User ID

Rotsaruck widdat !!!

ricardo00

Thanks for the pics but think you meant to quote the OP, jimpitt, and not me, Ricardo00. I too have a Sony RX100 (forget which model) and use it for landscape and parties, the two uses the OP cited. The original poster "jimpitt") hasn't really said much (ie. what lenses he uses, whether he already bought something since he said he opted for something 15x less weight). Presumably he was put off by so many off the wall comments by various UHH members.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

Actually you don't.

You have a camera with a 9mm to 72mm zoom lens.... these are the lens' actual focal lengths.

It is the RX100's little 1" sensor (smaller than DX/APS-C) that makes that lens "act like" a 24-200mm would on a full frame camera.

Full frame = 1.0X
DX APS-C = 1.5X
Micro 4/3 = 2.0X
Sony 1" = 2.72X

Because of all the different sensor sizes used in non-interchangeable lens digital cameras, it is common practice to state their lens focal lengths in full frame (or 35mm film) "equivalents". This is done to allow comparison of the cameras.

Those small sensors have come a long way and are able to produce overall very good image quality.

HOWEVER the combination of sensor and lens' actual focal lengths strongly effect depth of field, limiting how much background blur effect can be achieved. In fact, APS-C format is roughly 1 aperture stop less than full frame, Micro 4/3 about 2 stops, and 1" close to 3 stops. In other words, if you want the effect of f/2.8 on full frame (say for a portrait), you will need f/2 on APS-C, f/1.4 on a Micro 4/3 format camera... and f/1.0 on a 1" sensor! The opposite is true, too. If you want great depth of field (such as for landscape photography) you might choose a small aperture like f/16 on full frame, will only need f/11 on APS-C, f/8 on M4/3 and f/5.6 on a 1" sensor. So like many things in photography, this is both a positive and a negative consideration, depending upon what is being done with the camera.

PLUS, due to the smaller sensor there will be a limitation on the camera's highest usable ISO. This is a subjective topic... depends upon the user, what they shoot, how they use their images and how much noise they will tolerate in an image. DXO and others rate sensor noise to come up with an optimal ISO figure, for sake of comparison.

The 21MP DX Nikon D500 DSLR (now 9 years old) is rated ISO 1324.
The much newer 46MP FX Z7 Mk II is has a low light rating of ISO 2841.
With it's lower resolution 24MP FX sensor, the Z7 Mk II is rated ISO 3690.
20MP Sony RX100 VII with it's much smaller sensor is low light rated to only ISO 418.

In other words, the original poster's DX format D500 produces usable images about 1.5 stops higher ISO than the Sony RX100 VII.
The newer full frame mirrorless do even better...
Z7II has more than 1 stop higher usable ISO than the D500, more than 2.5 stops higher than the RX100.
Z6II is even better, with 1.5 stops more usable ISO than D500, close to 3 stops higher than RX100.

The Sony RX100 VII certainly is a great camera... for what it is. But, like all cameras, it has pluses and minuses, handy features and capabilities, as well as some limitations and compromises. While it may be a perfect camera for some people, it might be entirely the wrong choice for others.

jackebenton Loc: Marietta, GA

Touche!

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

And stated that way, I agree with you (and adding a similar image of my Fuji vs my FF Canon with equivalent lenses), but did you also note my comparison of the weight of an APC Fuji vs a 4/3 Pany?

The fact is that each format has its advantages and disadvantages, and which ever format matches YOUR needs is the correct choice for YOU and the type of images YOU capture. The general answer was provided on the first page - to reduce size/weight, the answer isn’t moving from a DSLR to a MILC camera, it’s moving to a smaller format.

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

Well said (as usual).

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

But 4/3rds is still a system camera while the RX series are "all-in-one" cameras. The way one changes their view with a system camera is they change the lens. The way one changes their point of view which they may not have available with their "all-in-one" camera is they buy a new "all-in-one" camera. I agree with you the camera the OP may really want could be the RX series. But there is a reason that system cameras of all formats are more popular than the RX series.

WayneW Loc: South Carolina

I’ll stick with my D750 as well CPO! Grown accustomed to the size and weight of my SLRs and DSLRs over the decades, even with the old tank 80-200 2.8 D lens hanging off them. Seems like I’ve lost something when trying out smaller and lighter gear, but, maybe if weight begins to bother me, I would appreciate the change. I’m 69 now, so maybe when I get old…🤣🤣🤣

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

If you are serious about convenience, you will ditch interchangeable lenses ! - THAT is where the major size/weight differences are ( yes, there is a certain "fun" factor and historical dependance with ILC's ) ...
If you are worried about IQ, I will tell you the optical acuity of the Zeiss lenses on the 10/100 are, for me at least, mind blowingly GOOD.
As mentioned, for best IQ and if you are fussy - like me - the ISO for the 10/100 should be capped at 400 - I agree. If you shoot raw and have AI softwares and know how to use them, you could probably extend the ISO to 800.

A. T.

Yep

Canisdirus

We're talking present day...mirrorless...and Nikon isn't small...and neither are their lenses.

The Nikon body I listed IS the lightest camera Nikon has on the market.

jimpitt

The Z50 & Zfc are both 14 oz, plus a kit zoom lens. The D500 plus f zoom lens was over 11 lbs. That is why I am changing. The only way to go lighter and smaller is a point & shoot from Walmart. That is not me. I simply want the best compact mirrorless avail. My loyalty is Nikon for 55 yrs. Sony would be ok though.

jimpitt

The idea of the fuji mirrorless is a great suggestion. Thx.

jimpitt

The best advice I have rec'd. Thx.

ricardo00

Wow 11 pounds! You must have had the 200-400mm f/4 lens? Your body will be grateful to shed those pounds.