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

[Clix Pix]

Isn't eBay also pretty risky? I agree that buying a used camera on Craigslist would definitely not be a good move. Brand-new-in-box camera, regardless of model, is better than going with something used. The RX100 series are all very good cameras and I think you'll like it!

 

[maflynn]

Isn't eBay also pretty risky?

I believe the risk is with the seller these days. Its fairly easy to lodge a dispute the buyer and get a refund from Paypal.

 

[swifty168]

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?

Have you tried some of the pancake primes on your E-M5?
There’s the 14mm f2.5 and 20mm f1.7. Personally I opted for the 15mm f1.7. Not quite pancake but still quite petite and the IQ is superb.

This was shot wide open from a moving cable car.

My issue with the RX100 series is I dislike how it handles and handling is almost always at the top of my list when I choose my cameras.
There’s also the Ricoh GR to consider if you don’t mind a prime focal length. Otherwise a LX100 I or II.
Leica Q if you’re rolling in it

 

[OreoCookie]

That's a very nice photo.

 

[maflynn]

There’s the 14mm f2.5 and 20mm f1.7. Personally I opted for the 15mm f1.7. Not quite pancake but still quite petite and the IQ is superb.

In all honesty, the comments by @OreoCookie have resurrected that line of thought. He was recommending the Fuji which uses a prime, my OMD is larger but with the prime. The downside is that I'm still dealing with a larger body and the RX100 or the LX100. Those cameras offer something that the OMD cannot, size so I can easily use my think laptop bag to carry the camera and laptop when I fly. Likewise when I'm hiking, I feel like I want something smaller. There are plenty of people doing more serious hiking then I am, and they themselves are carrying DSLRs, so I think my quest for a smaller camera is rather unique and non-standard. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[doublepost=1543576540][/doublepost]

My issue with the RX100 series is I dislike how it handles and handling is almost always at the top of my list

I agree small size is a double edge sword, you get a camera that is easy to travel with, some folks put it in a jacket pocket but then when you need to use it, the experience is not that great. I've seen people post how they love the size of the camera but hate to use it. I enjoy photography and if I can't have fun using my camera, then that's the wrong camera for me.

This is probably one major reason why I like the LX100, its smaller size, but it has a nice feel in your hands, the dials on the camera make for easier access to settings and the EVF is there to be used (no need to pop it up and pull it out). The two downsides for this model, is the price (cha ching), and some complaints about dust intake. I see more chatter about the LX100 (at least the first generation), lack of dust protection then I do on the RX100.

 

[swifty168]

That's a very nice photo.

Thank you for the kind words.

In all honesty, the comments by @OreoCookie have resurrected that line of thought. He was recommending the Fuji which uses a prime, my OMD is larger but with the prime. The downside is that I'm still dealing with a larger body and the RX100 or the LX100. Those cameras offer something that the OMD cannot, size so I can easily use my think laptop bag to carry the camera and laptop when I fly. Likewise when I'm hiking, I feel like I want something smaller. There are plenty of people doing more serious hiking then I am, and they themselves are carrying DSLRs, so I think my quest for a smaller camera is rather unique and non-standard. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[doublepost=1543576540][/doublepost]
I agree small size is a double edge sword, you get a camera that is easy to travel with, some folks put it in a jacket pocket but then when you need to use it, the experience is not that great. I've seen people post how they love the size of the camera but hate to use it. I enjoy photography and if I can't have fun using my camera, then that's the wrong camera for me.

This is probably one major reason why I like the LX100, its smaller size, but it has a nice feel in your hands, the dials on the camera make for easier access to settings and the EVF is there to be used (no need to pop it up and pull it out). The two downsides for this model, is the price (cha ching), and some complaints about dust intake. I see more chatter about the LX100 (at least the first generation), lack of dust protection then I do on the RX100.

Apologies as I didn’t read through the whole thread before replying to your post. I’ve since skimmed through the responses and I think I have a better idea of what you’re after and what you’ve considered.
I think you are looking for quite specific scenarios eg. your hikes and I somehow don’t think any one model can fulfil all those tasks particularly well.
In your hike example, I think an RX100 3 might indeed be the best compromise. The size and price fits. I presume your hikes mostly occur in daylight so with abundant light, the 1” cameras perform very well. And the issue of handling is largely moot due to subject matter.
The reason I made more fuss over handling is largely based on my preferred shooting subjects where spontaneity and the ability operate the camera fast is important.
But over to shooting kids or a sporting game and now handling does become far more important imo. But in these scenarios perhaps portability now becomes less important.

So I’d say go with the RX100 3 for those times where portability becomes the number one consideration. For other times, you still got your OMD. Perhaps even think about adding lens capabilities to your current m43 setup.

One size doesn’t fit all and RX100 adds a capability you didn’t previously have and even though it’s not ideal for all your shooting needs, it doesn’t need to be.

 

[kenoh]

Have you tried some of the pancake primes on your E-M5?
There’s the 14mm f2.5 and 20mm f1.7. Personally I opted for the 15mm f1.7. Not quite pancake but still quite petite and the IQ is superb.

This was shot wide open from a moving cable car.

My issue with the RX100 series is I dislike how it handles and handling is almost always at the top of my list when I choose my cameras.
There’s also the Ricoh GR to consider if you don’t mind a prime focal length. Otherwise a LX100 I or II.
Leica Q if you’re rolling in it

Thats a belter of an image...

There is also the Leica C-Lux or it's Panasonic cousin...

 

[OreoCookie]

@maflynn
I apologize for complicating your life

Getting a small prime lens could indeed be another solution with a different set of trade-offs. Size is also not to be underestimated, size and weight are reasons by the X100-series and Sony's RX1-series cameras come with f/2 lenses rather than f/1.4 lenses.

Let me suggest a practical solution to your problem: get the camera (or lens for your Oly) that you are leaning towards now. Use it for half a year to a year and see how you like it. How do you like the photos? Are you taking the camera with you as often as you think you would? Do you compare the image quality more to your mirrorless camera or more to your iPhone? Or perhaps you have forgotten about this conversation because you are happy with your choice.

And if you don't like it, sell it. Yes, you will make a loss, but look at it this way: take the loss and divide by the time you have used it. Say, you buy the RX100 for $500 and sell it for $380 after a year — that's $10 per month of usage that you spent, not too bad in my estimation. Quality lenses retain their value very well, so you might actually lose less money if you get a quality prime for your Olympus.

 

[maflynn]

I may be in the market for a new camera as I was last year and the compact cameras are a compelling option for me.

I was contemplating the LX100 II as I was last year but there's significant discussion of dust intrusion into the camera on to the sensor, so much so, its enough for me to hit the pause button on this choice. I probably would have jumped on this had Canon did not announce the G5X mark iI. It looks like a direct competitor against the RX100 VI (and now VII) but at 200 dollars less then the RX100, and a faster lens (albeit at only 120mm vs. 240 of the rx100 vi). The other compelling reason (for me) on the LX100 II is the buttons, making quick changes to what I want far easier, whether i'm looking to change the shutter speed, iso, or aperture.

The RX100, is no longer on my short list given the high price tag, and slow-ish lens, I'm not knocking the camera but it seems I can spend less and get almost the same reach but also a much faster lens in the G5X.

I mentioned the newly announced G5X, G7X and RX100 in this thread.

The LX100 uses an M43 sensor, and so the light gathering, and dynamic range should be superior to that of a 1" sensor (in the canon and sony cameras), but as I mentioned the dust. Plus the reach is only 75mm vs. 120. For a fixed lens camera I didn't want to limit myself though I only shoot between the 12-40 range. The OMD that I owned which has since gone missing house a 12-40 f2 lens that I used most of the time and infrequenly I'd slap a 40-150 f4.5 - 5.6 lens, either I got a bum copy, or its just a soft lens, but i've always hated the results of the 40-150. It only produced nice images under the most perfect conditions when zoomed out to the maximum range.

 

[iluvmacs99]

I own both a Panasonic ZS-100 (25mm-200mm) which has a 1" sensor as well as the Olympus E-P5 similar to your E-M5 and here are my thoughts.

Size wise, the Panasonic wins as there is no way my E-P5 can match the smaller body size of the ZS-100. Image quality wise, the Olympus wins most of the time despite the E-P5 having an older 16MP against the newer Sony 1" sensor, though not as new as what's in the latest Sony RX. The differences between the RX100 vs my ZS100 is price and optics. The optics on the Sony is way better than any other competition; way better than Canon and Panasonic. You also pay the price for it too! And if you're used to the Olympus 12-40, then you will be somewhat disappointed not buying a Sony. Essentially, you will be downgrading quite a bit, so you need to keep this in mind.

Another point you need to understand is that, going with a smaller sensor, you are also losing about 1 stop of dynamic range and increase in 1 stop of noise and 1 stop of depth of field (less shallow). Comparing a 16MP vs 20MP, I can see some differences favouring the Olympus more so than the Panasonic in mostly bad light and in good light except at ISO 100 or less where it is somewhat comparable. A larger sensor has a slight advantage here.

I still keep the Panasonic and it goes with me on trips where I need better photos than my older iPhone plus 4K video, but I see the newer iPhones are getting better image quality wise. I returned the Canon G5X because the optics was slightly worse than the Panasonic. No experience with the Mk II version. I did regret not splurging more for the Sony and now I understand why Sony wants more as the quality justifies me carrying only the Sony and not both Panasonic ZS100 and Olympus E-P5 on some of my trips because I need that better optics performance. So basically for wide and medium tele, I use my Panasonic. For longer reach, I use my 35-100mm f/2.8 with my E-P5. If I had the Sony with the 200mm reach, I would leave my E-P5 home in a heart beat!

I personally am not spending anymore money on 1" as the phones are getting better in optics and imaging processing so much so that the latest iPhones are getting very close to par with my Panasonic that if I do upgrade my phone, I won't be needing the 1" Panasonic any longer.

 

[Ray2]

I the LX100 uses an M43 sensor, and so the light gathering, and dynamic range

It’s not. I own both and my experience supports DXO scores. The DR is the same. The Sony 1” better gathers light. The 1” is an achievement. The m4/3 sensor needs updating if m4/3 is going to survive.

There’s a lot more here but let me summarize it by suggesting the Sony 1” sensor would make a great platform for a small ILC.

 

[maflynn]

The m4/3 sensor needs updating if m4/3 is going to survive.

In all honesty, I do have my doubts about the long term viability of M43 as a platform. The new G5X II uses Sony's stacked 1" sensor, and while reviews and details of the new camera is scant, it seems like a nice camera. I can't see myself pouring any more money into the M43 system. I have a 12-40 f2.8 lens which is fabulous and I may sell that to help offset the cost a new compact camera.

Pros with the OMD EM5 family

• More dials for manual control, so while the compact cameras may off similar options, using the menu will be required. The LX100 is the exception however.
• Larger sensor, better dynamic range, IQ etc.
• Ability to change lenses.
• Dust mitigation system and ability to manually clean the sensor.
• Larger EVF
• Larger size allows easier holding, and having it around the neck.
• Weather sealed

Pros with the G5X/RX100/LX100

• More reach then my 12-40 lens
• Larger aperture (f1.8 - f2.8), depending on the camera model
• Larger focal length (75mm for the LX100, 140mm for the G5X and 240mm for the RX100)
• Smaller easier to carry around in a backpack hiking, or a laptop bag, the OMD requires a separate back when travelling

If I choose a compact camera, I feel I'd need to sell my M43 gear to help offset the cost, as the listed compact cameras are not cheap. To that end, what do I get in exchange? Faster lens, with longer reach, maybe better low light capability. What I give up is weather proofing, flexibility, IQ and dynamic range. I generally don't print my images, so the image quality difference will not be noticeable.

In some respects these compact cameras are positioning themselves as a supplement to the phones, that is, people who want a bit more then what their iPhones can offer but don't want to lug around a DSLR type camera. I find myself more and more in that category.

 

[tizeye]

Was recently looking for my wife, but based on your original post where your primary lens was a 12-40 (24-80 full frame, doesn't look like you need the 200 range. That is good news. Look at the Sony RX100 two or more generations back - and hopefully with the new version introduced yesterday at the prior models price point, there will be a ripple effect on prior models. The good news on the RX100 VA and earlier they had a 24-70 f1.8-2.8 lens, not the 24-200 f2.4-4.5 in the two most recent versions. Likewise lens difference is seen in the Panasonic LX-100II and Leica D-LUX7 twin (24-70 f1.7-2.8) plus has a larger 4:3 sensor, and the ZS100 (25-250 f2.8-5.6) - no
Leica twin - or the even longer ZS200, Leica C-LUX twin, 24-360 f3.3-6.4. The Canon G7, G5, G9 also have the short 24-100 range with a fast lens, but the more compact G7 and G9 don't have a viewfinder where the similar Sony and Panasonics do.

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/buying-guide-best-pocketable-enthusiast-cameras

 

[Ray2]

In all honesty, I do have my doubts about the long term viability of M43 as a platform. The new G5X II uses Sony's stacked 1" sensor, and while reviews and details of the new camera is scant, it seems like a nice camera. I can't see myself pouring any more money into the M43 system. I have a 12-40 f2.8 lens which is fabulous and I may sell that to help offset the cost a new compact camera.

Pros with the OMD EM5 family

• More dials for manual control, so while the compact cameras may off similar options, using the menu will be required. The LX100 is the exception however.
• Larger sensor, better dynamic range, IQ etc.
• Ability to change lenses.
• Dust mitigation system and ability to manually clean the sensor.
• Larger EVF
• Larger size allows easier holding, and having it around the neck.
• Weather sealed

Pros with the G5X/RX100/LX100

• More reach then my 12-40 lens
• Larger aperture (f1.8 - f2.8), depending on the camera model
• Larger focal length (75mm for the LX100, 140mm for the G5X and 240mm for the RX100)
• Smaller easier to carry around in a backpack hiking, or a laptop bag, the OMD requires a separate back when travelling

If I choose a compact camera, I feel I'd need to sell my M43 gear to help offset the cost, as the listed compact cameras are not cheap. To that end, what do I get in exchange? Faster lens, with longer reach, maybe better low light capability. What I give up is weather proofing, flexibility, IQ and dynamic range. I generally don't print my images, so the image quality difference will not be noticeable.

In some respects these compact cameras are positioning themselves as a supplement to the phones, that is, people who want a bit more then what their iPhones can offer but don't want to lug around a DSLR type camera. I find myself more and more in that category.

I’m in the process of switching from Fuji to m4/3, so comments from users are very much appreciated.

I value small and low light. I also value ease of use.

For travel, when I’m carrying all day for frequently weeks or months, I now accept the poor ergo's and start-up time of an RX100m3. Before with Fuji, let alone Nikon FF where I came from, the weight for travel was unacceptable to me. m4/3 is little better. I’m looking forward to buying the new 24-200 variant of the RX100.

For me and compact cams, the RX100’s are worth the up charge. They just work and work well.

For street I want to have fun and a less gadget experience. I want small and light but also a decent grip, good ergo's, the ability to change lenses, fast (f1.0 - 1.4) and the ability to mount legacy glass. An RX100 just doesn’t work for me: great specs but by the time it’s ready to shoot, the scene is gone.

Between m4/3 and Fuji I gain less weight (only the lenses), a better filled out lens line and ibis in a small body. I have quite an investment in Fuji and am not switching on impulse. Take the same shots, the ibis neutralizes any advantage of the Fuji 16mp sensor. Same DR, better detail. That’s a big win. A win I expect will continue as the newer Fuji XTrans III and IV sensors deliver resolution at the cost of less attractive noise patterns and more lost detail at comparable ISO’s than the 16mp sensor (this subject does not travel well on the Fuji boards). As ibis is more effective with smaller sensors and no doubt Fuji will continue to increase pixel counts, I expect the m4/3 sensor will continue to deliver comparable files. So I’ve limited myself to a GX85, the 15/1.7 and the Panasonic 12-35/2.8. That’s it. And that replaces 2 Fuji bodies and 11 native lenses. I give up some reach I never used around the house or on the street.

As far as the m4/3 sensor is concerned, the 20mp sensor is basically the same with a few more pixels thrown in for those that associated mp with IQ. They both need some Sony magic. As Sony makes the m4/3 sensors, I think there's a good chance the sensor improves. Though, I can’t say the current state of the m4/3 sensor compromises my end results.

 

[maflynn]

I’m looking forward to buying the new 24-200 variant of the RX100.

I’m in the process of switching from Fuji to m4/3,

I'm a little confused, are you switching from Fuji to a M43 or the Sony RX100?

 

[Ray2]

Fuji to m4/3

 

[maflynn]

I've decided that I'll be giving up too much on moving on to the G5X II. Don't get me wrong its a great camera, and back when my OMD EM5 grew legs and walked away, I was without a camera and I think for my needs it made sense to consider the RX100 VI/G5X II/LX100 II but with the body back, its hard to justify spending around a grand for a camera that in some sense does less then what my OMD does.

Instead, I went in the opposite direction and opted for the 14-150 Olympus lens.

It gives me the reach I was lusting after (with the RX and G5X), in a great body that houses a larger sensor. If I'm understanding the marketing material, the 200mm of the RX100 and 120mm reach of the G5X is the 35mm equivalent focal length, where as the Oly 14-150's equivalent 35mm focal length is around 28 - 300mm

Overall, I'm at peace with decision, and I'm happy to focus on taking pictures and less on what to shoot on

 

[maflynn]

Overall, I'm at peace with decision, and I'm happy to focus on taking pictures and less on what to shoot on

So much for being at peace, LOL I picked up a G5X mark II
Reasons for re-considering a small camera - my latest trip and various social gatherings were such that taking my OMD EM5 was a pain. The OMD has a lot going for it and I as took a number of test shots from both to compare the quality, I still like using that OMD very much. Yet, I wanted a camera that was pocketable (or near pocketable). When I started this thread, I was going to get rid of the OMD. Now I want it to compliment the OMD. I can see myself being at banquets/dinners where the M43 would be just too large and a stealthy (non-creepy) approach would be better. In essence something better then my iPhone but less obtrusive then the OMD EM5.

I chose the G5X mark II over the Sony RX100 for a handful of reasons and also it seems that the improvments are of the VII are more noticeable or benefiting the folks who use the camera for video and not pictures.

• First and foremost price - the Sony is significantly more expensive - at least the VI and VII is
• Color/skin tones, I like what's coming out of the Canon and some reviews had noticed skin tones on the Sony
• Brighter lens at 1.8 at the wide end and 2.8 telephoto. These small sensors seem more sensitive to higher iso, so a faster lens is a plus
• Ergonomics, both the feel and menu setup seems to be better imo.
• Better use of the touchscreen. For what ever reason Sony doesn't really make much use of the touch screen in the VI and VII. Perhaps Sony expects most people just to point and shoot so to speak.
• Closer Macro range, even with a shorter lens, this is a plus

Things that I don't like about the G5X or the RX100 does better

• Slow autofocus, the difference between the G5X II and the RX100 VII makes it even more painful. Yet, I think for stills, I can manage, my OMD EM5 only has contrast detection, so I've lived with it with that camera.
• Longer reach, I'm surprised that in testing this lens, I'd notice this. I thought 120mm was good enough, but I can see 200mm being very useful
• Wide open, the edges can be a bit soft. Not really noticeable unless you pixel peep
• two step EVF can be a pain, I'm disappointed that the didn't or could emulate the elegant one button pop EVF of Sony's RX100 VI and VII.

Weather here has been gray, windy and rainy and the effects of Dorian are upon us, nothing major but it makes outside life very dark, monochrome moving. I'll try to take more shots in the coming days and weeks as I have 30 days to determine if I want this camera. I posted one September picture thread of one example of the G5X II

 

[NaimNut]

Nice camera.
The USB-C connector is convenient too.