely to use all 3 lenses during the course of the day. A compact isn't going to give me that flexibility (esp. the fisheye option).  If I shot using lenses that give an equivalent field of view to that available on a weatherproof compact (e.g. just the 12-40) then I would seriously considering that.

If I'm Via ferrataing or climbing then I sometimes take my Panasonic DMC FT1 waterproof zoom compact instead. It gives pretty good images but lacks manual aperture control which restricts its already poor ability to take shallow depth of field shots.