Tempted by a Sony.. but..
Discussion
I have all the DSLR gubbins, which I take out once a week (ish), but I have a Sony a6300 with a prime lens in my jacket pocket every time I'm out. Most of my photos now taken with the smaller Sony. It's better image quality than the RX100, (DX sensor), but still needs a decent size jacket pocket!
(When I don't have a jacket, the RX100 sits in my jeans pocket - and lives in my car)
(When I don't have a jacket, the RX100 sits in my jeans pocket - and lives in my car)
GetCarter said:
I have all the DSLR gubbins, which I take out once a week (ish), but I have a Sony a6300 with a prime lens in my jacket pocket every time I'm out. Most of my photos now taken with the smaller Sony. It's better image quality than the RX100, (DX sensor), but still needs a decent size jacket pocket!
(When I don't have a jacket, the RX100 sits in my jeans pocket - and lives in my car)
Is the 6300 PQ the same as the DSLR?(When I don't have a jacket, the RX100 sits in my jeans pocket - and lives in my car)
And how does the smaller Sony with it's fixed lens compare ?
K12beano said:
What do you want to "change", Ed?
would the grass be greener in a different sensor?
Pretty much what I'm hoping to work out. Ideally I'd get a full frame & enjoy the benefits of that.. but size & £ go against that. So wondering what other sensors achieve. Do like the idea of a smaller 'does the lot in your pocket' camera. The smaller Sony allows the little flash to bounce - something I'm amazed they dont all do. I refuse to arm flashes that cant be directed, as the results are just nasty & everyone's blinded.would the grass be greener in a different sensor?
GetCarter said:
Cheers. What's your view on bigger DSLR vs the Sony?EdT said:
Cheers. What's your view on bigger DSLR vs the Sony?
I have two ff Nikons (with Sony sensors). The D3 and D800. For image quality the D800 blows everything away (36mp sensor)... but it needs a bag - so if it's great light or I need to make sure, I'll still use that. a6300 is 24mp but the sensor is half the size (ish), so it'll never do the res or the low light. I'd put quality half way between RX100 and Sony ff sensor... but I'm using a prime and it's a lot bigger than the RX. you should handle one before you buy, see if it suits.If in doubt, the RX100 is a great camera you can take everywhere, but it just lacks a bit of the res I need for landscapes. (Or cropping)
I have an A6000, and got an RX100 II for my girlfriend.
To be honest I find myself using the RX100 a lot more just because it is so pocketable. There's not much between them if you use the kit lens on the A6000 to keep the size down - the extra aperture of the RX100 makes up for its slightly smaller sensor. If you get the latest RX100 IV it has an even better lens, with f2.8 at full zoom.
Advantages of the A6000 are obviously the lens choices and APS-C sensor. The focusing on it is also pretty amazing too once you get your head around all the settings - hundreds of phase detect points and great subject tracking. I think Sony touted it as being faster than any DSLR camera when it came out. It's a little bit bulky though, I miss the size of my old Nex-5, so I'm tempted to swap it for an A5100.
To be honest I find myself using the RX100 a lot more just because it is so pocketable. There's not much between them if you use the kit lens on the A6000 to keep the size down - the extra aperture of the RX100 makes up for its slightly smaller sensor. If you get the latest RX100 IV it has an even better lens, with f2.8 at full zoom.
Advantages of the A6000 are obviously the lens choices and APS-C sensor. The focusing on it is also pretty amazing too once you get your head around all the settings - hundreds of phase detect points and great subject tracking. I think Sony touted it as being faster than any DSLR camera when it came out. It's a little bit bulky though, I miss the size of my old Nex-5, so I'm tempted to swap it for an A5100.
Don't overlook micro 4/3 if you want to go for a smaller setup but retain DSLR like image quality. I've dabbled in 4/3 and micro 4/3 for what must be 10 years now whilst also owning various APS-C Nikons and Canons.
Current camera is a Panasonic Lumix G7 and before that was a Nikon D7000. The size and weight difference between the two is massive, and the G7 is just as capable (and more so in some areas) than the D7000 was.
No, the G7 wont fit in a pocket but I just have mine on a wrist strap when out and about with it. It's light weight with no need to have it around your neck.
There are loads of m4/3 bodies to chose from, from DSLR like bodies like the G7 I have, or the OM-D range from olympus, to compact/rangefinder like bodies such as the Lumix GF8 or olympus Pen's. The latter being much more pocketable esspecially with the 12-32mm kit lens or one of the fast pancake primes.
Of course, the RX100 is a do it all compact with rave reviews, but worth looking at the newer 1" sensor rivals from canon, nikon and panasonic as whilst the RX100 has been king for a long time in the enthusiast compact segment, it also always seems to be the least value for money, and the competition looks very very good!
Current camera is a Panasonic Lumix G7 and before that was a Nikon D7000. The size and weight difference between the two is massive, and the G7 is just as capable (and more so in some areas) than the D7000 was.
No, the G7 wont fit in a pocket but I just have mine on a wrist strap when out and about with it. It's light weight with no need to have it around your neck.
There are loads of m4/3 bodies to chose from, from DSLR like bodies like the G7 I have, or the OM-D range from olympus, to compact/rangefinder like bodies such as the Lumix GF8 or olympus Pen's. The latter being much more pocketable esspecially with the 12-32mm kit lens or one of the fast pancake primes.
Of course, the RX100 is a do it all compact with rave reviews, but worth looking at the newer 1" sensor rivals from canon, nikon and panasonic as whilst the RX100 has been king for a long time in the enthusiast compact segment, it also always seems to be the least value for money, and the competition looks very very good!
I've a Sony RX10iii - fab bit of kit. Same sensor as the RX100 but 24-600 (FF equiv) Zeiss lens.
Don't worry about the sensor size - look at the results
Jackdaw by Mike Smith, on Flickr
Saint Michael's Parish Church by Mike Smith, on Flickr
A Cow by Mike Smith, on Flickr
Loch Torridon, Loch Beag and Loch Shieldaig by Mike Smith, on Flickr
Bad Hair Day by Mike Smith, on Flickr
Don't worry about the sensor size - look at the results
Jackdaw by Mike Smith, on Flickr
Saint Michael's Parish Church by Mike Smith, on Flickr
A Cow by Mike Smith, on Flickr
Loch Torridon, Loch Beag and Loch Shieldaig by Mike Smith, on Flickr
Bad Hair Day by Mike Smith, on Flickr
I just recently got a Fuji X-T10 (APS-C), coming from a Nikon D700.
I thought I would miss the D700 or the Fuji would struggle in some area. Obviously camera technology has moved on a lot in 10 years. I've got a cheap adaptor to use Nikon lenses with it but TBH the Fuji lenses are really good. With the 27mm pancake lens it's bordering on pocketable, certainly in a winter coat.
The change from Nikon to Fuji menus etc. wasn't too bad, quite fun learning how to use it really. I did have the advantage of having previously used a fuji compact though which had a similar menu.
I thought I would miss the D700 or the Fuji would struggle in some area. Obviously camera technology has moved on a lot in 10 years. I've got a cheap adaptor to use Nikon lenses with it but TBH the Fuji lenses are really good. With the 27mm pancake lens it's bordering on pocketable, certainly in a winter coat.
The change from Nikon to Fuji menus etc. wasn't too bad, quite fun learning how to use it really. I did have the advantage of having previously used a fuji compact though which had a similar menu.
I was looking at shrinking my camera gear, but ended up just getting a smaller lens to go on the front of my 5D. I had been looking at the Fuji X100, so figured the Canon 40mm on my 5D wouldn't be much bigger.
I've since swapped my 17-40 for a 24-105, which I have found to be an ideal walkabout lens on full frame. Now, rather than taking a back full of lenses with me, I just carry the body and 1 lens.
I've since swapped my 17-40 for a 24-105, which I have found to be an ideal walkabout lens on full frame. Now, rather than taking a back full of lenses with me, I just carry the body and 1 lens.
DibblyDobbler said:
I've a Sony RX10iii - fab bit of kit. Same sensor as the RX100 but 24-600 (FF equiv) Zeiss lens.
Don't worry about the sensor size - look at the results
I've been toying with the idea of getting the RX10M3 for an upcoming trip to India in Feb17, it's a tour which includes three Tiger safaris.Don't worry about the sensor size - look at the results
Deciding which of my kit to take is proving difficult, I want to have decent reach available but need to keep weight down too.
I've got a choice of Sony A-mount SLRs with a choice of lens which includes some big tele-zooms, an A6000 for which there are no big(ish) tele-zooms so limited to 200mm at the longest (unless I take A-Mount lenses with an adapter), an HX100V Bridge which does take excellent pictures and has 27-800 equiv lens, or there's the RX100M3.
Your RX10M3 images might have just swayed the decision, and cost me £1500
RX100 will go anyway as in addition to great image quality it's both good in low light and pocket sized for wandering around.
I've downsized from a EOS 7D through a NEX-6 and have settled at just having an RX100 MK4.
Its great. Best thing I have done really. The 7D was a bit of a beast but sadly I think I stepped too far with that one and then didn't have the good lenses to really feed it. Kept the NEX-6 for a long time; it and its ilk are a great size and have the flexibility to be the pocket camera or become the fully-fledged shooter given all the lenses and adapters you can get.
But again, I just got a bit fed up of carting lenses around. I also got fed up of the slow and muddling UI on the NEX-6 (which they have since improved on in later cameras thank the lord!).
Chopped the whole lot in and got an RX100 M4 and its the ulitmate care-free photograpy weapon. Chuck it in your bag, if you want to take a photo its there and will do a fine job. If you don't want to take a photo, well, then you haven't given yourself a hernia carting a load of clobber around.
The only caveats I have found so far with it are:
1) that its noise performance doesn't seem any better than the NEX6. On the one had that's not bad because the sensor is smaller and has more pixels. On the other hand bad because the NEX6 is quite old and wasn't that great in the ISO department. Still I haven't gone backwards.
2) You really do have to work hard to get shallow DOF shots. I've taken to framing in such a way that it helps me later fake it out a little in post.
But that is about it. In all other respects I think it is a better camera than the NEX6. Its certainly more speedy and somehow, despite being smaller, doesn't seem to give up anything on usability. Its easy and quick to navigate. View finder is great. And most of all it is the size that is the winning attribute. Its so easy to take with you and seems to sacrifice only a little in terms of IQ. I've been much more active with my photography than I ever have been and its been more fun in the process. Thats important.
Its great. Best thing I have done really. The 7D was a bit of a beast but sadly I think I stepped too far with that one and then didn't have the good lenses to really feed it. Kept the NEX-6 for a long time; it and its ilk are a great size and have the flexibility to be the pocket camera or become the fully-fledged shooter given all the lenses and adapters you can get.
But again, I just got a bit fed up of carting lenses around. I also got fed up of the slow and muddling UI on the NEX-6 (which they have since improved on in later cameras thank the lord!).
Chopped the whole lot in and got an RX100 M4 and its the ulitmate care-free photograpy weapon. Chuck it in your bag, if you want to take a photo its there and will do a fine job. If you don't want to take a photo, well, then you haven't given yourself a hernia carting a load of clobber around.
The only caveats I have found so far with it are:
1) that its noise performance doesn't seem any better than the NEX6. On the one had that's not bad because the sensor is smaller and has more pixels. On the other hand bad because the NEX6 is quite old and wasn't that great in the ISO department. Still I haven't gone backwards.
2) You really do have to work hard to get shallow DOF shots. I've taken to framing in such a way that it helps me later fake it out a little in post.
But that is about it. In all other respects I think it is a better camera than the NEX6. Its certainly more speedy and somehow, despite being smaller, doesn't seem to give up anything on usability. Its easy and quick to navigate. View finder is great. And most of all it is the size that is the winning attribute. Its so easy to take with you and seems to sacrifice only a little in terms of IQ. I've been much more active with my photography than I ever have been and its been more fun in the process. Thats important.
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff