24 vs 28 mm: I bought a RX 100 m1 a few years ago and love it. Now I’m thinking of upgrading to the m3. The 3 provides an articulated rear screen and a built in nd filter, which are...

Don Wills

I bought a RX 100 m1 a few years ago and love it. Now I’m thinking of upgrading to the m3. The 3 provides an articulated rear screen and a built in nd filter, which are nice but not enough for me to spend the additional money. The one upgrade that may make a difference is the lens on the 3 zooms out to 24mm equivalent vs 28 mm on the 1. I shoot mainly landscape. Is the extra field of view worth it? Money is an issue. Any advise on buying good used if I decide to upgrade?

rjaywallace Loc: Wisconsin

Don - The RX 100 MIII zoom goes from a 24mm wide angle to a 70mm telephoto (in the 35mm equivalent sense). I don’t think the MIII “zooms out” to 24mm. By comparison, the base RX 100 starts at a slightly narrower 28mm at the wide angle end, but the optical difference between 28mm and 24mm is very slight. The base RX 100 extends to 100mm compared to 70mm for the RX 100 MIII, so the MIII has 30% less “reach”. Best wishes, Ralph.

GoofyNewfie Loc: Kansas City

Personally, I think the 4mm difference between 28 and 24 (equivalent) is a deal breaker. On the long end, 4mm is not that much, but with a wide angle it’s a much bigger deal. For my travel camera, I use an APS-C sensored Fuji XE-2 and occasionally, I find the 18mm focal length on my kit zoom (about 27mm ff equivalent) limiting. I bought a 14mm (21mm equivalent) to supplement the range.

rjaywallace Loc: Wisconsin

GoofyNewfie wrote:

Personally, I think the 4mm difference between 28 and 24 (equivalent) is a deal breaker. On the long end, 4mm is not that much, but with a wide angle it’s a much bigger deal. For my travel camera, I use an APS-C sensored Fuji XE-2 and occasionally, I find the 18mm focal length on my kit zoom (about 27mm ff equivalent) limiting. I bought a 14mm (21mm equivalent) to supplement the range.

I thunk the 30mm difference at the other end is much more significant, but I did financial analysis in a past life. The 18mm is not one of Fuji’s best efforts. The 14mm, on the other hand, is surprisingly sharp.

GoofyNewfie Loc: Kansas City

rjaywallace wrote:

I thunk the 30mm difference at the other end is much more significant, but I did financial analysis in a past life. The 18mm is not one of Fuji’s best efforts. The 14mm, on the other hand, is surprisingly sharp.

Depends on what/how you shoot.
I tend to stay on the wider end when traveling.
I have the 18-55 kit zoom out of convenience, not the prime, which
I’ve also heard is not their best.
That 14 is crazy sharp!!!!

Leitz Loc: Solms

GoofyNewfie wrote:

Personally, I think the 4mm difference between 28 and 24 (equivalent) is a deal breaker. On the long end, 4mm is not that much, but with a wide angle it’s a much bigger deal. For my travel camera, I use an APS-C sensored Fuji XE-2 and occasionally, I find the 18mm focal length on my kit zoom (about 27mm ff equivalent) limiting. I bought a 14mm (21mm equivalent) to supplement the range.

The difference in field of view between the two lenses is 9° at either end.

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

Don Wills wrote:

I bought a RX 100 m1 a few years ago and love it. Now I’m thinking of upgrading to the m3. The 3 provides an articulated rear screen and a built in nd filter, which are nice but not enough for me to spend the additional money. The one upgrade that may make a difference is the lens on the 3 zooms out to 24mm equivalent vs 28 mm on the 1. I shoot mainly landscape. Is the extra field of view worth it? Money is an issue. Any advise on buying good used if I decide to upgrade?

In my opinion, yes. That and the ND filtering and articulated rear screen would make it a worthwhile upgrade if I was in the market for an all-in-one camera.

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

rjaywallace wrote:

Don - The RX 100 MIII zoom goes from a 24mm wide angle to a 70mm telephoto (in the 35mm equivalent sense). I don’t think the MIII “zooms out” to 24mm. By comparison, the base RX 100 starts at a slightly narrower 28mm at the wide angle end, but the optical difference between 28mm and 24mm is very slight. The base RX 100 extends to 100mm compared to 70mm for the RX 100 MIII, so the MIII has 30% less “reach”. Best wishes, Ralph.

Ralph, it is always 6 of one, a half dozen of another. Since we have been traveling Europe lately, the extra wide angle and slight loss of telephoto would be acceptable to me. For others, with more interest in state side photography and wildlife photography, the opposite is just true. My assumption, based on the OP's looking at the wide angle end, is that they are coming up on shooting situations that they cannot easily backup to get the wide shot they want.

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

Don Wills wrote:

I bought a RX 100 m1 a few years ago and love it. Now I’m thinking of upgrading to the m3. The 3 provides an articulated rear screen and a built in nd filter, which are nice but not enough for me to spend the additional money. The one upgrade that may make a difference is the lens on the 3 zooms out to 24mm equivalent vs 28 mm on the 1. I shoot mainly landscape. Is the extra field of view worth it? Money is an issue. Any advise on buying good used if I decide to upgrade?

Only YOU should make this decision. It is based on what YOU see through the viewfinder, not what WE will tell you about the difference in a 28 vs. a 24. Many here will get technical and tell you this and that.
BUT IT ALL COMES DOWN TO YOU. I would suggest looking through a 24 mm lens and then a 28 mm lens. Take them out for a shoot and see.
My personal take, I own primes of 20, 28, 50, and 85. Personally I see little difference unless I am in a tight area, which does not happen much.
But so sum this up, IT ALL COMES DOWN TO YOU, NOT US.

Peterfiore Loc: Where DR goes south

Buy the 28mm and turn the camera vertical, take three overlapping shots (pano) and stitch them in your choice of PP program. I do this all the time with single focal length lenses. Sometimes six over lapping images if I have a much longer focal length lens.

gvarner Loc: Central Oregon Coast

Check out the photography calculator at http://www.tawbaware.com/maxlyons/calc.htm. You will see that the difference is negligible. 18mm would be better, a 10-20 wide angle is great for a major change in perspective.

zug55 Loc: Naivasha, Kenya, and Austin, Texas

GoofyNewfie wrote:

Personally, I think the 4mm difference between 28 and 24 (equivalent) is a deal breaker. On the long end, 4mm is not that much, but with a wide angle it’s a much bigger deal. For my travel camera, I use an APS-C sensored Fuji XE-2 and occasionally, I find the 18mm focal length on my kit zoom (about 27mm ff equivalent) limiting. I bought a 14mm (21mm equivalent) to supplement the range.

I agree that 4mm at the wide end (24mm vs 28mm) makes a significant difference, particularly for landscapes and urban photography. My 24-105mm (Sony A7III) is my standard travel lens, and I shoot a lot at 24mm. I bought a Zeiss Batis 18mm to complement it, but I do not use it all that much because 24mm is sufficient most of the time.

Kingman

If you don't care about the wider ranges then the 24-28, difference is mute, but if your care then it isn't. The Sony RX10 cameras seem to be recently addressing at the longer reaching lens capability end of things. I prefer the 24 to 28mm Wide angle zoom option. Then there is the stitching option. But I also have fixed primes for my FF at 20mm and 12mm.

xt2 Loc: British Columbia, Canada

Don Wills wrote:

I bought a RX 100 m1 a few years ago and love it. Now I’m thinking of upgrading to the m3. The 3 provides an articulated rear screen and a built in nd filter, which are nice but not enough for me to spend the additional money. The one upgrade that may make a difference is the lens on the 3 zooms out to 24mm equivalent vs 28 mm on the 1. I shoot mainly landscape. Is the extra field of view worth it? Money is an issue. Any advise on buying good used if I decide to upgrade?

I see you prefer landscape/outdoor photography so the difference may not warrant the expense if $$$ is a concern. Having said this, years ago I upgraded to the iii due to its much faster lens. The Sony RX100 features a 28-100 mm F1.8-4.9 3.6x zoom lens whereas Sony RX100 III features a 24-70 mm F1.8-2.8 2.9x zoom lens. Having a more limited range was not nearly as important to me as was the big increase in aperture. The iii is so useful for darker locations. The little iii bangs around in my car and as supplementary travel gear when I have to go super small. Both are great little cameras!

Cheers!

bwana Loc: Bergen, Alberta, Canada

Don Wills wrote:

I bought a RX 100 m1 a few years ago and love it. Now I’m thinking of upgrading to the m3. The 3 provides an articulated rear screen and a built in nd filter, which are nice but not enough for me to spend the additional money. The one upgrade that may make a difference is the lens on the 3 zooms out to 24mm equivalent vs 28 mm on the 1. I shoot mainly landscape. Is the extra field of view worth it? Money is an issue. Any advise on buying good used if I decide to upgrade?

A field-of-view difference of 75 to 84° is significant but the other changes in the camera are more important, per: https://photographylife.com/sony-rx100-series-comparison.

Personally, I'd be buying the VI with its 24-200mm zoom and other improved features, one being the sensor.

bwa