ferrarinigel: Can somebody tell me the difference between the ordinary Sony RX-100 mk111 and the Sony DSC-RX100 mk111Thanks.....
??? between an apple and an apple?
It's fast enough; definitely faster than the S95.HOWEVER before you buy one weigh the following point:> I had an RX 100 and loved it, especially as I could photograph in RAW + JPG in black and white (see my square BW images on the screen and know I could always go back to the full-frame color RAW image if needed.Now, the RX 100 III does not authorize the recording of the RAW image wit the bw JPG one. If one shoots JPG bw one only gets the JPG bw. In my opinion this is a very stupid change in software for a camera that taps into an audience that would rather use raw and the possibilities of multiformat BW images (while photographing, and NOT in front of one's computer) than their cell-phones. Kinda ludicrous move!!!
It is a very pleasing... and frustrating camera to use.Image quality and possibilities are great.
Points in dire need of improvement:1-AF focusing (slow and can simply be erratic, I have had too many bad surprises).2-M-focusing can be improved too.3-precision of the frame in the OVF should definitely be improved with the next update of the firmware.4-we need a 23 mm f 2 or f 1.4, fast... please this is the OBVIOUS lens with a range-finder or alias range-finder!!! I need a wider angle than the 35 mm but not as wide as the 18 mm (with fewer distortion and less loss of sharpness in corners at full aperture).
Finally an alternative to the M9 that comes at a relatively reasonable price, innovates in a rather esthetic and ergonomic body. If the promises are held and the lenses up to the quality of the one on the X100, these cameras will mark the definite return of Fuji among the great camera makers, appreciated and used by professionals and exacting amateurs alike.
kenai1: I just purchased a GX! (santa helped.) It appears to take nice pics, but shooting in raw only nothing will recognize the format. (iPhoto, CS4, LR2, Aperture). I have a GF1 and use it in raw which works fine. It appears they both shoot RW2.Is the GX1 shooting in a different raw format, or is there something in setting up the camera. If I shoot raw + jpeg, I get the jpeg image
I tried calling Panasonic and they were no help.If its a new raw format I can't believe I'm the only having problems.
Yes, Kenai1,This happens all the time and Panasonic is not the only one to do it. Although with the same label, the RAW format is slightly modified and you'll have to wait for Apple and Adobe to update their Raw Processor software... and maybe upgrade to LR3 or/and CS5 to be able to do so.
gaspipe1: Could use a little help, I am going from a P&S b/c I am sick of the poor quality and wish to get a DSLR type. After reading the article on the mirrorless roundup it seems to be a good idea. The offer great quality photos, removable lenses and decent size. I am mostly looking to take pics of my kids whether at the park playing or at a birthday party. I also love the idea of taken video. I really want to stay below $1k, wifey is going to flip-out if she finds out lol. But like I said I really do want a good quality cam that I will be happy with for years to come. IF this is the right cam for me would anyone recommend a package? I was thinking about the 14-42 power zoom lens for $900. Or would I be better with purchasing the body for $700 and the Panasonic LUMIX G 20mm f/1.7 Aspherical Pancake Lens for another $350? Any advice would be greatly appreciated.
Pb with the Sony NEX 5N is the bulk of the lens (it is an APS-C after all) so one loses in compacity. Commands as are as "intuitive" as on the GF1/GX1.Going back to the commands on the GX1 compared to the GF3, the GX1 is a more serious camera (away from the simplifying strategy used by Panasonic from the GF1 to the GF3) than the GF3 but it can be as easy to use as a GX1 for a start and then one has an overall better camera (having access to a good, although expensive, electronic viewfinder can be quite a plus.
Gaspipe1,Yes the GX1 (I have used a GF1 for several years now on top of a Nikon D3... not at the same time ;o) ) is an interesting alternative to an SLR. Especially if one travels or walks a lot.Now between the 14-42 and the 20 mm, unless you plan on using the f 1.7 wide aperture of the 20 mm for short depth of field or low available light, I would go for the zoom and then get either the 20 mm or the 14 mm as a light and short complement (although the 7-14 mm, price, size and max f-stop, set aside, is also an excellent lens to consider). The 100-200 mm is also a good bargain for its quality generated/price ratio.
Jolkfoto,It's not the camera it is still the person that stands behind it and makes the crucial decisions such as subject matter and composition that makes the money.Other than that of course one can make money with the image quality generated by this camera; but image quality alone will not cut it. The real question is: can you make money with a camera? If the answer is yes; then you will make money with the GX1! ;o)That simple.