Did you pass on the first six Sony RX100 cameras?

[pierces]

Hello Mark VII...

 

• 1" stacked 20MP  sensor with DRAM on board (like A9)
• A9 level speed 60 AF/AE calculations per second 20fps shooting with no blackout and continuous AF and AE tracking
• 357 phase detect focus points and  425 contrast-detect AF points and "World’s fastest" (blah, blah, blah in footnotes) focus acquisition
• Real-time Eye AF and tracking for humans and animals
• 24-200mm equivalent f/2.8 – f/4.5 lens
• New Single Burst Drive Mode at up to 90fps (shoots seven shots with fixed AF/AE with a single shutter press to bracket peak action)
• 4K HDR with Eye AF for movie shooting - almost no rolling shutter
• Vertical movie recording
• Integrated microphone jack

 

Yeah, it's $1200. 

 

Pretty slick, though.

 

Dave

Edited July 25, 2019 by pierces

[havoc315]

As an early rx100 adopter... I will announce that point and shoot is dead. 

 

Going on memory — the original RX100 was 2012. Around that time, phones were starting to catch up to basic small sensor P&S. The RX100 started to approach aps-c quality. 

 

Fast forward 7 years...

while there have been some advancements in RX100 quality, phones have improved even more. 

In many cases, phones are now approaching aps-c quality. 

 

There are a few advantages of the rx100vii over a phone of course. But for many typical shooters, the phone has more advantages. 

 

The camera can do some special things like blackout free 20fps shooting .... but how often does someone need to shoot at 20fps with a slow 200mm lens on a 1” sensor. 

[pierces]

I have no RX100.

 

I have a Google Pixel XL.

 

I will be buying a Pixel 4 XL.

 

I will not be buying a RX100 VII.

 

Like you said, there's not much of a gap between a good phone and an APS-C camera and the gap between a good APS-C camera and Full-frame is not that wide in most situations. Since I have one of each, I don't need the RX100 just to overlap a small gap at the low end.

 

However, If I only  had a phone and wanted to travel very light, shoot quality stills and video at the kid's sports venues and such, I would take a serious look at one. The RX100 series isn't for everyone but if it fits your bill, it offers a lot.

 

And, that's one heck of a 1" sensor!

 

 

Dave

[chipmaster]

iPhone5, iPhhone6s, Iphone7,  iPhone8, 

 

And when I want to impressive D5 with 200F2

[zackiedawg]

I'm more of a multiple focal length lover, and do not like being stuck with a fixed wide lens and nothing but digital zoom - so for the most part, phones just aren't for me when it comes to photography...no matter how 'good' the images they can produce...and even if a phone does finally solve the optical zoom trick (as some are starting to), they still for me suffer from a very awkward and uncomfortable shooting experience as I'm a near-religious EVF/OVF shooter, hate shooting off a screen, hate touch screens, and like physical buttons and dials and such.  In order to become an ergonomically enjoyable and controllable 'camera' tool for me, it would become an awkward and horrible phone.  I likely won't be getting any RX100, including the current, but I'll still be sticking to dedicated cameras for 99% of all photography needs, and the phone will be used for the occasional 'oh shoot, I need a quick documented shot of something like a form, parking spot location, or insurance claim photo'.

 

I cannot for the life of me derive any pleasure at all shooting with my phone...I know it's all just a personal thing, but it is what it is.  And since most or all phones are still completely unable to or highly inept at shooting with any telephoto type focal length and lack zoom lenses, they don't fit my photographic needs at all.  The RX100VII is pretty darn impressive for a pocket cam, and if I hadn't already moved up to APS-C mirrorless and DSLR cameras, I would have happily chosen one of these over a phone camera, every time.

[havoc315]

I tried the RX100v as a "travel cam" to Washington DC last year.... 

As a former RX100 lover, I was simply disappointed now. 

IQ was no better than a phone in most cases.

The controls are tiny and cramped and poorly laid out. Doing any sort of "advanced" photography was unpleasant. Easier to use as just a P&S.. and then the phone is still simpler.

And yes, it's small and pocketable.. but not as small and pocketable as the phone already in my pocket.

 

Yes, the RX100 had some advantages-- mostly in focal length, a little wider and a little longer. But to pay $1,000 for a less convenient camera, that is unpleasant to use, that doesn't offer better IQ... just to get slightly more focal length variability. (my iPhone is effective 28mm to 55mm). 

 

Shooting kids sports? Guess if you are shooting in excellent light and can get close enough to shoot at 200mm. But for most outdoor sports shooting, 200mm isn't really long enough. And once you move indoors, or even a cloudy day outdoors, the RX100 ISO and IQ won't let you shoot at a fast enough shutter speed for sports.

 

Getting back to light weight travel camera..

 

Tangent, but I paid close attention on my trip to Paris. I see fewer and fewer "real" cameras. EVERYONE was taking pictures at the Eiffel Tower -- but 95% were with phones, if not more.

 

I only noticed a fair number of "real" cameras in 2 locations:

 

GIverny -- the home and gardens of Claude Monet. Guess it attracts artistic photographers. Saw 1 person shooting Medium format. Saw 1 person shooting a film camera. Saw 2 Nikon D850's. Saw another A7riii, along with my own. Saw a photographer shooting Canon with the 70-200/2.8, set up doing a time lapse of a  lilly pond. 

So saw lots of very very serious cameras... almost no P&S. It was serious cameras... and then phones.

 

Then at the tour of the opera house. But for a reason that sounds like a cliche - We were there at the same time as a Japanese tourist group. It sounds so cliche but there is some truth to it, a high portion of the Japanese tourists were lugging around impressive cameras. 

 

Other than that.. the Louvre, Saint Chapelle, Eiffel Tower, Versailles.. it was all phones. An occasional aps-c camera. In total, in a week, maybe 5-10 P&S/Bridge cameras. 

Getting back to the subject, the market for a decent performing travel camera is really tiny. We are very very quickly getting to the point of 3% of people using a serious camera and 97% using just their phone.

Canon reported even worse sales than expected, with problems moving aps-c cameras. 

I suddenly can no longer get students to take my photography class, that was geared towards the aps-c-type somewhat new photographer. 

[chipmaster]

I appreciate everyone shoots for different reasons, and appreciate a good camera and I know some hate the comment smartphones pack in some ways the most amazing capabilities when you include the size, computation processing and stuff like I phone editing and manipulation they can do, the real cameras fall further and further behind but have their uses.

 

we all remember when many a proud soccer mom/dad had their rebel at the school play, bday,  etc etc and everyone gushed over the great pictures and the consumer DSLR was booming and every fathers day or holiday there would be the Canikon inserts, these days the number of DSLR toting parents is close to nil, just crazy parents / hobbiest.

 

photography has followed HiFi trends to the T.

 

Agree that Sony has been experimenting and pushing the boundaries but sadly their sensor business is the most successful, but appreciate how they pushed hard and got the big two to innovate a little faster and think out of the box, LOL

Edited July 26, 2019 by chipmaster

[AL3XCruise]

On 7/25/2019 at 9:48 PM, chipmaster said:

I appreciate everyone shoots for different reasons, and appreciate a good camera and I know some hate the comment smartphones pack in some ways the most amazing capabilities when you include the size, computation processing and stuff like I phone editing and manipulation they can do, the real cameras fall further and further behind but have their uses.

 

I don't know if anyone denies how versatile a phone can be; I think that some may feel "fall further and further behind" isn't the best phrase.  I'm assuming you mean in terms of speed of development and in terms of the full array of abilities they have (software and hardware).  I'm not an expert, but I haven't heard of a scenario where (given an unlimited budget, unlimited weight capacity, time to edit on a dedicated machine, and so on) a high end DSLR or mirrorless will give a result that fall behind a high end phone in terms of quality.  

 

I've seen several side by side comparisons of cell phone and DSLRs.  Most of the time the differences in quality are pretty small and probably not noticeable to most people unless pointed out.  So I'd agree that phones have made remarkable strides as cameras, and even more impressive ones when viewed as integrated cameras/processors/sharing tools.  Given that most of us have limits on budget and the amount of stuff we want to carry on vacation, there are certainly lots of scenarios where they make sense.  Most people aren't trying to get printed in NatGeo, so an negligible decrease in quality is a fair tradeoff for having such a powerful and versatile tool in your pocket.  

 

It certainly hurts the case for a point and shoot.  While I can justify a DSLR and a big lens for wildlife photos, I can't think of too many scenarios where my old point and shoot would be preferable to my phone.  I'm sure those scenarios will rarer very quickly given the rate of cell phone development.  

 

One more thought: some hardware improvements developed for cell phone sensors are applicable to dedicated cameras, so I expect that the delta between cell phones professional grade cameras will be a bit harder crack.  Phones often need to solve problems with software that a DSLR solves with a big lens.  Again, I'm not an expert, but I can appreciate how hard that is.  Impressive strides have been made already (like artificial bokeh), so it will be interesting to see what comes next.

 

 

[AL3XCruise]

Double Post

Edited July 30, 2019 by AL3XCruise

[bonsai3s]

If only you could use the RX100 VII with a selfie-stick...then perhaps I can win against my wife.

 

Yes, I purchased the RX100 III...loved it.

My wife said "Let's see which one we'll use more...your RX100 III or my phone on a selfie-stick".

We've used her phone on a selfie-stick 90% on our past cruises and trips......ouch! 😫

[JBare]

13 hours ago, bonsai3s said:

If only you could use the RX100 VII with a selfie-stick...then perhaps I can win against my wife.

 

Yes, I purchased the RX100 III...loved it.

My wife said "Let's see which one we'll use more...your RX100 III or my phone on a selfie-stick".

We've used her phone on a selfie-stick 90% on our past cruises and trips......ouch! 😫

 

I use my RX100iii on a selfie stick sometimes. You need a combined selfie/monopod like the Wareway or similar. They have a camera tripod mount on the end. Its strong enough to mount my K5 DSLR although my wrist doesnt like it for too long ! You can mount the camera hold it high above peoples heads and remote the camera with a smartphone. Can also be used with a smartphone or GoPro of course.

[bonsai3s]

2 hours ago, JBare said:

 

I use my RX100iii on a selfie stick sometimes. You need a combined selfie/monopod like the Wareway or similar. They have a camera tripod mount on the end. Its strong enough to mount my K5 DSLR although my wrist doesnt like it for too long ! You can mount the camera hold it high above peoples heads and remote the camera with a smartphone. Can also be used with a smartphone or GoPro of course.

 

Holy Moses! thank you!........my greatest fear is dropping the camera....you've given me some good ideas...thanks again! 😎

[Paul S]

I have a couple of Fuji mirrorless plus a Nikon DSLR for my hobby. However I use my RX100lll for my work as a property Surveyor, and stick it in my pocket or bag to have a camera with me when I don’t want to take something bigger. What’s not to like? It shoots RAW, has a large sensor for the camera size, can be used in manual or shutter/aperture priority, can be used with manual focus if required, and has a pop-up EVF. I hate shooting with my phone. Holding the phone feels wrong, it doesn’t do wide angle and the zoom is digital.

[twangster]

It really depends what you are trying to shoot.  

 

As a RX100VI owner as my travel camera it is light years ahead of any phone on the market.  The only thing a phone has going is size, tendency to be with you more often and waterproof capabilities.  Jumping in a pool, bring your phone, not your real camera.  Plus if you want to quickly post something to social media right now a phone has the advantage.

 

The RX100 is small enough to go with me everytime I leave my cruise ship cabin.   Proper and easy manual control with 200mm zoom capability makes it so much superior to a phone.   

 

If you are a JPEG only shooter and can deal with a fixed focal length and plan to shoot in decent lighting then a phone can accomplish 60% of what an RX100 can do.  For some, that's good enough.  

 

Phones fall apart when shooting in RAW.  The magic of a camera phone rests in it's post processing software to calculate what it thinks you need in your JPEG.  When you take RAW files from a phone you appreciate how heavily processed camera phone photos are.   The biggest advancements in phone photography aren't from sensor improvements, they are from software enhancements with post processing in the phone.  The problem is you are stuck with what the phone gives you in your JPEG.  For posting to social media that's ideal.  

 

When you shoot in RAW on a real camera you have a lot more flexibility to manipulate the image for much more creative control.  Once you have your workflow down it's easy to work with RAW files which result in much better overall pictures in almost every scenario.  

 

Phones have come a long and I've even managed to sell a phone image but I've sold a lot more real camera photos including some RX100VI photos.