|
Yeah, you don't get much background defocusing. It is there, but nothing like what most people probably expect in a very standard head and shoulders background out of focus portrait. At 100mm equivalent it's a f4.9, which is like f13 worth of DOF if it was a full frame camera if that gives you any idea.
|
#
?
May 4, 2015 23:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 06:17 |
|
|
just search "RX100 wide open portrait" on flickr. It's a point and shoot.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2015 23:43
|
|
|
whatever7 posted:It's a point and shoot. Yeah I know, I'm not expecting a 50mm prime lens result but I'm just curious to see how far it can be pushed. I'm getting a point and shoot on the basis of the old maxim, the best camera is the one you have with you. Reviews say that the mark 3 keeps lower f-numbers as you zoom, but it's exactly double the price of the mark 1 so... Got very little from that flickr search, but using the camera finder shows that you can get some reasonable portrait shots: https://www.flickr.com/photos/54965810@N07/7986324825/ https://www.flickr.com/photos/124899107@N07/17152458525/
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 00:07
|
|
|
whatever7 posted:just search "RX100 wide open portrait" on flickr.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 05:21
|
|
|
My fiancee wants a point and shoot for our honeymoon. She tried playing with my dad's DSLR for a bit but felt she was never going to fully commit to it, plus doesn't want to have to carry so much while we're traveling this summer. I think the RX100 is the best buy for us, since we'd like to stay under $500. Seeing all the recommendations in this thread has just pushed me towards it more, but I was unclear if people are talking about only the Mk3 of the RX100 or if they're referring to the older ones as well. The only thing that stopped me from buying it already is that it feels weird to buy a product that is technically 3 years old. Is there any reason I shouldn't buy the Mark I or will it still be solid?
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2015 18:49
|
|
|
RFX posted:My fiancee wants a point and shoot for our honeymoon. She tried playing with my dad's DSLR for a bit but felt she was never going to fully commit to it, plus doesn't want to have to carry so much while we're traveling this summer. I think the RX100 is the best buy for us, since we'd like to stay under $500. Seeing all the recommendations in this thread has just pushed me towards it more, but I was unclear if people are talking about only the Mk3 of the RX100 or if they're referring to the older ones as well. The only thing that stopped me from buying it already is that it feels weird to buy a product that is technically 3 years old. Is there any reason I shouldn't buy the Mark I or will it still be solid? Even the Mk1 should still be a fantastic camera for your needs.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2015 19:10
|
|
|
Also it's half the price of the mk3 (£280 and £570 in the UK).
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2015 19:13
|
|
|
RFX posted:My fiancee wants a point and shoot for our honeymoon. She tried playing with my dad's DSLR for a bit but felt she was never going to fully commit to it, plus doesn't want to have to carry so much while we're traveling this summer. I think the RX100 is the best buy for us, since we'd like to stay under $500. Seeing all the recommendations in this thread has just pushed me towards it more, but I was unclear if people are talking about only the Mk3 of the RX100 or if they're referring to the older ones as well. The only thing that stopped me from buying it already is that it feels weird to buy a product that is technically 3 years old. Is there any reason I shouldn't buy the Mark I or will it still be solid? I've not tried the MKIII but the MKI and MKII are both very similar. I've now got the MKII but find the moveable screen and the wireless functionality to be a complete waste of time for me. The MKI is still a fantastic camera.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2015 21:03
|
|
|
Get the MK1, it's not like your fiancee will be making big prints, or anything really stunning. She's a boring social photographer just like us. I don't think she will pixel peep over ISO and any banding at night. In fact she will probably use the flash in a really dumb way like your average person. Anyways get the camera I dont know why im so snarky today.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2015 21:14
|
|
|
Its your honeymoon man, get a real camera. Get a LX100.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2015 21:30
|
|
|
whatever7 posted:Its your honeymoon man, get a real camera. Get a LX100. Maybe he can get a better camera for his next one
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2015 21:34
|
|
|
I love having the wifi on my MkII since I can get photos onto my phone or iPad and post them online while I'm taking a break, it's nicer than having the nightly photo dump and I don't travel with a laptop. Wondering if the MkIV is coming soon, the III is just about a year old.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2015 21:38
|
|
|
qirex posted:I love having the wifi on my MkII since I can get photos onto my phone or iPad and post them online while I'm taking a break, it's nicer than having the nightly photo dump and I don't travel with a laptop. Yep , the life cycle is around a year and few months
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 07:12
|
|
|
grinnard posted:Yeah I know, I'm not expecting a 50mm prime lens result but I'm just curious to see how far it can be pushed. I'm getting a point and shoot on the basis of the old maxim, the best camera is the one you have with you. Reviews say that the mark 3 keeps lower f-numbers as you zoom, but it's exactly double the price of the mark 1 so... Get the Canon G7X then:  Much lower aperture at long focal lenghts.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 14:22
|
|
|
Spatule posted:Get the Canon G7X then: Interesting post/avatar combo. Thanks for the suggestion, that does look very tempting; it's miles better than the mk2 on that chart and the mk1 I was looking at doesn't have wifi. ~£120 more though... might have to put the purchase off a month
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 19:18
|
|
|
grinnard posted:Interesting post/avatar combo. Thanks for the suggestion, that does look very tempting; it's miles better than the mk2 on that chart and the mk1 I was looking at doesn't have wifi. ~£120 more though... might have to put the purchase off a month you can pick up older J1 J2 J3 camera kit or Samsung kit for pennies, if you care about DOF that much.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 22:08
|
|
|
Hey P&S thread, does anyone know what would cause this banding type effect in my pictures? (It's worse in darker scenes so I dialed down the exp.comp to demonstrate) It also does weird things when pointed at a light  It's not a scratch and the lens is totally clean. I'm guessing something in the lens assembly has gotten knocked out of alignment but my pictures are as sharp as ever, wouldn't they be all strange looking if that was the case? Camera is a Ricoh GRD III
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 04:31
|
|
|
I have seen that at the edge of a lens. It's not round so maybe defeat of the aperture blades?
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2015 03:55
|
|
|
The RX100 IV was announced, has a lot of new goodies [shoots 16fps, slow-mo, 4k video] but costs one thousand of your Earth dollars http://www.dpreview.com/articles/7826270294/sony-cyber-shot-dsc-rx100-iv-shoots-4k-uses-a-stacked-sensor
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 18:54
|
|
|
What a steal! It's still cheaper than a leica. Probably shoots better as well!
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 20:57
|
|
|
LOL I guess Sony make more money with RX100 than their APSC bodies. I wonder if this is the same sensor in Nikon 1 J5. whatever7 fucked around with this message at 21:27 on Jun 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 21:24
|
|
|
Looking for some help. For the past 7 years or so I have used a Panasonic Lumix DMC-TZ5S 9MP Digital Camera. I'm looking to finally get myself a new camera. Originally, I was going to get my first DSLR, but I don't think that will work for my purposes. I use my camera almost exclusively on hiking/camping trips. So, I need the camera to be lightweight and fairly versatile (I can't carry around multiple lenses). I'm looking for a camera that can take fairly wide shots for landscapes (primary purpose), but also has a good zoom for wildlife pictures (like birding) and nice macros (for wildflowers/small creatures). To accomplish that with a DSLR seems like it would take multiple lenses and that's just too much weight to carry around. Most of my photos occur during the day with good lighting. I sometimes have to take during rain/storms, but I'm not super concerned about low lighting situations. (Part of me would like to be able to get into astrophotography but that looks like it will require much more investment). In the past I have not worried about raw shooting or post-processing. But, I'm trying to get more into that and I'm looking for a camera that allows me more control over the pictures I take. My frontrunners currently are: Panasonic Lumix DMC ZS-40. This looks like an updated version of my current camera, which I like. It allows RAW shooting, and has a large zoom. Fujifilm F900EXR I like how this camera has manual options and raw capture. It seems to have pretty excellent photo quality, and the 20x zoom is certainly large enough for my purposes. I have also been looking at the Panasonic Lumix DMC FZ-1000. I like the Panasonic I have now. And this seems more like a transitional between point/shoot and DSLR. I'm a little worried that it might be too big for carrying on long hikes, and I'm not wholly comfortable with dropping $700 on a camera. I was hoping to keep it under $400, but if the difference between levels is really huge I can swing up to $1,000. If my main issues are image quality, versatility (able to take both landscape , zoomed for wildlife, and macro), weight, and then price. Are the ones I'm looking at considered good choices? Is there another camera I'm missing out? Capt. Sticl fucked around with this message at 23:14 on Jun 13, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2015 22:05
|
|
|
I say get a used RX 100 v2. With a bit of post processing you should be fine
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2015 03:45
|
|
|
I wouldn't call the v2 a good wildlife camera since it gets pretty slow at the long end and it's only like 100mm zoom but I like it for everything else. A lot of people call the kind of camera you're looking for a "travel zoom." That FZ-1000 looks like a solid camera but I've not used one.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2015 16:01
|
|
|
RX10, or RX10mk2 when it becomes available soon. I don't get why the compact camera market is still full of models with 2/3 inch sensors, when they don't produce image quality that is any better in practice than a good smartphone camera. On the other hand, I don't know of a lot of compact, large(r)-sensor camera models that come with big zooms. But I've often come very close to picking up the RX10 before, for pretty much the same purposes (nature & wildlife). EDIT: Oh wow, I didn't realize the FZ1000 had a 1" sensor. Checking out a test image comparison, it looks like it holds its own pretty well against the RX10, and for a few hundred dollars less. I'll also add that I really like my Fuji X20, but it only goes to 112mm equivalent focal length, so it might not have the zoom capabilities you're looking for if you want to photograph distant wildlife. The Olympus Stylus 1s seems like a decent option, too. And it's even cheaper than the FZ1000. You'd just have to live with only 300mm focal length (which is fine for wildlife, but still nowhere close to the FZ1000) and a slightly smaller 1/1.7" sensor. But it would still be better than most compact cameras in terms of image quality. SMERSH Mouth fucked around with this message at 22:46 on Jun 17, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2015 22:18
|
|
|
SMERSH Mouth posted:RX10, or RX10mk2 when it becomes available soon. Because Sony didn't sell the 20mp 1" sensor until very recently. Both the Samsung mini, Panasonic camera phone, Canon G7X, G3X use the same sensor. Probably Nikon 1 J5 too. quote:EDIT: Oh wow, I didn't realize the FZ1000 had a 1" sensor. Checking out a test image comparison, it looks like it holds its own pretty well against the RX10, and for a few hundred dollars less.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2015 02:39
|
|
|
whatever7 posted:Because Sony didn't sell the 20mp 1" sensor until very recently. Both the Samsung mini, Panasonic camera phone, Canon G7X, G3X use the same sensor. Probably Nikon 1 J5 too. So Nikon finally figured out that the 1" Aptina sensors were pieces of poo poo? Only five generations in, good for them.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2015 06:27
|
|
|
I'm thinking about replacing my 5 year old canon SX210IS with something newer, mainly because even the similar 2 year old similar canon model seems to have much more sensitive sensors. Problem is I don't want to spend more than 400 euros, and would like to have something like 8x optical zoom. The 1 inch sensor models all seem to be significantly above my price cap, otherwise I'd go with the LX100 MK2 / Mk3. From the reviews I've read this year's canon model (SX710) has the same sensor as last years, and I would prefer to not start with a 2+ year old sensor. I don't care about having a touch screen or a flip out screen. I have looked at the lumix TZ71, but that appears to be a slightly revamped version of a model from last year with the same sensor. It has much more zoom than I need. I've also looked at the canon SX530 / SX60, which is larger than what I usually use but if that means they don't need to compromise and the resulting phots are better I don't mind. The sony HX90 is slightly more than what I would like to pay, but if it is significantly better than the alternatives I could go with it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 23:57
|
|
|
$483 for an RX100mIII in "Very Good" condition from Amazon Warehouse Deals today only: http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/B00K7O2DJU/ref=olp_prime_used?ie=UTF8&condition=used&shipPromoFilter=1
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 16:50
|
|
|
Amazon deals are so horrible I ended pickup up a new Ricoh Theta from Crutchfield instead of Amazon Warehouse.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 17:56
|
|
|
whatever7 posted:Amazon deals are so horrible I ended pickup up a new Ricoh Theta from Crutchfield instead of Amazon Warehouse. Has anyone else here tried one of these? They seem really expensive for a camera that's essentially a default feature of Android phones, but quicker. edit: Wow they seem pretty cool for a $400 device that outputs in a format that can't be natively shared on the web and looks like it was taken with a 2MP camera Radbot fucked around with this message at 20:06 on Jul 15, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 19:59
|
|
|
Radbot posted:Has anyone else here tried one of these? They seem really expensive for a camera that's essentially a default feature of Android phones, but quicker. You can show them on google view as photosphere now. The interface is very slick. I used to use 360cities to host my equirectangular photos. But taking 30+ photos on a "real camera" and crunch thm on a windows machine is too taxing for me. https://www.360cities.net/image/anthonys-nose-summit-hudson-valley-bear-mountain-new-york-city
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 22:34
|
|
|
Why is this better than a Google photosphere? Just that it's instant/doesn't need to be stitched, despite being lower quality?
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 22:52
|
|
|
Radbot posted:Why is this better than a Google photosphere? Just that it's instant/doesn't need to be stitched, despite being lower quality? You don't get cut off limbs and heads; you can take picture in really crowded places or close to a person. Also I haven't used any of my photography budget this year and I have brought all the mirrorless gear I wanted. I also brought a Xiaomi Yi camera...feel free to poo poo on it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 22:56
|
|
|
whatever7 posted:You don't get cut off limbs and heads; you can take picture in really crowded places or close to a person. Why would I poo poo on the Xiaomi Yi? It's a decent action cam for a cheap price. The Theta, however, is the most ridiculously hyper-niche product I've ever heard of - the 360 photosphere camera for portraits!
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 23:20
|
|
|
Radbot posted:Why would I poo poo on the Xiaomi Yi? It's a decent action cam for a cheap price. i dunno it looked kinda neat in the video i watched where they tried it out https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5CTWAR1TKo
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2015 15:32
|
|
|
I have to admit, the video thing is pretty cool and would be hard to reproduce with other tools. I wonder if it's compatible with YouTube's new 360 degree video function.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2015 17:29
|
|
|
Radbot posted:I have to admit, the video thing is pretty cool and would be hard to reproduce with other tools. I wonder if it's compatible with YouTube's new 360 degree video function. like a minute in they tell you to look at this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysGwTT-piO8 The best angle imo 
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 05:49
|
|
|
My mother in law is about to visit my wife and I on Vancouver island (she's from Pennsylvania), and wants to get a simple point and shoot for the trip. She's no photographer, and is hoping to spend about a hundred bucks for a camera to take some souvenir shots with. The only two criteria I can think of applying to this purchase, other than the budget, are that the camera should be easy to operate, and should have a relatively quick 'power on and shoot' delay. My own mom had a cheap Nikon that took forever to turn on and take a picture. Any ideas? What's the best lovely camera? Thanks!
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2015 08:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 06:17 |
|
|
Technology made lots of progress so lovely cameras now are much better than lovely cameras back in the day. Just get whatever that suits your budget if you are budget constrained.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2015 12:41
|
|