|
I'm probably going to get an RX100 once I sell off some other gear. I'll have to try it out in the store first, but it looks like the perfect everyday camera for my uses. The MFT gear I have right now isn't enough smaller than my DSLR for me to break it out very often. The RX100, on the other hand, should be small enough to keep on hand pretty much at all times. High ISO performance is really impressive for such a small camera too.
|
#
¿
Jul 20, 2012 22:54
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 02:34 |
|
|
My RX100 arrived today. I haven't had much chance to use it yet since I'm at work, but it's pretty cool so far. High ISO in particular is way beyond anything I've seen in a compact before. I'd say it's pretty well on par if not a bit better than my Panasonic G2 was. I've never used an S90 so I can't give any opinion on how the two compare, but everything I've seen so far suggests it's a step up from everything else in the size range. I picked mine up to be an always on me camera to compliment my D800 and so far I'd say it's going to be great for that. Now I just have to wait for Adobe to support its RAW files in lightroom.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 27, 2012 23:15
|
|
|
I had a G10 before going to M4/3 and didn't like it all that much. Like the G1X it was very large for a point and shoot style camera. I couldn't fit it into my everyday bag and it seemed silly to have its limitations if I had to carry it on a strap anyway. What really killed if for me was the terrible low light performance, although I imagine the G1X excels in that area. For my money, I'd rather have my point and shoot be something that isn't a burden to carry around everywhere, everyday. M4/3 stuff, and the G1X possibly, are big enough that I'd need to change what I carry to accommodate them. At that point it's not much of a stretch to just carry a full size DSLR so I always wound up either carrying the big camera or nothing at all. The RX100 is small enough that even my tiny everyday bag swallows it without bulging, and its performance is pretty darn spectacular for such a teensy little camera. The only thing I don't like is how far you have to turn the focus ring in manual mode, and the peaking implementation is weird and not really what I expected. It's still by far the best MF I've ever used on a camera this size. Sorry for the lovely pictures, I haven't had time to really test it out yet. The cat pictures are at 1600 ISO.   
|
|
#
¿
Jul 28, 2012 19:23
|
|
|
Here's a headshot of my cat at 100mm: I'll try to actually do a couple shots later this evening, but DP-review showed the lens being equivalent to f 13 on the long end for DOF, so don't expect the world from it. So far I pretty much leave it on the wide end all the time.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 30, 2012 20:44
|
|
|
That's actually her corpulent belly and that tuft of fur is probably six to eight inches back from her face. I put up a gallery of some random shots if anyone wants to see more. None of them are that interesting—cats mostly, with some sky—but I did put in a shot with the auto portrait crop goofyness and a couple 3200 ISO jpegs to give a sense of what it looks like when the thing goes totally nuts on noise reduction. http://jonhustead.smugmug.com/Other/RX100-shots/24468046_kXTCt2#!i=1996273912&k=KjgdMv4 I'm incredibly happy with the RX100. I had a similar path of starting at a (not so) pocketable G10, moving to a mini version of my DSLR with the G2, and now back to an actually pocketable camera that easily beats the previous two in almost every regard. For someone like me who had M4/3 gear as a smaller alternative to a full size DSLR, this camera is a no brainer. It's much better suited to being a second everyday camera simply by virtue of its size. Compared to the G2 at least there's no compromise on quality. edit: smugmug is having issues serving photos at the moment so that link might not be so helpful for a bit.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 1, 2012 15:30
|
|
|
poopinmymouth posted:Can someone with the RX100 try to take a few portrait headshots at 60mm 80mm and 100mm and show what kind of background blur and separation can be achieved? TIA These aren't great shots, but I did a few shots at different focal lengths for you: http://jonhustead.smugmug.com/Other/RX100-shots/24468046_kXTCt2#!i=2003790034&k=rwNRwwQ I'll let you figure out the focal length equivalents from the EXIF. 
|
|
#
¿
Aug 3, 2012 15:37
|
|
|
Probably because there's no free option and the service is heavily focused on working photographers. Their userbase is muuuch smaller than any of the free sharing sites.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 3, 2012 16:24
|
|
|
It's well worth the price for me, but I'm using it for work and personal. I can't stand Flickr and Picasa—before smugmug I'd just use lightroom's built in galleries on my own hosting.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 3, 2012 17:45
|
|
|
The S100's lens goes wider and longer than the S95's; it has a brand new, in-house designed sensor; and the image processor is supposedly muuuch faster. On amazon it looks like the S95 is only $30 cheaper than the S100, are you seeing different prices somewhere else? Cause I'd go for the S100 if that's it.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 17, 2012 15:46
|
|
|
My samples should give you some idea of what can happen, pretty much all of them are wide open for whatever the focal length is: http://jonhustead.smugmug.com/Other/RX100-shots/24468046_kXTCt2#!i=1996273912&k=KjgdMv4 Basically, it'll give you some separation from the background, but not the subject isolation you'd expect from a full size SLR, which is what I think of when you talk about playing with depth of field. I'm sure you're not expecting creamy smooth DSLR with prime bokeh or anything, but I thought it might help if I gave some examples of the RX100 next to full frame DSLR shots at a few focal lengths. 125mm equivalent on the RX100 at f4.9, as wide as it'll go:  The background is blurred a little bit, but you can still make it out, and her face, front to back, is all pretty much in focus. Contrast this to similar focal length on FF, 100mm at f5.6  The far half of her face is already starting to blur, and the background, which is MUUUUCH closer, is more fairly indistinct. Now compare that with the even shallower DOF of an 85mm prime at f2.2:  Just a thin slice of the dudes face is in focus—the tip of his nose and even his eyebrows are out a bit blurry while his right eye is in focus. At the wide end on the RX100, 28mm equiv at f1.8, you can get a little more, but you really have to get up in whatever you're shooting's grill:  And this example has a bit of motion blur, but it's another example of the kind of DOF you can get at the wide end:  I couldn't find anything in my already uploaded photos that was around 28mm at 1.8, so here are two just a little narrower and one a good bit wider: 35mm f2  20mm at f4  So there you go. I think it's a fantastic camera and it's the first compact camera I've ever been happy with as a companion to my full size camera. Whether the DOF is shallow enough for you will really depend on what you want to do with it. I think DPReview had a chart of DOF equivalents at various focal lengths for small sensor cameras somewhere that included the RX100 and most of the other higher end compacts. That'll make it a bit easier to cross shop as it can be hard to think about how sensor size and focal length affect the final DOF when there are so many different combination in this class of camera.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 18, 2012 18:25
|
|
|
Glad I could help. I don't think there's anything else out now in the same size range that has similar quality. You might want to check out a couple mirrorless system cameras just in case you can deal with the extra size though, they have much more potential for shallow depth of field and are still relatively compact. Not compact enough for my needs, and maybe not for yours if you're one bag traveling, but I'd at least handle one in a store to see how it feels. I really don't think you could go wrong with the RX100 if you like what you see and now have a good idea of what you can expect as far as DOF though. I sold off my mirrorless system camera for it and am very glad I did—the size/quality combo is fantastic.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 19, 2012 16:29
|
|
|
Same here. It's the perfect compliment to my D800 as an always on me camera. For me, the thing that really makes it viable is the low light performance. It's the first point and shoot I've used where you can shoot in pretty much any condition without using the onboard flash.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 19, 2012 15:50
|
|
|
The super-est super zoom you can find probably. I think Panasonic's offerings in that realm are pretty good and have fast autofocus: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonic-lumix-dmc-fz200/ They aren't cheap though. This Nikon looks pretty good for about half the price of the panasonic: http://www.dpreview.com/products/nikon/compacts/nikon_cpp510
|
|
#
¿
Nov 26, 2012 17:30
|
|
|
Ahh, I'd totally planned on buying one of those when I got the RX100 but forgot all about it.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 10, 2013 00:08
|
|
|
If you're mainly looking to upload to flickr and facebook, why buy a camera that has a printer built in? I don't have personal experience with them, but I can assure you it won't hold a candle to Canon's Sxx series. Or other cameras in the same price range that don't have a printer built in. It's a camera you buy specifically for the novelty of printing instantly. If that's what trips your trigger, sure, go for it.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 15, 2013 23:11
|
|
|
Anime_Otaku posted:That's actually a really good point, I think the Polaroid just hit my gadget button and overrode my common sense. They're both really good cameras. I like the Fuji better myself. It might have a few more quirks but it sure is nice to hold. Checking them out in store is definitely the best way to go.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 16, 2013 03:15
|
|
|
I don't know anything off the top of my head that would do that, especially in the point and shoot realm, but I wonder if a security focused IP camera might work. Some of them seem pretty high quality and it seemed like they'd be well suited to 24/7 steaming.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 15, 2013 07:50
|
|
|
Honestly, the RX100 is a great camera and if he likes the look of it and doesn't mind the price, it'd be great. You aren't paying for the extra controls so much as the bigger than normal sensor (better low light) and generally nice construction. The manual controls aren't obtrusive at all. To me, the difference is probably worth the price even if he's not going to use manual controls. The bigger sensor and better low light sensitivity mean that it's going to make better pictures in general, especially in low light, than most cheaper point and shoots. The next level down that people would recommend is the Canon S90/95/100 series, which are also great. edit: I really want to emphasize what a fantastic little point and shoot the RX100 is. If it weren't for the price I'd recommend it to everyone. If the price isn't a problem, it'll serve your dad well and it will result in better pictures than many point and shoots thanks to the great sensor.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 15, 2013 17:12
|
|
|
They also react faster on the autofocus, have nicer screens, feel better in the hand, and a bunch of other stuff. I definitely sympathize with wanting to steer people away from spending money on things they don't need, but this is a case where the extra money will make a very noticeable difference in handling and the final photos even to a non-photographer.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 15, 2013 18:14
|
|
|
There are a couple buttons which have not that useful default settings. I changed mine around a bit from the default and very rarely need to go into the menus now. White balance, exposure comp, iso, continuous shooting speed, and a few more are all mapped out to buttons. Edit: battery life seems pretty good to me, but I never use flash and don't really need great battery life. DPReview always tests out how many shots you can get if you want more specifics.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2013 18:56
|
|
|
I've had a Canon G something or other and it felt loving great in hand but I hated the camera overall. It just never felt responsive enough and the viewfinder, which I also wanted, was a pile of turds. I believe I had a G10 and obviously the G1x will have plenty of advantages over it. On the other hand, the RX100 feels extremely responsive and has been the perfect always on me camera thanks to its combination of high iso performance, responsiveness, and sheer tiny-ness. Super fast autofocus, 10 fps burst mode, etc. I didn't care for composing with the LCD either, but I've found camera responsiveness makes a pretty big difference in how annoying it is to use an LCD instead of a viewfinder. Have you thought about a sony NEX-6 or something similar with an EVF? powderific fucked around with this message at 17:34 on May 10, 2013 |
|
#
¿
May 10, 2013 17:03
|
|
|
Even if you do get a DSLR the S90 is a great place to start since you'll still want something pocketable.
|
|
#
¿
May 20, 2013 19:23
|
|
|
That seems like an absurdly good deal. Normally when I see clearance stuff at brick and mortar stores the most it's knocked down is something like 15%.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2013 20:51
|
|
|
I think you could get serviceable to very good results for a lot less than that though, especially if decent product shots are the main concern rather than getting into photography as a hobby/profession. The biggest thing to me would be to pick up Light, Science and Magic (as you suggested) and a camera with full manual controls so she can try working with the soft boxes she already has first. The only thing I'd worry about having so as not to outgrow the camera immediately would be a hot shoe or PC sync port. There's a ton of cheap-ish cameras that could fit the bill, and even adding in some battery strobes you could keep it under $1000 very easily. Just a decent camera shouldn't be more than $500. Queen Elizatits, do you have a mannequin you can put the leggings on? It'd make experimenting once you get ahold of that book a lot easier.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 20, 2013 04:26
|
|
|
Haggins and I are definitely talking digital. It's the way to go unless you want to do film because that's what you enjoy doing. You can absolutely adapt those lenses to modern cameras and it's something a lot of people like to do—you'll just have to make sure the camera you get will work with the adapters. Nikon and Canon won't work, but mirrorless cameras from Sony, Panasonic, and Olympus will work great. You'll be manually focusing, which might be trickier with poor eyesight, but the adapters themselves aren't particularly expensive so trying it out will only cost an extra $30 or less. The biggest thing I'd be concerned with is getting focus right with self portraits—it might be a little tricky but I think you could get a system down with some trial and error and a piece of tape on the floor. For cameras that would work with your FD lenses I'm most well versed in Panasonic. Olympus and Sony have good options as well but I can't really offer much of a recommendation. The people in the mirrorless thread might have some suggestions. On the Panasonic side, you could get a used G5 for around $350 or a GX1 for about $225 from KEH. The G5 is bigger and has a flip out screen so you can see if you're framed up right (I'm not sure how useful that'd actually be with eye issues though.) The Panasonic GX1 is smaller and doesn't have a flip out screen. I'd suggest getting a lens or two with autofocus to supplement the FD lenses as well. The 14mm 2.5 is under $200 (it'd be a little more zoomed out than the iPhone you're shooting with now), or you could get a cheapo kit lens for under $100. Both cameras have hot shoes so you could upgrade add strobes to you lighting setup later if need be. The good thing about going that direction with cameras is that there are lots and lots of good camera choices, unlike P&S's where there are something like two or three main options. edit: just to clarify, DSLR's generally aren't adaptable to FD mount. The cameras I'm talking about are known as "mirrorless" cameras. They have bigger sensors and interchangeable lenses like a DSLR, but they don't have the mirror box that lets you look directly through the lens. It makes them more compact and the difference in lens mounting makes compatibility with older lenses much easier. They used to be thought of as a sortof stepping stone between P&S cameras and DSLRs but have reached a quality level where many people don't feel the jump to a DSLR necessary or even desirable. powderific fucked around with this message at 17:43 on Aug 21, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Aug 21, 2013 17:39
|
|
|
I don't think it's worth the extra myself--the RX100 v1 is still better than nearly anything on the market already. If I was going to pay that much more I'd probably think about the new APC Ricoh instead. Once again, I'm a biased V1 owner so maybe take it with a grain of salt.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 11, 2013 22:28
|
|
|
I think most of what makes the RX100 such a good camera would be noticeable to even a novice photographer. It's a joy to shoot with and if you can spend the money I'd say it's worth it.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 2, 2013 04:37
|
|
|
If I was going to get a bridge camera I'd get Panasonic's FZ200 for the constant 2.8 aperture lens: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonic-lumix-dmc-fz200 It also has a better viewfinder, shoots at 5 frames per second vs. 1 (or 12 fps in single focus mode), and has better battery life.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 8, 2013 20:29
|
|
|
Why would you buy a coolpix a over the GR? It doesn't seem like you get much/anything for the extra money.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 14, 2013 02:57
|
|
|
What issues have you had with the RX100? Mine's been great but I've also been thinking about a gr as I almost always shoot at the widest zoom setting.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 19, 2013 16:32
|
|
|
You don't have to change lenses on an interchangeable lens camera. I'm sure the G1X would be more compact overall, but I feel like it might be worth at least considering a mirrorless system camera. There's so much good stuff out there right now and the G1x has some limitations that I think would be annoying. The lens is slow at the long end, the AF is slow compared to M4/3 stuff and the RX100, it's missing some features that you'd get on even lower end cameras like panorama and decent video modes. It doesn't get much love here because it's probably not a good choice for most people—for most P&S needs the RX100 is a far, far better camera. That said, I don't think the G1x is a bad camera by any means. It's just kindof niche and isn't a good fit for most people. Maybe you're the person who it'll be perfect for.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 9, 2014 17:42
|
|
|
It's amazing how much a manual zoom improves the feel of a point and shoot. I like the images out of my RX100 better, but the X20 is certainly a pleasing camera in the hand.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 9, 2014 21:50
|
|
|
For my money the RX100 is a significant step up from the Canon S series. The S series can be found for very good prices used though.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2014 22:40
|
|
|
Tilty screen, hotshoe for flash, the wireless stuff, and an updated BSI sensor that gives it a bit better low light ability. For people who already own the first version (like me) I don't think there's much reason to upgrade. It's a bit more gray if you're buying new and probably comes down to how much you can afford more than anything.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2014 17:45
|
|
|
You realize that, for many people, getting better is part of enjoying a hobby? Like, hobby woodworkers want to make a good table that won't fall over instead of just going at a block of wood with some chisels and hoping for the best. Most hobbies involve learning about something, learning how to do it, and then doing it and getting better.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2014 16:14
|
|
|
whatever7 posted:You don't need to read a video game magazine or guide to enjoy playing video game, why do you need to read a book to learn how to enjoy photography? There are a lot of people who like the idea of "getting good at something so my friends will compliment me". A lot of them don't actually love the hobby. My theory is most people who buy beginners for XYZ books enjoy the idea being good at something but deep down inside doesn't care about the hobby that much. Videogames are designed to not need a book to get into though. It's a crafted experience like a movie. Even then, and moreso for movies than videogames admittedly, there's a whole level of criticism and analysis that's inherently a part of the "hobby." For people who really love it, a deeper understanding enhances the experience. And you absolutely do need to read or learn through some other means for many hobbies. I'd argue most. And with most, being good at it and getting better isn't just a thing to impress your friends (unless you're somehow broken.) It's just part of enjoying the hobby. Woodworking, car projects, knitting, origami, poetry, whatever. Or playing an instrument. Maybe just loving around will be satisfying for a few minutes, but having it become something you're interested in long term is probably going to involve learning a bit.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2014 16:51
|
|
|
The RX100 DOF equivalent is something like f4.9 on the wide end and f13.4 on the long end according to dpreview. http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sony-cybershot-dsc-rx100 It's the kind of thing you can calculate but I'm too lazy to look up how.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2014 23:57
|
|
|
There are some crazy fast P&S lenses out there, I think the lx7 is something like 1.4-2.0, but I can't think of any with a constant aperture till you get to bridge cameras and the like.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 15, 2014 22:05
|
|
|
The P&S market has more good options than it used to, I think. The RX100 is still the best in my eyes, but it's awfully expensive. For many a used S series is still a good option. The Fuji X10/X20 deserve a mention as well. Between the three I think a person can pick and choose a bit based on what's appealing and where their budget falls.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2014 15:08
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 02:34 |
|
|
Yeah, I think it looks like a great camera. I'm on the mki so it might be time for me to upgrade. I love how they did the evf too. When I read the rumor that it had one I assumed it was bullshit since I couldn't figure where you'd put it. Looks like the sony engineers are smarter than me.
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2014 04:00
|
|