Hawaii Calling: DSC-RX100 III vs. Alpha a6000

[HawkInOz7]

I'm not a professional, so keep your responses in layman's terms if possible. Which camera would you purchase and take with you - and why - to best capture the experience of a trip to Hawaii? I'm ultimately looking for which camera is going to produce the best quality pictures regardless of lighting, close-ups and landscapes, stills and action shots. This destination should challenge the camera as much as any, so versatility is key.

I don't mind the extra bulk of the a6000 and might like the option of using multiple lenses, but am probably more likely to use a more compact RX100 III in the long run - so long as there aren't any major concessions being made in quality. I've been going back and forth between the RX100 II and the Alpha a6000, but have dumped the II for the III in that equation and am now quite torn between the RX100 III and the Alpha a6000.

All the jargon and technical specifications are a bit mind-blowing at this stage, and I'm really searching for something that will tip the scale as to which of these identically priced options will best suit my needs while traveling, as well as at home. Thanks so much for any straightforward information or suggestions you can provide!

 

[kwa_photo]

I'll chime in. I travel light, sometimes with just a prime lens or a single camera...ex. Fuji X100 with it's 35mm f/2 lens.

Now I have the Sony RX10 as well with it's jewel of a Zeiss lens covering a wide 24mm to 200mm tele all at a constant f/2.8 aperture. In layman's terms, that f/2.8 is HUGE for travel in my opinion. It will allow you to shoot in lower light levels with a lower ISO (sensitivity) resulting in less noise in the image....better image quality. Add to that the excellent video and that great zoom and it's a perfect all-in-one travel beast to me.

RX100 mIII? Or really, any of the RX100 line for Hawaii? If you really want to stick with a pocketable camera, go for it. You will lose the zoom range in all 3 RX100 versions and on the new one even more as it only goes out to 70mm vs. the 200mm of the RX10. Plus, the RX10 has some weather sealing to help protect against the humidity, sea mist and sand in Hawaii. Whereas the RX100 and A6000 do not.

A6000 (or really, any interchangeable lens system): Sure, the pure image quality will be higher, especially if paired with a "good" lens. For example, one with a constant f/2.8 aperture in a zoom or a "fast prime" lens like a 35mm or 50mm at f/1.4 or f/2.8. With a run of the mill kit lens that comes with these cameras, I'd pass. Plus you have to drag the lenses around as well as the camera body. Plus, when you add decent lenses to it you are more expensive that the RX10 as well.

My choice for Hawaii? Hands down, the RX10. Great image quality, wonderful video, good low light performance, some weather sealing, the fast f/2.8 lens with the 24-200mm range and it's single camera with nothing else to carry around. My second choice would be the RX100 in which ever version you would like. Last choice is the A6000. At least that's how I would go, you may be different.

 

[sybersitizen]

I'm ultimately looking for which camera is going to produce the best quality pictures regardless of lighting, close-ups and landscapes, stills and action shots. This destination should challenge the camera as much as any, so versatility is key.

Of the two cameras you mention, those criteria point quite strongly to the A6000 - with an appropriate lens or lenses, of course.

I don't mind the extra bulk of the a6000 and might like the option of using multiple lenses, but am probably more likely to use a more compact RX100 III in the long run - so long as there aren't any major concessions being made in quality.

With the smaller format and non-interchangeable lens of an RX100(xxx), there will be concessions when shooting conditions fall well below the ideal. How often that might happen, and how different the actual results will be, are hard things to guess.

All the jargon and technical specifications are a bit mind-blowing at this stage, and I'm really searching for something that will tip the scale as to which of these identically priced options will best suit my needs while traveling, as well as at home.

What you're asking for isn't possible, IMO. Different camera formats exist, and have existed for a century or more, because they perform different tasks differently. If you buy either one of these cameras there will be many times when it gives you exactly what you want from it, and other times when it does not - while traveling, as well as at home.

Ultimately, a compact camera like the RX100(xxx) is about simplicity and - well - compactness. The ILCE line is about increased versatility and expandability. You have to make the decision.

 

[ryan2007]

I'm not a professional, so keep your responses in layman's terms if possible. Which camera would you purchase and take with you - and why - to best capture the experience of a trip to Hawaii? I'm ultimately looking for which camera is going to produce the best quality pictures regardless of lighting, close-ups and landscapes, stills and action shots. This destination should challenge the camera as much as any, so versatility is key.

I don't mind the extra bulk of the a6000 and might like the option of using multiple lenses, but am probably more likely to use a more compact RX100 III in the long run - so long as there aren't any major concessions being made in quality. I've been going back and forth between the RX100 II and the Alpha a6000, but have dumped the II for the III in that equation and am now quite torn between the RX100 III and the Alpha a6000.

All the jargon and technical specifications are a bit mind-blowing at this stage, and I'm really searching for something that will tip the scale as to which of these identically priced options will best suit my needs while traveling, as well as at home. Thanks so much for any straightforward information or suggestions you can provide!

It depends what you want out of a camera and how immersed you will get into photography. If this is a casual passing thing where you are Not going to want to take pictures all the time and want to learn how an exposure is made and all the ingredients that go into photography get a point and shoot.

I have the RX 100 ii and it is literally palm size, very small. The down side is that it is small if you have larger hands. I needed to get a hand grip and i have another accessory to help steady the camera which keep my fingers from getting bunched up while holding the Sony.

The Canon G15 or G16 are nice options as well.

The best and most versatile options are a DSLR, even entry level.

Yes, you have the mirrorless cameras, Micro Four Thirds which Olympus and Panasonic do and a larger sensor option with the Fuji XE or XT, but now we're getting into a lot more money and a more advanced system.

In the end the best camera is the one you have and the one you use and the one you understand how to use to get the best results.

If I was taking this trip I would get into external flash, filters and maybe a mono-pod, and maybe advanced video options. Just depends what you want. Any camera will work but out of focus is out of focus.

Small things to make the experience better is to pay attention to what is behind a subject, meaning if you see a electrical poll behind the person it will look like it is growing out of their head if you do not move camera position or the subject. Just saying by watching surrounding it can make a better photo.

Buy a book on travel photography.

 

[Kiichiro]

I'm not a professional, so keep your responses in layman's terms if possible. Which camera would you purchase and take with you - and why -

Just read up to that part....I would take the Rx100M3 because it's small and the IQ is good enough for 5x7 and web use.

I have so many cameras and the most pictures I have taken are from Phone and RX100.

Most of the other cameras just sit at home or in the car.

 

[nannyg]

I'm not a professional, so keep your responses in layman's terms if possible. Which camera would you purchase and take with you - and why - to best capture the experience of a trip to Hawaii? I'm ultimately looking for which camera is going to produce the best quality pictures regardless of lighting, close-ups and landscapes, stills and action shots. This destination should challenge the camera as much as any, so versatility is key.

I don't mind the extra bulk of the a6000 and might like the option of using multiple lenses, but am probably more likely to use a more compact RX100 III in the long run - so long as there aren't any major concessions being made in quality. I've been going back and forth between the RX100 II and the Alpha a6000, but have dumped the II for the III in that equation and am now quite torn between the RX100 III and the Alpha a6000.

All the jargon and technical specifications are a bit mind-blowing at this stage, and I'm really searching for something that will tip the scale as to which of these identically priced options will best suit my needs while traveling, as well as at home. Thanks so much for any straightforward information or suggestions you can provide!

To expand on Ryan2007's first sentence response;

Yes, all the technical jargon gan make the mind spin, particularly if you are coming from a little point&shoot or iPhone background and looking to take a step upward. So I will respond by keeping things very simple and to the point;

Ask yourself if you want to take really nice travel photos of your trip so you can remember it well and have others say "Oooo, those look nice", or if what you want to do is aspire to make art. Note; in no way am I implying that nice vacation photos are a lesser goal. It is a different goal - one that used to be my primary goal, and I'm not at all ashamed of it. But a while ago, I decided I wanted to learn more about photography and attempt to see things in an "artful" way. That required a different approach. I am only just starting to get better. It's a long process, and where I live, we only have about 4 months of good outdoor shooting weather each year!

While both cameras can do both jobs to some degree, the RX100(whatever) is an excellent choice for vacation photos or whenever you are out and about, living your regular life, and wanting to have a good camera on you, just in case a nice photo opportunity pops up. But for a number of reasons that all involve photo jargon, it is not the best camera for making "art". For that, you need a camera with a larger sensor and the ability to change lenses depending on the situation (or a camera like the RX1 that is just a mind-blowingly good fixed-lens camera.

Having said that, naturally, the most important factor in making "art" is the imagination of the photographer and a good one can take a fantastic photo with any sort of camera. But I'll stand by my description above. Ask yourself what you want to accomplish, and buy the camera that makes that possible.

 

[HawkInOz7]

My choice for Hawaii? Hands down, the RX10. Great image quality, wonderful video, good low light performance, some weather sealing, the fast f/2.8 lens with the 24-200mm range and it's single camera with nothing else to carry around. My second choice would be the RX100 in which ever version you would like. Last choice is the A6000. At least that's how I would go, you may be different.

Ken - your post was excellently stated and very much appreciated, and it has me seriously considering the RX10 as an alternative to either of my original "finalists".

One point that has arisen in a number of reviews of the RX10 is the observation that images come out a little soft from the camera at the default setting and require some further sharpening in an application. Alternatively, there is apparently the option to increase the in-camera sharpening level. How do you feel about the sharpness of the unedited original pictures - and do you find that the in-camera setting is sufficient to make up for any softness? I'd rather not have to spend excessive - or truthfully, any - time editing my pictures in an external application to bring them up to snuff.

Also, do you feel at all that the extra weight or bulk of the RX10 (vs. the RX100 series, for example) is a real hindrance to its all-day ease-of-use?

Thanks again for any and all responses.

 

[doctorxring]

.

I will throw one more way of thinking at you, and this is what I do when traveling and it works very well.

Two cameras.

Consider the RX100 III and the Canon SX50.

The RX100 III is primary and you should carry it with you at all times. It will be especially in it's niche when you are in spots where a bigger camera will be left behind or cumbersome or not really welcome. There is nothing better than an RX for stealth mode. I use a SuperSlim case for it and have the camera on my belt. Protected and as handy as a Dodge City revolver at all times. I use the RX for ALL shots that it can handle well because of it's imaging superiority due to resolution, sensor size, excellent lens, and great controls.

But there are always some subjects and views that can only be approached with the exceptional reach and the image stabilization provided by the SX50. This camera will take excellent photographs in good light. It is very light weight for a camera of it's size. I do not find it cumbersome at all the carry along with the RX on my hip and this camera on shoulder strap. For what this camera can do I consider it a "gift" from Canon for it's price of $350 currently. Basically. it can do what no other can when it comes to reach. And it can handle short focal length in a pinch as well. Both of these cameras take fine video.

I find these two cameras highly complementary and add up to a very powerful duo that can be had for a reasonable price. It would be great to have one camera that could do what these two can, but there is none.

Have a great trip ! Chris

.

 

[kona_moon]

If your travel plan includes beaches and water, consider many of the waterproof cameras (Nikon AW1, Olympus TG3, Pentax/Ricoh Ws, etc.).

If no water, then RX100 (any version). If you shoot mostly landscape, smaller sensor is actually good for deeper DOF.

Travel light.

 

[coody]

We only wait for seeing the RX100 III video performance. If its video is much better than the A6000, then people may favor the RX100 III, otherwise, the A6000 beats the RX100 III in every respect except for the size. The Sony set the wrong price on RX100 III. The A6000 kills the RX100 III market.

 

[Menneisyys]

We only wait for seeing the RX100 III video performance. If its video is much better than the A6000, then people may favor the RX100 III, otherwise, the A6000 beats the RX100 III in every respect except for the size

...and the price, assuming you want a decent WA zoom starting at 24mm equiv... the 16-50 is everything but decent at 24mm, and the 16-70 costs an additional $1000...

 

[doctorxring]

We only wait for seeing the RX100 III video performance. If its video is much better than the A6000, then people may favor the RX100 III, otherwise, the A6000 beats the RX100 III in every respect except for the size. The Sony set the wrong price on RX100 III. The A6000 kills the RX100 III market.

"except size"

That is what the RX100 is all about. It should be axiomatic that a photographer will carry a larger more potent camera if not restricted in some sense.

.

 

[0lf]

I don't mind the extra bulk of the a6000, but am probably more likely to use a more compact RX100 III in the long run

Seems like a contradiction. It is up to you to decide if you care about size and weight. It is always a matter of compromise, in handling or IQ or versatility or price or ...

 

[Kung Pao Panda]

I'm not a professional, so keep your responses in layman's terms if possible. Which camera would you purchase and take with you - and why - to best capture the experience of a trip to Hawaii? I'm ultimately looking for which camera is going to produce the best quality pictures regardless of lighting, close-ups and landscapes, stills and action shots. This destination should challenge the camera as much as any, so versatility is key.

I don't mind the extra bulk of the a6000 and might like the option of using multiple lenses, but am probably more likely to use a more compact RX100 III in the long run - so long as there aren't any major concessions being made in quality. I've been going back and forth between the RX100 II and the Alpha a6000, but have dumped the II for the III in that equation and am now quite torn between the RX100 III and the Alpha a6000.

All the jargon and technical specifications are a bit mind-blowing at this stage, and I'm really searching for something that will tip the scale as to which of these identically priced options will best suit my needs while traveling, as well as at home. Thanks so much for any straightforward information or suggestions you can provide!

Aloha,

Recommend you bring a water/splash proof P&S in addition to, or instead of, the cameras you are considering. That's what I do.

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/34..._source=mainmenu&utm_medium=text&ref=mainmenu

Why? Unless you are NOT going to enjoy beach, and water activities in Hawaii, there is risk of getting sand or salt water in RX100III or A600. Bing water/splash camera to beach for less worries. Can put in your boogie shorts. Keep your R100III or A 600 for sightseeing and away from sand and salt water. Not worth risk of sand or salt water damage.

For example, will you be going out in water, like outrigger or sailing activity? Or sit on, or do beach activities?

I once was shooting beach volleyball with Canon DSLR and 70-200 zoom on monopod.. Some spectator not paying attention bumped into me, and my rig fell into sand. I beat him with monopod. Sh*t happens when you don't expect it, and no matter how careful you are with your gears.

So, enjoy Hawaii more, and worry less, about possible sand and water damage to your expensive RX100III or A600. Remember Murphy's Law: " If anything can go wrong, it will, and at the worst possible time"

BTW, how long and what Hawaiian Islands you will be visiting?