I'm stricken with indecision...M3 vs RX100 iv??
Discussion
Morning chaps. I'm going round in circles here, and I suspect the problem is due to my not being able to set myself a firm brief for what I need.
I'm caught between an EOS M3 or an RX100 iv. It would be an easy choice (RX all the way), were it not for the fact that I have an EOS M, plus lenses.
My original thought process was "I like the IQ, size and handling of the M but wish it had wifi for transferring holiday snaps, and better AF". So the M3 seemed perfect.
But then I looked at the RX100 iv and in particular, it's video spec. My day job is video production and suddenly I'm thinking about replacing the M completely with the (much more expensive) RX100, with the justification that it will be a handy B cam that we can get in hard to reach places.
And so now I'm stuck.
Does anyone have any thoughts on the comparative still IQ between the two? Does the bigger sensor on the Canon still win the day or has Sony's stacked sensor done the business? I know several on here shoot an RX with fantastic results, so I'm not worried the RX would be bad per se. But how does it compare? Can you get the shallow dof, bokeh and whatnot that the Canon plus pancake gives you?
I know the RX destroys it for video, but I guess its primary purpose is my 'go anywhere' stills camera.
I have:
EOS M3
Already in the 'system'
Familiar Canon menus and layout
Lenses
Mic input
Large sensor
Superb processing of JPEGS in camera for holiday snaps
Wifi
But
Video not moved the game on at all
Still slowish AF (comparatively - it doesn't hugely worry me)
No EVF
No zoom if pancake mounted/no compact if zoom mounted
RX100iv
Amazing video
Stills look good (on a computer screen)
USB charging
EVF
Fast burst mode
Wifi
But
Fiddly menus
No mic input
Poor in-camera JPEG Processing (comparatively, apparently)
Smaller sensor (is this a biggie?)
Means ditching my M system completely as too close to justify both
Expensive
I'm completely stuck!
I'm caught between an EOS M3 or an RX100 iv. It would be an easy choice (RX all the way), were it not for the fact that I have an EOS M, plus lenses.
My original thought process was "I like the IQ, size and handling of the M but wish it had wifi for transferring holiday snaps, and better AF". So the M3 seemed perfect.
But then I looked at the RX100 iv and in particular, it's video spec. My day job is video production and suddenly I'm thinking about replacing the M completely with the (much more expensive) RX100, with the justification that it will be a handy B cam that we can get in hard to reach places.
And so now I'm stuck.
Does anyone have any thoughts on the comparative still IQ between the two? Does the bigger sensor on the Canon still win the day or has Sony's stacked sensor done the business? I know several on here shoot an RX with fantastic results, so I'm not worried the RX would be bad per se. But how does it compare? Can you get the shallow dof, bokeh and whatnot that the Canon plus pancake gives you?
I know the RX destroys it for video, but I guess its primary purpose is my 'go anywhere' stills camera.
I have:
EOS M3
Already in the 'system'
Familiar Canon menus and layout
Lenses
Mic input
Large sensor
Superb processing of JPEGS in camera for holiday snaps
Wifi
But
Video not moved the game on at all
Still slowish AF (comparatively - it doesn't hugely worry me)
No EVF
No zoom if pancake mounted/no compact if zoom mounted
RX100iv
Amazing video
Stills look good (on a computer screen)
USB charging
EVF
Fast burst mode
Wifi
But
Fiddly menus
No mic input
Poor in-camera JPEG Processing (comparatively, apparently)
Smaller sensor (is this a biggie?)
Means ditching my M system completely as too close to justify both
Expensive
I'm completely stuck!
That is a tough one actually.
I have the RX100 IV so I can try answer any questions you have. But I have been on the Sony side for a while now so I am used to the controls and Menus (and they're a lot better today than they used to be! Not sure how I coped before! Canon are better in this regard). I don't think they are too fiddly now. Just a bit different. And once you have it set up how you want and have buttons mapped (you can remap nearly all of them to something else) you don't really find yourself venturing into the menus too often. They have a tabbed UI which isn't too disimilar to what Canon have, but it just has that extra layer of complexity that can be off-putting.
I think the RX100 takes great photos. Its easily on a par with my older NEX-6 which in its own right is still a fantastic bit of kit even today. Dynamic range and noise are no different (noise is actually a little better in my opinion). You do have to work hard for DoF effects though but its not insurmountable, easier of course on a larger sensor. But then again, whilst the M3 has APSC sensor, the zoom lenses are probably going to have smaller aperture values so it can become closer than you expect in this regard. Using some online DoF simulators I reckoned on an APS-C sensor with an F4 lens had marginally more DoF than the RX100 with its F2.8 lens, both at 70 mm and same focal/subject distance.
I'm very happy with it because it suits my needs these days. Small enough to simply take everywhere with you without really noticing. So its always there if the opportunity arises. its done my enjoyment of photography no end of good.
the EVF is useful, but IMO now I have used it, its not a deal breaker. Perhaps in really bright sunlight it helps, but its just easier to use the screen. So I wouldn't put too much weight on one having it and one not.
Can't comment on JPG quality because I use RAW. But I have been shooting RAW + JPG because I think having the JPG then allows you to transfer the full image size over WiFi to edit on the iPad or something where as just having the raw only lets you transfer a smaller, almost preview like version. Not sure, its a bit janky in the usual Sony way. I can try find the JPGs and upload them for you if you want to have a look at the JPG quality?
I have the RX100 IV so I can try answer any questions you have. But I have been on the Sony side for a while now so I am used to the controls and Menus (and they're a lot better today than they used to be! Not sure how I coped before! Canon are better in this regard). I don't think they are too fiddly now. Just a bit different. And once you have it set up how you want and have buttons mapped (you can remap nearly all of them to something else) you don't really find yourself venturing into the menus too often. They have a tabbed UI which isn't too disimilar to what Canon have, but it just has that extra layer of complexity that can be off-putting.
I think the RX100 takes great photos. Its easily on a par with my older NEX-6 which in its own right is still a fantastic bit of kit even today. Dynamic range and noise are no different (noise is actually a little better in my opinion). You do have to work hard for DoF effects though but its not insurmountable, easier of course on a larger sensor. But then again, whilst the M3 has APSC sensor, the zoom lenses are probably going to have smaller aperture values so it can become closer than you expect in this regard. Using some online DoF simulators I reckoned on an APS-C sensor with an F4 lens had marginally more DoF than the RX100 with its F2.8 lens, both at 70 mm and same focal/subject distance.
I'm very happy with it because it suits my needs these days. Small enough to simply take everywhere with you without really noticing. So its always there if the opportunity arises. its done my enjoyment of photography no end of good.
the EVF is useful, but IMO now I have used it, its not a deal breaker. Perhaps in really bright sunlight it helps, but its just easier to use the screen. So I wouldn't put too much weight on one having it and one not.
Can't comment on JPG quality because I use RAW. But I have been shooting RAW + JPG because I think having the JPG then allows you to transfer the full image size over WiFi to edit on the iPad or something where as just having the raw only lets you transfer a smaller, almost preview like version. Not sure, its a bit janky in the usual Sony way. I can try find the JPGs and upload them for you if you want to have a look at the JPG quality?
Edited by Otispunkmeyer on Tuesday 19th April 10:52
Brilliant - thank you for the comprehensive reply!
Your comments echo a lot of my own research which is good to know.
I think I can probably discount the EVF as a deal breaker - it would be nice to have but I don't think i care *that* much and it doesn't bother me not having one on the M that much.
I suspect you're right about the menus - once you're used to them and have it set up I'm sure it's probably fine.
I shoot much the same as you - JPEG + RAW so I can fire off decent snaps to family etc from my hotel when travelling and work on any real keepers once I'm home so I do rate Canon's JPEG processing. I'm sure there's very little difference in the RAW quality beyond the sensor size.
I think I'm veering towards the M3, purely as I have the 22mm pancake (which I love utterly, and rarely mount the zoom tbh) already and it seems to give me what I'm after.
Could I ask some questions:
1) Have you shot much video on it? It's the video capabilities that are turning my head, but I'm not sure how easy they are to access and know they demand a certain SD card etc etc
2) Do you shoot time-lapses with it? I love a nice time lapse and would need to use an intervalometer app with the M3. Not sure how it works on the RX100?
3) Anything you dislike? I'm thinking more about the annoying stuff that isn't a deal breaker but stop you using some features and so on?
Thanks again!
Your comments echo a lot of my own research which is good to know.
I think I can probably discount the EVF as a deal breaker - it would be nice to have but I don't think i care *that* much and it doesn't bother me not having one on the M that much.
I suspect you're right about the menus - once you're used to them and have it set up I'm sure it's probably fine.
I shoot much the same as you - JPEG + RAW so I can fire off decent snaps to family etc from my hotel when travelling and work on any real keepers once I'm home so I do rate Canon's JPEG processing. I'm sure there's very little difference in the RAW quality beyond the sensor size.
I think I'm veering towards the M3, purely as I have the 22mm pancake (which I love utterly, and rarely mount the zoom tbh) already and it seems to give me what I'm after.
Could I ask some questions:
1) Have you shot much video on it? It's the video capabilities that are turning my head, but I'm not sure how easy they are to access and know they demand a certain SD card etc etc
2) Do you shoot time-lapses with it? I love a nice time lapse and would need to use an intervalometer app with the M3. Not sure how it works on the RX100?
3) Anything you dislike? I'm thinking more about the annoying stuff that isn't a deal breaker but stop you using some features and so on?
Thanks again!
Disastrous said:
Brilliant - thank you for the comprehensive reply!
Your comments echo a lot of my own research which is good to know.
I think I can probably discount the EVF as a deal breaker - it would be nice to have but I don't think i care *that* much and it doesn't bother me not having one on the M that much.
I suspect you're right about the menus - once you're used to them and have it set up I'm sure it's probably fine.
I shoot much the same as you - JPEG + RAW so I can fire off decent snaps to family etc from my hotel when travelling and work on any real keepers once I'm home so I do rate Canon's JPEG processing. I'm sure there's very little difference in the RAW quality beyond the sensor size.
I think I'm veering towards the M3, purely as I have the 22mm pancake (which I love utterly, and rarely mount the zoom tbh) already and it seems to give me what I'm after.
Could I ask some questions:
1) Have you shot much video on it? It's the video capabilities that are turning my head, but I'm not sure how easy they are to access and know they demand a certain SD card etc etc
2) Do you shoot time-lapses with it? I love a nice time lapse and would need to use an intervalometer app with the M3. Not sure how it works on the RX100?
3) Anything you dislike? I'm thinking more about the annoying stuff that isn't a deal breaker but stop you using some features and so on?
Thanks again!
1) I haven't shot much video no... But I do know to access the 4K and HFR stuff you need the fast cards. Class 10, U3?, SDXC (not SDHC!!). They're not expensive of course but I did start off with a 32 GB Class 10 SDHC card and it didn't work. Then had to go buy a 64 GB SDXC one. The video quality is great though. I did try the HFR stuff too, theres a lot of options including whether you want to render for playback at 25 or 50 FPS. You can shoot up to 1000 FPS with start or end trigger, but at most you've got 4 seconds of recording in those modes. In 4k mode you can only do 5 minutes. Not sure why, its probably a heat thing, but people have reported doing multiple sequential 5 minute shoots at 4k and not having a problem.Your comments echo a lot of my own research which is good to know.
I think I can probably discount the EVF as a deal breaker - it would be nice to have but I don't think i care *that* much and it doesn't bother me not having one on the M that much.
I suspect you're right about the menus - once you're used to them and have it set up I'm sure it's probably fine.
I shoot much the same as you - JPEG + RAW so I can fire off decent snaps to family etc from my hotel when travelling and work on any real keepers once I'm home so I do rate Canon's JPEG processing. I'm sure there's very little difference in the RAW quality beyond the sensor size.
I think I'm veering towards the M3, purely as I have the 22mm pancake (which I love utterly, and rarely mount the zoom tbh) already and it seems to give me what I'm after.
Could I ask some questions:
1) Have you shot much video on it? It's the video capabilities that are turning my head, but I'm not sure how easy they are to access and know they demand a certain SD card etc etc
2) Do you shoot time-lapses with it? I love a nice time lapse and would need to use an intervalometer app with the M3. Not sure how it works on the RX100?
3) Anything you dislike? I'm thinking more about the annoying stuff that isn't a deal breaker but stop you using some features and so on?
Thanks again!
I think you can have HDMI out to send raw video data and there is Sony's S-Log so you can grade video properly later. I am not interested really beyond holiday type video. But its certainly not left wanting for much in that department.
2) I think you need an app for intervals on this too. They're pretty steep too, £7.99!
3) At the moment no not really! I have sometimes found the spot focus to be a bit off on some more challenging subjects (like my mostly white fluffy cat!), but going for something a bit wider solves it and the lens is very sharp, especially in the center. One thing I do wish it had is some kind of notches or clicking on the "aperture ring". As it is its stepless so you can't adjust whatever setting its programmed for very easily without having to look at a screen. Would be nice to have steps in there so if you knew you were at F2.8, one notch right is F3.2 etc. But as it also can be used to control zoom in full auto mode and video mode or used to pull focus ( I think) then it does need to be stepless. I'd much rather they found a way to switch between stepped and stepless on that than squeeze an EVF in.
Oh and you have to be a bit more wary of flaring in bright sunshine. You can get magnetic clip on polariser lenses so I would guess you can also get little petal hoods for it as well.
Neat little feature it does have is 1/32000 max shutter (electronic, there is a mechanical shutter up to 1/8000 I think) and there is a built in ND filter if you need to reduce the light further! Quite nifty! The pop up flash is about as good as you can expect it to be but it does offer some articulation so you can bounce flash.
Edited by Otispunkmeyer on Tuesday 19th April 15:36
Disastrous said:
And just to mess me about, someone has just suggested the Sony A6000...
Not sure if that might be getting on the large side.
And now they have the A6300 don't they? Little update to the A6000. By all accounts the A6000/6300 is a great camera and if I wanted a mirrorless again its the one I'd be looking at. Its a little larger in the body than the NEX-6 but its still fairly svelte, its certainly more shrink-wrapped than the m4/3 equivalents. Not sure if that might be getting on the large side.
But I found that really its not the camera that is bulky. Its the lenses. They made the camera small which is great but you can't really get round the lenses. If you want a nice fast bit of glass, it ends up being a certain size. They try to mitigate by offering lenses with F4 as a max and then using OIS to help you out when you need a bit more light, but OIS doesn't fix everything. Not when you want to freeze motion. Its why I got rid of mine, small camera, but still carrying a bag of lenses about.... mostly primes because a lot of the zooms, in order to keep size down, aren't as good optically and have smaller apertures.
Think if I did go again... I don't see any reason not to get an FF A7 or something.
Good stuff, thank you.
I think you've made a good case for the RX100 now so I'm really none the wiser, haha!
Agree on the lenses thing, and if I want to lug stuff about, I have a 60D which I can use as well. That said, I tend to just leave the 22mm prime on the M and don't often bother with the zoom so it keeps it pretty compact.
This camera is really meant to come skiing, motorcycling, hillwalking etc but also just about pass muster as a second camera for work too. I suspect the A6000 just edges into being a bit big to be handy as a result, and I'd be inclined o just get an A7 as you say.
I guess there's not much in it.
My worry is that I go RX and miss the 22mm and DoF/bigger sensor but it sounds like you haven't come across an issue separating the subject from the background. I think I need to just look at a lot more comparison images/portraits and see...
I've never agonised this much over a camera, it's mental!
I think you've made a good case for the RX100 now so I'm really none the wiser, haha!
Agree on the lenses thing, and if I want to lug stuff about, I have a 60D which I can use as well. That said, I tend to just leave the 22mm prime on the M and don't often bother with the zoom so it keeps it pretty compact.
This camera is really meant to come skiing, motorcycling, hillwalking etc but also just about pass muster as a second camera for work too. I suspect the A6000 just edges into being a bit big to be handy as a result, and I'd be inclined o just get an A7 as you say.
I guess there's not much in it.
My worry is that I go RX and miss the 22mm and DoF/bigger sensor but it sounds like you haven't come across an issue separating the subject from the background. I think I need to just look at a lot more comparison images/portraits and see...
I've never agonised this much over a camera, it's mental!
GetCarter said:
Internet is a wonderful buying thing. Buy them both and send one back within 7 days. No charge. Keep the one you want. (Just open the boxes carefully)
A fair point, though was considering ordering from HK.Do you do much portraiture with yours GC? Do you find you can control the DoF enough to get the results you like? Otis has made me feel confident it can give a nice soft background.
Disastrous said:
GetCarter said:
Internet is a wonderful buying thing. Buy them both and send one back within 7 days. No charge. Keep the one you want. (Just open the boxes carefully)
A fair point, though was considering ordering from HK.Do you do much portraiture with yours GC? Do you find you can control the DoF enough to get the results you like? Otis has made me feel confident it can give a nice soft background.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/masona/albums
Look at my "The Cat" and "Whitby 2016" Albums. Should give you an idea. There is one portrait in there somewhere of my better half. Though it is has some cross processing going on you can still see the sharpness and DoF effect. Same with the cat picture.
Disastrous said:
GetCarter said:
Internet is a wonderful buying thing. Buy them both and send one back within 7 days. No charge. Keep the one you want. (Just open the boxes carefully)
A fair point, though was considering ordering from HK.Do you do much portraiture with yours GC? Do you find you can control the DoF enough to get the results you like? Otis has made me feel confident it can give a nice soft background.
I don't do portraiture, just 'reportage', so am not the bloke to ask I'm afraid.
GetCarter said:
Disastrous said:
GetCarter said:
Internet is a wonderful buying thing. Buy them both and send one back within 7 days. No charge. Keep the one you want. (Just open the boxes carefully)
A fair point, though was considering ordering from HK.Do you do much portraiture with yours GC? Do you find you can control the DoF enough to get the results you like? Otis has made me feel confident it can give a nice soft background.
I don't do portraiture, just 'reportage', so am not the bloke to ask I'm afraid.
However, something mighty just struck me. It never occurred to me to compare the body size of the M3 with my original M. It's MUCH bigger!
I think that may be the decider as the M + pancake is about as much as I'm prepared to have in a pocket skiing. The M3 looks uncomfortable.
I think the Sony may edge it for that reason alone...
Disastrous said:
rhinochopig said:
You can buy a WiFi enabled memory card which adds WiFi to a non-wifi camera if this helps your decision.
Actually, I hadn't considered that. Are they any good? rhinochopig said:
Disastrous said:
rhinochopig said:
You can buy a WiFi enabled memory card which adds WiFi to a non-wifi camera if this helps your decision.
Actually, I hadn't considered that. Are they any good? I've also discovered there's an EOS M10 that seems to have the same body as the M, but adds wifi and a flippy screen. But loses the hotshoe and mic input. Jesus, canon are infuriating!
I've managed to argue myself round in so many circles now I'm considering doing nothing! I'm grumpy at cameras in general due to my indecision
I bought my RX from Panamoz I think. Excellent service and it was about £600 for the camera. It's a nice bit of kit but is expensive when you look at the G7x and G5x canon equivalents. The 7 has a longer zoom, the same aperture range but a decidedly more consumer body and older sensor tech (though it's apparently the same one from the RX100 mk3, but not the newer stacked version in the mk4).
Sorry I just threw two more on the fire! And just for good measure Panasonic LX100 and GM5 (or some such). LX,100 probably not pocketable but the GM5 is tiny and still has interchangeable lenses.
Sorry I just threw two more on the fire! And just for good measure Panasonic LX100 and GM5 (or some such). LX,100 probably not pocketable but the GM5 is tiny and still has interchangeable lenses.
Edited by Otispunkmeyer on Wednesday 20th April 16:20
Well, I know how annoying it is when people don't update these threads with their results so today I popped down to John Lewis and had a play.
I tried the two I initially posted about and then a selection of Canon Powershots, Lumixes and so on, as suggested by Otis but discounted them all for various reasons (size, features etc).
So ultimately it came down to the RX100 and M3.
My thoughts were:
RX100 (tried a iii and a iv but decided I couldn't justify the extra cost just for video so focused on the iii): absolutely terrific camera! So many features, such a quality feel and yet so so so compact. It actually defies belief how they have crammed all that into such a tiny body. Everything felt well screwed together and like it would easily slip into any pocket going.
M3: More of a known quantity for me but just a bit better than the original M in every way. Annoyingly, a bit bigger but not so much that it would bug me I think. However, Canon's glacial pace of development is infuriating and this camera should be so much more than it is. What it is, is really good, excellent even, but it could be an absolute monster with a few more features (namely high fr HD video).
So, what did I buy?
Ultimately, I felt the larger sensor of the M3 gave me more of what I was looking for, for the type of shooting I do. More DoF control and subject separation for sure, though I can see why this won't be important to everyone. In addition, the AF on the RX100 seemed to hunt a bit at close range - have you guys experienced this? Conversely, the dreadful AF from the EOS M has been sorted out in the M3 and it now behaves well (and has focus peaking for manual focus).
Add to it that I have a load of Canon FD glass I can mount, and it was £100 cheaper and I was won over. I wanted to take both though, if I'm honest.
The Sony is probably a 'better' camera but for me, the M3 seems to fix the issues I hated on the M, and adds wifi and pop up flash and a flippy screen. I'll live without the EVF and time will tell if the bigger body is an irritant. It should be so much more, but at least it will do what I want it to do, straight off the bat.
Thanks so much for the help and suggestions - I'm now trying to find a reason to buy an RX100 as well for work, so it's not been wasted!
I tried the two I initially posted about and then a selection of Canon Powershots, Lumixes and so on, as suggested by Otis but discounted them all for various reasons (size, features etc).
So ultimately it came down to the RX100 and M3.
My thoughts were:
RX100 (tried a iii and a iv but decided I couldn't justify the extra cost just for video so focused on the iii): absolutely terrific camera! So many features, such a quality feel and yet so so so compact. It actually defies belief how they have crammed all that into such a tiny body. Everything felt well screwed together and like it would easily slip into any pocket going.
M3: More of a known quantity for me but just a bit better than the original M in every way. Annoyingly, a bit bigger but not so much that it would bug me I think. However, Canon's glacial pace of development is infuriating and this camera should be so much more than it is. What it is, is really good, excellent even, but it could be an absolute monster with a few more features (namely high fr HD video).
So, what did I buy?
Ultimately, I felt the larger sensor of the M3 gave me more of what I was looking for, for the type of shooting I do. More DoF control and subject separation for sure, though I can see why this won't be important to everyone. In addition, the AF on the RX100 seemed to hunt a bit at close range - have you guys experienced this? Conversely, the dreadful AF from the EOS M has been sorted out in the M3 and it now behaves well (and has focus peaking for manual focus).
Add to it that I have a load of Canon FD glass I can mount, and it was £100 cheaper and I was won over. I wanted to take both though, if I'm honest.
The Sony is probably a 'better' camera but for me, the M3 seems to fix the issues I hated on the M, and adds wifi and pop up flash and a flippy screen. I'll live without the EVF and time will tell if the bigger body is an irritant. It should be so much more, but at least it will do what I want it to do, straight off the bat.
Thanks so much for the help and suggestions - I'm now trying to find a reason to buy an RX100 as well for work, so it's not been wasted!
Disastrous said:
Well, I know how annoying it is when people don't update these threads with their results so today I popped down to John Lewis and had a play.
I tried the two I initially posted about and then a selection of Canon Powershots, Lumixes and so on, as suggested by Otis but discounted them all for various reasons (size, features etc).
So ultimately it came down to the RX100 and M3.
My thoughts were:
RX100 (tried a iii and a iv but decided I couldn't justify the extra cost just for video so focused on the iii): absolutely terrific camera! So many features, such a quality feel and yet so so so compact. It actually defies belief how they have crammed all that into such a tiny body. Everything felt well screwed together and like it would easily slip into any pocket going.
M3: More of a known quantity for me but just a bit better than the original M in every way. Annoyingly, a bit bigger but not so much that it would bug me I think. However, Canon's glacial pace of development is infuriating and this camera should be so much more than it is. What it is, is really good, excellent even, but it could be an absolute monster with a few more features (namely high fr HD video).
So, what did I buy?
Ultimately, I felt the larger sensor of the M3 gave me more of what I was looking for, for the type of shooting I do. More DoF control and subject separation for sure, though I can see why this won't be important to everyone. In addition, the AF on the RX100 seemed to hunt a bit at close range - have you guys experienced this? Conversely, the dreadful AF from the EOS M has been sorted out in the M3 and it now behaves well (and has focus peaking for manual focus).
Add to it that I have a load of Canon FD glass I can mount, and it was £100 cheaper and I was won over. I wanted to take both though, if I'm honest.
The Sony is probably a 'better' camera but for me, the M3 seems to fix the issues I hated on the M, and adds wifi and pop up flash and a flippy screen. I'll live without the EVF and time will tell if the bigger body is an irritant. It should be so much more, but at least it will do what I want it to do, straight off the bat.
Thanks so much for the help and suggestions - I'm now trying to find a reason to buy an RX100 as well for work, so it's not been wasted!
Did you actually buy the M3? I've got an original M and fancy a change. I'd be interested in an update once you've got to grips with it as to whether you genuinely believe it is a worthwhile upgrade.I tried the two I initially posted about and then a selection of Canon Powershots, Lumixes and so on, as suggested by Otis but discounted them all for various reasons (size, features etc).
So ultimately it came down to the RX100 and M3.
My thoughts were:
RX100 (tried a iii and a iv but decided I couldn't justify the extra cost just for video so focused on the iii): absolutely terrific camera! So many features, such a quality feel and yet so so so compact. It actually defies belief how they have crammed all that into such a tiny body. Everything felt well screwed together and like it would easily slip into any pocket going.
M3: More of a known quantity for me but just a bit better than the original M in every way. Annoyingly, a bit bigger but not so much that it would bug me I think. However, Canon's glacial pace of development is infuriating and this camera should be so much more than it is. What it is, is really good, excellent even, but it could be an absolute monster with a few more features (namely high fr HD video).
So, what did I buy?
Ultimately, I felt the larger sensor of the M3 gave me more of what I was looking for, for the type of shooting I do. More DoF control and subject separation for sure, though I can see why this won't be important to everyone. In addition, the AF on the RX100 seemed to hunt a bit at close range - have you guys experienced this? Conversely, the dreadful AF from the EOS M has been sorted out in the M3 and it now behaves well (and has focus peaking for manual focus).
Add to it that I have a load of Canon FD glass I can mount, and it was £100 cheaper and I was won over. I wanted to take both though, if I'm honest.
The Sony is probably a 'better' camera but for me, the M3 seems to fix the issues I hated on the M, and adds wifi and pop up flash and a flippy screen. I'll live without the EVF and time will tell if the bigger body is an irritant. It should be so much more, but at least it will do what I want it to do, straight off the bat.
Thanks so much for the help and suggestions - I'm now trying to find a reason to buy an RX100 as well for work, so it's not been wasted!
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff