Can Sony RX100 VII (or VI, V) Replace my Mirrorless Kit?

[NorCal Jim]

This thread has certainly generated some interest and responses! I realize that a recent response revived this topic but it was interesting the read the responses (especially since I have been absent from this forum due to other priorities during this pandemic).

I have been a huge fan of the RX100 series and currently have the RX100V (my 3rd RX100 purchase). I had a tough decision between the V & the VII but was swayed by the lens & ND filter. Additionally, the 24-70mm field of view has been a good fit for my needs in the past. I really was excited about the AF features and purchased this as a supplement to my primary equipment (MFT).

Jim

 

[CaliforniaDave]

This thread has certainly generated some interest and responses! I realize that a recent response revived this topic but it was interesting the read the responses (especially since I have been absent from this forum due to other priorities during this pandemic).

I have been a huge fan of the RX100 series and currently have the RX100V (my 3rd RX100 purchase). I had a tough decision between the V & the VII but was swayed by the lens & ND filter. Additionally, the 24-70mm field of view has been a good fit for my needs in the past. I really was excited about the AF features and purchased this as a supplement to my primary equipment (MFT).

Jim

I could not decide between the V and VII, so I have both.

 

[tbcass]

I don't think that the RX100 will be good for serious concert photography (but I'd like to be surprised).

Try it. You might be surprised especially if you shoot RAW. Here's what you can achieve with DXO PL5 at ISO3200.







--
Tom

 

[davidwien]

I got an RX100 M3 to carry in my pocket because my Canon EOS5D was too cumbersome to take everywhere, and soon started to use it as my primary camera. I had the misfortune to drop it in the Tate Gallery and the extended lens no longer retracts. So I got a Mk. Va to replace it and am still very happy with this. However, as readers of this thread will know, there are serious disadvantages to the menu system and other features are not easy to manipulate, so I got a Canon RP, which is much easier to use and I have a wider range of lens focal lengths. I did some direct comparisons with the Mk. Va in a subway station and found it held up pretty well to the RP, particularly when shooting raw and processing in PhotoLab, which I now do all the time. I have now moved up to the R6, but I am not about to abandon the Sony, which is a highly competent alternative, though with limits. The only problem is that, not using it as often as I used to, remembering where all the controls are is even more difficult than it used to be!

David

 

[CyborgKitty]

Comparative tests between M43 and 1" sensors show better IQ, DR and low light for the latest 1" generation... (don't know how many times I have to show this here sigh...)

https://www.dkamera.de/news/panasonic-lumix-dc-tz202-und-dmc-gx80-im-vergleich-teil-1/

Disagree in the case of the RX100 M7.

My M43 kit has generally better image quality than my RX100 M7, especially in low light and with regards to bokeh.

S

But you're not addressing what he wrote. He is comparing sensors. You are comparing the combination of the sensor PLUS a lens.

 

[NZ Scott]

Comparative tests between M43 and 1" sensors show better IQ, DR and low light for the latest 1" generation... (don't know how many times I have to show this here sigh...)

https://www.dkamera.de/news/panasonic-lumix-dc-tz202-und-dmc-gx80-im-vergleich-teil-1/

Disagree in the case of the RX100 M7.

My M43 kit has generally better image quality than my RX100 M7, especially in low light and with regards to bokeh.

S

But you're not addressing what he wrote. He is comparing sensors. You are comparing the combination of the sensor PLUS a lens.

I also think the sensor is better.

And who shoots without a lens?

S

--
-------------------------------
My Flickr stream:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/scottkmacleod/

 

[tbcass]

WOW, the Olympus shot looks so much better... I shoot the RX100M6 love it. But always looking for "next."

I don't see it. The RX100 looks a bit sharper with more contrast but I suspect that is down to processing and not the sensor. All in all pretty much the same. I think you need to go much higher in ISO to see a difference. Even when compared to my FF camera at lower ISO I have to zoom in to see a significant difference.

--
Tom

 

[enrugui]

I have both lumix gx9 and sony rx100, plus 1 Nikon D500 "kit" for birding and wildlife photography, a gx85, a zs100, a fz300, a Sony rx10 iv, a Samsung s22+ cell phone and a Sony hx90v.

There are two ways of looking at this situation and both are quite true: I have a bit of a compulsion to buy photographic gear, but it is also true that I enjoy using different equipment in different situations. On top of that, I live in Argentina where getting good equipment is expensive and quite difficult for us. Everything that is m43/Panasonic I bought outside the country.

I do this: for street photography I use the gx9 with a 12-60mm that came in the kit or a 14-140mm that I had bought for the gx85, I also have the bright 20mm and 25mm for certain occasions. Both are excellent lenses. But sometimes when I want to go out on my bike, I need a portable camera and I carry the rx100 vii. And many times I carry it on my belt without knowing if I'm going to use it. Also if I go to see my granddaughter I almost always take the small camera, but if she comes home I use the gx9 with 20mm or 50mm. I like the domes for example and there I find the Zoom of up to 200mm (or 250mm in the case of the zs100) very useful. Sometimes I have used clean image mode in jpg mode which is decent, no more. Another reason is that the cities here are not very safe and a small camera does not attract much attention. But even when I travel abroad, some days I don't want to carry much weight and use the pocket camera. I tell you all this in order to help you know what you want. Best regards.

IG: @enruigui

 

[Hope1943]

I use my m4/3 Olympus/Panasonic for travel or when I need a smaller kit. I was thinking of picking up the latest mid-range Olympus (EM5Mk3) and replacing my Panasonic GX9 and asked for feedback in the m4/3 forum.

One response commented that his Sony RX100 VII could pretty much replace 95% of his small kit needs. I never really thought of this, but I'm looking for portability, phase detect AF, a viewfinder when needed, and reasonably versatile focal range (using different lens). I looked up the Sony RX100 VII specs and reviews and have to admit, it's pretty impressive.

I have other cameras for my portrait work so my objective on this possible replacement is mostly street, casual, family, and maybe a bit actual work (behind the scenes photos, secondary shots).

Watching a review on the Sony RX100 VII by Mark Galer, and it looks like a very capable little camera.

Anybody ditch a comprehensive smallish camera kit in favour of the Sony RX100 VII (or other model) and found it to be a capable replacement?

A hard question. I like it when I want a small camera and no lenses to mess with. It does well. However. when I want the best quality, I still grab my m4/3 gear with a Pro or PL lens. The RX 100vii is a great back up and excellent quality for such a small camera, especially in venues where larger cameras are not allowed. But it struggles with close ups, macros, longer then 200mm shots, and ultra wide shots - although it does have panorama capability. Basically, it complements, rather then replaces the m4/3 gear. That's my humble opinion.

Peace.

John

 

[NZ Scott]

I have made 17 x 25 inch prints with the RX-100 VII . . . and SOLD them. Properly handled . . . no problem.

Sure.

I've shot professionally with my iPhone.

S

 

[richard stern]

80% of my photography is birds, for which I use a dSLR and 500mm. lens. For the other 20% (people, landscapes, plants, travel, things etc.) I recently traded in a consumer dSLR, a Panasonic mirrorless, 3 m4/3 lenses and a relatively small amount of cash for a RX100M7. Image quality is as good or better than any of the above, and I can put it in a pocket and always have it with me. For me it's been a good move.

 

[WannabeTravelPhotog]

I used to own a RX10 (original 18-200) which i tried to replace my Canon t2i and Tamron 18-270 setup, but felt i couldn't sacrifice the IQ, even in daylight. Switched to the Panasonic G7 with a 14-140 lens and that completely replaced my Canon and Tamron.

I purchased the Tz100 which i threw in my EDC bag but rarely take it out and i’ve been unimpressed with the results in anything but good daylight. I took the TZ100 on a recent trip for a wedding and my wife’s iPhone 13 took better indoor photos. I had the focus set to center point and the TZ seemed to miss the mark too often. I got about 1/5 shots in focus. By comparison, the TZ did fine with daylight still life shots, but its too limiting. For additional comparison, i’ve owned the tz60 with the 1/2.3 sensor and almost feel like i got better results from that on the tele side, never mind any type of low light shot, even my previous iPhone 6s did a better job there.

Maybe it’s a matter of knowing your photographic tool, i find the G7 is kind of a perfect balance of ergonomics and weight without having to add extra grips. And i’ve used that fine for professional work and travel. I’ve also used a 20mm pancake 1.7 for some short family trips and love the results.

I really think the m43 system has come a long way, most people honestly might be better off with something like the lx100.

So my vote would be a smaller m4/3 camera with a smaller lens, maybe a GX85 with a 14-40 or a 25 prime? A latest gen smartphone with a tele lens might even be fine if u can get past the terrible ergonomics and over saturated colors.

 

[Tony Milton]

I am completely new to this forum, and with it closing in April will not be able to contribute much. To answer your question. I have a Canon M50 mirrorless camera, with the everyday MF 18-150mm lens, and various other Canon lenses. However I wanted something lighter, and without having to carry several lenses I thought about a bridge camera and looked at the Panasonic Lumix FZ1000 II with its 24-400mm lens, however, it is enormous and weighs 940gm compare to the Canon M50 with lens at 740gm.I eventually decided on the Sony RX100M6 which has come down greatly in pricewith the introduction of the M7, it only weighs 340gm. It doesn't/t have the widest of lenses. 24mm compared with the Canon lens at 18mm, or the zoom to 400mm of the Panasonic, but looking over the years I rarely used my long focus Canon lenses and the Sony zooms to 200mm compared with the Canons 150mm, I have now compared photos taken with both the Sony and Canon M50.The image quality of the Sony lens at all focal lengths out performs the Canon M50 18-150mm lens. In all other respects it also out performs the Canon M50 (other than no hotshoe). So I now have a camera which will do everything I need, and go in my pocket. Should the occasion arise I still have my Canon 70D and Canon L lenses.

 

[Digital Nigel]

I am completely new to this forum, and with it closing in April will not be able to contribute much. To answer your question. I have a Canon M50 mirrorless camera, with the everyday MF 18-150mm lens, and various other Canon lenses. However I wanted something lighter, and without having to carry several lenses I thought about a bridge camera and looked at the Panasonic Lumix FZ1000 II with its 24-400mm lens, however, it is enormous and weighs 940gm compare to the Canon M50 with lens at 740gm.I eventually decided on the Sony RX100M6 which has come down greatly in pricewith the introduction of the M7, it only weighs 340gm. It doesn't/t have the widest of lenses. 24mm compared with the Canon lens at 18mm,

Actually, the RX100 has a noticeably wider, but shorter, lens than your Canon lens, whose equivalent focal length is 29-240mm.

or the zoom to 400mm of the Panasonic, but looking over the years I rarely used my long focus Canon lenses and the Sony zooms to 200mm compared with the Canons 150mm,

The Canon lens is actually longer, at 240mm equivalent. It's APS-C sensor has a 1.6x crop factor, compared to the 2.73x with the RX100 1" sensor.

I have now compared photos taken with both the Sony and Canon M50.The image quality of the Sony lens at all focal lengths out performs the Canon M50 18-150mm lens.

In all other respects it also out performs the Canon M50 (other than no hotshoe).

Yes, I'm not surprised.

So I now have a camera which will do everything I need, and go in my pocket. Should the occasion arise I still have my Canon 70D and Canon L lenses.

 

[NZ Scott]

I use my m4/3 Olympus/Panasonic for travel or when I need a smaller kit. I was thinking of picking up the latest mid-range Olympus (EM5Mk3) and replacing my Panasonic GX9 and asked for feedback in the m4/3 forum.

One response commented that his Sony RX100 VII could pretty much replace 95% of his small kit needs. I never really thought of this, but I'm looking for portability, phase detect AF,

The AF is very good, but perhaps a bit over-rated as it often chooses the wrong subject and it’s a bit fiddly to choose the correct subject on the touch screen.

a viewfinder when needed,

The viewfinder is surprisingly good. I wish my Panasonic GM5 had the same viewfinder (though in most other respects I prefer my GM5 over my RX100 VII).

and reasonably versatile focal range (using different lens).

I wish it were a bit wider at the short end. I often switch to my iPhone 12 Mini for interiors.

I looked up the Sony RX100 VII specs and reviews and have to admit, it's pretty impressive.

I have other cameras for my portrait work so my objective on this possible replacement is mostly street,

I’ve found the slow start-up time frustrating for street. You’re better off with M43 for this.

casual, family, and maybe a bit actual work (behind the scenes photos, secondary shots).

Its good enough for secondary shots as long as you’re not doing portraiture (bokeh is poor and DOF narrow).

Watching a review on the Sony RX100 VII by Mark Galer, and it looks like a very capable little camera.

Anybody ditch a comprehensive smallish camera kit in favour of the Sony RX100 VII (or other model) and found it to be a capable replacement?

I bought an RX100 VII after my GM5 started playing up and have been a little underwhelmed - partly for the reasons mentioned above.

cheers,

Scott

 

[CyborgKitty]

I am completely new to this forum, and with it closing in April will not be able to contribute much. To answer your question. I have a Canon M50 mirrorless camera, with the everyday MF 18-150mm lens, and various other Canon lenses. However I wanted something lighter, and without having to carry several lenses I thought about a bridge camera and looked at the Panasonic Lumix FZ1000 II with its 24-400mm lens, however, it is enormous and weighs 940gm compare to the Canon M50 with lens at 740gm.I eventually decided on the Sony RX100M6 which has come down greatly in pricewith the introduction of the M7, it only weighs 340gm. It doesn't/t have the widest of lenses. 24mm compared with the Canon lens at 18mm, or the zoom to 400mm of the Panasonic, but looking over the years I rarely used my long focus Canon lenses and the Sony zooms to 200mm compared with the Canons 150mm, I have now compared photos taken with both the Sony and Canon M50.The image quality of the Sony lens at all focal lengths out performs the Canon M50 18-150mm lens. In all other respects it also out performs the Canon M50 (other than no hotshoe). So I now have a camera which will do everything I need, and go in my pocket. Should the occasion arise I still have my Canon 70D and Canon L lenses.

Try comparing in low light. The Canon way outperforms the Sony. And if you use the 22m1.8 or 11-22mm Canon lenses, you'll be even happier.