Panasonic FZ1000 vs. Sony RX10 (Page 2): Probably a step below the Pana and Sony but take a look at the Fuji XS-1. Focal length is fantastic ( 624 mm at the long end ) and I took one...

londonfire Loc: NY to NC

Probably a step below the Pana and Sony but take a look at the Fuji XS-1. Focal length is fantastic ( 624 mm at the long end ) and I took one to South Africa after a lot of hand wringing. I love the shots, one downside is the auto focus is shaky in very low light. For most uses it really works and the build quality is very 'pro'. Check the reviews, it surprised me. And you can get one on the web for about 250.

londonfire Loc: NY to NC

I think I jumped the gun on the price. I got mine about 6 months ago for $325 so I figured by now it would have dropped further but it looks like the used supply has dried up on ebay. Forgot to mention that the spec that sold me is the manual zoom, just like using a DSLR.

lwerthe1mer Loc: Birmingham, Alabama

Everyone's comments have been great. I'm still inclined to downsize to one of the bridge cameras. However I must admit, if I felt there was an 18-300 lens out there that I could use on my 70D and not be disappointed, I would consider sticking with my 70D. As stated above, my bad experience with the Canon 18-135mm pre-STM, and things I have read on the long zoom lens make me doubtful that the long zooms would work for me.

Incidentally, the bad experience I have alluded to with the 18-135mm probably had less to do with the lens than with the way I purchased it. I purchased what I thought was a used STM lens at what I thought was a good price. When I opened the box, I found a pre-STM lens. I was disappointed but felt I probably wouldn't notice the difference. My experience was unpleasant, and I will probably never buy used again (except reconditioned from reliable sellers).

MikeMck Loc: Southern Maryland on the Bay

lwerthe1mer wrote:

I have researched prior comments on UHH but would ... (show quote)

I have had a Sony RX10 since it came out. About a month after I bought it, the price went down about $900. Sigh. I absolutely love this camera. I use it when I don't want to lug around the DSLR. Never had a problem. Good luck.

Cdouthitt Loc: Traverse City, MI

lwerthe1mer wrote:

I'm still inclined to downsize to one of the bridge cameras. However I must admit, if I felt there was an 18-300 lens out there that I could use on my 70D and not be disappointed, I would consider sticking with my 70D.

Some food for thought...as an alternate:

EM5ii and the new 14-150mm (28-300mm in ff terms). Both will be ready by the end feb. Smaller, lighter, and weather-sealed to boot.

http://camerasize.com/compare/#594,333

tainkc Loc: Kansas City

The Sony seems to have a much better I.Q. over the Panasonic, but the Panasonic is not a bad puppy either. However, I am very impressed with the Sony hx300 and hx400 (both are bridge cameras). Check out james56 posts. These two cameras do not have raw capability, but they don't need it. They both shoot fine in low light and everything else you throw at them. Both are economical to purchase also.

lwerthe1mer Loc: Birmingham, Alabama

tainkc wrote:

The Sony seems to have a much better I.Q. over the Panasonic, but the Panasonic is not a bad puppy either. However, I am very impressed with the Sony hx300 and hx400 (both are bridge cameras). Check out james56 posts. These two cameras do not have raw capability, but they don't need it. They both shoot fine in low light and everything else you throw at them. Both are economical to purchase also.

Comments from you and other knowledgeable photographers make my decision more and more complicated. You state that the Sony has a higher I.Q. Does that mean it takes sharper photos, which is of course what I am looking for.

The hx300 and hx400 both have smaller sensors. Is that a drawback?

47greyfox Loc: on the edge of the Colorado front range

Another vote here for the Canons. I have a S100, a G16, and a SX50 HS. Like said a few messages ago, the S100 is incredibly handy, images are excellent quality for the size, but doesn't have a view finder. The G16 is a very capable compact, excellent quality images, has a view finder, and is somewhat larger than the S100. I recently took the SX50 on a Costa Rica tour as my only camera and did very well, thank you. I wear glasses and used both the LCD and the EVF without an concerns or issues. In bright sunlight, I preferred the EVF and had no problems reading camera setting, focusing, etc. With these three, my 70d spends a lot of time on the shelf.

bsprague Loc: Lacey, WA, USA

The Panasonic FZ1000 can shoot 4K video. The Sony RX10 does not. Even if you never intend to make videos, 4K shooting is becoming a way to capture 8 megapixel stills at 30 shots a second.

The RX10 is "weather resistant" and the FZ1000 is not.

NeilL Loc: British-born Canadian

lwerthe1mer wrote:

I have researched prior comments on UHH but would ... (show quote)

I have the RX 10 and love it. Colours are faithfully reproduced, videos are great and the camera is dust- and moisture-resistant. I take this baby with me always. As it is relatively large (well- not huge) I bought the Panasonic LX 100 for when I want to be less conspicuous. I can highly recommend this one, too.

bsprague Loc: Lacey, WA, USA

NeilL wrote:

I have the RX 10 and love it. Colours are faithfully reproduced, videos are great and the camera is dust- and moisture-resistant. I take this baby with me always. As it is relatively large (well- not huge) I bought the Panasonic LX 100 for when I want to be less conspicuous. I can highly recommend this one, too.

That would be a fun pair of cameras to have. But I think it would be more fun to have the FZ1000 and LX100. Or, the RX10 and RX100 from Sony would go well together too!

NeilL Loc: British-born Canadian

bsprague wrote:

That would be a fun pair of cameras to have. But I think it would be more fun to have the FZ1000 and LX100. Or, the RX10 and RX100 from Sony would go well together too!

Definitely! An added bonus of the RX100 (III) is that it will fit in your pocket. People on this site who own it, give it rave reviews. (I went with the LX100 because it has the larger sensor - a big + for indoor and low light shots.)

machia Loc: NJ

lwerthe1mer wrote:

I have researched prior comments on UHH but would ... (show quote)

Sony RX 100iii..........check out the specs, I did an exhaustive search over a few days for my niece , she needed a really good camera and needed one that was also compact, and while this has the size of a point and shoot it's sensor is larger than you will find in any true bridge camera. The only thing that may not appeal to you is that it lacks the super zoom capabilities of the bridge cameras. It's image capture however is phenomenal for such a small camera.

azted Loc: Las Vegas, NV.

I have the RX-10 and find that the image quality is excellent due to the Zeiss lens that was designed for this sensor. Being a magnesium camera, it is solid, and weather resistant. Since it is F2.8 throughout the entire zoom range, you never worry about too little light. The video is superb, even in low light. This camera has many more features than the pan, except the pan does have a longer zoom. I have two Sony's, and am extremely happy.

bsprague Loc: Lacey, WA, USA

NeilL wrote:

Definitely! An added bonus of the RX100 (III) is that it will fit in your pocket. People on this site who own it, give it rave reviews. (I went with the LX100 because it has the larger sensor - a big + for indoor and low light shots.)

My "travel kit" is a new LX100 backed up by my "old" RX100i. I've schizophrenic in the sense I like both videos and photos. I'm learning the "4K for stills" techniques. Essentially if you keep the shutter speed up a little from favorite video settings, the extraction of stills works well for up to about 13x19 prints. Some say the video will suffer because it doesn't look "filmic". So far, that's not bothered me.