5 years and 30 cameras later, 80,000 pictures and the Sony RX100

Started Jul 9, 2012 | Discussions thread
Dixa Contributing Member • Posts: 808
Re: 5 years and 30 cameras later, 80,000 pictures and the Sony RX100

30 cameras in 5 years?

i'm not sure you were so much a photographer as a collector, and because of this and the reasoning that lead you to settle on the rx100 i'm not sure how much weight your overall opinion can possibly carry.

maybe to beginners who already have point and shoots, have considered a dslr but not sure if they want to deal with the size or changing lenses just yet. sure, the rx100 makes sense

but rx100 as my only camera? no. for serious work, the serious camera comes out. for play the rx100 (or nokia 808) comes out.

photo perzon wrote:

I've learned a few things.

1) In good light, most cameras over $ 200 will do just fine.

2) The reason to spend over $ 200 is pictures with no flash in low indoor light

3) If you want portability (7.5 ounces, or half a pound), reasonable zoom, and the latest features, as well as good low indoor light flash free photography (which requires a large sensor), the Sony RX100 gives you all that with its large 1" sensor.


5 years ago I started with tiny Sony cameras. Took great pictures with flash with my Sony TX1. Quickly got into the Fuji F30 and Fuji F31Fd which would give you good results at ISO 800. No longer a need to blind people with flash at parties and dinners, as well as getting a more natural look and no red-eye.

Got some P&S zooms, got my great birds shots.

In the quest for better low light results, moved to the Nikon D40 with primes such as 50mm 1.4, 35mm 1.8, and later, the 5 pound Nikon D700 with large lenses.

Took a detour into some long 300mm f4 and 200mm f2 and 70-300mm zooms. Unless you are taking pictures of games, or birds, the long zooms are better left to pros, just enjoy the game instead of becoming the unpaid photographer.

Obviously all I say here is for hobbyists. If you are getting paid as a pro, buy $ 50,000 worth of Leica glass (or $ 15,000 of Nikon or Canon) ASAP.

Tried the Sony 5N and 7 and the lenses were "too large still." Ended up with $ 4000 worth of m4/3 (easy with their $ 500 and $1000 lenses each), but at dinners and parties it was still taking a camera bag by my side, and minding it all night.

I wanted a pocketable, decent "wow" IQ camera. A camera that travels easily in a jacket pocket or a belt clip in a tight black case. My Canon S100 was pocketable, but slow to AF, slow lens, typical small sensor P&S results.

So here is the Sony RX100 with large sensor, latest electronics, panoramic, movies, all sorts of effects. Great IQ pictures posted. Fast AF. 1/2 ounce heavier than the Canon S100.

I sold 25 of my 30 cameras. That includes lenses. I had cameras for all kinds of occassions. My favorite lens was a $ 700 Sigma 50-150mm 2.8 1.5pound lens. Half the weight of the 3 lb Nikon 80-200mm. Was gonna use it to reach low light games and events with my Nikon D5100 at ISO 6400. Did it once in one event. Did not enjoy the event, as I became obsessed to take 400 pictures of the rodeo.

The only pictures worth keeping are social snaps with people. Postcards from pros are much better with their 10 pound cameras they lug to tourist events and sites.

We'll see if the Sony RX100 delivers. I think it will. At $ 650 it is cheaper than the $ 10,000 I spent on cameras (most of which I got back on eBay.) It's been a fun 5 year ride. 80,000 pictures.

Note: there are many bullies in the forums, they attack people who don't say "Nikon is great" or whatever. Ignore negativity.

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow