New Sony RX100 VI (Page 2): But, is the G-3X a true "pocket camera"? I chose the RX100__ for my EDC (Every Day Carry) 'cause it'll fit in pocket of my jeans.

le boecere

Nosaj wrote:

Canon G-3X, today priced lower that $1K: larger zoom, faster auto focus, everything else, "as good," and probably a bit better!

But, is the G-3X a true "pocket camera"? I chose the RX100__ for my EDC (Every Day Carry) 'cause it'll fit in pocket of my jeans.

https://camerasize.com/compact/#626,622,ha,f

le boecere

texaseve wrote:

I like this comparison chart. https://photographylife.com/sony-rx100-series-comparison?utm_source=Photography+Life+Newsletter&utm_campaign=750ae21935-newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_74d1711c3d-750ae21935-184021389#utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=sony-rx100-series-comparison
Hope this link works.

It does, and it's a very clarifying and informative chart. Thank you!

WayneL Loc: Baltimore Md

genocolo wrote:

Just announced. You probably haven't had a chance to have hands-on, but what are your thoughts? Pretty steep price?

I had the III and sold it because of a sticking lens cover. I would not pay that much for another one that might stick

jackpinoh Loc: Kettering, OH 45419

Nosaj wrote:

Canon G-3X, today priced lower that $1K: larger zoom, faster auto focus, everything else, "as good," and probably a bit better!

BG-3X is better in zoom range but not faster AF, EVF must be purchased separately, much slower frame rate, etc. Lots of tradeoffs for larger zoom range. Potential buyers of any camera should make careful comparisons before purchasing.

Wingpilot Loc: Wasilla. Ak

jackpinoh wrote:

BG-3X is better in zoom range but not faster AF, EVF must be purchased separately, much slower frame rate, etc. Lots of tradeoffs for larger zoom range. Potential buyers of any camera should make careful comparisons before purchasing.

Wingpilot Loc: Wasilla. Ak

While the AF on the G3X might be slower than for the RX100VI, I'd guess that only matter if one liked to photograph BIF's or other action photography. If your main subject matter is stationary subject or landscapes, the AF speed wouldn't be so critical, I'd think. I've looked at the G3X and, at least on the surface, it looks a pretty good camera, especially since it's still being made. But if one is looking for a pocketable compact, it is not that.

le boecere

Wingpilot wrote:

While the AF on the G3X might be slower than for the RX100VI, I'd guess that only matter if one liked to photograph BIF's or other action photography. If your main subject matter is stationary subject or landscapes, the AF speed wouldn't be so critical, I'd think. I've looked at the G3X and, at least on the surface, it looks a pretty good camera, especially since it's still being made. But if one is looking for a pocketable compact, it is not that.

Thanks for making this definitive and clarifying statement, Greg: "But if one is looking for a pocket-able compact, it is not that."

I often see them all included in a broad category, labeled "compact". I own 3 true "pocket cameras" (RX100, S100, etc,) and at least 3 "compact cameras" (Fuji X-E2, Canon G10, etc.), and for me, they ain't all the same. If I could quickly and easily get a Fujifilm X-E2, or Sony a6000 in and out of a typical men's trouser pocket (especially jean pockets), I'd never have spent the money on a real "pocket-camera".

Wingpilot Loc: Wasilla. Ak

le boecere wrote:

Thanks for making this definitive and clarifying s... (show quote)

Yeah, how about that for sentence construction. In my defense, I recently had some eye surgery and when reading print, everything is askew. It's getting better each day, but not fast enough for me.

The closest they come to a camera you can put in a pocket is the Panasonic Lumix ZS50 and 60. The ZS70 is a bit larger and not for a shirt pocket, but a pants pocket would work. Another is the Sony HX-90V. The rest are compacts, but not ones you can put in a shirt pocket unless you have a big pocket. I guess that's what cargo pockets are for.

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

Nosaj wrote:

Canon G-3X, today priced lower that $1K: larger zoom, faster auto focus, everything else, "as good," and probably a bit better!

Based on what? Your opinion?

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

chapjohn wrote:

I like the hot shoe on the RX100ii. I will wait for the RXVII to see if it has the hot shoe.

I agree 100%. I love the 100 II for that reason. I attach my Sony 60 flash and can tilt my head up and behind me for spectacular results. If Sony was really serious about making this series great, they need to add or modify it in such a way that will allow a professional flash to be attached.

rfmaude41 Loc: Lancaster, Texas (DFW area)

The focal length of a lens HAS NOTHING TO DO with lens speed.

Quantus5

Jerrin1 wrote:

Having read the adverts and viewed a couple of pre... (show quote)

Almost all manufacturer's do this. They put something by their listing -- an asterisk, or a small statement like (full frame equivalent) or (35mm equivalent), etc.... I just checked and Canon and Panasonic both do this, and if I checked I'd find that pretty much everyone does this. So is Sony any different?

Quantus5

The correct comparison to make if you want to make against Canon is the G7XM2. You have to take size into account, as you can easily find cameras that are bigger than the RX100M6 and are much better deals. With the RX100 series you are paying for the very small size.

Probably the closest competitor to the RX100M6 is the Panasonic Lumix ZS200 which sells for around $800. You are arguably getting a better camera with the Sony RX100M6, so the question is -- is the extra $400 worth it?, for basically superior autofocus, more fps: 24fps versus 10fps, arguably better video capabilities, and a smaller size and weight than the ZS200. The Sony is 102mmX58mmX43mm versus the Lumix ZS200 which is 111mmX66mmX45mmm and the Lumix is about 40g heavier than the Sony.

The big market segment that Sony is going after is the "Travel Zoom" market where people want a really small Camera. This is the market that Panasonic has been leading the charge in. To a lesser extent Sony is going after the Vlogger market segment with this camera (for Vloggers that want a really small pocket-able camera), but in my mind Vlogger can be better served with cameras that are larger and have larger sensors. Like APS-C and micro 4/3 sensors. Why Sony still left out the external microphone port on the RX100M6 is a bit puzzling -- although again their number 1 focus with this camera is the "Travel Zoom" market for compact cameras.

Quantus5

Festus wrote:

I had and still have the original RX100. The ONLY thing I liked about it was its small size. Not impressed with Sony digital cameras. Regardless of their marketing.

The Sony A7III. Can't speak for you -- since your opinion is your own, but the A7III is an amazing camera, especially for the price. It will make many believers.

Wingpilot Loc: Wasilla. Ak

Quantus5 wrote:

Almost all manufacturer's do this. They put something by their listing -- an asterisk, or a small statement like (full frame equivalent) or (35mm equivalent), etc.... I just checked and Canon and Panasonic both do this, and if I checked I'd find that pretty much everyone does this. So is Sony any different?

I believe the reason for camera manufacturers use the "35mm equivalent" for cameras with sensors smaller than full frame is because more people seem to understand the old 35mm format figures. And face it, it seems that full frame is the industry standard these days, just as 35mm was the industry standard during the film era. i think it's just something people can relate to more readily.