D300 vs RX100 image quality?
I've been shooting with my D300 for more than 3 years, rattling of almost 25.000 shots and absolutely loving the results.
For events where a DSLR is not an option, I carry a Canon S95. However, I've never really been happy with this camera. Focus was just too slow, images needed quite a bit of post processing to give them enough punch, DR is nowhere near that of the D300 and photos always have this "compact" look, missing the acuity that an DSLR gives. That's why I'm now looking at purchasing a RX-100.
Reading the reviews and looking at the DXOmark numbers, the RX-100 not only seems to blow away the S95 but also seems to be better than my beloved D300. The RX-100 has almost twice the megapixels, has a higher DR rating and seems to hold up very well through ISO 6400 while the D300 is almost unusable there. On top of that it as a faster lens on the wide end than I'm normally using.
What's the experience of owners of both the D300 and RX-100? Are you using your Sony RX-100 rather than your D300 if you're after ultimate image quality? It seems almost unbelievable that technology has improved that fast but the reviews seem to indicate it is indeed the case...
|Waffles with fruits by Coolinarka|
from Food photography (desserts)
|Vestrahorn Frozen Reflection by Will B Milner|
from Ice cold