Do I need as Sony RX100 iii?
Jun 4, 2014 11:04:30 #
I am an amateur photographer, I own a Canon 60D, I photograph mainly grandkids and travel. I love my 60D except: too big to carry around at all times, focus during videos is difficult, live-view for videos can be distracting in dark places like theaters and hard to see in bright places. I am looking for a camera that is as least as good as the Canon 60D in still image quality but is small enough to carry everywhere, has an EVF, has an articulating LCD, has Wi-Fi, and is better at video. Is the Sony RX100 iii the choice for me? Only downsides I have found are that it is a little pricey and only 3x telephoto.
Jun 4, 2014 11:17:48 #
I bought a Sony RX100 version 1 instead of a DSLR. It is a terrific camera with a relatively large sensor. Size does create limitations, but one is not being big and bulky.
No camera with a smaller sensor could possibly be the same as a bulky DSLR. The entire point of the RX100 series is the idea that the best camera is the one you have with you.
One huge benefit is that the RX100 is unobtrusive. People don't react to little cameras like they do to big, fat cameras.
My guess is that if you had one and got used to its limitations, the 60D wouldn't get out much!
No camera with a smaller sensor could possibly be the same as a bulky DSLR. The entire point of the RX100 series is the idea that the best camera is the one you have with you.
One huge benefit is that the RX100 is unobtrusive. People don't react to little cameras like they do to big, fat cameras.
My guess is that if you had one and got used to its limitations, the 60D wouldn't get out much!
Jun 4, 2014 11:24:45 #
prs77 wrote:
I am an amateur photographer, I own a Canon 60D, I... (show quote)
I have 3 Sony small cameras. I have a dsc T30, Dsc-T200, and RX100. The T200 has the touch screen. The convience of " touch Screen," to change setting on the " Fly," can be hard to control on such a small camera. You can change settings accidently. I went to the smaller camera from a Nikon D70, because of weight & bulk after I had an accident.
Jun 4, 2014 11:33:11 #
Bobgood1 wrote:
Was it the weight and bulk of the monster Nikon that caused the accident?.... I went to the smaller camera from a Nikon D70, because of weight & bulk after I had an accident.
Jun 4, 2014 11:33:21 #
Sell the 60D (and lenses) and go with the EM10. IQ, color depth, dynamic range, and low light are all better with the em10. It's half the weight, smaller body, and the lenses for it are all smaller and lighter (by quite a bit) than the canon counterparts.
It has everything that you are looking for. Another option would be the A6000
It has everything that you are looking for. Another option would be the A6000
Jun 4, 2014 11:47:41 #
I have 2 Sony SLR's and the RX-100 V1 I have gotten to like the RX-100 so much that I use it now most of the time. I only use the SLR when I need a longer reach. The RX-100 is a do everything camera and does everything very well. Exceptional lens, large sensor, high speed sync flash, built in HDR as well as 30-40 more effects, just a dream camera.
Jun 4, 2014 11:53:08 #
prs77 wrote:
Only downsides I have found are that it is a little pricey and only 3x telephoto.
The only 3x zoom is not much of a problem, with so many MP it is easy to crop 50% and still have enough for an 11x14 print.
Jun 4, 2014 12:03:06 #
amehta
Loc: Boston
prs77 wrote:
I am an amateur photographer, I own a Canon 60D, I... (show quote)
I don't think most people who use a DSLR system would be happy with "just" a point & shoot. As excellent as the RX-100 series cameras are, they are still just (advanced) point and shoots. I agree with Cdouthitt, a mirrorless system is more suited to your needs.
Jun 4, 2014 12:06:33 #
I have the RX 100 original version and am delighted with the results. No small camera I've used has come close to the IQ of the RX and I've tried quite a few! Unless you are printing really big, you'll be hard pressed to see a difference from the dSLR. If you don't need the EVF of the new Mk III you might prefer the better zoom range of the Mk II. If cost is a concern, the original RX 100 is available for considerably less than the new Mk III and is still a fine choice.
Jun 4, 2014 13:08:00 #
amehta wrote:
I don't think most people who use a DSLR system would be happy with "just" a point & shoot. As excellent as the RX-100 series cameras are, they are still just (advanced) point and shoots. I agree with Cdouthitt, a mirrorless system is more suited to your needs.
A P&S is a small camera, has a tiny sensor, costs about $300 or less, takes great automatic JPEG travel snapshots and fits in a pocket or purse. It may be marginally better than a smartphone.
The RX100 does not fit that description except for size and automatic options. It shoots RAW, can be fully controlled manually and uses a significantly larger sensor. It costs two or three, even four times as much as a P&S.
Jun 4, 2014 14:32:50 #
Some pics from the RX-100 -- all SOTC
Macro in auto mode
(Download)
Full zoom + 2x builtin convertor
(Download)
Same cat from same distance, no zoom
(Download)
1/2000 f/8 ISO 200 at dusk using flash
(Download)
Selfie, ISO 3200, f/1.8, 1/200 - added brightness + contrast
(Download)
Jun 4, 2014 14:48:03 #
amehta
Loc: Boston
I agree that the RX-100 series all take excellent pictures. My question is whether the limited versatility would become a factor for the OP.
Jun 4, 2014 15:21:55 #
Nice photos. I did a test with a friend's RX-100 i vs my Canon 60D and could find no difference.
Jun 4, 2014 15:29:45 #
amehta
Loc: Boston
prs77 wrote:
Nice photos. I did a test with a friend's RX-100 i vs my Canon 60D and could find no difference.
How challenging were the conditions, especially the light?
Jun 4, 2014 15:33:58 #
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.