Which (decent) compact?
Discussion
I've just returned from a trip to Scotland, and whilst my phone's camera has been OK for the past couple of years, I'm keen to get a camera again.
I currently have a Sony HX20, which is fantastic. If it wasn't for the 'spots' on the lens, I'd keep using that. I figure it probably isn't worth spending out to get it fixed, so I'm thinking of getting a new, similar camera.
What's going to be the best for me? I'm going to say the budget is up to £500, but there's room to flex if it's worthwhile doing so. Things I'd like are:
- Decent zoom. I found I used the 20x in my old camera a lot, and it was useful.
- As compact a form factor as possible.
- Ideally a viewfinder, but I'm not absolutely set on that.
- Manual controls. Just in case I fancy using them. I only did so once with my old camera, but it did prove useful.
Other than that, I'm not sure what's really out there. I'd love some advice.
I currently have a Sony HX20, which is fantastic. If it wasn't for the 'spots' on the lens, I'd keep using that. I figure it probably isn't worth spending out to get it fixed, so I'm thinking of getting a new, similar camera.
What's going to be the best for me? I'm going to say the budget is up to £500, but there's room to flex if it's worthwhile doing so. Things I'd like are:
- Decent zoom. I found I used the 20x in my old camera a lot, and it was useful.
- As compact a form factor as possible.
- Ideally a viewfinder, but I'm not absolutely set on that.
- Manual controls. Just in case I fancy using them. I only did so once with my old camera, but it did prove useful.
Other than that, I'm not sure what's really out there. I'd love some advice.
You're unlikely to be disappointed with one if the current Sony compacts, the HX60, HX80 or HX90.
No doubt the RX100 in one of it's various versions will be recommended soon, and they are all superb cameras, but if you use the long zoom a lot then you'll probably find the reach too short.
Just a thought, have you tried cleaning the lens of your HX20 with a lens cleaning wipe?
No doubt the RX100 in one of it's various versions will be recommended soon, and they are all superb cameras, but if you use the long zoom a lot then you'll probably find the reach too short.
Just a thought, have you tried cleaning the lens of your HX20 with a lens cleaning wipe?
sgrimshaw said:
You're unlikely to be disappointed with one if the current Sony compacts, the HX60, HX80 or HX90.
No doubt the RX100 in one of it's various versions will be recommended soon, and they are all superb cameras, but if you use the long zoom a lot then you'll probably find the reach too short.
Just a thought, have you tried cleaning the lens of your HX20 with a lens cleaning wipe?
Thanks. That's pretty much where I was aiming, if I'm honest. I did see the RX, but I was worried about the lack of zoom. It just makes it less flexible.No doubt the RX100 in one of it's various versions will be recommended soon, and they are all superb cameras, but if you use the long zoom a lot then you'll probably find the reach too short.
Just a thought, have you tried cleaning the lens of your HX20 with a lens cleaning wipe?
I've tried, but it seems to be something inside the lens, sadly.
mizx said:
Budgeting £500 and RX100 isn't enough zoom? Lumix TZ100 fits the bill nicely.
No arguement the Lumix TZ100 is a nice bit of kit, but if the OP is used to having 20x zoom then he might find "only" having 10x zoom as too restricted.If 10x zoom is "enough" then there are other fine choices in that budget
Thanks for the advise so far. Actually, I've stepped back and considered what I want to use the camera for, and whilst I do use the zoom a decent amount, image quality should take priority.
The RX100 looks to fit the bill. The question now is whether to buy now, or wait for a price drop? Also, which model to go for. Does anyone know the differences in real (easy to explain) terms? I'm unlikely to go past the Mk3.
It looks to me like:
- Mk1 & 2 don't have a viewfinder - although I'm unsure how useful this would be given it's an EVF.
- Mk1 has a different sensor - CMOS vs BSI CMOS. Not sure what that means.
- Mk2 & 3 have tilting screens, which may be useful - though I'm not sure how useful. Any thoughts?
- Mk1 doesn't have WiFi. I'm not entirely sure that'd be all that useful, but welcome your views.
- Mk3 gets an 'ND filter'. Worth it?
- Mk3 has a change in aperture from f/1.8-f/4.9 on the Mk1/2, to f/1.8-f/2.8. What's the difference?
- Mk3 has the 'Bionz X' processor. I doubt that'll make much difference, but it's worth asking.
- Mk1 is the lightest of the bunch by a decent margin.
I am 99.9% of the time not going to record video, so that doesn't bother me at all.
Price difference between the Mk1 and Mk3 is not too much. I don't mind paying out if it's worthwhile doing so. The Mk1 can be had for £270, or the Mk3 can be had for £450. Just shy of a £200 uplift.
Thanks for any help.
The RX100 looks to fit the bill. The question now is whether to buy now, or wait for a price drop? Also, which model to go for. Does anyone know the differences in real (easy to explain) terms? I'm unlikely to go past the Mk3.
It looks to me like:
- Mk1 & 2 don't have a viewfinder - although I'm unsure how useful this would be given it's an EVF.
- Mk1 has a different sensor - CMOS vs BSI CMOS. Not sure what that means.
- Mk2 & 3 have tilting screens, which may be useful - though I'm not sure how useful. Any thoughts?
- Mk1 doesn't have WiFi. I'm not entirely sure that'd be all that useful, but welcome your views.
- Mk3 gets an 'ND filter'. Worth it?
- Mk3 has a change in aperture from f/1.8-f/4.9 on the Mk1/2, to f/1.8-f/2.8. What's the difference?
- Mk3 has the 'Bionz X' processor. I doubt that'll make much difference, but it's worth asking.
- Mk1 is the lightest of the bunch by a decent margin.
I am 99.9% of the time not going to record video, so that doesn't bother me at all.
Price difference between the Mk1 and Mk3 is not too much. I don't mind paying out if it's worthwhile doing so. The Mk1 can be had for £270, or the Mk3 can be had for £450. Just shy of a £200 uplift.
Thanks for any help.
Pulse said:
Thanks for the advise so far. Actually, I've stepped back and considered what I want to use the camera for, and whilst I do use the zoom a decent amount, image quality should take priority.
The RX100 looks to fit the bill. The question now is whether to buy now, or wait for a price drop? Also, which model to go for. Does anyone know the differences in real (easy to explain) terms? I'm unlikely to go past the Mk3.
It looks to me like:
- Mk1 & 2 don't have a viewfinder - although I'm unsure how useful this would be given it's an EVF.
- Mk1 has a different sensor - CMOS vs BSI CMOS. Not sure what that means.
- Mk2 & 3 have tilting screens, which may be useful - though I'm not sure how useful. Any thoughts?
- Mk1 doesn't have WiFi. I'm not entirely sure that'd be all that useful, but welcome your views.
- Mk3 gets an 'ND filter'. Worth it?
- Mk3 has a change in aperture from f/1.8-f/4.9 on the Mk1/2, to f/1.8-f/2.8. What's the difference?
- Mk3 has the 'Bionz X' processor. I doubt that'll make much difference, but it's worth asking.
- Mk1 is the lightest of the bunch by a decent margin.
I am 99.9% of the time not going to record video, so that doesn't bother me at all.
Price difference between the Mk1 and Mk3 is not too much. I don't mind paying out if it's worthwhile doing so. The Mk1 can be had for £270, or the Mk3 can be had for £450. Just shy of a £200 uplift.
Thanks for any help.
I have both Mk1 and Mk3. (Well, Mrs Get stole my Mk1).The RX100 looks to fit the bill. The question now is whether to buy now, or wait for a price drop? Also, which model to go for. Does anyone know the differences in real (easy to explain) terms? I'm unlikely to go past the Mk3.
It looks to me like:
- Mk1 & 2 don't have a viewfinder - although I'm unsure how useful this would be given it's an EVF.
- Mk1 has a different sensor - CMOS vs BSI CMOS. Not sure what that means.
- Mk2 & 3 have tilting screens, which may be useful - though I'm not sure how useful. Any thoughts?
- Mk1 doesn't have WiFi. I'm not entirely sure that'd be all that useful, but welcome your views.
- Mk3 gets an 'ND filter'. Worth it?
- Mk3 has a change in aperture from f/1.8-f/4.9 on the Mk1/2, to f/1.8-f/2.8. What's the difference?
- Mk3 has the 'Bionz X' processor. I doubt that'll make much difference, but it's worth asking.
- Mk1 is the lightest of the bunch by a decent margin.
I am 99.9% of the time not going to record video, so that doesn't bother me at all.
Price difference between the Mk1 and Mk3 is not too much. I don't mind paying out if it's worthwhile doing so. The Mk1 can be had for £270, or the Mk3 can be had for £450. Just shy of a £200 uplift.
Thanks for any help.
Picture quality is hard to tell the difference. It's just whether you want extra bells and whistles.
Mk3 Tilt screen is useful. Mk1 is smaller in jeans pocket.
Edited by GetCarter on Wednesday 19th April 14:34
If you do want more zoom, have you considered an Sony RX10 - its the same sensor and innards as the RX100 mkii, but with a 24-200mm f2.8 (equivalent) zoom lens. You might be able to find a 2nd hand one for just under 500 notes
The trade off is size of course.
The only compacts with big zoom ranges, that are truly pocketable, have a much smaller sensor size, and so loose out on low light ability.
I had an RX100iv for a while, and loved it. I found, for personal and holiday snaps, I was barely zooming in. Most shots were at the wide end, occasionally zooming in for a portrait shot.
- Is ND filter worth it? - depends what kind of shooting you do. Useful for doing longer shutter speeds on tripod in the day, or for video where its preferable to use ND to control exposure instead of shutter speed.
- Tilting screen - Was useful to me on the MK4 - i could take low or high angle shots with ease, and I occasionally would flip the screen up completely, so I could frame a selfie with my other half. (in our attempt to fight off the raging process and be millennial)
- Wifi - I think I used it since. I found the sony software and menu system a pig to use, and to be honest, i prefer to dump the photos on my computer at the end of the day, and sort them out / tweak them from there.
- Lens - the f1.8 - f4.9 thing is ramping, so it looses quite a few stops of exposure when you zoom in. I dislike lenses with excessive ramping myself, as when you zoom in it gets darker. Can be fine if the camera is on auto or a semi-auto sorting everything out, but it can be annoying. To me, i'd go for the mk3 over the 2, purely for the better lens.
- EVF - actually quite useful on a bright day. Clever little thing pops up out of the camera in a very well designed way (on the mk4 anyway.) I didn't use it all the time, but just on the odd occasion when I wanted to frame up a shot in the sun, and the sun was bothering me. The resolution of it was quite good
I'd go with the mk3 myself. Surprised to hear they are going for 450 though - i sold my mk4 for only 500!
Would echo above and consider the MK3 (or higher)
Brighter lens (2.8 is the smallest aperture whereas the ones below have smaller apertures at 4.9 when zoomed in). As well, you'll find the max aperture ramps from 1.8 very quickly. On the MK4 I have, the minute you move from wide (24mm) its already starting to close down the aperture.
EVF is actually useful. I use it quite a lot, but that is how I like to shoot.
Not sure on any processor differences between the MK1,2,3. I would have thought there might be? I find the UI and start up time can be a bit too slow for my liking even on the MK4, so I can only presume the Mk1 is slower still. Just a thought if you are liable to be reaching for the camera in a hurry. It is not something you can keep on all the time like a big SLR. It bombs the battery quite fast I find.
built in ND I would say is only really useful for those who like to film stuff. I have used it on the odd occasion in bright light to stop the camera using really high shutter speeds which I didn't want. The MK4 lens only closes down to F11 so they get round that with silly shutter speeds and ND filter.
I didn't find any of the cameras especially heavy to carry about so wouldn't worry about weight.
Never really used the tilting screen. Though can be handy for shooting low, not so much for shooting high (it doesn't tilt down enough IMO).
WiFi only really necessary if you want to remote shoot using the app or if you want to transfer pictures to your phone/tablet. The latter is something I do quite regularly on holiday now as Lightroom Mobile has become sufficiently good in my opinion to use to get some quality processing done on the day. I find if I leave all the processing till I get back, I don't have time for it or my mind generates a very different memory of what the scene looked like (colours, temps etc).
As an aside, the Canon G7x is very similar to the RX100 MK3. I believe it has the same sensor and Canon managed to pop a lens with a longer reach on there (goes to 105 mm I think and is still F2.8 max aperture at the 100 mm end). Might be worth a look. They also have G5x if you want something with an EVF and G9x if you want something you can lose in a bag.
Brighter lens (2.8 is the smallest aperture whereas the ones below have smaller apertures at 4.9 when zoomed in). As well, you'll find the max aperture ramps from 1.8 very quickly. On the MK4 I have, the minute you move from wide (24mm) its already starting to close down the aperture.
EVF is actually useful. I use it quite a lot, but that is how I like to shoot.
Not sure on any processor differences between the MK1,2,3. I would have thought there might be? I find the UI and start up time can be a bit too slow for my liking even on the MK4, so I can only presume the Mk1 is slower still. Just a thought if you are liable to be reaching for the camera in a hurry. It is not something you can keep on all the time like a big SLR. It bombs the battery quite fast I find.
built in ND I would say is only really useful for those who like to film stuff. I have used it on the odd occasion in bright light to stop the camera using really high shutter speeds which I didn't want. The MK4 lens only closes down to F11 so they get round that with silly shutter speeds and ND filter.
I didn't find any of the cameras especially heavy to carry about so wouldn't worry about weight.
Never really used the tilting screen. Though can be handy for shooting low, not so much for shooting high (it doesn't tilt down enough IMO).
WiFi only really necessary if you want to remote shoot using the app or if you want to transfer pictures to your phone/tablet. The latter is something I do quite regularly on holiday now as Lightroom Mobile has become sufficiently good in my opinion to use to get some quality processing done on the day. I find if I leave all the processing till I get back, I don't have time for it or my mind generates a very different memory of what the scene looked like (colours, temps etc).
As an aside, the Canon G7x is very similar to the RX100 MK3. I believe it has the same sensor and Canon managed to pop a lens with a longer reach on there (goes to 105 mm I think and is still F2.8 max aperture at the 100 mm end). Might be worth a look. They also have G5x if you want something with an EVF and G9x if you want something you can lose in a bag.
Edited by Otispunkmeyer on Wednesday 19th April 16:23
Edited by Otispunkmeyer on Wednesday 19th April 16:26
I've used the Sony RX100 MK1 which I was very pleased with till it malfunctioned just under the 2 year warranty, after much mucking about with Sony and a flurry of different cameras which weren't as good I exchanged it for a Sony RX100 MK3 which is fractionally bigger but has an adjustable LCD screen, EVF (which I don't use), what I do like about the MK3 is the faster lens even though the zoom isn't quite so good.
Unfortunately after 8 months of use it has malfunctioned and I took it back to John Lewis over the weekend suffering from the same problems as the MK1 and have been told it will take several weeks for Sony to repair before it will be returned which I'm not very happy about.
As GetCarter mentioned, the menu system is a right dogs dinner but you do get used to it after a while.
As for battery life, I find it lasts a lot longer than the Canon S100 that I used to own and the image quality is much superior. Having said that, I picked up a twin set of replacement batteries plus charger from Amazon so always keep a spare in the camera bag.
Incidentally I looked at the Panasonic LX range of cameras but they were too big to put in my pockets, and the Canon G7X (I think) is the only other camera that is a near direct competitor so probably worth checking out.
Bottom line is make sure you buy the Sony RX100 camera from somewhere reputable (like John Lewis) and make sure you take out their 3 year extended accidental warranty because although it is a lovely camera it is a complex one.
EDITED TO ADD it lasted 8 months before it broke!
Unfortunately after 8 months of use it has malfunctioned and I took it back to John Lewis over the weekend suffering from the same problems as the MK1 and have been told it will take several weeks for Sony to repair before it will be returned which I'm not very happy about.
As GetCarter mentioned, the menu system is a right dogs dinner but you do get used to it after a while.
As for battery life, I find it lasts a lot longer than the Canon S100 that I used to own and the image quality is much superior. Having said that, I picked up a twin set of replacement batteries plus charger from Amazon so always keep a spare in the camera bag.
Incidentally I looked at the Panasonic LX range of cameras but they were too big to put in my pockets, and the Canon G7X (I think) is the only other camera that is a near direct competitor so probably worth checking out.
Bottom line is make sure you buy the Sony RX100 camera from somewhere reputable (like John Lewis) and make sure you take out their 3 year extended accidental warranty because although it is a lovely camera it is a complex one.
EDITED TO ADD it lasted 8 months before it broke!
Edited by rich888 on Tuesday 25th April 14:47
I get the feeling this Sony range is slightly overpriced, especially the latest V. Seems to be compared to the TZ100 which seems good bang for buck.
quick ref guide between the two
http://cameradecision.com/compare/Panasonic-Lumix-...
quick ref guide between the two
http://cameradecision.com/compare/Panasonic-Lumix-...
Edited by Gandahar on Saturday 29th April 18:08
Gandahar said:
I get the feeling this Sony range is slightly overpriced, especially the latest V. Seems to be compared to the TZ100 which seems good bang for buck.
quick ref guide between the two
http://cameradecision.com/compare/Panasonic-Lumix-...
I've got a Pan. Lumix TZ. I find it easy to use. The interface is as good as any. The images are of high quality. I've used it as a back-up to my 'real' camera, currently a G7.quick ref guide between the two
http://cameradecision.com/compare/Panasonic-Lumix-...
Edited by Gandahar on Saturday 29th April 18:08
The reason I picked a Lumix was because of what seemed to be robust build quality. I've had it for some years now. I bought it when it first came out. It still works perfectly.
I'm not saying you should buy a Lumix TZ but just that you should go and play with one to see if you like it.
Gandahar said:
I get the feeling this Sony range is slightly overpriced.
I think all Sony gear is overpriced. I'm sure they deliberately price high to differentiate themselves from the other similar tech brands, placing themselves as 'premium'.Edited by Gandahar on Saturday 29th April 18:08
I still end up buying loads of their stuff mind.
As for the RX100 range, there really isn't a huge difference between the Mk1 and the Mk5 - for about a quarter of the price. It speaks volumes that they still sell the Mk 1 new. I can't think of another company/model that sells Mk1 to 5 at the same time (?). It's always 'replace', not add too. ... I wish Aston did that... I fancy a new DB5
GetCarter said:
Gandahar said:
I get the feeling this Sony range is slightly overpriced.
I think all Sony gear is overpriced. I'm sure they deliberately price high to differentiate themselves from the other similar tech brands, placing themselves as 'premium'.Edited by Gandahar on Saturday 29th April 18:08
I still end up buying loads of their stuff mind.
As for the RX100 range, there really isn't a huge difference between the Mk1 and the Mk5 - for about a quarter of the price. It speaks volumes that they still sell the Mk 1 new. I can't think of another company/model that sells Mk1 to 5 at the same time (?). It's always 'replace', not add too. ... I wish Aston did that... I fancy a new DB5
The same for their RX range can be said for their 6000 range.
A bit of thread resurrection here. What did the OP buy in the end?
I've decided to get a decent travel camera for our holidays this year, so I'm not carrying around my DSLR and all the lenses etc.
I've done the research and read the reviews, and it comes down to either a RX100 version or the TZ100.
I set a budget of around £500 and initially the TZ100 was in favour for the convenience features, with the large zoom, touch screen, 4K video etc but after deliberation I think the RX100 with the faster lens (albeit a lot shorter), tilt screen, smaller and better EVF wins it.
Initially i was looking at the RX100 iii, but the iv is not much more now with the prices and cash back available, so have convinced myself that the iv would be better with 4K video and HFR, plus it will be longer before it is obsolete, especially as the mark vi is out soon.
We are going to Singapore in September and will want to take some night shots at the GP and Music concerts where a long zoom would be better, so if I go for the RX100 it will mean getting the best shots I can with a lower aperture and cropping, as opposed to the bigger zoom on the TZ100 but higher aperture.
Any further comments on these two appreciated.
I've decided to get a decent travel camera for our holidays this year, so I'm not carrying around my DSLR and all the lenses etc.
I've done the research and read the reviews, and it comes down to either a RX100 version or the TZ100.
I set a budget of around £500 and initially the TZ100 was in favour for the convenience features, with the large zoom, touch screen, 4K video etc but after deliberation I think the RX100 with the faster lens (albeit a lot shorter), tilt screen, smaller and better EVF wins it.
Initially i was looking at the RX100 iii, but the iv is not much more now with the prices and cash back available, so have convinced myself that the iv would be better with 4K video and HFR, plus it will be longer before it is obsolete, especially as the mark vi is out soon.
We are going to Singapore in September and will want to take some night shots at the GP and Music concerts where a long zoom would be better, so if I go for the RX100 it will mean getting the best shots I can with a lower aperture and cropping, as opposed to the bigger zoom on the TZ100 but higher aperture.
Any further comments on these two appreciated.
Both the Sony and Panasonic are astonishingly well made cameras, my recommendation to you would be to visit John Lewis and actually try both of them out and have a chat with one of the camera sales staff. They may look similar on paper but they are worlds apart in the flesh.
I seem to recollect that the TZ100 had some fancy post focus tricks up its sleeve whereby you could choose the final focus point after taking the photograph.
Canon and Panasonic have certainly improved their range of cameras over the last 18 months so Sony don't have the market to themselves, though what finally swung it for me was the compact design of the Sony RX100 M3 whilst the Panasonic was just that little bit too big. I never did get chance to play with the Canon G7X, which in hindsight was a shame, but I do think I made the right decision to buy the Sony.
Make sure you buy a nice big capacity and fast SD card if you intend to record video because video eats memory like no tomorrow, I purchased a 32GB card for use with my RX100 M3 but I think the MK4 4K video files are even bigger and you also need to be careful that the card can handle the footage. I would also recommend you buy a external charger and twin battery pack from Amazon so that you don't get caught out with a flat battery.
EDITED TO ADD: Tamron have unveiled an 18-400mm (equivalent to 620mm on crop sensor) ultra telephoto f/3.5-6.3 lens, costing £650 for Canon and Nikon, so you might yet be taking your DSLR with you
I seem to recollect that the TZ100 had some fancy post focus tricks up its sleeve whereby you could choose the final focus point after taking the photograph.
Canon and Panasonic have certainly improved their range of cameras over the last 18 months so Sony don't have the market to themselves, though what finally swung it for me was the compact design of the Sony RX100 M3 whilst the Panasonic was just that little bit too big. I never did get chance to play with the Canon G7X, which in hindsight was a shame, but I do think I made the right decision to buy the Sony.
Make sure you buy a nice big capacity and fast SD card if you intend to record video because video eats memory like no tomorrow, I purchased a 32GB card for use with my RX100 M3 but I think the MK4 4K video files are even bigger and you also need to be careful that the card can handle the footage. I would also recommend you buy a external charger and twin battery pack from Amazon so that you don't get caught out with a flat battery.
EDITED TO ADD: Tamron have unveiled an 18-400mm (equivalent to 620mm on crop sensor) ultra telephoto f/3.5-6.3 lens, costing £650 for Canon and Nikon, so you might yet be taking your DSLR with you
Edited by rich888 on Tuesday 27th June 23:14
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff