The RX100 model (m1 to m7) with the best price to performance ratio

[aerorail]

I've had them all, and totally favor model III, best of the litter. Also best price to value ratio in todays market

good choice. never saw anything in the newer models to spend the money on such little improvement.

now where did i put that m3. haven't touched it in 3 years

 

[aerorail]

Everyone has different ideas of what is a useful camera, so that factor usually over-rides price performance issues.

So maybe my old poll makes some sense, it still is open for voting and changing votes to bring it up to date.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/63664599

best value to performance is the camera on your cell phone that you always have with you

 

[Guy Parsons]

Everyone has different ideas of what is a useful camera, so that factor usually over-rides price performance issues.

So maybe my old poll makes some sense, it still is open for voting and changing votes to bring it up to date.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/63664599

best value to performance is the camera on your cell phone

Generally hugely overpriced and poor quality images, particularly if one has the pixel peeping habit. Fake shallow DOF and often bad stacking issues often make the results questionable.

that you always have with you

No, rarely with me. Only bought one because of QR code check-in rules, now being dropped locally, so no need to carry the phone or use it any more.

Bleeding awkward rectangular slab to use, awkward to carry in any pocket, way easier and neater and way more versatile to carry my RX100M6 in a small belt pouch.

 

[Twombly]

I know it's the ugly sister nobody talks about, but the award for the best price to performance ratio in this family goes to the ZV-1.

 

[Ed B]

I don't have the original version of the RX100, but it's a good bet that it gives the most bang for the buck, considering its low price.

The RX100 lacks the features of newer models, but when it comes to image quality and its zoom range, it still makes a lot of people happy, and when you look at a side by side images taken by the original and one of the newer models, it's hard to tell a difference, in most situations.

 

[Guy Parsons]

I know it's the ugly sister nobody talks about, but the award for the best price to performance ratio in this family goes to the ZV-1.

My summary from watching polls and remarks from a few polls and forums....

No EVF is an annoyance for maybe 80% of potential users. (I could live with no EVF).

Flippy out sideways screen is an annoyance for maybe 50% of camera users. (I can't live with that type of screen).

Limited zoom range not working in the interest of a travel stills camera. (I must have a good zoom range in a travel compact).

The ZV-1 was designed as the video tool for the "look at me" brigade making videologs.

 

[Twombly]

I know it's the ugly sister nobody talks about, but the award for the best price to performance ratio in this family goes to the ZV-1.

My summary from watching polls and remarks from a few polls and forums....

No EVF is an annoyance for maybe 80% of potential users. (I could live with no EVF).

Flippy out sideways screen is an annoyance for maybe 50% of camera users. (I can't live with that type of screen).

Limited zoom range not working in the interest of a travel stills camera. (I must have a good zoom range in a travel compact).

The ZV-1 was designed as the video tool for the "look at me" brigade making videologs.

Yes, I know: Sony positions and markets the ZV-1 as a vlogging camera. Every reviewer dutifully repeats and spreads that message.

That's fine with me because Sony targeting younger users also means a lower price. And, if you look at the results, you get the same image quality or AF performance as the m5 or m7 while paying 30 to 50 percent less. This, in my view, earns the ZV-1 the price to performance award

And yes, I'd love to have an EVF, but that's the compromise. Because there are several other areas where the ZV-1 outperforms the other models - at least for my use case.

The ZV-1 is my family camera. This means fast shutter speeds (running kids) and easy and fast access to video functions. Why does the ZV-1 fulfill those needs better?

I really loved the m7 and it's 200mm range. Great lens. My problem: shutter speeds. The aperture range gets you into high ISO territory as soon as you need faster shutter speeds. I don't like that.

Audio: Indeed, video audio from the internal mic is very good, and absolutely usable.

Ergonomics: much better grip than the m1, m5 or m7 I used to own. Feels much safer and you don't have to pay 50 bucks for that piece of Sony plastic.

A hybrid concept: for me the ZV-1 is a camera which equally weighs video and photography functions. Which I find great because modern cameras can do both but very often don't make it easy to use both. Which I don't understand

And, one last point: the ZV-1 makes for a great webcam in combination with Zoom or Microsoft Teams, especially because of the microphone jack and the power delivery options. Which for me (I also teach small groups online during that pandemic) doubles the value or halves the price.

 

[DannyGards]

I had the mk1 for 3-4 years, upgraded to the VA for 4k, evf, etc. After a year I realised I wasn't really making use of them so flipped it for a cheap 3. Now I'm back with an excellent condition mk1 I managed to pick up for £100 and I couldn't be happier.

For me the mk1 just hits the sweet spot of being comfortably light and pocketable, a versatile focal length and I don't know how or why, but in alot of cases the stills just seem nicer than both the 3 or 5 even in roughly like for like situations.

I'm only a amateur, so take all that with a pinch, but that's my experience.

 

[elliottnewcomb]

phone cameras have taken the 'always with you' lead.

The m1 is the only one that I put in my pants pocket without hesitation, it was the 'always with you' revolution, as well as acceptable IQ. In a nylon dust bag after we learned dust got inside.

The m3 surprisingly crossed a threshold of just too big, just too heavy (only slight differences) that it was no longer comfortable in my pants pocket, and I started using a very compact belt case.

at that time I could not do well with a phone camera, so I took my m3 with me most of the time.

m6 a bigger belt case or small shoulder case.

when I got a phone camera I could do well with (as well as everyone else in the extended family) that changed the game, they became the 'always with you' camera. 19mp; 25mm; f2.0 in your shirt pocket with darn good IS is amazing.

--
Elliott

 

[Ed B]

phone cameras have taken the 'always with you' lead.

when I got a phone camera I could do well with (as well as everyone else in the extended family) that changed the game, they became the 'always with you' camera. 19mp; 25mm; f2.0 in your shirt pocket with darn good IS is amazing.

I agree with everything you've said about a phone and envy someone who's satisfied using one.


My problem with a cell phone is that I get no joy using one. I suppose that might be because all I do is touch a virtual button to get a picture, and, when it comes to photography, I'm shamefully more interested in the equipment than good photographers would be.


I edit/post-process every image, and the editing along with the equipment are the two main reasons I love photography.


The end result has to be something I'm happy with, but it's secondary to what's most important to me, and I think that's why I've been involved with these forums for such a long time.

I'm definitely a person who believes equipment counts and smile when people say something like, "a good photographer can take great images with any camera"

 

[smith-jones]

Price performance differs on what you pay for it and how it performs i would have thunk!

When I was looking for one on Ebay a while ago, I would have taken any that I could afford with specs i like.

You can still buy most of them new and there is a store about 50m away from me that sells new Mk iii (and maybe mk ii) for a lot more than i ended up paying for my used Mk iv.

I would have greatly preferred a built in EVF, ND filter and more and am happy that is what I got and the camera basically replaces a mid range zoom on my FF A7s (Good IQ at base ISO if not the greatest and for shooting things that might be important to ME if no one else).

The fast lens is also better for me than the longer one on later models (that were too dear anyway) and the CDAF of the iv is very good and more than enough for me (yes I would like the PDAF of the va but not enough to pay more).

I am also more likely to have my RX100iv with me than my Iphone and do not like photos from that (from the few times i have tried it)

 

[Pstmstr]

Price performance differs on what you pay for it and how it performs i would have thunk!

When I was looking for one on Ebay a while ago, I would have taken any that I could afford with specs i like.

You can still buy most of them new and there is a store about 50m away from me that sells new Mk iii (and maybe mk ii) for a lot more than i ended up paying for my used Mk iv.

I would have greatly preferred a built in EVF, ND filter and more and am happy that is what I got and the camera basically replaces a mid range zoom on my FF A7s (Good IQ at base ISO if not the greatest and for shooting things that might be important to ME if no one else).

The fast lens is also better for me than the longer one on later models (that were too dear anyway) and the CDAF of the iv is very good and more than enough for me (yes I would like the PDAF of the va but not enough to pay more).

I am also more likely to have my RX100iv with me than my Iphone and do not like photos from that (from the few times i have tried it)

Wow. You are more likely to have the Sony with you than your iPhone? Not many people can say that. Just curious, what model IPhone do you have? I’ve found that within the focal length limitations of the iPhone 13 Pro I can’t tell the difference in shots taken with it or my RX100 VII when viewed in a mobile device.

 

[smith-jones]

Price performance differs on what you pay for it and how it performs i would have thunk!

When I was looking for one on Ebay a while ago, I would have taken any that I could afford with specs i like.

You can still buy most of them new and there is a store about 50m away from me that sells new Mk iii (and maybe mk ii) for a lot more than i ended up paying for my used Mk iv.

I would have greatly preferred a built in EVF, ND filter and more and am happy that is what I got and the camera basically replaces a mid range zoom on my FF A7s (Good IQ at base ISO if not the greatest and for shooting things that might be important to ME if no one else).

The fast lens is also better for me than the longer one on later models (that were too dear anyway) and the CDAF of the iv is very good and more than enough for me (yes I would like the PDAF of the va but not enough to pay more).

I am also more likely to have my RX100iv with me than my Iphone and do not like photos from that (from the few times i have tried it)

Wow. You are more likely to have the Sony with you than your iPhone? Not many people can say that. Just curious, what model IPhone do you have? I’ve found that within the focal length limitations of the iPhone 13 Pro I can’t tell the difference in shots taken with it or my RX100 VII when viewed in a mobile device.

Just an older Iphone SE.

Mind you, my current cameras are all older by a year or two (RX100iv was first made in 2015 VS 2016 for the IPhone SE but both were made for a few years after that).

Only reason I had the phone with me a lot lately was to sign in anywhere but not needed now

 

[elliottnewcomb]

phone cameras have taken the 'always with you' lead.

when I got a phone camera I could do well with (as well as everyone else in the extended family) that changed the game, they became the 'always with you' camera. 19mp; 25mm; f2.0 in your shirt pocket with darn good IS is amazing.

I agree with everything you've said about a phone and envy someone who's satisfied using one.

My problem with a cell phone is that I get no joy using one. I suppose that might be because all I do is touch a virtual button to get a picture, and, when it comes to photography, I'm shamefully more interested in the equipment than good photographers would be.

I edit/post-process every image, and the editing along with the equipment are the two main reasons I love photography.

The end result has to be something I'm happy with, but it's secondary to what's most important to me, and I think that's why I've been involved with these forums for such a long time.

I'm definitely a person who believes equipment counts and smile when people say something like, "a good photographer can take great images with any camera"

Ed,

My phone, a Sony Xperia XZ-1 Compact (old) is the first cell phone I can successfully get blur free 'snaps' with. Instantly share them, back in the pocket.

It's 19mp; f2.0; 25mm wide, darn good IS. I have only bothered to learn how to press the button, or choose 3 sec self timer if the situation allows. It can do a lot more, but I'm not gonna learn any more.

If it's a 'photograph' I want, then it's either an rx100 or RX1r. Careful composition, full awareness of edges, optional crops considered, use all the things I have worked hard to learn and master for the best OOC Jpeg I can produce.

PP: most often planning on cropping, perhaps alternate crops, then often lighten shadows because I purposely under-exposed. I like using a CPL outdoors, less need to under-expose, IF subject/situation allow it.

Sports: my Jacket Pocket sized Bright Zoom, Oly Stylus 1, fixed f2.8 28-300mm; 2X (better than Sony's CIZ to 600mm; and conversion lens, 28-510mm optical, 1,020 mm 2X. ALL f2.8. It's gonna be a long time before a phone camera can do that.

btw, I'd definitely have an RX10m4 IF it wasn't too big for me.

 

[elliottnewcomb]

better phone cameras exist, but my old one is 'good enough'.

Today, AT&T cut my service, they added 5G, cut off 3G to use that bandwidth.

Phone is 4G, but AT&T still would not support it.

Choice: Apple 12 Mini, OR, keep the 'good enough' phone by switching to Metro PCS, they support 4G, stuck their SIM card in there, done, I saved $5./month

 

[Ed B]

phone cameras have taken the 'always with you' lead.

when I got a phone camera I could do well with (as well as everyone else in the extended family) that changed the game, they became the 'always with you' camera. 19mp; 25mm; f2.0 in your shirt pocket with darn good IS is amazing.

I agree with everything you've said about a phone and envy someone who's satisfied using one.

My problem with a cell phone is that I get no joy using one. I suppose that might be because all I do is touch a virtual button to get a picture, and, when it comes to photography, I'm shamefully more interested in the equipment than good photographers would be.

I edit/post-process every image, and the editing along with the equipment are the two main reasons I love photography.

The end result has to be something I'm happy with, but it's secondary to what's most important to me, and I think that's why I've been involved with these forums for such a long time.

I'm definitely a person who believes equipment counts and smile when people say something like, "a good photographer can take great images with any camera"

Ed,

My phone, a Sony Xperia XZ-1 Compact (old) is the first cell phone I can successfully get blur free 'snaps' with. Instantly share them, back in the pocket.

It's 19mp; f2.0; 25mm wide, darn good IS. I have only bothered to learn how to press the button, or choose 3 sec self timer if the situation allows. It can do a lot more, but I'm not gonna learn any more

If it's a 'photograph' I want, then it's either an rx100 or RX1r. Careful composition, full awareness of edges, optional crops considered, use all the things I have worked hard to learn and master for the best OOC Jpeg I can produce.

PP: most often planning on cropping, perhaps alternate crops, then often lighten shadows because I purposely under-exposed. I like using a CPL outdoors, less need to under-expose, IF subject/situation allow it.

Sports: my Jacket Pocket sized Bright Zoom, Oly Stylus 1, fixed f2.8 28-300mm; 2X (better than Sony's CIZ to 600mm; and conversion lens, 28-510mm optical, 1,020 mm 2X. ALL f2.8. It's gonna be a long time before a phone camera can do that.

btw, I'd definitely have an RX10m4 IF it wasn't too big for me.

I could give you a thumbs up for everything you've said.


When it comes to the RX10 IV, the only thing I have against it is its size, but it's not really the camera for me because I'm just not a big fan of long zoom lenses.


Back in the film and early digital days, I used Canon cameras exclusively, and had a 70-200 2.8 lens, but that's the longest zoom lens I've ever owned, other than trying a Panasonic FZ1000, for a few weeks.


The only small sensor camera I own is an RX100V, and most of my images are taken at its widest focal length. If that little camera had a fixed prime lens, it would probably be okay with me.

I know my choice of lenses and cameras are a little different from most people's, but I've never claimed to be a very good photographer.