Just ordered a ZV-1...oh well

[Dick Dastardly]

Yes, $280 gets you a brand new boxed rx100 M1, that's what I said. I'm not claiming anyone get one of these, but they are available.

I suggest they are lying to you when they say it's brand new. I don't trust gray market.

Yes, there's something wrong with a price that low. And I think that model has been out of production for several years, so at the very least, it would be very old stock. But, more likely, it's either ex-display or customer-returned stock.

Some grey market sellers are well-known, have been around for years, and have a good reputation. I suspect this isn't from one of them.

Possibly they are stolen from various warehouses, it's not uncommon. How exactly they do it is beyond me, we're not talking about a store or someone specialized in selling cameras. I didn't buy any, i merely noticed the ads.

Sony boxes come with a seal(well some of them), so if the box is sealed the camera can't be used.

Anyways, this topic is about the zv-1, and mine was bought used from a ebay store(maybe a pawn shop) located in Germany. As we all know, nothing shady happens on ebay, except for ebay fees!

 

[Digital Nigel]

Yes, $280 gets you a brand new boxed rx100 M1, that's what I said. I'm not claiming anyone get one of these, but they are available.

I suggest they are lying to you when they say it's brand new. I don't trust gray market.

Yes, there's something wrong with a price that low. And I think that model has been out of production for several years, so at the very least, it would be very old stock. But, more likely, it's either ex-display or customer-returned stock.

Some grey market sellers are well-known, have been around for years, and have a good reputation. I suspect this isn't from one of them.

Possibly they are stolen from various warehouses, it's not uncommon. How exactly they do it is beyond me, we're not talking about a store or someone specialized in selling cameras. I didn't buy any, i merely noticed the ads.

Sony boxes come with a seal(well some of them), so if the box is sealed the camera can't be used.

No, Sony boxes come without a seal. I've bought three new Sony cameras and two lenses this year. No seals.

 

[Dick Dastardly]

The thing with all the 1 inch sensor cameras released by sony is that they produce an image quality that rivals M43 and even entry level apsc, mostly because of the lens. The other manufacturers tried to compete but failed.

Against APC sensors the 1"inch just doesn't have a chance.

If you're looking at Sony APS-C with budget kit lenses, the RX100 series has a lot more than a chance. RX100III results were every bit as good as the A55 and kit lens I was using for travel at the time, so I bought one for an overseas trip. Been happy with it ever since.

I already explained this to him, he doesn't get it.

A sony a6100(example) is a fine camera. Good size and weight, very good sensor. Indoors the f3.5 kit lens needs iso 2500 or so to obtain sharp images whereas the f1.8 lens on the pocket camera can get away with iso 1600 or less. It's also noticeably sharper even in video. If sharpness weren't an issue i'd never consider the compact, but sharpness does matter. I hate blurry images.

The kit lens can't compete. Also, the sensor on the rx100 V and zv-1 is good enough to shoot at iso 4000, that's basically all you need. On older models like the rx100 III, iso 3200 is perfectly useable.

If you do a cost-benefit analysis, the 1 inch sensor compacts have a lot going for them, except the rx100 VII, which is overpriced.

At the price point, the zv-1 doesn't have any competition on the market, only lesser alternatives, for example the canon R100 or 250D. Again, good cameras but that kit lens needs changing if you are going to use them at their full potential.

 

[Digital Nigel]

The thing with all the 1 inch sensor cameras released by sony is that they produce an image quality that rivals M43 and even entry level apsc, mostly because of the lens. The other manufacturers tried to compete but failed.

Against APC sensors the 1"inch just doesn't have a chance.

If you're looking at Sony APS-C with budget kit lenses, the RX100 series has a lot more than a chance. RX100III results were every bit as good as the A55 and kit lens I was using for travel at the time, so I bought one for an overseas trip. Been happy with it ever since.

I already explained this to him, he doesn't get it.

A sony a6100(example) is a fine camera. Good size and weight, very good sensor. Indoors the f3.5 kit lens needs iso 2500 or so to obtain sharp images whereas the f1.8 lens on the pocket camera can get away with iso 1600 or less. It's also noticeably sharper even in video. If sharpness weren't an issue i'd never consider the compact, but sharpness does matter. I hate blurry images.

The kit lens can't compete. Also, the sensor on the rx100 V and zv-1 is good enough to shoot at iso 4000, that's basically all you need. On older models like the rx100 III, iso 3200 is perfectly useable.

I don't think there's any difference in sensor sensitivity between any of the M2 to M6 models. The M1 and M7 are slightly less sensitive. But, if you shoot raw, they're all good for at least ISO3200. In fact, it's more of a case of whether you under-exposed or not. I have well-exposed ISO6400 shots that processed well, but under-exposed lower ISO shots that didn't.

If you do a cost-benefit analysis, the 1 inch sensor compacts have a lot going for them, except the rx100 VII, which is overpriced.

If you want to buy new, it's the only option now. All the other RX100 models are long out of production.

At the price point, the zv-1 doesn't have any competition on the market, only lesser alternatives, for example the canon R100 or 250D. Again, good cameras but that kit lens needs changing if you are going to use them at their full potential.

 

[lomoapontaechuta]

The thing with all the 1 inch sensor cameras released by sony is that they produce an image quality that rivals M43 and even entry level apsc, mostly because of the lens. The other manufacturers tried to compete but failed.

Against APC sensors the 1"inch just doesn't have a chance.

If you're looking at Sony APS-C with budget kit lenses, the RX100 series has a lot more than a chance. RX100III results were every bit as good as the A55 and kit lens I was using for travel at the time, so I bought one for an overseas trip. Been happy with it ever since.

I already explained this to him, he doesn't get it.

A sony a6100(example) is a fine camera. Good size and weight, very good sensor. Indoors the f3.5 kit lens needs iso 2500 or so to obtain sharp images whereas the f1.8 lens on the pocket camera can get away with iso 1600 or less. It's also noticeably sharper even in video. If sharpness weren't an issue i'd never consider the compact, but sharpness does matter. I hate blurry images.

The kit lens can't compete. Also, the sensor on the rx100 V and zv-1 is good enough to shoot at iso 4000, that's basically all you need. On older models like the rx100 III, iso 3200 is perfectly useable.

If you do a cost-benefit analysis, the 1 inch sensor compacts have a lot going for them, except the rx100 VII, which is overpriced.

At the price point, the zv-1 doesn't have any competition on the market, only lesser alternatives, for example the canon R100 or 250D. Again, good cameras but that kit lens needs changing if you are going to use them at their full potential.

Who doesn't get it, me?

I say it again to both of you, 1"inch sensors don't have a chance against APC sensors.

But for the sake of argument let's pick in both of your arguments.

1 - RX100 MKxxx it's as good as a A55 with kit lens...

2 - A6xxx with kit lens with a 3.5 kit lens...

But there's a problem there.

Generally speaking, once you recover from your investment ( buying the cam), you already took some shots, got in some degree familiar with the cam and you are now seeing what you can achieve with that cam, and most probably already planning what lens to get next, to tap in the full /partial potential of that sensor.

There's no A55 or a6xxx with kit lens, there's only the APC sensor + the best glass you can buy.

Personally I couldn't care less about video, it's a nice option to have, as long that option doesn't get in the way.

But where it leaves the compacts? Easy, in exactly the same place where they were before the APC and FF.

Personally, i use my compacts for everything, every day usage, they offer very nice IQ while providing convenience and shooting opportunity on the fly.

The "big boys" i use them on vacations, specific trips or when i want to get a specific shot, in those scenarios, the compacts go too as a backup, but so far, they never got used...for a reason.

 

[tbcass]

The thing with all the 1 inch sensor cameras released by sony is that they produce an image quality that rivals M43 and even entry level apsc, mostly because of the lens. The other manufacturers tried to compete but failed.

Against APC sensors the 1"inch just doesn't have a chance.

If you're looking at Sony APS-C with budget kit lenses, the RX100 series has a lot more than a chance. RX100III results were every bit as good as the A55 and kit lens I was using for travel at the time, so I bought one for an overseas trip. Been happy with it ever since.

I already explained this to him, he doesn't get it.

A sony a6100(example) is a fine camera. Good size and weight, very good sensor. Indoors the f3.5 kit lens needs iso 2500 or so to obtain sharp images whereas the f1.8 lens on the pocket camera can get away with iso 1600 or less. It's also noticeably sharper even in video. If sharpness weren't an issue i'd never consider the compact, but sharpness does matter. I hate blurry images.

According to the following f stop chart the difference between f1.8 and f3.5 is 2 stops so it would be iso2500 vs ISO 625.

F Stop Chart - Lens Apertures for Full Stops, 1/2 Stops, and 1/3 Stops (havecamerawilltravel.com)

 

[tbcass]

The thing with all the 1 inch sensor cameras released by sony is that they produce an image quality that rivals M43 and even entry level apsc, mostly because of the lens. The other manufacturers tried to compete but failed.

Against APC sensors the 1"inch just doesn't have a chance.

Yes it does as long as the light is adequate.

If you're looking at Sony APS-C with budget kit lenses, the RX100 series has a lot more than a chance. RX100III results were every bit as good as the A55 and kit lens I was using for travel at the time, so I bought one for an overseas trip. Been happy with it ever since.

I already explained this to him, he doesn't get it.

A sony a6100(example) is a fine camera. Good size and weight, very good sensor. Indoors the f3.5 kit lens needs iso 2500 or so to obtain sharp images whereas the f1.8 lens on the pocket camera can get away with iso 1600 or less. It's also noticeably sharper even in video. If sharpness weren't an issue i'd never consider the compact, but sharpness does matter. I hate blurry images.

The kit lens can't compete. Also, the sensor on the rx100 V and zv-1 is good enough to shoot at iso 4000, that's basically all you need. On older models like the rx100 III, iso 3200 is perfectly useable.

If you do a cost-benefit analysis, the 1 inch sensor compacts have a lot going for them, except the rx100 VII, which is overpriced.

At the price point, the zv-1 doesn't have any competition on the market, only lesser alternatives, for example the canon R100 or 250D. Again, good cameras but that kit lens needs changing if you are going to use them at their full potential.

Who doesn't get it, me?

I say it again to both of you, 1"inch sensors don't have a chance against APC sensors.

But for the sake of argument let's pick in both of your arguments.

1 - RX100 MKxxx it's as good as a A55 with kit lens...

Having owned both the RX100 lenses are better, sharper than my A55 with kit lens was.

2 - A6xxx with kit lens with a 3.5 kit lens...

But there's a problem there.

Generally speaking, once you recover from your investment ( buying the cam), you already took some shots, got in some degree familiar with the cam and you are now seeing what you can achieve with that cam, and most probably already planning what lens to get next, to tap in the full /partial potential of that sensor.

There's no A55 or a6xxx with kit lens, there's only the APC sensor + the best glass you can buy.

Really, how much does that cost?

Personally I couldn't care less about video, it's a nice option to have, as long that option doesn't get in the way.

This isn't about you.

But where it leaves the compacts? Easy, in exactly the same place where they were before the APC and FF.

Personally, i use my compacts for everything, every day usage, they offer very nice IQ while providing convenience and shooting opportunity on the fly.

The "big boys" i use them on vacations, specific trips or when i want to get a specific shot, in those scenarios, the compacts go too as a backup, but so far, they never got used...for a reason.

You are concentrating too much on the best potential IQ and what is important to you vs what is important to **** Dastardly. Don't underestimate the value of carrying a subcompact or Superzoom 1" sensor camera vs a large ILC where it's necessary to carry multiple lenses and change them depending on the situation. I use my Full Frame and one of my 7 lenses only when I need ISO above 6400. The rest of the time, trips included, I use my 1" sensor RX100vii or RX10iv. On trips the Full Frame stays home because, except for high ISO, it's difficult to see the difference between the two without careful examination.

 

[lomoapontaechuta]

You are concentrating too much on the best potential IQ and what is important to you vs what is important to **** Dastardly. Don't underestimate the value of carrying a subcompact or Superzoom 1" sensor camera vs a large ILC where it's necessary to carry multiple lenses and change them depending on the situation. I use my Full Frame and one of my 7 lenses only when I need ISO above 6400. The rest of the time, trips included, I use my 1" sensor RX100vii or RX10iv. On trips the Full Frame stays home because, except for high ISO, it's difficult to see the difference between the two without careful examination.

First you have to define what's IQ to you, maybe it differs from mine, and i can tell mine definition it's not about cheer resolution

It's not about what is important to me.

It's about believing that 1" sensors are better than APC sensor which they are not.

and i pointed out my reasons why.

1" sensors are as good as an APSC with a kit lens...come on... is the same if i told you my car is as fast as a F1 racing car with three wheels.

Now if you told me that 1"inch sensors were closer to an APSC sensor in textures, light rendition from minimum focus distance to far away or even a portion of that range, specially when considered other factors like convenience, price e.g., i would believe.

I only need one lens... two lenses, one for my APSC and another with my FF, they are backup of each other, despite having my compacts too ( which mainly cover the 18-70 range which is almost never), the APC with the longer lens, the FF for closer subjects, instead of switching lenses, i pick up the set up i find more appropriate for the occasion, that way i don't have to change the lenses in the field ( cause, dust, ups, i drop it and so on)

Clearly we use them in different ways and we have different habits, on vacations/special trips i normally don't have the need of that kind of ISOs and i setup a limit of 3200 in them, by sunset i'm shooting the last frames of the day ( mainly outdoors ). On the other hand In my everyday life my main used cams are compacts but my habits are the same.

I don't see any advantage in a superzoom 1"inch cam and a ILC in bulk or weight.

And i wish it existed a 1" inch compact with superzoom but it doesn't exist. 200mm as the max length, it's not enough, even if the subject is close or relatively close

 

[ishwanu]

The thing with all the 1 inch sensor cameras released by sony is that they produce an image quality that rivals M43 and even entry level apsc, mostly because of the lens. The other manufacturers tried to compete but failed.

Against APC sensors the 1"inch just doesn't have a chance.

If you're looking at Sony APS-C with budget kit lenses, the RX100 series has a lot more than a chance. RX100III results were every bit as good as the A55 and kit lens I was using for travel at the time, so I bought one for an overseas trip. Been happy with it ever since.

I already explained this to him, he doesn't get it.

Who doesn't get it, me?

I say it again to both of you, 1"inch sensors don't have a chance against APC sensors.

But for the sake of argument let's pick in both of your arguments.

1 - RX100 MKxxx it's as good as a A55 with kit lens...

2 - A6xxx with kit lens with a 3.5 kit lens...

But there's a problem there.

Generally speaking, once you recover from your investment ( buying the cam), you already took some shots, got in some degree familiar with the cam and you are now seeing what you can achieve with that cam, and most probably already planning what lens to get next, to tap in the full /partial potential of that sensor.

There's no A55 or a6xxx with kit lens, there's only the APC sensor + the best glass you can buy.

I don't know what you're talking about. There are plenty of A-mount and E-mount APS-C cameras with kit lenses. To beat the RX100III, you'd need a premium 16-50mm lens plus the camera to put it on. The combination is much more costly. The 16-55 2.8 G alone currently sells for $1400. Such a combo weighs about three times as much as the RX100III and it wouldn't fit in my shirt pocket. Premium lens or not, an APS-C combo just can't do the things that someone buys an RX100 model to do.

 

[tbcass]

You are concentrating too much on the best potential IQ and what is important to you vs what is important to **** Dastardly. Don't underestimate the value of carrying a subcompact or Superzoom 1" sensor camera vs a large ILC where it's necessary to carry multiple lenses and change them depending on the situation. I use my Full Frame and one of my 7 lenses only when I need ISO above 6400. The rest of the time, trips included, I use my 1" sensor RX100vii or RX10iv. On trips the Full Frame stays home because, except for high ISO, it's difficult to see the difference between the two without careful examination.

First you have to define what's IQ to you, maybe it differs from mine, and i can tell mine definition it's not about cheer resolution

It's not about what is important to me.

It's about believing that 1" sensors are better than APC sensor which they are not.

Not a single person has claimed that a 1" sensor is better than an APSC sensor. Some like me have said that a camera with a 1" sensor has good IQ and is a lot more convenient to carry around.

and i pointed out my reasons why.

1" sensors are as good as an APSC with a kit lens...come on... is the same if i told you my car is as fast as a F1 racing car with three wheels.

From my experience with APSC with a kit lens both an RX100 and RX10iv camera can give better results.

Now if you told me that 1"inch sensors were closer to an APSC sensor in textures, light rendition from minimum focus distance to far away or even a portion of that range, specially when considered other factors like convenience, price e.g., i would believe.

I only need one lens... two lenses, one for my APSC and another with my FF, they are backup of each other, despite having my compacts too ( which mainly cover the 18-70 range which is almost never), the APC with the longer lens, the FF for closer subjects, instead of switching lenses, i pick up the set up i find more appropriate for the occasion, that way i don't have to change the lenses in the field ( cause, dust, ups, i drop it and so on)

Clearly we use them in different ways and we have different habits, on vacations/special trips i normally don't have the need of that kind of ISOs and i setup a limit of 3200 in them, by sunset i'm shooting the last frames of the day ( mainly outdoors ). On the other hand In my everyday life my main used cams are compacts but my habits are the same.

I don't see any advantage in a superzoom 1"inch cam and a ILC in bulk or weight.

Huge difference considering the APSC camera would need lenses covering the 18-400mm range of my RX10iv.

And i wish it existed a 1" inch compact with superzoom but it doesn't exist. 200mm as the max length, it's not enough, even if the subject is close or relatively close

Compare this result from an A55 with a kit lens;





To this taken with an RX10iv.





--
Tom

 

[ishwanu]

You are concentrating too much on the best potential IQ and what is important to you vs what is important to **** Dastardly. Don't underestimate the value of carrying a subcompact or Superzoom 1" sensor camera vs a large ILC where it's necessary to carry multiple lenses and change them depending on the situation. I use my Full Frame and one of my 7 lenses only when I need ISO above 6400. The rest of the time, trips included, I use my 1" sensor RX100vii or RX10iv. On trips the Full Frame stays home because, except for high ISO, it's difficult to see the difference between the two without careful examination.

1" sensors are as good as an APSC with a kit lens...come on...

Your apparent inability to believe what we're telling you is unimportant. It's true. Some of us here have done those actual comparisons.

is the same if i told you my car is as fast as a F1 racing car with three wheels.

No, it is not the same at all. A more apt analogy would be comparing the cargo space of my compact car to the cargo space of an F1 car with all four of its wheels. I use my car to carry myself and my stuff around, not for racing.

 

[Digital Nigel]

You are concentrating too much on the best potential IQ and what is important to you vs what is important to **** Dastardly. Don't underestimate the value of carrying a subcompact or Superzoom 1" sensor camera vs a large ILC where it's necessary to carry multiple lenses and change them depending on the situation. I use my Full Frame and one of my 7 lenses only when I need ISO above 6400. The rest of the time, trips included, I use my 1" sensor RX100vii or RX10iv. On trips the Full Frame stays home because, except for high ISO, it's difficult to see the difference between the two without careful examination.

1" sensors are as good as an APSC with a kit lens...come on...

Your apparent inability to believe what we're telling you is unimportant. It's true. Some of us here have done those actual comparisons.

is the same if i told you my car is as fast as a F1 racing car with three wheels.

No, it is not the same at all. A more apt analogy would be comparing the cargo space of my compact car to the cargo space of an F1 car with all four of its wheels. I use my car to carry myself and my stuff around, not for racing.

And, similarly, there's some specific things compact cameras do better than larger cameras with good lenses. For example:

• If you want to take pictures through small gaps, or through holes in chain link fences, the small RX100 lens works much better than an equivalent APS-C lens.
• It attracts less attention from people who might want to stop you taking pictures, or steal your camera .
• It fits in a small belt pouch, or even a coat pocket.
• The later RX100s with their stacked shutters can capture much higher still frame rates than larger cameras with BSI sensors (eg, up to 20 or 24fps).
• There's almost no jello effects when panning.
• The leaf shutter allows much higher flash synchronisation speeds.
• The mechanical shutter is almost silent.
• There's no lens cap to lose.
• A wider zoom range than is available in a quality APS-C lens, or any FF lens.

 

[elliottnewcomb]

****,

If much of the Dastardly things you say were true, the Sony rx100's would have died in infancy. I only mention this because what you write might keep someone from trying and loving an rx100m6,7, a doggone rotten shame.

IMO. The 24-200mm reach is the one to get, despite all the 'darker lens' concern I had and have completely forgotten about.

Low light/close reach: my cell phone camera is so good I don't even remember I own an rx100m3 anymore. Compared to back in 2012 'I never leave home without my rx100m1', After learning it, the concern about the long reach m6,7 'darker' lens is completely forgotten.

You want to buy it, use it only in P mode, and get SUPERB results, comparable to professional gear. A self described lazy perfectionist, unwilling to maximize a thing's potential.

..............................................

ZV-1

And you will review the ZV-1 (using only P Mode?) Maybe there is a need for '****'s Dastardly P-Mode Camera Comparisons' (comparisons, not reviews)

Hmmmmm, And you are moving to a camera without an EVF?

IMO, ZV's: what they HAD TO DO, and seems like they did do, was solve the AUDIO, standard omnidirectional mics make un-staged video worthless in rx100 models.

.............................

Olympus Stylus 1

My Jacket Pocket size Oly Stylus 1 is great for reach that no Pants pocket size camera is delivering (except with the too small 1/2.3" sensor combined with a even darker/darkening lens). Long Reach Constant f2.8 is very hard to compete with. I had the RX10m1 for a while, what a lens!

But it's only good for those of us unwilling to carry/use the real deal RX10m4, because it doesn't come close to those results.

ISO

Stylus 1 stops being usable at ISO 800; rx100m6,7 quite usable up to ISO 3200, some ISO 6400 acceptable keepers.

rx100m6, Lyle Lovett and John Hiatt

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4371620

--
Elliott

 

[Dick Dastardly]

The only thing preventing people from enjoying an rx100 M7 is the price and availability, not me.

I enjoy using the vast majority of the cameras i bought and used, even old ones.

Preferance is a personal issue, not a public one.

The happiest people on this forum are the ones who choose to continue using their their old gear, whatever that might be. All cameras take pictures, yes?

So enjoy whatever camera you have. If it works, it's good.

I know some cameras have fans, but the problem with that is that one day that camera will be old and obsolete and you will take your allegiance somewhere else, which is a cheap gesture.

Personally, when i like a particular model better than the rest, this never changes. The M7 is not on that list, but the M1 is. That's my choice, doesn't prevent others from making up their own minds.

The rx100 VII doesn't need more fanfare than it already has, youtube was going wild when it was first released and still is. "Oh, it has A7 IV capabilities and burst rate". Like, was that important or what? Last time i checked, professional photographers don't use pocket cameras for their work and amateurs don't need pro features when going on their holiday.

I prefer to drum up support for less known models, but i am aware that many people follow the following logic- if others say camera X is good, then it must be good.

In reality, my images look pretty much the same with a $100 camera or a $1000 camera because the skill is always the deciding factor in how an image is produced, not the camera. The fact that I choose to spend $400 on another pocket camera is a sign of frivolity, not wisdom. No camera is perfect, but neither am i.

 

[lomoapontaechuta]

You are concentrating too much on the best potential IQ and what is important to you vs what is important to **** Dastardly. Don't underestimate the value of carrying a subcompact or Superzoom 1" sensor camera vs a large ILC where it's necessary to carry multiple lenses and change them depending on the situation. I use my Full Frame and one of my 7 lenses only when I need ISO above 6400. The rest of the time, trips included, I use my 1" sensor RX100vii or RX10iv. On trips the Full Frame stays home because, except for high ISO, it's difficult to see the difference between the two without careful examination.

First you have to define what's IQ to you, maybe it differs from mine, and i can tell mine definition it's not about cheer resolution

It's not about what is important to me.

It's about believing that 1" sensors are better than APC sensor which they are not.

Not a single person has claimed that a 1" sensor is better than an APSC sensor. Some like me have said that a camera with a 1" sensor has good IQ and is a lot more convenient to carry around.

and i pointed out my reasons why.

1" sensors are as good as an APSC with a kit lens...come on... is the same if i told you my car is as fast as a F1 racing car with three wheels.

From my experience with APSC with a kit lens both an RX100 and RX10iv camera can give better results.

Now if you told me that 1"inch sensors were closer to an APSC sensor in textures, light rendition from minimum focus distance to far away or even a portion of that range, specially when considered other factors like convenience, price e.g., i would believe.

I only need one lens... two lenses, one for my APSC and another with my FF, they are backup of each other, despite having my compacts too ( which mainly cover the 18-70 range which is almost never), the APC with the longer lens, the FF for closer subjects, instead of switching lenses, i pick up the set up i find more appropriate for the occasion, that way i don't have to change the lenses in the field ( cause, dust, ups, i drop it and so on)

Clearly we use them in different ways and we have different habits, on vacations/special trips i normally don't have the need of that kind of ISOs and i setup a limit of 3200 in them, by sunset i'm shooting the last frames of the day ( mainly outdoors ). On the other hand In my everyday life my main used cams are compacts but my habits are the same.

I don't see any advantage in a superzoom 1"inch cam and a ILC in bulk or weight.

Huge difference considering the APSC camera would need lenses covering the 18-400mm range of my RX10iv.

And i wish it existed a 1" inch compact with superzoom but it doesn't exist. 200mm as the max length, it's not enough, even if the subject is close or relatively close

Compare this result from an A55 with a kit lens;



To this taken with an RX10iv.

Again, this comparison wasn't my point.

Normally, who uses APSC, puts the best glass that person can put in front of it.

Compacts are capable of good IQ without any conditional if or if with (whatever).

I don't see why comparing a compact with a bigger cam with kit lens, to end that comparison you just need to put a better lens in your APSC, end of discussion but even if you put a better lens and get the expected results that won't make your images from your compacts worse just because the bigger sensor has a better lens, better photos.

The all appeal of compact cameras is not being able to do big prints or being able to punch over their weight, it's being able to do prints, to make good IQ photos in a way more convenient form factor.

I still use my compacts over the APSC or FF which are only use in "special occasions" but in those "special occasions" i simply don't use my compacts because, the all experience ( EVF, OVF, Handling, output ) it's so much better, to a point where i don't mind carrying a bigger 2 kilos setup or heavier all day, I do feel it afterwards but not when i'm in the moment.

In the other hand, back to normal/routine life, compacts all the way.

Vacations, trips to whatever ( specially where i didn't went before ) big boys

everything else, compacts.

You don't need necessarily a 18-to (insert focal length) to put in front of an APSC camera, you can put a prime of your favourite focal length or your favourite interval in your focal length, leaving the others camera to fill the gap if need it.

 

[Digital Nigel]

You are concentrating too much on the best potential IQ and what is important to you vs what is important to **** Dastardly. Don't underestimate the value of carrying a subcompact or Superzoom 1" sensor camera vs a large ILC where it's necessary to carry multiple lenses and change them depending on the situation. I use my Full Frame and one of my 7 lenses only when I need ISO above 6400. The rest of the time, trips included, I use my 1" sensor RX100vii or RX10iv. On trips the Full Frame stays home because, except for high ISO, it's difficult to see the difference between the two without careful examination.

First you have to define what's IQ to you, maybe it differs from mine, and i can tell mine definition it's not about cheer resolution

It's not about what is important to me.

It's about believing that 1" sensors are better than APC sensor which they are not.

Not a single person has claimed that a 1" sensor is better than an APSC sensor. Some like me have said that a camera with a 1" sensor has good IQ and is a lot more convenient to carry around.

and i pointed out my reasons why.

1" sensors are as good as an APSC with a kit lens...come on... is the same if i told you my car is as fast as a F1 racing car with three wheels.

From my experience with APSC with a kit lens both an RX100 and RX10iv camera can give better results.

Now if you told me that 1"inch sensors were closer to an APSC sensor in textures, light rendition from minimum focus distance to far away or even a portion of that range, specially when considered other factors like convenience, price e.g., i would believe.

I only need one lens... two lenses, one for my APSC and another with my FF, they are backup of each other, despite having my compacts too ( which mainly cover the 18-70 range which is almost never), the APC with the longer lens, the FF for closer subjects, instead of switching lenses, i pick up the set up i find more appropriate for the occasion, that way i don't have to change the lenses in the field ( cause, dust, ups, i drop it and so on)

Clearly we use them in different ways and we have different habits, on vacations/special trips i normally don't have the need of that kind of ISOs and i setup a limit of 3200 in them, by sunset i'm shooting the last frames of the day ( mainly outdoors ). On the other hand In my everyday life my main used cams are compacts but my habits are the same.

I don't see any advantage in a superzoom 1"inch cam and a ILC in bulk or weight.

Huge difference considering the APSC camera would need lenses covering the 18-400mm range of my RX10iv.

And i wish it existed a 1" inch compact with superzoom but it doesn't exist. 200mm as the max length, it's not enough, even if the subject is close or relatively close

Compare this result from an A55 with a kit lens;



To this taken with an RX10iv.

Again, this comparison wasn't my point.

Normally, who uses APSC, puts the best glass that person can put in front of it.

Yes, but it's amazing how many users of lower-end APS-C bodies just use the kit lens, which is possibly their only lens. Maybe they got given the camera as a present, and it never occurs to them to buy more lenses.

Compacts are capable of good IQ without any conditional if or if with (whatever).

I don't see why comparing a compact with a bigger cam with kit lens, to end that comparison you just need to put a better lens in your APSC, end of discussion but even if you put a better lens and get the expected results that won't make your images from your compacts worse just because the bigger sensor has a better lens, better photos.

The all appeal of compact cameras is not being able to do big prints or being able to punch over their weight, it's being able to do prints, to make good IQ photos in a way more convenient form factor.

Yes, or simply because many compacts were cheaper.

I still use my compacts over the APSC or FF which are only use in "special occasions" but in those "special occasions" i simply don't use my compacts because, the all experience ( EVF, OVF, Handling, output ) it's so much better, to a point where i don't mind carrying a bigger 2 kilos setup or heavier all day, I do feel it afterwards but not when i'm in the moment.

In the other hand, back to normal/routine life, compacts all the way.

Vacations, trips to whatever ( specially where i didn't went before ) big boys

everything else, compacts.

You don't need necessarily a 18-to (insert focal length) to put in front of an APSC camera, you can put a prime of your favourite focal length or your favourite interval in your focal length, leaving the others camera to fill the gap if need it.

One advantage of an ILC is to use an UWA lens, which compacts don't offer. So I might use an FF camera with a 16-35 or 12-24 lens, alongside an RX100 for longer shots.

 

[tbcass]

To this taken with an RX10iv.

Again, this comparison wasn't my point.

How about this taken with a $3200 Full Frame camera with a $900 lens attached. Do you see a major improvement over the RX10iv photo?





I understand that you won't agree with the points we are trying to make because your mind is made up and there is no changing it.

--
Tom

 

[lomoapontaechuta]

For those kind of users, any camera will do, we are where we are today, because of the swift that this all thing suffered.

then there are other kinds of users and in this group it's way more segmented than the first one, but one thing connect us all in this group, for whatever reason, whatever we are pursuing we all fell in this rabbit hole. ( i'm not talking about G.A.S. ).

If you belong to the second group, and if you have an APSC ,most likely, better glass than the kit lens will be evolved.

This RX100, killer of DSLRs and others things like this... in the end we don't have compacts or DSLRs, only IRLCs, the problem with IRLCs it's while they can replace DSLRs, they are not replacing compacts, they can't.

I have 4 types of sensors, 4 types of cameras and i like to use them accordingly, Half, are compacts

Compacts have a lot of limitations but also a lot of qualities, despite having good IQ, they were never meant to be better than bigger cams with decent glass

RXs made the bar and put it high isn't that enough?

I filled 2 32GB cards in my last vacations but the bulk of my photos are taken with compacts, can be at lunch break, anywhere, anytime...and that i simply can't do it with DSLRs or Mirrorless.

taking out of the pocket, shoot and back on the pocket and resume what i was doing

 

[Dick Dastardly]

I filled 2 32GB cards in my last vacations but the bulk of my photos are taken with compacts, can be at lunch break, anywhere, anytime...and that i simply can't do it with DSLRs or Mirrorless.

taking out of the pocket, shoot and back on the pocket and resume what i was doing

Correct, that's what these cameras are for.

BUT the quality is so good you wouldn't know the images were taken with a compact camera when reviewing them on the computer, that's the best thing about them.

 

[Dick Dastardly]

It has come to my attention that some ZV-1 cameras start exhibiting an issue where the camera freezes or acts erratically, some internet posts also show the last two rx100 models doing the same. Something to do with the cpu/mainboard assembly.

Hopefully i'm just paranoid and these are just cameras with manufacturing defects, but a camera that only works until the warrant runs out is a deal breaker for me.

I was hoping sony have updated their manufacturing process since they released the first rx cameras, i never heard of any serious issues with the RX100 III, IV or V.

But knowing sony, nothing is excluded. I know for a fact that even some of their E mount cameras had dodgy build quality, my nex-3n had this issue where it would overexpose, sources on the internet indicated an issue with the shutter springs, they would simply lose their ability and so the shutter malfunctioned(but no errror code on screen).