Updating my RX100 II to III, IV, or V -- Question

I want to update my RX100 II to a III, IV, or V model and am seeking comments. The primary feature I am seeking over and above what I have is the pop-up EVF which all of these cameras have.

I do NOT shoot video, except on rare occasions. The video from any of these cameras is more than adequate for my use. I shoot almost exclusively auto-focus single frame shooting of more or less still objects. I tend to use the adjustable location single point focus.

My decision point is this. Image quality. Is there a significant difference in image quality between the III, IV, or V ? If not, I'll just get the III. But if there is I'll pony up for the IV or V.

thanks kindly, Chris

doctorxring said:

I want to update my RX100 II to a III, IV, or V model and am seeking comments. The primary feature I am seeking over and above what I have is the pop-up EVF which all of these cameras have.

I do NOT shoot video, except on rare occasions. The video from any of these cameras is more than adequate for my use. I shoot almost exclusively auto-focus single frame shooting of more or less still objects. I tend to use the adjustable location single point focus.

My decision point is this. Image quality. Is there a significant difference in image quality between the III, IV, or V ? If not, I'll just get the III. But if there is I'll pony up for the IV or V.

thanks kindly, Chris

Click to expand...

I had 4! units of rx100v and I couldn't find one with a really sharp lens. My original rx100 is an extremely sharp copy and;therefore, I was comparing to that camera each of those 4 units till I gave up trying. Also, despite the released firmware update, it still won't power up at certain settings and the battery had to be removed and reinserted as before the update. I loved the camera tho and decided to try Rx100III model. The lens of this specific unit is super sharp! Actually, if you examine closer this DP comparison, you'll see it yourself:

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/im...x=-0.35863474500484793&y=-0.07812483111695141

"Our copy is a bit soft down the right-hand-side at some focal lengths, but we can find similar defects in the examples of any of its rivals."

https://m.dpreview.com/reviews/sony-cybershot-dsc-rx100-m3/13

They wrote it in regard to mark III and ,as far as I see, nothing has changed in the Sony Q.C. department since than,unfortunately.

For stills RX100III is more than enough and taking in count that it has auto brightness control of the screen, that markV sorely lacks, and it holds the battery much longer, there is no point in MarkV. Also, its 9 grams lighter

The only features that I really miss are : self timer during bracketing and minimum shutter speed in auto ISO.

The DR is mostly the same . The low light performance is slightly better in rx100v but both are pretty bad .

There's probably no image quality difference you'd notice in stills.

The 4 and 5 have much higher resolution viewfinders than the 3 did, and I don't think the 3 had a menu option for whether closing the viewfinder turns off the camera (I am glad that's optional on the mark V because I like to be able to open and close it as needed). In the Mark V, I also love the smarter control over Auto ISO based on a desired shutter speed, that's central to how I use my camera. But other than small differences like this (and perhaps resale value) it sounds like you don't need to get a more expensive model whose main improvements are in focusing and shooting speed and video.

The 3 actually had a better battery life rating.

I own both the III and the V. I see no difference in image quality between them.

In your case, it seems an m3 is plenty good enough of a feature upgrade, I agree, no IQ differences are ever obvious here.

I just put this together for someone else: IMO:

There is no discernible IQ difference between any Sony rx100 for stills. So, it's about features,

m3: excellent IS, popup evf, tilt lcd, auto ISO in M
m4: 4k video
m5: hybrid AF combining PD and CD and faster AF and faster Continuous shooting.
.....................................
I moved up to m3, that's where I stay unless they put a hot shoe and mic port on one, then I would use the video for live music recording in small music clubs, school stuff.

four m3,4,5 features that give you shots un-achievable with the m1:

1. Excellent Image Stabilization. Now I can use P,A,M as well as S mode, getting blur free at 1/30th easily, if I concentrate, I can get 1/20th.
2. EVF. popup keeps the camera pocketable. Arms in, against your face is a much steadier shooting position than arms out lcd.
3. Tilt LCD. It not only helps with glare (as does the evf) it lets you take photos over heads in school activities, weddings, concerts, and helps take low shots, and selfies.
4. Auto ISO in Manual. Pick your speed, aperture, shoot. Light changes, cloud or branch moves, shoot, Camera keeps what you need and gives the best possible ISO for each condition.
....................................
As for video, I want better sound, so I don't use video in my rx100's.
The mics are ok, but frequency limited, can get distorted by volume, and omni-directional, much unwanted sound. I use my old Sony Handyman, much more zoom, much better full range directional mic. It is not too big, and newer ones are more compact. It does HD, but I still use mp4, the video is quite good, easy to share, smaller files, etc.
...................................
m5 Hybrid AF is definitely desirable, BUT, wanting and needing are different things.
The rx100 AF in the m1 and up to m4 is quite good already. People do not add an aside, like they do with the RX10's, or the RX1, wonderful camera but AF is slow, or misses too often. rx100 owners shoot and post. It is already fast enough for children running around. I used it successfully for kids soccer when I could walk the line staying close enough for it's short reach, it was fast enough. After the 1st season, the field gets bigger, they keep you further away from the lines, it's not enough reach no matter how fast or accurate.
Faster or more accurate for wildlife would be wonderful but with so little zoom, who is going to shoot wildlife with it?
...........................................................
Continuous shooting, super fast, do you need it? Do you analyze golf swings, bullets thru oranges?
I shoot my Olympus Stylus 1 continuous for Ben's soccer games and now Cooper's Ice Hockey games and Ava starts softball tonight. rx100 does 4 fps. More than enough if close. Oly does 7 fps 300mm f2.8.
I wish I could slow my Oly down to 4 fps. The faster it shoots, the more images to edit, the longer it takes to write to buffer between sequences, (you might/will miss something better) lots of memory and more battery used. You may get a few great shots, and you may get the full approach and goal kick, but you can get that at 4 fps. It's the bright reach you need.

I think it's all been said by others, but nor seen anyone mention that you do give up your 28-105mm lens for 24-70mm. I went from a RX100II for a IV and love the EVF and most everything else about the camera, but there are times I miss that extra reach. Ended up getting a Panny TZ110 25-250mm to complement the Sony and now I use it more than the IV.

Many thanks for all these comments. They all worked together to help me out.

One thing about the V that I wasn't aware of is shutter speed control on Auto ISO. I really like that feature a lot and use it often on my other cameras.

V it is !!!

.

doctorxring said:

Many thanks for all these comments. They all worked together to help me out.

One thing about the V that I wasn't aware of is shutter speed control on Auto ISO. I really like that feature a lot and use it often on my other cameras.

V it is !!!

.

Click to expand...

Good call, IMO. That feature of the V (IV has it too, I believe) plus the hybrid AF makes quite a difference. I'm waiting for that hybrid sensor and AF to show up the the RX10 III successor!

That said John's closing remark "I went from a RX100II for a IV and love the EVF and most everything else about the camera, but there are times I miss that extra reach. Ended up getting a Panny TZ110 25-250mm to complement the Sony and now I use it more than the IV." related to me, too. I have the RX100 V and a ZS100 (aka TZ110) and really use it more due to the longer reach and some other features. But the RX100 V, with a faster lens, is a better indoor/low-light camera.

FoxShutter said:

The low light performance is slightly better in rx100v but both are pretty bad .

Click to expand...

Compared to what? They're better than any other comparably sized compact I've ever used.

Part of being a photographer is understanding the limitations of your equipment, and finding creative ways to work around or exploit them.

Foto4x4 said:

I think it's all been said by others, but nor seen anyone mention that you do give up your 28-105mm lens for 24-70mm. I went from a RX100II for a IV and love the EVF and most everything else about the camera, but there are times I miss that extra reach.

Click to expand...

I agree that 28-105 would be a more useful general purpose focal range. 24-70 is a strange DSLR-ism that somehow became an accepted standard.

Kung Fu said:

FoxShutter said:

The low light performance is slightly better in rx100v but both are pretty bad .

Click to expand...

Compared to what? They're better than any other comparably sized compact I've ever used.

Click to expand...

Compared to any micro four thirds or APSC sized sensor.

I like these little cameras tho, but low light performance isn't their strong point, and that's what I mentioned without starting to compare camera sizes etc.

However, I have to admit that I was able to get some really usable results; even comparing to an old Canon DSLRs, they were pretty impressive




RX100III Handheld, don't remember the ISO but it wasn't more than 800. 1/30sec

Kung Fu said:

Part of being a photographer is understanding the limitations of your equipment, and finding creative ways to work around or exploit them.

Click to expand...

Thank you for the explanation of what's to be a photographer

FoxShutter said:

Kung Fu said:

FoxShutter said:

The low light performance is slightly better in rx100v but both are pretty bad .

Click to expand...

Compared to what? They're better than any other comparably sized compact I've ever used.

Click to expand...

Compared to any micro four thirds or APSC sized sensor.

Click to expand...

Obvious, and doesn't need to be said. But thank you for clarifying. You can say the same about aps-c compared to Medium Format.

FoxShutter said:

I like these little cameras tho, but low light performance isn't their strong point

Click to expand...

Well that's like saying Bob Dylan isn't a good singer. He's as good as he needs to be to sing like Bob Dylan.

FoxShutter said:

, and that's what I mentioned without starting to compare camera sizes etc.

However, I have to admit that I was able to get some really usable results; even comparing to an old Canon DSLRs, they were pretty impressive


RX100III Handheld, don't remember the ISO but it wasn't more than 800. 1/30sec

FoxShutter said:

Part of being a photographer is understanding the limitations of your equipment, and finding creative ways to work around or exploit them.

Click to expand...

Thank you for the explanation of what's to be a photographer

Click to expand...

You're welcome. Even I need a reminder every now and then.

Kung Fu said:

Well that's like saying Bob Dylan isn't a good singer. He's as good as he needs to be to sing like Bob Dylan.

Click to expand...

No doubt a superb songwriter and musician, one of the greatest of all time, as for singing:

There was going to be a TV Game show: "What Did Bob Dylan Say".

Play a line or two, see which contestant could guess what he said (then what he meant).

I have seen him live several times, the last time, at the Beacon, after getting over the initial shock, we were laughing, you could have changed the TV show to "What Song was That?"

He is definitely hit or miss, twice awesome, once ok, once bad, 2 times awful. If he was a camera, ................


Elliott