RX100 concerns...

Started May 19, 2013 | Discussions thread
salla30 Senior Member • Posts: 2,596
Re: RX100 concerns...

The RX100 is a fine tool. It takes a while to learn, but this is also a fun period. There is a lot of friendly advise on this forum to be had. Once you get the "bug" it's hard not to take the camera with you and take pictures nearly everyday!

I think the key reply to your worries are that the modern cameras are using increasingly large files, and this usually equates to better overall image quality. But also you mention getting a 100dollar camera, but the quality of the RX100 is way above that, it's not JUST about pixels, but about light handling between lights and darks (contrast and dynamic range), colour, definition, and low light handling (which you mention) and also CONTROL of the photography process. This latter aspect is so important. With cheap point and click cameras you are limited to set automatic modes, which do not really allow you to select which areas of the image you want to expose over others and how you expose them, with accuracy. DSLR's allow this and also MILC's also. In addition the RX100 also does. Since I have moved away from auto-exposing cameras, my "hit rate" for good shots has gone from perhaps 50% to perhaps 95%, which is greatly satisfying.

See other replies below...

dood77 wrote:

Hey there, I'm a complete photography novice but am looking for an upgrade to my 10 year Olympus Stylus 300.

-- hide signature --

  Very important is good pictures in low light, which my cell phone and the Olympus really cannot do

--  I considered a compact interchangeable lens system, but probably would never even buy another lens, and I am in no way ever going to carry a camera bag.  If I ever decided to go this route, I'd probably go full dSLR, but it will probably never happen.

--  All I ever wanted was something that made great pictures in low light.  I really want it simple, and don't need anything else.  All of my searching has led me to the RX100, although it is probably actually waaay more camera than I need.  But it seems to have better low light ability then say Canon s100/s110, fuji xf1/x20, etc., etc.  I suppose I might ever actually convert a RAW file to a real picture on my computer but would probably use almost exclusively the jpegs made by the camera, and maybe I'd print a picture out now and then, but I really am just looking for something that makes great photos to put on web, send to friends/family, screensaver etc.

So my concerns with the RX100:

1.  20 megapixels is going to use up a TON of hard drive space.  I really don't need all these megapixels.  I am guessing I can turn down the megapixels on the camera e.g. to 12 to take photos-- will this significantly affect the image quality of an online image?  e.g., on this website and others there are sample images from this camera that on my computer screen are like 4 x 6 inches, and the RX100 images beat images from other cameras even at 4 x 6 on my computer screen.  Is it necessary to have the 20 mp to do this?

20mp usually equates to jpg images around 5-10mp. HD space is cheap nowadays, here we can buy a 2tb external drive for around 150chf or around 130usd. I have taken around 12500 images and videos since the beginning of 2013 and I believe I am a heavy user, and this is only 160gb (including around 3000 raw files). So, thats only around 6usd per month of storage costs (as i do keep a backup also). Ive recently started to keep JPG and RAW's so i guess my use will increase quite a bit, but still not hugely.

2.  Even with my 10 year old Olympus stylus 3 mp camera, I typically shrink photos to 1024 x 768 or 640 x 480 on photoshop (like a 10 year old version of photoshop) prior to sending them-- nobody wants to open ten 20 mp images through their email, if it's even possible to send such a thing.  Would shrinking the images down on e.g. photoshop eliminate the high picture quality I am buying the camera for in the first place?

I batch resize my images using a simple windows tool called image resizer. Its not a big chore. Then I put the resized images on my tablet for posterity viewing and keep the originals on the HDD with a back up.

3.  Said differently, by the time I might take images at e.g. 12 megapixels, then shrink to 1024 x 768, would I just be better off with some $100 Nikon coolpix (which of course wouldn't perform as well in low light!-- you see my struggle).

As you get "into" photography, you will appreciate having the finest possible original files to work with. So 20mp originals is not a problem, indeed, it's a benefit.

Please go easy I have been researching but am a complete photography noob so any help is appreciated.


 salla30's gear list:salla30's gear list
Sony RX100 Sony RX1 Sony RX100 II Sony Alpha NEX-5N Sony a5000 +1 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow