Looking for a new camera - RX100 vs ????

[maflynn]

I noticed that I'm using my OMD EM5 less and less over the past year. Its not that my love of photography cooled, its not because I'm not enjoying the camera, its a wonderful camera. I think what I shoot, how I shoot has changed.

I want something that is small light, and pocketable. I shoot mostly kid activities. One of the benefits of the OMD EM5 was I could crop the image fairly aggressively, i.e., using the 12-40mm lens. I also go hiking and so I like to take pictures of my trip and also my frequent trips to DisneyWorld. The highlights my desire for a smaller footprint. Crush by the crowds, size matters as they say. My last camping trip I opted to just take my iPhone and I was happy with the results but I want something that has better low light performance. One of the biggest features I used on my OMD EM5 with the 12-40 lens, is to shoot without a flash indoors, It generally performed really well.

So far, I've settled in on the RX100 III, V or VA (I'm not sure what generation). The issue with this bad boy, is the price. Its extremely expensive, for such a small camera. Maybe because it performs so well, and has many high end features as the reason for the price. I'm waiting for BF sales, and maybe I can save some $$.

Anyways with my thought process, what other small (pocketable or almost pocketable) cameras are out there that competes with the RX100?

 

[kenoh]

I noticed that I'm using my OMD EM5 less and less over the past year. Its not that my love of photography cooled, its not because I'm not enjoying the camera, its a wonderful camera. I think what I shoot, how I shoot has changed.

I want something that is small light, and pocketable. I shoot mostly kid activities. One of the benefits of the OMD EM5 was I could crop the image fairly aggressively, i.e., using the 12-40mm lens. I also go hiking and so I like to take pictures of my trip and also my frequent trips to DisneyWorld. The highlights my desire for a smaller footprint. Crush by the crowds, size matters as they say. My last camping trip I opted to just take my iPhone and I was happy with the results but I want something that has better low light performance. One of the biggest features I used on my OMD EM5 with the 12-40 lens, is to shoot without a flash indoors, It generally performed really well.

So far, I've settled in on the RX100 III, V or VA (I'm not sure what generation). The issue with this bad boy, is the price. Its extremely expensive, for such a small camera. Maybe because it performs so well, and has many high end features as the reason for the price. I'm waiting for BF sales, and maybe I can save some $$.

Anyways with my thought process, what other small (pocketable or almost pocketable) cameras are out there that competes with the RX100?

Hi,

I have an RX100 MK III. For what it is it is very very good. The newer sensors in the MK V, VI and VA (MK5 with added AF performance) are better for low light MKIII I won't take above ISO 1600. My only real gripe with the III is that the lens only reaches an equivalent of 70mm which is fine but sometimes I just want that little bit more. The new MK VI reaches 200mm equiv which is fantastic and also has faster AF (for the kids).

I recently got a Magfilter polariser for my MKIII on the recommendation from @Hughmac and I have to say this is a superb addition to it and reignited my joy of using it.

You really cant go wrong with the RX100.

As for competition, there is really only the Lumix LX15, TZ200 or the Panasonic made Leica Typ 109 and C-Lux (C-Lux looks lovely) I think.

I like the C-Lux but the lens is relatively slow so low light may not be as great.

Food for thought?
[doublepost=1542383014][/doublepost]This is an interesting article.

https://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/latest/photo-news/sony-rx100-vi-vs-panasonic-tz200-119539

 

[maflynn]

The new MK VI reaches 200mm equiv which is fantastic and also has faster AF (for the kids).

The cost of that is very hard to justify, I'll wait to see what BF sales, but I'm not looking to break the bank

 

[kenoh]

The cost of that is very hard to justify, I'll wait to see what BF sales, but I'm not looking to break the bank

I would go the RX100 MK III route then. I have been very happy with it and the MK I before it.

If it helps, you know I am not particularly skillful with cameras, so look at these images. They were all taken on the MKIII RX100. Maybe they will help you in your decision to see some real world examples from someone who uses it and you can ask questions of.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/kenoh/albums/72157701425037714
https://www.flickr.com/photos/kenoh/albums/72157699771293871

These were taken from a campervan travelling at 60mph:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/kenoh/45178181521/in/album-72157700601113891/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/kenoh/45178174411/in/album-72157700601113891/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/kenoh/45178184661/in/album-72157700601113891/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/kenoh/44508076634/in/album-72157700601113891/

 

[maflynn]

Gorgeous pictures

 

[maflynn]

The mark III looks like a nice fit for the direction I'm looking to take. The V has some nice improvements but the price difference is a bit high. I see some nice deals on mpb.com for some used MK IIIs

 

[kenoh]

Gorgeous pictures

Too kind.

Yes I still like my MKIII. It is my carry everywhere camera when I don’t want to take the heavy artillery.

I just bought a Goshawk Ball Head from MPB and I am really impressed with the quality.

One thing about all RX100s is they are dust magnets. Check with MPB before buying one. The lens motion as it extends and contracts tends to suck in dust over time. You can place a vacuum cleaner on the lens rings and get it out usually but I would recommend factoring in a small carry case for it to minimise the time it spends in dusty places. It isn’t like you just pop the lens off like the Olympus.

 

[Hughmac]

Seconded the RX100. I had the mk2 for quite a while and took some good shots with it, but recently upgraded to the mk6 for the extra focus points and the 200mm equivalent lens.
I like the EVF, the fast focus, and the way the flash will tilt to bounce. Image quality is superb, almost DSLR like, but beware they sometimes come out quite cold and need a little adjustment in post.
The difference between a mk3 and 4 is negligible, but the mk5 and 6 are a great leap forward.

Hope this helps,

Cheers

Hugh

 

[OreoCookie]

If you don’t need a zoom lens, I suggest the Fuji X100T. I have its older brother, and I love that thing in a way that I only love one other camera/lens combo (my Nikon F80 and the Tokina 28-70 mm f/2.8). The f/2 lens is absolutely lovely and coupled to an APS-C-sized sensor you can get some amazing images.

If you want a zoom, you need to look elsewhere.

 

[kenoh]

If you don’t need a zoom lens, I suggest the Fuji X100T. I have its older brother, and I love that thing in a way that I only love one other camera/lens combo (my Nikon F80 and the Tokina 28-70 mm f/2.8). The f/2 lens is absolutely lovely and coupled to an APS-C-sized sensor you can get some amazing images.

If you want a zoom, you need to look elsewhere.

Good call.

 

[maflynn]

If you want a zoom, you need to look elsewhere.

After looking at some reviews, and YTs, its a nice camera, but with a 23mm lens, I do think its too limiting for what I'm thinking of. Thanks though

 

[ChrisA]

For what you say you need (low light, lower cost) the first version of the camera best, the earliest versions have an f/1.8 lens. In the later versions the lens is f/2.8

Cost about $225 on the used market.

All the others on this thread don't produce better images. For you intened use yo don't need 24 FPS still images you jest need a good lens and a good sensor the older version of the camerahas that.

Or you can just buy a better iPhone.

 

[kenoh]

For what you say you need (low light, lower cost) the first version of the camera best, the earliest versions have an f/1.8 lens. In the later versions the lens is f/2.8

Cost about $225 on the used market.

All the others on this thread don't produce better images. For you intened use yo don't need 24 FPS still images you jest need a good lens and a good sensor the older version of the camerahas that.

Or you can just buy a better iPhone.

Hmm not quite. The mk I was indeed faster wide open but it closes down past 2.8 very quickly once you Zoom in. IIRC it is at f4 by 32mm.

The mk I also has an effective focal length of 28-105 so yes can be more useful focal length.

However as of the MK III, you got the viewfinder and a BSI sensor which makes a difference in low light. The lens is also constant 2.8 so is faster across the range than the MK I desipte being a 24-70 focal length range. It also has an articulating screen, fixed on mk i.

So good suggestion but IMHO MK III or later is best option.

 

[Ray2]

I was tired of lugging around my Fuji kit on long holidays (constant body size/weight creep + limited zoom coverage = more lenses to pack and significantly heavier and larger). So this year I spent 3 months on the road with an RX100M3. I've owned the camera for about 5 years now and have taken perhaps 2 dozen shots with it. This trip was either fall in love with it or sell it.

About a month into the trip I ordered a GX85 kit. Having now used the GX85 it will be, without question, my travel camera. The RX100M3 will be sold.

Do you really want a camera that's limited to 1000 ISO? You want Sony's notoriously poor auto white balance? Searingly clinical and digital JPEG's? It's a very accomplished gadget. It's not a great camera.

 

[OreoCookie]

After looking at some reviews, and YTs, its a nice camera, but with a 23mm lens, I do think its too limiting for what I'm thinking of. Thanks though

Look, given your preferences, you basically have two options here:

(1) A camera with a small sensor and a zoom (such as the RX100 series)
(2) A camera with a large sensor and a prime (like the Fuji X100-series)

IMHO a small sensor makes no sense, these are in the uncanny valley of cameras where you have smartphones on one end and large sensor cameras on the other. You still have the same limitations (or even more) than with the camera built into your smartphone. I'm serious here: smartphones have prime with much larger apertures than zooms, and thanks to modern image processing algorithms punch well above the weight. (I cannot emphasize how much better Apple and Google are at massaging their pixels to produce better-than-should-be-possible photos. A camera like the RX100, which has one of the faster zoom lenses (f/2.8-4.5 for the Mark VI), still has a slow zoom lens attached to it, which means that the sensor needs to up its ISO setting compared to a camera with a faster lens (like your smartphone). At that size, the zoom will still lose out in terms of image quality to a similarly sized prime lens for a much larger sensor. The knockout blow is that you always have your smartphone with you.

A larger sensor camera with a prime really extends when you can take pictures, especially at night or indoors without a flash. The prime lenses are light and offer image quality that simply crush any smartphones with their lenses that are the size of two grains of rice. The X100T is a great incarnation of this philosophy. But there are others that built more in the style of a point-and-shoot camera — with all the advantages (mostly size) and disadvantages that come with that. Ricoh used to make a great one, which was a digital version of their point-and-shoot-camera-with-a-great-lens that they offered back in the film days.

As soon as you want a large sensor and a bright zoom, we are talking an interchangeable lens camera. But you already have one, and don't want another one. I don't think a camera like the RX100, which is bloody expensive for what it is, is really worth it.

The appeal of the Fuji isn't captured in reviews or in numbers. It is a camera that punches well above its weight, and people love it. To give you an example: you ask someone to take a photo. Usual question: is that an old camera with film? And you don't need to explain anything to them, you just set the aperture ring and the shutter speed to A, and all that kind soul has to worry about is one shutter button. That's why my biggest problem with the Fuji is that when my wife is with me, she grabs it and I need to lug around my (excellent) Nikon dslr. My wife (who is quite technically minded, but not as knee-deep into gadgets as I am) never once had to ask for instructions.

 

[maflynn]

IMHO a small sensor makes no sense,

I have to disagree, my stated needs were:

I want something that is small light, and pocketable. I shoot mostly kid activities.

I want something that has better low light performance.

While a fantastic camera in its own right, I don't see the Fuji, checking off all of the boxes (for me). For instance, trying to capture my kids playing soccer, while I can more aggressively crop the image, I think I need something with more reach. Even with the larger size, I don't think it will take the amount of cropping I'd need to do to capture my kids soccer. I agree it will do a great job say at Thanksgiving, where I'll be in doors w/o a flash snapping photos. The camera has a job, and it has many folks really like what it does, but I see the prime lens too constraining given the fact its not interchangeable. I've shot with primes before and they produce some excellent high quality images.

And you don't need to explain anything to them, you just set the aperture ring and the shutter speed to A, and all that kind soul has to worry about is one shutter button

I'm not worried about other people taking pictures from my camera, and regardless of the camera I've had once I told them what button to push (regardless of how many dials), they just point and press - I don't think that sort of mindset is something that I'll include in my buying decisions ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I do however appreciate your input and I'm now distilling my needs to an even finder detail.

One option that I was looking at last night was the Panasonic Lumix LX100 MKII. First let me say that the as I keep looking it seems the camera prices keep going up.

The LX100 has a 4/3 processor size we're we're talking a 2.0 crop vs 2.7 crop (1" sensor) vs 1.6 crop (APC). The focal length is 24mm - 76mm and the aperture is is F1.7–2.8 The size is slightly larger then the RX100 but that increased size gave the reviewers something to grab on so ergonomically its a better feel. Overall this may fit my needs better then the RX100 III but then there's the price of the LX100.

If I'm going to spend 1,000+, then I need to consider the RX100 VI and it has one feature that catches my eye; a jaw dropping 24-200mm focal length, albeit at a slower F2.8-4.5. That sort of feature doesn't come cheap. I'm not sure that I'm wanting to spend that much money on the RX100 or the LX100. Feature creep (or in my case price creep) seems to be occurring and it seems I'm looking to justify $1,000 instead of $400.00

I'm hoping to head to my local camera store later today, and I'll check them all out. Its one thing to do reviews and YT videos, but its quite another to feel them in your own hand.

 

[Hughmac]

If you're considering the RX100 VI, then although the lens starts at f/2.8, high ISO quality is good. I leave mine on auto with a 3200 limit and it seems to cope well.
And like you said the lens has a killer focal range.
Prices have definitely dropped since original release, and there may be some 2nd hand ones out there which can hardly be very much used.

LX100 another good choice

Cheers

Hugh

 

[kenoh]

I have to disagree, my stated needs were:



While a fantastic camera in its own right, I don't see the Fuji, checking off all of the boxes (for me). For instance, trying to capture my kids playing soccer, while I can more aggressively crop the image, I think I need something with more reach. Even with the larger size, I don't think it will take the amount of cropping I'd need to do to capture my kids soccer. I agree it will do a great job say at Thanksgiving, where I'll be in doors w/o a flash snapping photos. The camera has a job, and it has many folks really like what it does, but I see the prime lens too constraining given the fact its not interchangeable. I've shot with primes before and they produce some excellent high quality images.


I'm not worried about other people taking pictures from my camera, and regardless of the camera I've had once I told them what button to push (regardless of how many dials), they just point and press - I don't think that sort of mindset is something that I'll include in my buying decisions ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I do however appreciate your input and I'm now distilling my needs to an even finder detail.

One option that I was looking at last night was the Panasonic Lumix LX100 MKII. First let me say that the as I keep looking it seems the camera prices keep going up.

The LX100 has a 4/3 processor size we're we're talking a 2.0 crop vs 2.7 crop (1" sensor) vs 1.6 crop (APC). The focal length is 24mm - 76mm and the aperture is is F1.7–2.8 The size is slightly larger then the RX100 but that increased size gave the reviewers something to grab on so ergonomically its a better feel. Overall this may fit my needs better then the RX100 III but then there's the price of the LX100.

If I'm going to spend 1,000+, then I need to consider the RX100 VI and it has one feature that catches my eye; a jaw dropping 24-200mm focal length, albeit at a slower F2.8-4.5. That sort of feature doesn't come cheap. I'm not sure that I'm wanting to spend that much money on the RX100 or the LX100. Feature creep (or in my case price creep) seems to be occurring and it seems I'm looking to justify $1,000 instead of $400.00

I'm hoping to head to my local camera store later today, and I'll check them all out. Its one thing to do reviews and YT videos, but its quite another to feel them in your own hand.

Yeah I tried an LX100 but ultimately went back to my RX100. Bear in mind I was a Sony fanboy at that point. I have since opened my eyes... So your mileage may vary. I did find the LX100 would over expose images a lot of the time - again caveat, I am crap at this photo lark so YMMV.

 

[Somepix]

Maybe this will help you make a choice.

Two months ago I bought a Fuji X-T100 with the 15-45 kit zoom. And I still love it !

Why ? Because I wanted an interchangeable lens travel camera with an APS-C sensor, a movable or at least tiltable LCD, an excellent IQ, for less than CAN$ 1000.-

The Fuji X-T100 went to India for a month.

IQ is excellent even in low light, the zoom lens is fairly sharp and clear and can focus pretty close. Not macro, but still ok for flowers and insects.

BUT : the kit zoom uses an electric motor to deploy at power-up and to zoom. This slows down the process, and eats battery. And when the lens is deployed, it’s no more so small.

SO : I got the 27mm pancake lens, which is a little long or short, depending. And doesn’t focus very close.

BUT : IQ is still excellent. The lens opens at 2,8, isn’t a bokeh queen, but still. 24mp let’s you crop if you want to be closer to the scene. And the form factor ! The cam is almost pocketable !

Now, the 27mm is my default lens when walking around in a city. I use the 15-45 more as a « nature » lens.

 

[Ray2]

I have to disagree, my stated needs were:



While a fantastic camera in its own right, I don't see the Fuji, checking off all of the boxes (for me). For instance, trying to capture my kids playing soccer, while I can more aggressively crop the image, I think I need something with more reach. Even with the larger size, I don't think it will take the amount of cropping I'd need to do to capture my kids soccer. I agree it will do a great job say at Thanksgiving, where I'll be in doors w/o a flash snapping photos. The camera has a job, and it has many folks really like what it does, but I see the prime lens too constraining given the fact its not interchangeable. I've shot with primes before and they produce some excellent high quality images.


I'm not worried about other people taking pictures from my camera, and regardless of the camera I've had once I told them what button to push (regardless of how many dials), they just point and press - I don't think that sort of mindset is something that I'll include in my buying decisions ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I do however appreciate your input and I'm now distilling my needs to an even finder detail.

One option that I was looking at last night was the Panasonic Lumix LX100 MKII. First let me say that the as I keep looking it seems the camera prices keep going up.

The LX100 has a 4/3 processor size we're we're talking a 2.0 crop vs 2.7 crop (1" sensor) vs 1.6 crop (APC). The focal length is 24mm - 76mm and the aperture is is F1.7–2.8 The size is slightly larger then the RX100 but that increased size gave the reviewers something to grab on so ergonomically its a better feel. Overall this may fit my needs better then the RX100 III but then there's the price of the LX100.

If I'm going to spend 1,000+, then I need to consider the RX100 VI and it has one feature that catches my eye; a jaw dropping 24-200mm focal length, albeit at a slower F2.8-4.5. That sort of feature doesn't come cheap. I'm not sure that I'm wanting to spend that much money on the RX100 or the LX100. Feature creep (or in my case price creep) seems to be occurring and it seems I'm looking to justify $1,000 instead of $400.00

I'm hoping to head to my local camera store later today, and I'll check them all out. Its one thing to do reviews and YT videos, but its quite another to feel them in your own hand.

I think a trip to a dealer makes a lot of sense. Pay less attention to specs (which Sony does a great job on) and more to useability.

You want low light and a small carry, with a superzoom, that telescopes, assuming you've located the recessed power button, while you're trying to quickly capture shots of your kids, all while fiddling with a pop up evf if it's sunny. The poor grip on the RX100 can be dealt with with 3rd part grips and gun grip tape.

I have no doubt that the RX100 is liked by many. However, there's also a lot of anecdotal conversations on dpr that suggest there's a lot of people who have plopped down a lot of money for what turned out to be a paperweight once used. To me, there's little middle ground with this camera. Either you love it, or you hate it. Good hunting.

 

[tizeye]

The Sony RX100 is hard to beat for ultra-compact size. Also in the 1" sensor is the Canon G7/G9 but no viewfinder and the Panasonic/Leica twin with a 4:3 sensor. While Fuji does have an APC sensor size camera it is that largest and heaviest of the group. Most have 24-20mm equivalent lens, with a few exceptions providing an extended zoom. Another APC camera is the Sony a6000 which is what I ultimately got my wife, although today the a6300 is a good compromise. She required small and a viewfinder, as with a Canon P&S she was replacing, couldn't see the lcd in bright sun, and would loose the object with the 600x zoom

If you don't go super small like the RX100, consider the a6300. It is way smaller and lighter than the Fuji and about the same size as the Panasonic. The basic kit lens is pancake 22-70 equivalent. While there are better lens, there is nothing wrong with the output and it supports the small size. If you need the extended reach, can always get the 55-210 (70 - 305 equivalent) but change to it when knowing going to a sports event or wildlife hike, but at other times don't need to carry it around.

 

[maflynn]

Why ? Because I wanted an interchangeable lens travel camera with an APS-C sensor, a movable or at least tiltable LCD, an excellent IQ, for less than CAN$ 1000.-

Thanks for the suggestion, but at this point, I want a small P&S type camera that performs really well and not real with interchangeable lenses ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I think a trip to a dealer makes a lot of sense. Pay less attention to specs (which Sony does a great job on) and more to useability.

I made a quick trip, I'll probably go again.
Hand-ability, the LX100 wins out
Size, the Sony RX100 wins out.

You want low light and a small carry, with a superzoom, that telescopes, assuming you've located the recessed power button, while you're trying to quickly capture shots of your kids, all while fiddling with a pop up evf if it's sunny. The poor grip on the RX100 can be dealt with with 3rd part grips and gun grip tape.

I don't need super zoom, but since its a possibility, I'm considering it. I'm not decided yet, and the RX100 III still looks to be a nice choice.

Comparing apples to apples, the LX100 MK II vs. RX100 III seems well matched, but it seem comparing those two models, the RX100 wins out on price, and size and I'm still leaning towards that. I have time, and with BF just a few days away, I'll have a few more days to obsess over

 

[OreoCookie]

I have to disagree, my stated needs were:

Yeah, and my point is that you won't get good low light performance with the RX100, all you are getting is a zoom. Which is fine, and it seems to me that it is a camera with a zoom lens that you are really after. (Just to be clear, I am not criticizing your choice, I am just trying to make it explicit.)

But for that price, I don't think a camera with such a small sensor is worth that much money. I'd rather opt for a much cheaper camera with a zoom instead. Spend the extra money on your kids or save it up.

 

[MacNut]

The Sony RX100 is hard to beat for ultra-compact size. Also in the 1" sensor is the Canon G7/G9 but no viewfinder and the Panasonic/Leica twin with a 4:3 sensor. While Fuji does have an APC sensor size camera it is that largest and heaviest of the group. Most have 24-20mm equivalent lens, with a few exceptions providing an extended zoom. Another APC camera is the Sony a6000 which is what I ultimately got my wife, although today the a6300 is a good compromise. She required small and a viewfinder, as with a Canon P&S she was replacing, couldn't see the lcd in bright sun, and would loose the object with the 600x zoom

If you don't go super small like the RX100, consider the a6300. It is way smaller and lighter than the Fuji and about the same size as the Panasonic. The basic kit lens is pancake 22-70 equivalent. While there are better lens, there is nothing wrong with the output and it supports the small size. If you need the extended reach, can always get the 55-210 (70 - 305 equivalent) but change to it when knowing going to a sports event or wildlife hike, but at other times don't need to carry it around.

The a7000 is rumored to be coming out soon. I would assume that would drop the prices on the others in the range.

 

[kenoh]

The A7000,6300,6500 are all the same size of the Olympus the OP already has so doesn't meet the brief.