So you want an RX100?..
Discussion
soi6 said:
GetCarter said:
It has Sigma lenses 
Try read the sigma 30mm (Mk1) combined with the next 7 lens on DP review. Then come back again .... I think they have a much better opinion on things than a small sub section on a car forum !They'll tell you just how good GetCarter's Vectra is.
GetCarter said:
My little RX100 mk 1 has paid for itslf about 10 times over. The well worn saying that the best camera in the world is the one you have with you fits the bill, as I (literally) never leave home without it, as it lives in my pocket.
Here's a shot from yesterday:
..and here's an example of one that I only got as the camera was in my pocket. I was walking the dog in really overcast dull conditions, and sudenly there was a break in the clouds.
Stunning pics as always, am well impressed with both the photographer and the camera. Sadly my photographic skills are somewhat lacking, though am eager to learn now that I have a half decent camera to take the photos with Here's a shot from yesterday:
..and here's an example of one that I only got as the camera was in my pocket. I was walking the dog in really overcast dull conditions, and sudenly there was a break in the clouds.
Edited by GetCarter on Tuesday 18th November 07:32
soi6 said:
Try read the sigma 30mm (Mk1) combined with the nex 7 lens on DP review. Then come back again .... I think they have a much better opinion on things than a small sub section on a car forum ! And they debate it against a leica lens .
I'd suggest sacking off the Nex 7 and getting an a7r + Zeiss FE 55 f1/8 - Now THAT is a good lens Edited by soi6 on Tuesday 18th November 17:56
http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/sony-fe-55-1-8
I'd even take it over a Vectra................
StuH said:
I'd suggest sacking off the Nex 7 and getting an a7r + Zeiss FE 55 f1/8 - Now THAT is a good lens
http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/sony-fe-55-1-8
I'd even take it over a Vectra................
Tried the body.Its good, but it should be for the money ! Will wait until i can get one for about £600 . The lens also, i tend to buy second hand and take a fraction of a loss if that most times . I know someone who is raving about the "art" sigma lens and he knows a thing about spending big bucks on gear and wishing he hadn't many times (M8-9 !!)http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/sony-fe-55-1-8
I'd even take it over a Vectra................
soi6 said:
Tried the body.Its good, but it should be for the money ! Will wait until i can get one for about £600 . The lens also, i tend to buy second hand and take a fraction of a loss if that most times . I know someone who is raving about the "art" sigma lens and he knows a thing about spending big bucks on gear and wishing he hadn't many times (M8-9 !!)
A7R mk2 out in New Year so i'll be selling mine! 
I absolutely love it. As a comparison the a7r + Fe 55mm combo gives a DXOMark of 42 - 4th hightest ever on DXO database! same lense with Nex7 scores 25.
GetCarter said:
My little RX100 mk 1 has paid for itslf about 10 times over. The well worn saying that the best camera in the world is the one you have with you fits the bill, as I (literally) never leave home without it, as it lives in my pocket.
Here's a shot from yesterday:
..and here's an example of one that I only got as the camera was in my pocket. I was walking the dog in really overcast dull conditions, and sudenly there was a break in the clouds.
A nosey question, if you don't mind. Of the income you receive for your photography, how much is generated by your website and how much, proportionately, from existing clients or marketing to new customers?Here's a shot from yesterday:
..and here's an example of one that I only got as the camera was in my pocket. I was walking the dog in really overcast dull conditions, and sudenly there was a break in the clouds.
Edited by GetCarter on Tuesday 18th November 07:32
StuH said:
soi6 said:
Tried the body.Its good, but it should be for the money ! Will wait until i can get one for about £600 . The lens also, i tend to buy second hand and take a fraction of a loss if that most times . I know someone who is raving about the "art" sigma lens and he knows a thing about spending big bucks on gear and wishing he hadn't many times (M8-9 !!)
A7R mk2 out in New Year so i'll be selling mine! I absolutely love it. As a comparison the a7r + Fe 55mm combo gives a DXOMark of 42 - 4th hightest ever on DXO database! same lense with Nex7 scores 25.
Aside from which there is no way that the the A7R with a 55mm Zeiss lens could be put in your pocket, and this is the market that the RX100 is fairly and squarely aimed at. With a choice of three variants offering different price/quality options I think Sony have done a damn good job to cater for all budgets. Yes Canon have at last unveiled their G7X but it's still more expensive at £579 compared to the MK2 at £429 and the MK1 at £319, and it won't be too long now till the Sony RX100 MK4 is unveiled.
In the meantime I'm well chuffed with my purchase of my Sony RX100 MK1 which is vastly superior to the Canon S100 which it replaced, and thankfully the battery life is a hell of a lot better. And unlike the more expensive DSLR cameras which I'm still considering purchasing sometime soon, I'm still more likely to take the pic with a camera that I have in my pocket, than the camera I left in the boot of the car or in the bag at home due to the sheer weight and bulk of lugging everything around. Been there and done that several years ago.
GetCarter has demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt how good the RX100 MK1 can be, and he has proved that you don't have to spend a fortune when the MK1 is still freely available from all the high street retailers offering decent back up and warranties, as well as from cheaper online websites, and of course, is far cheaper when purchased from one of the many camera shops in Hong Kong.
rich888 said:
C'mon guys, let's try and keep this on topic, am sure the A7R with a 55mm Zeiss lens may be better than the RX100 in certain circumstances, but at a cost of approx £2248 for a A7R with a 55mm Zeiss lens, compared to £319 for the RX100 MK1 I should hope it would be. At that price it's up against some pretty heavyweight DSLR cameras such as the Nikon D750 and Canon 5D3 which would probably thrash it.
Aside from which there is no way that the the A7R with a 55mm Zeiss lens could be put in your pocket, and this is the market that the RX100 is fairly and squarely aimed at. With a choice of three variants offering different price/quality options I think Sony have done a damn good job to cater for all budgets. Yes Canon have at last unveiled their G7X but it's still more expensive at £579 compared to the MK2 at £429 and the MK1 at £319, and it won't be too long now till the Sony RX100 MK4 is unveiled.
In the meantime I'm well chuffed with my purchase of my Sony RX100 MK1 which is vastly superior to the Canon S100 which it replaced, and thankfully the battery life is a hell of a lot better. And unlike the more expensive DSLR cameras which I'm still considering purchasing sometime soon, I'm still more likely to take the pic with a camera that I have in my pocket, than the camera I left in the boot of the car or in the bag at home due to the sheer weight and bulk of lugging everything around. Been there and done that several years ago.
GetCarter has demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt how good the RX100 MK1 can be, and he has proved that you don't have to spend a fortune when the MK1 is still freely available from all the high street retailers offering decent back up and warranties, as well as from cheaper online websites, and of course, is far cheaper when purchased from one of the many camera shops in Hong Kong.
Hi Rich - Fair comment on the O/TAside from which there is no way that the the A7R with a 55mm Zeiss lens could be put in your pocket, and this is the market that the RX100 is fairly and squarely aimed at. With a choice of three variants offering different price/quality options I think Sony have done a damn good job to cater for all budgets. Yes Canon have at last unveiled their G7X but it's still more expensive at £579 compared to the MK2 at £429 and the MK1 at £319, and it won't be too long now till the Sony RX100 MK4 is unveiled.
In the meantime I'm well chuffed with my purchase of my Sony RX100 MK1 which is vastly superior to the Canon S100 which it replaced, and thankfully the battery life is a hell of a lot better. And unlike the more expensive DSLR cameras which I'm still considering purchasing sometime soon, I'm still more likely to take the pic with a camera that I have in my pocket, than the camera I left in the boot of the car or in the bag at home due to the sheer weight and bulk of lugging everything around. Been there and done that several years ago.
GetCarter has demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt how good the RX100 MK1 can be, and he has proved that you don't have to spend a fortune when the MK1 is still freely available from all the high street retailers offering decent back up and warranties, as well as from cheaper online websites, and of course, is far cheaper when purchased from one of the many camera shops in Hong Kong.
Just to say if you look at many of the posts on here you will see i'm something of an RX evangelist - having owned the Mk1, Mk2 and currently Mk3
- Glad you're enjoying yours 
For the record I also own a 5D3 and assorted Canon glass, as well as the A7R, and I can state categorically that the image quality of the Sony is considerably better. Not that that is the only criteria to judge a camera, the Canon is much better in terms of AF but at a considerable size and weight penalty. My 5D3 has mostly been gathering dust since I bough the A7 this time last year.
As to GetCarter's pics with the Rx100 - I suspect GC could take better pictures than me with a pin hole camera
- I just love playing with cameras!the-photographer said:
You been living under a rock this last week the-photographer said:
Wow.Sony have really got the pedal to the metal in the development department haven't they?
I thought they had rammed a serious amount of tech into the Mk3, but with this new one they have upped the game yet again in a fairly short space of time.
The 4k shooting must be simply for bragging rights and market differentiation rather than actual improved output.
The RX100 lens is good, and the sensor is OK, but to make 4k shooting (and the associated file sizes and/or compression) worthwhile, you need an excellent lens and sensor to match. Otherwise, all you are landing yourself with is a big, compressed file which in quality is not different to 1080p.
The RX100 lens is good, and the sensor is OK, but to make 4k shooting (and the associated file sizes and/or compression) worthwhile, you need an excellent lens and sensor to match. Otherwise, all you are landing yourself with is a big, compressed file which in quality is not different to 1080p.
JustinP1 said:
The 4k shooting must be simply for bragging rights and market differentiation rather than actual improved output.
The RX100 lens is good, and the sensor is OK, but to make 4k shooting (and the associated file sizes and/or compression) worthwhile, you need an excellent lens and sensor to match. Otherwise, all you are landing yourself with is a big, compressed file which in quality is not different to 1080p.
4k movie mode is pretty good;The RX100 lens is good, and the sensor is OK, but to make 4k shooting (and the associated file sizes and/or compression) worthwhile, you need an excellent lens and sensor to match. Otherwise, all you are landing yourself with is a big, compressed file which in quality is not different to 1080p.
Original http://lx3.smugmug.com/Flowers/Cambridge-Universit...
Anyone got any thoughts on the new Leica Q, though that's more of a competitor to the Sony RXR I suppose.
For any car fan here with a good photo of a 'classic car' you could win one:
https://lfi-online.de/ceemes/?page/show/715
For any car fan here with a good photo of a 'classic car' you could win one:
https://lfi-online.de/ceemes/?page/show/715
Edited by LastLight on Wednesday 17th June 23:26
StuH said:
the-photographer said:
You been living under a rock this last week MK4 now £850 pre-order versus £570 for the MK3 or £600 for the LX100
the-photographer said:
JustinP1 said:
The 4k shooting must be simply for bragging rights and market differentiation rather than actual improved output.
The RX100 lens is good, and the sensor is OK, but to make 4k shooting (and the associated file sizes and/or compression) worthwhile, you need an excellent lens and sensor to match. Otherwise, all you are landing yourself with is a big, compressed file which in quality is not different to 1080p.
4k movie mode is pretty good;The RX100 lens is good, and the sensor is OK, but to make 4k shooting (and the associated file sizes and/or compression) worthwhile, you need an excellent lens and sensor to match. Otherwise, all you are landing yourself with is a big, compressed file which in quality is not different to 1080p.
Original http://lx3.smugmug.com/Flowers/Cambridge-Universit...
A 4K screen capture of a film of a static object, which is well lit in daylight, shot at F2.0 (or close to that) is always going to look great.
However, back in the real world, and real world conditions, where the average user of a pocket camera is concerned who is shooting a moving object which is not perhaps well lit at F8.0 so you can actually keep what you're filming in focus, through a pocket sized zoom lens, the difference between a 4K video and 1080P is going to be negligible at best.
The main difference is going to be file size as to get the files on a card, the 4K will have to be compressed to hell and back. I'm happy to be proven wrong of course, as I'd love it to be the case that it's worth it, but I doubt it.
To give some background, I do film 4K with a dedicated 4K camera with a full size sensor, though Canon 'L' primes. If you can have total control of what you are shooting, with that kind of kit, the benefit of 4K starts to become useful. However, most of the time, even with the option to shoot in 4K and that kit, I won't.
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff