Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Looking for a new camera - RX100 vs ????
- Thread starter maflynn
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
That's what I'm finding, in all honesty, and the III seems to offer a nice balance of features for a decent price.
No question, that's why I said in my earlier post the 1,200 is more then I'm willing to spend. As I ruminate on what I've been using, what I want and my expectations. The RX100 III seems to be a better fit. I've been shooting 12-40mm, so a focal length of 24-70 is close to what I prefer to shoot and the price is around 600 new, and 400 used. Both of which are easier to justify. Product creep is why I was inching closer. Well the IV is a little more then the III, or that Panasonic, LX100 is a hundred or so more then the IV, why no get that, and then if I spend 1,000 on the LX100, why not get the RX100 VI. Resetting back and distilling what I want and why I want was needed. I'd prefer a faster lens.
If I compare the X100F to the RX100 III it seems the RX100 offers a faster lens, more reach, and a lower price. The X100F uses a prime lens, and has a larger sensor. Is that sensor size worth paying nearly 2x? I'd have to go down to the X100T and that seems to be going used for around 600 dollars and that produces a 16MP image, and the aperture is at F2.
Here's the models, I've reviewed to some degree, in order to avoid confusion, I've created a spreadsheet to list the particulars and the price. Obviously I omitted a number of features, like EVF, or the resolution of the EVF, is the display touch screen, etc. Again, its hard to beat the RX100 III on price and performance, the X100T does come closer then other models, but that 600 price seems to be used, where as the 600 for the III is new. I can find the III used for around 400 (comparing apples to apples)
Oh, I now see that the different models have different apertures. Sorry, I only checked out the Mark VI, which features a slower lens.
When it comes to image quality, just imagine your Olympus with a prime and better low light performance. It’ll definitely be better, especially once you take the lens into account.
Honestly, though, I don’t think this is a decision you will be able to make with a chart. The natural enemy of both cameras is your smartphone. And the feature that sets the RX100 apart from your smartphone is the zoom. With cameras like the Fuji, it is image quality. And you already own a serious camera with which you can take pictures at special events, don’t forget about that. You don’t need one camera to do it all.
When it comes to image quality, just imagine your Olympus with a prime and better low light performance. It’ll definitely be better, especially once you take the lens into account.
Honestly, though, I don’t think this is a decision you will be able to make with a chart. The natural enemy of both cameras is your smartphone. And the feature that sets the RX100 apart from your smartphone is the zoom. With cameras like the Fuji, it is image quality. And you already own a serious camera with which you can take pictures at special events, don’t forget about that. You don’t need one camera to do it all.
Good low light compared to what? Compared to an iphone its great. Compared to an A7S not so much.
Lets keep the original brief in mind. The OP HAS a "big sensor" camera (for the purposes of this context). This is for a concealed carry convenience shooter...
X-T100 yeah great, A6300 yep agree... But they are the same size as the camera the OP has already.
RX100 MKIII i believe is still the front runner based on the brief.
The Fuji is almost the same physical size as the Olympus that the OP already has, so it's a waste of his time pushing in that direction.
Should we decide that a smartphone has the same IQ as an RX100 then I should really be ditching mine in favour of my iPhone SE
Have you actually tried one yet, or looked at examples of photos on places like Flickr?
Cheers
Hugh
Really, you go off radar for months and your comeback crescendo is a pink Hello Kitty camrea?!?! Lmao...
No, my comeback crescendo was winning the last contest with my first post back. I imagine my next will be judging your entry in the current contest.Really, you go off radar for months and your comeback crescendo is a pink Hello Kitty camrea?!?! Lmao...
Except that a full frame sensor camera isn't even up for debate. Whatever camera maflynn gets, it will have to compete with his smartphone and his Olympus. An A7S is not in the running for size and price reasons. But the primary competitor is the phone: you always have your phone with you, and if you have a recent iPhone, then that takes pictures that are comparable to point and shoot zooms (sans zoom, of course). So it makes sense to insist that whatever camera he gets, it has to be better in meaningful ways than the cameras he already owns.
If the OP wants a zoom, then I think a decent point and shoot might be a solution. But then I still don't see that the RX100 is worth it (except perhaps used). But I don't think he can expect meaningfully better low light performance than what he has in an iPhone, even with the large-for-a-point-and-shoot 1 inch sensor.
And why should that exclude another large sensor camera from consideration? Perhaps the new camera will displace the Olympus even further. That's what the Fuji did to my Nikon dslr, that's seen much less use of late. The danger of that happening never entered my mind as a counter argument. And yes, also in maflynn's case the Olympus will have to make a case for its utility, too. In my case the dslr unburdens my Fuji: I have a 80-200 mm zoom lens, and if I want to do shots that require this sort of firepower, I have a tool in my camera bag for that. So perhaps maflynn can also take that into consideration: leave specialized needs to the Olympus and get a camera that fills the remaining niche.
In any case, you can get fixed lens, large sensor cameras that are smaller than the Fuji and more like a point and shoot camera. The Ricoh GR-series comes to mind and for a while Nikon made one, too.
Whether you want a classical camera or a point and shoot is also something that enters the decision making process. I have owned cameras more akin to the Nikon and the Ricoh (one by Sigma), and I found those rather limiting. But you do you, and you have the choice. To me at least, whether you want a camera with “classical camera controls” or a point-and-shoot-style camera is also a factor.
I wrote that the image quality of the Sony must be meaningfully better than the iPhone in order for the OP to grab the Sony and leave the iPhone in his pocket. To me this is the fundamental criterion, and if the camera he buys fails that, then either he bought the wrong camera or perhaps didn't need one in the first place.Should we decide that a smartphone has the same IQ as an RX100 then I should really be ditching mine in favour of my iPhone SE
Yes, once you pixel peep, you see differences between a higher-quality point-and-shoot camera and a smartphone. But in practice, how much better is it? Could you tell the difference when you take a picture of a well-lit scene (e. g. outside during the day)? What about other features that are important these days such being able to instantly share photos? (My serious cameras suck in that department, and I sometimes even retake a shot with my iPhone just to share it.)
So yeah, I don't think the image quality of the Sony is meaningfully better to justify its place in maflynn's camera bag. The zoom, on the other hand, might.
Last edited:
No, my comeback crescendo was winning the last contest with my first post back. I imagine my next will be judging your entry in the current contest.
Yeah I am too scared to enter this week...
[doublepost=1542700268][/doublepost]
I get what you are saying. The GR series is a nice camera good call, but it is too restrictive and would struggle to displace the phone.
If Maflynn is indeed looking to take portraits then yes the latest iPhones I have to admit have impressed me with their portrait mode. Just last week my friend took some images on his new iPhone XR and they were really nice. While hiking in Yosemite though, at no point did he take images other than (goddamn) selfies with his iPhone but he was filling memory cards on his RX100 and Canon 6D.
We both had RX100 MKIIIs in our pockets (I am a nerd so of course mine was in a pouch on my utility belt) and IMHO even the MKIII is still better than the iPhone For flat out quality. Maybe that is because of the way I use it, maybe I take the image more seriously with the Sony whereas I am a bit more “sloppy” with the phone but I do still think the RX100 is a valid step up from the phone even before we factor in the viewfinder, articulating screen, bouncing flash and the greater zoom range.
Despite your arguments, I personally still think the RX100 is a good choice in what ever MKIII or later version chosen. For me, I have the luxury of having shot and currently shoot some lovely camera equipment. I am in no way saying I am expert or anything special just someone with the ability to compare directly, but I will say that the RX100 certainly has a valid place in my arsenal and is in no danger of being replaced (except maybe with a MKVI). When i am not taking the heavy artillery with me, the RX100 is always there and is used for pictures before the iPhone.
YMMV.
You think the iPhone X with its 1/2 inch sensor, is comparable in low light situations to cameras with 1 inch sensor?
You're argument all along has been pick the camera with the larger sensor because it will out perform anything with a smaller sensor (aperture being equal). I don't think you can make that argument and then say the larger sensor Sony will be no better then the iPhone in low light situations.
No question, its going to fit between the iPhone x, and the Oly. A for instance - do I want the Olympus hanging around my neck, or in my backpack when I'm climbing Mt. Washington? No, my backpack is full enough and the camera is awkwardly large enough to be easily accessible in my backpack. In that example (which occurs often as I enjoy hiking) I'll. want a camera that can shoot landscapes, zoom to capture something that is a bit far off, and once in a while maybe some light macro photography. What will work better, the iPhone or the RX100? I'll have some zoom capability and can crop with the RX100, its small enough to fit in a side pocket of the back pack. The Fuji with its fixed focal length will be just as limiting as the iPhone in that situation.
Yes, I'll not argue that point, as I mentioned above a very real scenario is hiking. I'm looking for a camera that I'm wanting to use instead of my iPhone since I'll be leaving the Oly home.
I'll probably not get better IQ (then the Oly), but in a sense I'm looking for a better experience, whether its ease of shooting on the side of a mountain, or having something with me while visiting San. Francisco. I was at SF a couple of years ago, and I packed really light. I opted not to bring my Oly and its large 12-40 lens (I did not check my luggage but fit everything in a carry on bag). Instead I had my iPhone. I regretted that decision and while the iphone took some nice pictures, I think some sort of P&S would have been better - both IQ and usability wise. Now don't get the wrong message I did capture some really nice shots of stuff in SF, but I would have been better off with a camera.
Perhaps, to some degree my Oly is being used less because of its size, I've noticed in other forums, that some folks are opting for a high end P&S over a mirrorless camera, and that might happen to me, but every time I think about selling my Oly, I just can't do it. I do like that camera.
I think that definition is too narrow, we also need to consider what the RX100 does that the iPhone cannot. Better low light performance (1" sensor vs. 1/2), zooming, shooting in RAW are some that quickly come to mind. Perhaps I was too expansive in my initial problem definition, maybe the Oly is the camera I use for my kid's soccer game, but the RX100 is for a holiday get together, or when I'm camping/hiking. I've also given up pixel peeping. Back in the day of using a Nikon DSLR, I fell into that trap, now I enjoy the images.
Let me preface my post by saying: my basic message is you shouldn't stress too much about image quality, because I get the distinct impression you want a zoom. And you seem to know the zoom range you want, so I consider all of my quibbles about “better enough IQ” academic, because my impression is that zoom + portability >> image quality.
But I reckon if you just read through my replies, you may get the impression, I am combative or disagree with you on some front. Quite the contrary, if you find a used RX100, it may indeed be the right camera for you. (I would just recommend against getting a new one, IMHO they are too expensive for what they are.)
And judging from your responses, it seems to me that your main motivating factor is the zoom anyway, so I think you should not worry about image quality so much, and get a camera with a zoom.
But it may work for you, YMMV.
![Chilean_landscape.jpg]()
My iPhone is also water proof whereas my serious cameras are not.
Technically speaking, with the right software, either of my serious cameras may be able to do such a panorama, too. But they can't, because neither Nikon nor Fuji seem to think it worthwhile to enable such functionality in serious cameras. Ditto for geo tagging via a built-in GPS (what gives?) or wifi connectivity.
But I reckon if you just read through my replies, you may get the impression, I am combative or disagree with you on some front. Quite the contrary, if you find a used RX100, it may indeed be the right camera for you. (I would just recommend against getting a new one, IMHO they are too expensive for what they are.)
No, I wrote that the 1 inch sensor won't be better enough to justify itself. The iPhones have tiny sensors, yes, but also very fast lenses (f/1.7 on the wide angle lens, f/2.4 on the “tele” lens, that is better than the zooms on point and shoots) and much more advanced software algorithms than what Sony has, closes the gap a little. I am not claiming equal low light performance, I'm just saying I don't see it as better enough. That is especially true since you would hold the RX100 to a very different standard, your Olympus. I don't pixel peep my iPhone shots, and my expectations are much lower. With my serious cameras, I do, and a large sensor compact camera can hold its ground against a dslr. Image quality-wise, the RX100 and any similar camera is currently in the uncanny valley that falls somewhere in between — notably better than the iPhone and notably worse than the Olympus. Do you care? (I'm not trying to be facetious or aggressive, I think this is the question you should honestly ask yourself.)
And judging from your responses, it seems to me that your main motivating factor is the zoom anyway, so I think you should not worry about image quality so much, and get a camera with a zoom.
It depends on the type of photos you take. I usually prefer the extremes, so a wide-angle or a tele zoom. The RX100 wouldn't work for me. When I go hiking, I don't mind taking my dslr with me, though. Hell, when I go hiking with my wife, I have to take the dslr and the Fuji, because she'll monopolize the Fuji and ask me nicely to carry it on the way home.
But it may work for you, YMMV.The iPhone might be better than either camera, because you might want to use e. g. its panorama function and share photos immediately. I couldn't have made this shot with any of my “serious” cameras:
My iPhone is also water proof whereas my serious cameras are not.
Technically speaking, with the right software, either of my serious cameras may be able to do such a panorama, too. But they can't, because neither Nikon nor Fuji seem to think it worthwhile to enable such functionality in serious cameras. Ditto for geo tagging via a built-in GPS (what gives?) or wifi connectivity.
I have had such trips myself, and I know how much that sucks.
I think this is a very real risk, but a good one. My D7000 is not a bad camera, I just prefer making the trade-off to take a smaller camera with me most of the time. In the past, I would take my 8-9 kg camera bag with me on business trips even, and now all I need is my Fuji, the charger and a few spare batteries.
I think this is exactly the right criterion, because whether or not you will take it with you will determine whether that camera is of any use to you. I learnt this with the Fuji. I don't think I will replace my Nikon with another dslr, for example, I'll opt for a mirrorless camera or perhaps just get the successor to the X100T or whatever with a wide angle and a tele converter.
Last edited:
Let me preface my post by saying: my basic message is you shouldn't stress too much about image quality, because I get the distinct impression you want a zoom. And you seem to know the zoom range you want, so I consider all of my quibbles about “better enough IQ” academic, because my impression is that zoom + portability >> image quality.
But I reckon if you just read through my replies, you may get the impression, I am combative or disagree with you on some front. Quite the contrary, if you find a used RX100, it may indeed be the right camera for you. (I would just recommend against getting a new one, IMHO they are too expensive for what they are.)
No, I wrote that the 1 inch sensor won't be better enough to justify itself. The iPhones have tiny sensors, yes, but also very fast lenses (f/1.7 on the wide angle lens, f/2.4 on the “tele” lens, that is better than the zooms on point and shoots) and much more advanced software algorithms than what Sony has, closes the gap a little. I am not claiming equal low light performance, I'm just saying I don't see it as better enough. That is especially true since you would hold the RX100 to a very different standard, your Olympus. I don't pixel peep my iPhone shots, and my expectations are much lower. With my serious cameras, I do, and a large sensor compact camera can hold its ground against a dslr. Image quality-wise, the RX100 and any similar camera is currently in the uncanny valley that falls somewhere in between — notably better than the iPhone and notably worse than the Olympus. Do you care? (I'm not trying to be facetious or aggressive, I think this is the question you should honestly ask yourself.)
And judging from your responses, it seems to me that your main motivating factor is the zoom anyway, so I think you should not worry about image quality so much, and get a camera with a zoom.
It depends on the type of photos you take. I usually prefer the extremes, so a wide-angle or a tele zoom. The RX100 wouldn't work for me. When I go hiking, I don't mind taking my dslr with me, though. Hell, when I go hiking with my wife, I have to take the dslr and the Fuji, because she'll monopolize the Fuji and ask me nicely to carry it on the way home.
The iPhone might be better than either camera, because you might want to use e. g. its panorama function and share photos immediately. I couldn't have made this shot with any of my “serious” cameras:
![Chilean_landscape.jpg]()
My iPhone is also water proof whereas my serious cameras are not.
Technically speaking, with the right software, either of my serious cameras may be able to do such a panorama, too. But they can't, because neither Nikon nor Fuji seem to think it worthwhile to enable such functionality in serious cameras. Ditto for geo tagging via a built-in GPS (what gives?) or wifi connectivity.
I have had such trips myself, and I know how much that sucks.
I think this is a very real risk, but a good one. My D7000 is not a bad camera, I just prefer making the trade-off to take a smaller camera with me most of the time. In the past, I would take my 8-9 kg camera bag with me on business trips even, and now all I need is my Fuji, the charger and a few spare batteries.
I think this is exactly the right criterion, because whether or not you will take it with you will determine whether that camera is of any use to you. I learnt this with the Fuji. I don't think I will replace my Nikon with another dslr, for example, I'll opt for a mirrorless camera or perhaps just get the successor to the X100T or whatever with a wide angle and a tele converter.
My Fuji X-H1 does panoramas.
Nice, thanks, I learned something today. Does it work like on an iPhone? And can you do it (less well) handheld or do you need a tripod?My Fuji X-H1 does panoramas.
Yes you flick to oano mode, tell it which direction you are going to pan and then it clicks away while you turn. I take both handheld and on tripod. The latter is obviously better. I took some recently in Yosemite .
I have noticed that I tend to be jerky in my motion and so on occasion I see an artefact creeping in.
Of course it generates an in camera JPEG so purists will frown preferring the more traditional method of manual picture stiched later but for easy of capture of a wide vista, it is great and obvious rules apply about settings to avoid changes in tone in the sky - especially with a polariser fitted...
Yosemite Valley and Half Dome by Ken OHagan, on Flickr
Last edited:
Nice. The only question is: why doesn't every Fuji camera (including mine! ) get that feature via a firmware update? And Nikon, are you asleep at the wheel?
) get that feature via a firmware update? And Nikon, are you asleep at the wheel?
Nice. The only question is: why doesn't every Fuji camera (including mine!
I agree. No idea. I don't know which model you have but the X-T2 has it in drive menu.
The LX100 does panoramas as well. Its a nice little feature.My Fuji X-H1 does panoramas.
I've been going back and forth between the LX100 and the RX100, though I seem to be leaning a tad towards the RX100 mostly due to the pricing. In some of the tools I've used to help research, it seems the LX100 is a bit sharper then then the RX100, but again you need to do down to pixel peeping level, but it may be bit more prone to moire.
At the risk of repeating myself, the LX100 is more holdable, I like the features, the tactile feel of the dials, but its 300+ dollars more then the RX100 III. One other issue, that seems to be plaguing the LX100 is dust, the telescoping lens came act as a bellows and as it extends, it sucks in dust. The RX100 as a similar mechanism, and similar complaints, but it seems the volume of dust complaints are for the LX100.
Other people in justifying anything other then the RX100, is that its nice camera, but do you enjoy holding/using it given its tiny size and lack of tactile feedback on the dials and/or how it fits in your hand. To a degree, I see that line of thinking and I don't think they're off the mark. Size is a double edge sword, you want something small, if if you go too small, it may be harder to use, but a larger camera may come back to haunt you as well. Many people seem to love the small form factor of the RX100, i would definitely need to add a grip on it to make it more hold-able.
I'll see if I want to plunk down 600 - 1,000 for a camera as black friday sales are not showing anything that would entice me ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ .
Without quoting your responses point by point. I see where you're coming from, though I don't fully agree, and that's fine. You have to pick the best tool for how you want to use the camera, and since I'm spending my own money, so I need to be comfortable with my selection.
Its not the end of the world, if I sit pat for a little while, as it doesn't look like I'll be seeing a lot of savings being offered on the RX100 III or the LX100 MK II.
@maflynn
Then I did not do a good job communicating what I actually wanted to say: I do see where you are coming from, and it indeed seems that a compact camera with zoom is the better choice for you. You thought about zoom range, picking a camera with a bright zoom and an as-large-as-possible sensor. And you weighed the costs for a new vs. used model. It seems like you arrived at the right camera for you.
Sorry if my posts came across as wanting to convince you that my “perfect” camera should also be your next camera. That wasn‘t my intention.
Then I did not do a good job communicating what I actually wanted to say: I do see where you are coming from, and it indeed seems that a compact camera with zoom is the better choice for you. You thought about zoom range, picking a camera with a bright zoom and an as-large-as-possible sensor. And you weighed the costs for a new vs. used model. It seems like you arrived at the right camera for you.
Sorry if my posts came across as wanting to convince you that my “perfect” camera should also be your next camera. That wasn‘t my intention.
The LX100 does panoramas as well. Its a nice little feature.
I've been going back and forth between the LX100 and the RX100, though I seem to be leaning a tad towards the RX100 mostly due to the pricing. In some of the tools I've used to help research, it seems the LX100 is a bit sharper then then the RX100, but again you need to do down to pixel peeping level, but it may be bit more prone to moire.
At the risk of repeating myself, the LX100 is more holdable, I like the features, the tactile feel of the dials, but its 300+ dollars more then the RX100 III. One other issue, that seems to be plaguing the LX100 is dust, the telescoping lens came act as a bellows and as it extends, it sucks in dust. The RX100 as a similar mechanism, and similar complaints, but it seems the volume of dust complaints are for the LX100.
Other people in justifying anything other then the RX100, is that its nice camera, but do you enjoy holding/using it given its tiny size and lack of tactile feedback on the dials and/or how it fits in your hand. To a degree, I see that line of thinking and I don't think they're off the mark. Size is a double edge sword, you want something small, if if you go too small, it may be harder to use, but a larger camera may come back to haunt you as well. Many people seem to love the small form factor of the RX100, i would definitely need to add a grip on it to make it more hold-able.
I'll see if I want to plunk down 600 - 1,000 for a camera as black friday sales are not showing anything that would entice me ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ .
Without quoting your responses point by point. I see where you're coming from, though I don't fully agree, and that's fine. You have to pick the best tool for how you want to use the camera, and since I'm spending my own money, so I need to be comfortable with my selection.
Its not the end of the world, if I sit pat for a little while, as it doesn't look like I'll be seeing a lot of savings being offered on the RX100 III or the LX100 MK II.
LX100 MK II.... I am sitting looking at a Leica D-Lux 7 right now (I am easily red-dot-notised) - a LX100 MKII in a different outfit... scratching the chin, wondering if it is worth a punt.
On "dust-gate" I have had the RX100 since version 1 so some five years now. I have had to hoover the lens maybe three times over that time. I keep mine in a Lowepro Apex 30. On my belt mostly - nerd remember. What I have had to do more often is use a cotton bud to clear dust from the eye sensor for the viewfinder. Takes but a second so fret not.
Yeah, Leica and Panasonic rebrand the same cameras to some degree. I don't know if Leica adds anything over the Panasonic to make it more of a premium brand
Update: here is an image I took last night on the RX100 M3 while out and about in Seville.
![]()
Untitled by Ken OHagan, on Flickr
Untitled by Ken OHagan, on Flickr
Nice.
In all honesty, the LX100 II seems to offer a slightly better IQ, its a tad sharper when you pixel peep (I don't do that in real life). The controls are better and its more hold able. Yet, the cost of that camera is 1,000. The display does not move and that's kind of a big issue, not huge, not a show stopper but it's a bummer
I see on ebay, I can get a gray market RX100 III for 475 which is in the neighborhood of the used prices. I've been seeing used in the mid to high 300 range (mpb.com has them from 400 - 500), and of course new is currently 650. I view the gray market option is a step up of used, given the limitations you get with warranty work (though the ebay store front offers his own 1 year warranty).
I think spending under 500 is a bit more palatable then double that for what amounts to be them image quality, and focal length. The LX100 will out perform the RX100 a bit in low light conditions, but, I don't think that's worth spending 2x the price. (I say that now, and watch me post tomorrow that I bought an LX100
)
Last edited:
You get what you pay for, though..... I'd be very leery of buying a grey market camera which is several generations old. My first RX100 was the RX100 m3 and I loved it but was happy to move up to the RX100 m5 a couple years alter as there were some improvements in it but I still was a little frustrated by the short tele range (24-70mm) and so when I learned about the RX100 M6 going to be released in July of this year, I didn't hesitate to preorder and I am very happy with it. For me there were a couple of really significant improvements: one being that the zoom is now 24-200mm and the other being that they improved the pop-up VF so that now it pops up and is ready for immediate use, no more need to first pull out the eyepiece (which although it isn't a big deal could be annoying and felt "fiddly" at times). I love the pocketability of this camera -- it fits nicely into the purse I use when I travel, and I have taken it into concert halls with me (although usually haven't been able to shoot performances while they are in progress). Yes, it IS expensive but for me the RX100 M6 is worth it.
That said, I will admit that at home I tend to reach first for the RX10 M4 that I purchased not long after that, and have been using that camera much of the time; it's been months now since I've touched my DSLR or swapped lenses!
That said, I will admit that at home I tend to reach first for the RX10 M4 that I purchased not long after that, and have been using that camera much of the time; it's been months now since I've touched my DSLR or swapped lenses!
How so? They're still be sold, its not like someone bought out a warehouse full of discontinued cameras. I can buy the RX100 III at Amazon for 650, or I can buy a gray market. Other then the warranty, there shouldn't be any differences. I agree there is a level of risk, but buying from an established seller reduces that risk. I think its riskier buying a used camera for 400 dollars on Craigslist or something.