The worrying thing here is all these "These images don't count because ..." comments.
If they were good, there'd be no such comments.
lacikuss: Canon GX1MII at least one stop better in any high ISO comparison.Canon 6d is 4 1/2 stops better in any high ISO comparison.
Is so obvious.
Compared with the Canon, there isn't a long end on the RX100.
dstate1: Once again we have proven that the internet is primarily a place for crabby middle aged losers to dole out brilliantly biting critiques...and search for porn.
Anyone who would write the kinds of things I see on this thread about a young artist is a walking turd in my book.
Perhaps the audience here would be more inclined to enjoy some still life's of fruit or perhaps more pictures of cats…as long as it's taken with the right lens of course….
NoraK: RX 100 IIIi is available for preorder. I am enjoying my Marktwo but would like something pocketable too. I have the RX III on my Amazon wish list.
What a fine example of why it is worth spending so little time on these forums you are.
Mike FL, I can't help but feel you are having a problem with certain concepts here. Plenty of money, but no desire for the RX100 Mk3.
For reasons more than adequately explained in many posts.
Frenske: So do I get this right. Canon created an amazing camera with a great range of functions, large sensor and an excellent fast lens with a very useful range. Canon has done everything to make this camera one of the hottest cameras on the market potentially selling millions of copies, but then why the **** they put such a mediocre sensor in it. At this price range you would expect something better!!!
If they do I will quit Canon cameras. Dynamic range issues rarely effect me but I require good colour on every photo. And I do not like Sony's colours or their ARWs.
VENTURE-STAR: As a picture taking tool, it's not as good as several considerably cheaper DSLR cameras. It is also way too expensive. No doubt the new version has the same very annoying control wheel with no indents and the short zoom is ridiculous.
This camera really only has size going for it. For all you well-heeled photo equipment buyers who are more concerned with the appearance of gear than actually taking pictures,, enjoy! I think I'll pass.
What nonsense. There are plenty of situations where longer zoom range and compactness combined would be useful in low light, including the many concert situations where you would not be allowed to bring in a DSLR
Really being a brand devotee at the expense of ruling unimportant ANY feature your favourite brand does not have is the TRUE indication of an inexpert photographer.
Particularly when we know darn well, that if it DID have those features, the very same brand fanatics would be raving about it.
Demanding that a camera fit in your pocket at the expense of everything else is also pretty much an indication of an inexpert photographer, or one that just doesn't care very much.
(unknown member): They're gonna sell a lot of these . . .
Not more than GoPro.
Leiduowen: Still no time-lapse recording? Sony, you're not listening!
Funny you should say that Eleson. I just visited an exhibition of images from glass negative cameras taken in the 19th century. Many were blown up to wall size. And even the Nikon D800 could not match them for low noise and detail
If you have any decent film Hasselblads, 4x5 cameras or Leicas there let me know.
Jennyhappy2: The RX100 I, II, and III are outselling the G1X II. Comparing the RX100 III with a built in viewfinder is $799 while to get that feature with the G1X II is $1094.
G1X II -
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #740 in Camera & Photo (See Top 100 in Camera & Photo)G1X -
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #1,528 in Camera & Photo (See Top 100 in Camera & Photo)G16 -
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #285 in Camera & Photo (See Top 100 in Camera & Photo)#62 in Camera & Photo > Point-and-Shoot Digital CamerasRX100 III -
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #5 in Camera & Photo (See Top 100 in Camera & Photo)#1 in Camera & Photo > Point-and-Shoot Digital CamerasRX100 II -
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #70 in Camera & Photo (See Top 100 in Camera & Photo)#11 in Camera & Photo > Point-and-Shoot Digital CamerasRX100 I -
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #198 in Camera & Photo (See Top 100 in Camera & Photo)#48 in Camera & Photo > Point-and-Shoot Digital Cameras
GoPro is the best selling camera on the planet. Obviously there''s no point anyone else even trying to put a lens and sensor together. GoPro must be the best. Except that anyone (like me) who has used a GoPro will tell you it's one of the worst user experiences ever and unless the light is perfect, it is noise city.
GoPro is the best selling camera on the planet. Obviously there''s no point anyone else putting a lens and sensor together. GoPro must be the best. Except that anyone (like me) who has used a GoPro will tell you it's one of the worst user experiences ever and unless the light is perfect, it is noise city.
Mike FL: Numbers are talking from Amazon US Site:
Sony DSC-RX100M III: - #1 in Camera & Photo > Point-and-Shoot Digital Cameras- #5 in Camera & Photo (See Top 100 in Camera & Photo)
Lets see how is the poorly executed Canon G1X-MK2 Doing:- #71 in Camera & Photo > Point-and-Shoot Digital Cameras- #330 in Camera & Photo (See Top 100 in Camera & Photo)
Well executed/done, Sony!
People who are not overwhelmingly too old and weak to carry their cameras around for one thing, including photographers of landscape coffee table books, photojournalists, ad photographers, and fashion photographers.
This site should be a centre for them. It actually once was. It isn't now.
And the fact you think Amazon sales figures matter are a shining example of why.
And anyone who reads my posts sees that I acknowledge many brands have different strengths. Only fanboys like Tonky who think that pointing out limitations in a Sony (like 70 mm zoom) amounts to heresy can see that as trolling. I like Sony DR. I don't like Sony colours. So sue me.
The greater the brand fanatic the worse the photographer. Always.
AngryCorgi: I'm on the edge of my seat here. When I read "company does something that's never been done before" in relation to optics design, I'm intrigued as to whether that move led to success or failure. Can't wait to see some samples from the new optics.
Incidentally, it has long been my experience =- never disproven on these forums - that the greater the brand fanatic, the worse the photographs he turns out.
They do look nice. But gorgeous samples are what camera companies do.
One can always spot things they are avoiding in their samples too.
At this point, both offer viable alternatives. For me, the trade off is between longer telephoto, better RAWS, and more consistent colours in various lighting conditions on the Canon, and better dynamic range and portability on the Sony.
Anyone trying to dismiss other alternatives is a fool and a troll. We keep hearing "game changer" comments about the RX100 series. That is hype. There are options here, and a sensible user can select which suits them rationally.
My choice, because human faces in low light situations are what I need most, will likely be the Canon. Others with different needs, may well legitimately choose otherwise. I don't get on with Sony colours. Others do.
Whichever people choose, their camera can shoot better pictures than they can take.
Ed Gill: Sony has to be spastic! Now they drop the hotshoe just when the lens got fast enough for decent portraits and depth of field control (read high speed flash sync). Hello - hello? They can't even manage a stinking little sync port for flash triggers. Hopefully Panasonic will scale up the LX5/7 to m4/3 next time around, my money stays in my wallet until then. And Canon - he coulda been a contender just those crappy sensors kept him outa the ring. Maybe Canon will give up and just buy Sony sensors and get back in the race.
Sony could make a camera without a lens. and certain "fans" would be saying "Who needs a lens?" They've taken a step closer by cutting the long end of the focal length to 70mm.
Same applies to other brands too, among the brand fanatics.
It is posts like this that make this site and its users objects of total derision among professionals.
photo perzon: Still a tiny sensor compared to m4/3 and aps-c no?
Yes for DR. No for colour and low light shooting.
It is more than a little self-limiting to support a camera by denying the value of flexibility. If this camera HAD a hot shoe, you know you would be extolling it. As people did with the earlier models.
I really do not find wiggling the flash around with my thumb a user-friendly option, particularly as decent bounce flash often involves a reflector or card to bounce the flash off. You can't always rely on a neutral colour ceiling.
white shadow: Now, it may be a good time to get the Mk2 as price will drop to make way for the Mk3.
I think the pop-up EVF is a gimmick. The flash hot shoe is more useful.
Unfortunately, they didn't improve on the clickless front wheel and provide an external battery charger.
The faster lens is welcome but I think the old one is good enough for casual photography.
Sorry to burst your bubble.
He seems to be talking about the RX100 MkII.
mpgxsvcd: "I hate it" says no one.
Take note Canon. You put out the same camera over and over again with a different name and no one can tell the difference between it and the previous model.
Sony keeps telling us that it is just an updated version of the existing model and everyone can instantly tell how much it has actually improved even though the name hasn't.
Canon and Nikon have nothing that can directly compete with this camera. And no the G1 X MII doesn't compete with it. It's lens is not fast enough. It is too big. And it sensor size really isn't that much bigger.
I don't care about pixels. I care about colours. I don't need to pixel peep to notice a grey cast or a face that looks as if it has a gallstone condition.