So you want an RX100?..
Discussion
A bit more info here: http://m.dpreview.com/previews/canon-powershot-g7-...
But many arguments about colour/softness compared to the RX100 with early non-english reviews
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3730632
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3730632
StuH said:
G7x - bigger, much heavier and no evf - I'm a long time canon fan and own a 5d3 and eos m, but canon need to do better to stop me keeping my rx100m3
Those were the RX100 Mk1 specs, the Mk3 is much closer:S100 - 99mm x 60mm x 27mm - weight 198g
RX100 I - 102mm x 58mm x 36mm - weight 240g
RX100 III - 102mm x 58mm x 41mm - weight 290g
G7 X - 103mm x 60mm x 40mm - weight 304g
No EVF but it's cheaper and has a touchscreen and a significantly longer lens (24-100mm 1.8-2.8 rather than the Sony's 24-70mm). It doesn't beat the RX100 significantly but I think it's competitive.
Mr Will said:
StuH said:
G7x - bigger, much heavier and no evf - I'm a long time canon fan and own a 5d3 and eos m, but canon need to do better to stop me keeping my rx100m3
Those were the RX100 Mk1 specs, the Mk3 is much closer:S100 - 99mm x 60mm x 27mm - weight 198g
RX100 I - 102mm x 58mm x 36mm - weight 240g
RX100 III - 102mm x 58mm x 41mm - weight 290g
G7 X - 103mm x 60mm x 40mm - weight 304g
No EVF but it's cheaper and has a touchscreen and a significantly longer lens (24-100mm 1.8-2.8 rather than the Sony's 24-70mm). It doesn't beat the RX100 significantly but I think it's competitive.
I have a Canon 450D and am looking to supplement it with the RX100iii to give me a travel light option. I understand the Sony has a smaller sensor but, given that my 450D is 6 years old, will the Sony be noticeably worse?
My current lenses are Sigma 17-70, Sigma 30 mm and Canon 70-300 plus 10-22.
Any views would be welcome.
My current lenses are Sigma 17-70, Sigma 30 mm and Canon 70-300 plus 10-22.
Any views would be welcome.
Goody13 said:
I have a Canon 450D and am looking to supplement it with the RX100iii to give me a travel light option. I understand the Sony has a smaller sensor but, given that my 450D is 6 years old, will the Sony be noticeably worse?
My current lenses are Sigma 17-70, Sigma 30 mm and Canon 70-300 plus 10-22.
Any views would be welcome.
How about an EOS M? Small and pocketable with a nice 18mp APS-C sensor, and it'll allow you to fit your existing Canon fit lenses.My current lenses are Sigma 17-70, Sigma 30 mm and Canon 70-300 plus 10-22.
Any views would be welcome.
Had one of the first RX100's
sure it can produce a nice file. But getting it was a different kettle of fish !
no viewfinder .so looked like another mug with a iPhone "Holding it in the air" Could not get the pics i wanted as i grew up on 35mm , so composing with a RX was a Joke.
small, but not big enough to "feel" like i had a camera in my hands etc .
Ended up chipping it in for a NEX7 . Far superior in every way .Much more of a proper "Camera" than the RX. i enjoy taking pics again !
sure it can produce a nice file. But getting it was a different kettle of fish !
no viewfinder .so looked like another mug with a iPhone "Holding it in the air" Could not get the pics i wanted as i grew up on 35mm , so composing with a RX was a Joke.
small, but not big enough to "feel" like i had a camera in my hands etc .
Ended up chipping it in for a NEX7 . Far superior in every way .Much more of a proper "Camera" than the RX. i enjoy taking pics again !
V8Wagon said:
How about an EOS M? Small and pocketable with a nice 18mp APS-C sensor, and it'll allow you to fit your existing Canon fit lenses.
-I did think about a CSC but when I look at the size and weight of my 17-70 I may as well carry my DSLR. It was something a bit more pocketable that I was after without sacrificing quality. The Canon G7X seems to be another option as well.
soi6 said:
Had one of the first RX100's
sure it can produce a nice file. But getting it was a different kettle of fish !
no viewfinder .so looked like another mug with a iPhone "Holding it in the air" Could not get the pics i wanted as i grew up on 35mm , so composing with a RX was a Joke.
small, but not big enough to "feel" like i had a camera in my hands etc .
Ended up chipping it in for a NEX7 . Far superior in every way .Much more of a proper "Camera" than the RX. i enjoy taking pics again !
The Mk 3 has an EVF, and that is what is quite appealing to me as, like you, I started with 35mm.sure it can produce a nice file. But getting it was a different kettle of fish !
no viewfinder .so looked like another mug with a iPhone "Holding it in the air" Could not get the pics i wanted as i grew up on 35mm , so composing with a RX was a Joke.
small, but not big enough to "feel" like i had a camera in my hands etc .
Ended up chipping it in for a NEX7 . Far superior in every way .Much more of a proper "Camera" than the RX. i enjoy taking pics again !
soi6 said:
Had one of the first RX100's
sure it can produce a nice file. But getting it was a different kettle of fish !
no viewfinder .so looked like another mug with a iPhone "Holding it in the air" Could not get the pics i wanted as i grew up on 35mm , so composing with a RX was a Joke.
small, but not big enough to "feel" like i had a camera in my hands etc .
Ended up chipping it in for a NEX7 . Far superior in every way .Much more of a proper "Camera" than the RX. i enjoy taking pics again !
Having recently purchased a RX100 MK1 I have no complaints at all over the quality of the photographs it takes, and though the Sony NEX7 may offer higher quality images (can't say for definite because I've no experience with using one and I've not read the reviews as yet), and I appreciate your comments made, but you can't exactly put a NEX7 in your pocket can you? you might as well spend the money on a proper full-blown DSLR and a decent set of lenses.sure it can produce a nice file. But getting it was a different kettle of fish !
no viewfinder .so looked like another mug with a iPhone "Holding it in the air" Could not get the pics i wanted as i grew up on 35mm , so composing with a RX was a Joke.
small, but not big enough to "feel" like i had a camera in my hands etc .
Ended up chipping it in for a NEX7 . Far superior in every way .Much more of a proper "Camera" than the RX. i enjoy taking pics again !
And I don't understand why there is this issue of not having an optical or digital viewfinder, because I find the LCD display far easier to compose a pic than staring through a tiny viewfinder. I guess it is each to their own.
With a Sigma 30mm on it, its not "Huge" And i like carrying a camera ! And I am down to one lens, Carrying around a load of kit is not me anymore . I find the best photographers don't "need Kit' to validate themselves .They can work with any camera and lens . I find that part of peoples hobbies include buying stuff "They think they will need" !
And in the last few years i have gone from D3's to Fuji X Pro 1 and all other stuff . 99% of them will the same file at the end of the day .It just easier and lighter to use the NEX and the high ISO suits "street work" To date its the best camera i have been able to use based on all the factors mentioned
and using a viewfinder is like the old "records V MP3" debate .
And in the last few years i have gone from D3's to Fuji X Pro 1 and all other stuff . 99% of them will the same file at the end of the day .It just easier and lighter to use the NEX and the high ISO suits "street work" To date its the best camera i have been able to use based on all the factors mentioned
Edited by soi6 on Friday 14th November 07:30
and using a viewfinder is like the old "records V MP3" debate .
Edited by soi6 on Friday 14th November 07:45
I've got an EOS and a Mk1 RX100 and they're both good, I use the EOS when I want the best result or when the conditions are tricky, but the RX100 fits in my trouser pocket so that's what I take out and about. It doesn't suffer from slow shutter release like almost all compacts I'd ever tried before. But if it didn't fit in my pocket, I'd almost certainly use the EOS.
soi6 said:
Had one of the first RX100's
sure it can produce a nice file. But getting it was a different kettle of fish !
no viewfinder .so looked like another mug with a iPhone "Holding it in the air" Could not get the pics i wanted as i grew up on 35mm , so composing with a RX was a Joke.
small, but not big enough to "feel" like i had a camera in my hands etc .
Ended up chipping it in for a NEX7 . Far superior in every way .Much more of a proper "Camera" than the RX. i enjoy taking pics again !
Sounds it was just the wrong camera for your needs. The RX100 is not a DSLR replacement, it is the best camera that you can fit in a pocket. If fitting it in a pocket isn't important then you don't need an RX100!sure it can produce a nice file. But getting it was a different kettle of fish !
no viewfinder .so looked like another mug with a iPhone "Holding it in the air" Could not get the pics i wanted as i grew up on 35mm , so composing with a RX was a Joke.
small, but not big enough to "feel" like i had a camera in my hands etc .
Ended up chipping it in for a NEX7 . Far superior in every way .Much more of a proper "Camera" than the RX. i enjoy taking pics again !
Biggest problem nowadays is that we are spoilt for choice.
When I was looking to replace my Canon S100 I seemed to go round and round in a loop looking at specs, size, sensor size, weight, image quality, lens, DSLR, Bridge, Compact, iPhone upgrade, etc...
Then of course I narrowed the choice down to a compact camera I noticed that the compact cameras on offer had improved since the purchase of my S100 a couple of years ago, I finally made the choice that if it wasn't compact enough to put in my pocket then I might as well buy a full blown DSLR (that's another story!) and I would probably leave the damn thing at home.
At this point the Sony RX100 started caught my attention because I had actually viewed and compared it in the local PC World to my S100 earlier in the year (and about forty other compact cameras!) and had thought to myself how compact and solid it felt.
So reading up the reviews and specs I realised that it was pretty damn good in its class what with it having a bigger sensor than the S100 and a well designed lens, then I noticed the MK2 and MK3 so went round and round once again comparing pros and cons before deciding that for the money, the MK1 offered nearly everything I needed at an affordable price. I figured that the MK2 didn't offer enough improvements for the extra cost, and the MK3, though superior was way too expensive for my liking.
Having used the Sony RX100 MK1 for several weeks now I'm well chuffed with it and it's battery life is far superior to the Canon S100 which was truly awful. It's not perfect, but I'm happy enough with the quality of the images and I think that that is what matters. I don't care that it doesn't have wifi because it's not difficult to eject the SD card and copy the files to my PC that way, and I have no interest in it not having GPS location info on the files.
All I want to do is take decent quality photographs using a camera that I am more likely to be carrying around with me than thrown in the boot of the car or left at home.
When I was looking to replace my Canon S100 I seemed to go round and round in a loop looking at specs, size, sensor size, weight, image quality, lens, DSLR, Bridge, Compact, iPhone upgrade, etc...
Then of course I narrowed the choice down to a compact camera I noticed that the compact cameras on offer had improved since the purchase of my S100 a couple of years ago, I finally made the choice that if it wasn't compact enough to put in my pocket then I might as well buy a full blown DSLR (that's another story!) and I would probably leave the damn thing at home.
At this point the Sony RX100 started caught my attention because I had actually viewed and compared it in the local PC World to my S100 earlier in the year (and about forty other compact cameras!) and had thought to myself how compact and solid it felt.
So reading up the reviews and specs I realised that it was pretty damn good in its class what with it having a bigger sensor than the S100 and a well designed lens, then I noticed the MK2 and MK3 so went round and round once again comparing pros and cons before deciding that for the money, the MK1 offered nearly everything I needed at an affordable price. I figured that the MK2 didn't offer enough improvements for the extra cost, and the MK3, though superior was way too expensive for my liking.
Having used the Sony RX100 MK1 for several weeks now I'm well chuffed with it and it's battery life is far superior to the Canon S100 which was truly awful. It's not perfect, but I'm happy enough with the quality of the images and I think that that is what matters. I don't care that it doesn't have wifi because it's not difficult to eject the SD card and copy the files to my PC that way, and I have no interest in it not having GPS location info on the files.
All I want to do is take decent quality photographs using a camera that I am more likely to be carrying around with me than thrown in the boot of the car or left at home.
Thanks for those comments, Rich. It sounds like you and I have very similar thoughts.i have been looking for ages at upgrading to a 70D but I have been asking myself what does the 70D give me that I'm not happy with in my 450D. The answer, I think, for £600, is not much, whereas I would carry a compact more and, with a young daughter, that option appeals. The 450D will still go out with me when I plan to take photos and would still be the main camera for quality, although I would hope the RX100iii would not be far behind. Indeed, it could be equal given it is 6 years newer.
The bonus is I have a £500 long service award to spend on a new toy so the mk3 appeals as I can get that from Panamoz for £522.
The bonus is I have a £500 long service award to spend on a new toy so the mk3 appeals as I can get that from Panamoz for £522.
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff