Should I upgrade my RX100 i to a iii, iv or v?

[matt3001]

OK I've probably already ruled the v out due to the price but what about the others?

The added wifi would be handy being able to send images straight to my iphone - but with the image quality be much better?

Camera is 95% used for travel/holiday photos and I have a 600d for wildlife/f1 spectating.

[Otispunkmeyer]

Get a 4

I have one. It's brilliant.

The actual camera body, lens etc are the same as the 3. But the sensor in the 4 is, or was, new for that camera and it's a bit of a beast when it comes to speed. IQ wise I have been very impressed. It's a match in most cases for my older apsc sized nex-6.

As an aside, I see prices for cameras have increased? I bought my 4 from digital rev for about £650 (I'm sure), but I looked today and it's over £800! In John Lewis it's 750 or so.

Edit: Panamoz is where I got mine, not digital rev. £622 I paid.

Edited by Otispunkmeyer on Friday 27th January 00:02

[Craikeybaby]

Probably due to brexit, things manufacturered in the far east are about 20% more expensive than they were this time last year due to the value of the pound.

[rich888]

matt3001 said:

OK I've probably already ruled the v out due to the price but what about the others?

The added wifi would be handy being able to send images straight to my iphone - but with the image quality be much better?

Camera is 95% used for travel/holiday photos and I have a 600d for wildlife/f1 spectating.

I used to own the RX100 M1 until it failed just under 2 years and was replaced under warranty with a RX100 M3 which I'm very pleased with, the menu system is just as quirky as the M1 so you should feel at home with it. I was so relieved that I had purchased it from John Lewis and had taken out their 3 year extended warranty.

Most noticeable differences are that the M3 has a faster f/1.8 to f/2.8 Zeiss lens so performs better in low light, but the optical zoom is reduced a fraction to 24-70mm instead of 100mm, the rear LCD screen can also be tilted up or down on the M3 which is quite useful. It definitely focuses faster with very little lag compared to the M1. The M3 also has a pull out LCD viewfinder which I rarely if ever use. I'm not even sure whether the M3 has wifi because I eject the SD card whenever I want to copy the images onto my computer.

In terms of image quality I can't see any difference between the M1 and the M3, they both produce very good quality photos and I hadn't realised quite how good they were for a compact camera till I tried out the Sony WX500 which had a much better zoom lens but the image quality was extremely poor when compared to the RX100 M1 so I took that back and traded up.

Both Panasonic and Canon make pretty similar cameras, the Panasonic cameras are too big to put in my pocket. The Canon G7X is probably it's most direct competitor in terms of size and specs but I'm led to believe that you have to make extensive use of the rear LCD touch-screen to get the most out of it, though do stand to be corrected on that point. I did actually buy one and got as far as taking it out of the box only to realise that the Canon packers had put a silver bodied camera in a box marked up as black, so it was returned unused to JL for a replacement in black - which was out-of-stock! so I walked out of the store with a nice shiny black Sony RX100 M3.

If I was considering which RX100 to buy then I'm pretty sure I would still choose the RX100 M3 for pocketability, image quality and value for money. There are better cameras out, there but many of them are far bigger, and in my mind that defeats the whole purpose of buying one if you can't put it in your pocket. I have a 5D3 which is quite sensational, but once again, you can't just pop it in your jacket or jeans when out and about with the kids or on holiday. The Sony RX100 range of cameras are just excellent performing cameras for their class and Sony know it.