DJD29: I've settle with carrying around my 60D even when its bulk is inappropriate to the occasion. I gave my S90 to my wife which she soon wore down. I then gave her my LX5, a sad farewell. I enjoyed the LX5's fast metering, focusing presets, fast focus, and generally great image quality. I sold my G10 - not happy with its range, though the image quality was okay.
Now, that the game has changed, I'm back in the market for one of these "enthusiast" cameras.
I'm hung up on sensor size. I'm leaning towards the RX100. Am I for all the wrong reasons?
Could someone tell me what the sensor size accomplishes in terms of resolution, etc?
My pick would be the LX7 only because I loved the responsiveness of the LX5. What does "largest image area" accomplish in terms of resolution, etc?
I reckon I could throw a G10 a distance of around 30-50 feet if the conditions were good enough. I think that's a good range for a point and snap.
davids8560: I reach for the Sony RX100 more often than any other I own. And I own many cameras, including enthusiast compact models like the XZ1 and LX3. The RX100 offers far more bang for the buck, in terms of image quality, than any other small camera I've tried. The RX100 is not the most fun or intiitive camera.. But the images it produces, for its size, in almost any light, are superlative. The LCD has let me down in bright light. it can be hard if not impossible to see. The RX100 needs a small EVF like the one the tiny Nikon P60 has, or an optional hot shoe-mounted viewfinder like the XZ1. I also use a third-party adhesive filter adapter, and t for even more creative possibilities, and it would be great if Sony provided a lens adapter tube attachment. I hope the follow up to the RX100 has at least an optional viewfinder, a wider, faster lens, and a control wheel with detents.
I found a tattoo much cheaper and improved my sex life no end :)
tommyngo: My wife likes taking pictures with her Panasonic Lumix DMC-FH25 from the touring bus as it is winding its way through the countryside. But she misses her shots most of the time due to the slow response of the shutter button !! My question is : Can the Sony RX100 assure 100% success rate for her ?
Her birthday is coming up in a few weeks , I would love to get this camera for her if it really does the job . Thanks ...
Have you thought of explaining the limitations of her technique? You could ask the driver to stop too. A better camera may not equal better shots. The RX100 is very slow at any lever of zoom, big sensor or not. The lens grabs the light so invest your pennies there. Panny LX series trades zoom for aperture and gives great results even at zoom on a smaller sensor. It would still. Struggle at 30mph out of a bus window though.
Artistico: Shame the RX-100 doesn't have a 10 (or at most 12) megapixel sensor instead of the pointless 20. It would have been so much better in terms of colour, dynamic range, noise, half file sizes, and basically the same practical resolution as it is more lens-limited than sensor-limited.
Isn't this typical of Sony: Spinal Tap mentality at it's worst: if the amps go to 11 (or 20 in this case) they must be better
Why would anyone who is not barking mad pay $599 for a camera that is as big as this with such a slow zoom lens. The 14-42 offerings of Panasonic and Olympus are very poor with a maximum aperture of 3.5 at best . The benefits of a large sensor will be overshadowed by poor glass. These modern GFs are pretty poor by comparison to the excellent GF1 and to some of the recent Olympus offerings too, dispensing of nearly all of the manual controls was a real act of arrogant naivety from Panasonic. Only the GX1 has prevented their miniature Micro 4/3 cameras becoming a laughing stock.
joyclick: The mounts and batteries for cameras should be standardized by legislation.
I don't think we really want politicians deciding the standards for cameras. Remember they made the rules that governed the banks and financial institutions and look at the mess that ended up in. Leave design to the designers. It's up to the consumers to decide what to buy but if we all bought with our heads instead of our hearts we'd not commit to anything until the manufacturer did. M4/3 cameras were pointless before the 20mm pancake from panasonic because the kit lenses are disproportionate to the camera size and they are utterly average or worse in performance. The lack of a good quality viewfinder on the smaller cameras renders them useless unless you have good short sighted vision and/or use auto focus lenses out of direct sunlight. I cannot understand why it is beyond the ability of Sony, Olympus, Panasonic etc to put a quality viewfinder in the rangefinder styled cameras. The bolt on ones look ugly and bulky and disable the hotshoe