|
The higher end P&S cameras like that are usually a little smarter about proper exposure. Like for example, I let my girlfriend use my S90 to take to Disney World at night instead of her el cheapo camera. She only uses auto, and with her cheap camera ,she couldn't take night time picture of someone in front of the lit up castle. Either the castle was dark and the people weren't or the people were exposed and the castle was dark. The S90 was smart enough to fill flash on the people and properly expose the background. TL;DR: High end point and shoots aren't wasted on non-photographers.
|
#
¿
Feb 15, 2013 18:01
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 9, 2024 10:32 |
|
|
I'm currently without a good point and shoot and I'm thinking about getting a Canon g1x. Since I've been serious about photography, my past P&Ss have been the Canon G9 and the S90. I liked the G9 a lot but I felt the sensor wasn't up to where I'd like it to be so I upgraded it to a s90. I really liked the S90 for what it was (pocketable) but I started to miss the real camera feel of the G9 and I decided that I don't really like composing shots off an LCD. The s90 ended up getting broke a couple years ago and I haven't had a chance to replace it. So now I'm in the market for a new point and shoot and I did a little soul searching. First off, I thought about why I need one. I need one for times when I'm out and about and my primary mission isn't photography. Carrying DSLR gear around isn't a big deal to me but I've been finding it becomes a liability when I'm out and about doing fun stuff with friends and family. I want good quality photos, a viewfinder/real camera feel, and I don't care about being able to shove the camera in my pocket. I got to thinking that the perfect camera would be a x100s {b]if[/b] it had a zoom lens. I like everything about the camera except for the fixed focal length. Ruling that out, there is the fuji x20 which I think is pretty cool. I think the manual control zoom is great, however, the small sensor is a deal killer for me. The Sony Rx100 seems great for what it is, but I really do want more physical buttons and a view finder. That leaves me with the g1x. The size is fine by me and I like the Canon layout. I think it'd be the perfect camera if it had the hybrid viewfinder of the x100s and the manual zoom of the x20.
|
|
#
¿
May 10, 2013 15:14
|
|
|
^^^ Thanks but I'm swinging to the larger sensor P&Sspowderific posted: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. The responsiveness of my old G9 never bothered me, but you're kinda right about the view finder. I think it will probably be useless unless it's really bright out or I want a lot of stability (leaning against my face). I don't think I've ruled out the x100 yet. As for the NEX, I don't want anything with interchangeable lenses so I'm gonna rule that out.
|
|
#
¿
May 10, 2013 21:13
|
|
|
Costello Jello posted:There's no rule that says you have to buy more lenses. Personally, being used to DSLRs, I despise the tiny, dark, information-less viewfinders on the Canon G series, and would rather just view the lcd screen. The NEX-6 has a fantastic electronic viewfinder, and as you'll see from this picture, actually a bit smaller and lighter (NEX-6 weighs 471 grams with the kit lens, vs. 534 grams for G1X) despite the full APS-C sensor. Hmm now I'm kinda back peddling with this whole big sensor thing. If I need a big sensor I'll just bring my slr and a small lens. I think it's between the rx100 and the x20. Huxley posted:My used S90 should arrive today or tomorrow. I'm super excited. Take Spime's advice, but even if you don't learn photography, the camera is pretty smart when it comes to making a good exposure. My non photographer girlfriend has one and she can tell the difference between it and cheaper cameras.
|
|
#
¿
May 20, 2013 03:41
|
|
|
Starting with the S90 is a smart idea. I didn't really take up serious photography until 2007 when I could afford a DSLR. I figured that I needed a DSLR if I wanted to get into photography, which I now know is baloney. Looking back, I wish I just bought an affordable manually controllable point and shoot years earlier to learn on instead of waiting until I had money for gear. As for upgrading to a DSLR down the road, best thing to do is to wait until your S90 feels limiting to you. That way you'll know what you want in a DSLR and you'll be able to hit the ground running once you get it.
|
|
#
¿
May 20, 2013 23:09
|
|
|
Don't ever buy them cameras. Just buy them books instead. Maybe something like this so they don't turn out like us.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 25, 2013 00:38
|
|
|
Before I really got into photography, I used to think that If I wanted to get serious about it, I had to get an SLR. Now that I know better, I know that's just not true. A S100 is great starting point if you want to take a deep dive into the photography world. It gives you a lot of control and there is a lot you can do with it. The best part is that you don't have to deal with expensive lenses/gear while you're learning.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 26, 2013 16:20
|
|
|
Queen Elizatits posted:I need a camera for indoor photography of clothing. I have a reasonably well lit area, couple of soft boxes plus I replaced the lights in the room with full spectrum bulbs. I have been using my iphone 4S which isn't that bad most of the time but it doesn't take pictures of darker fabrics very well, you can't see the textures. What you need is control; with the camera and with the lights. A camera with manual controls (like the S100) is a good start, but I think you need some strobes too. I'd suggest looking at point and shoots with a hotshoe, such as a Canon G series or maybe a RX100 II. Seeing the textures and what not is going to be more about how you light your subject than the camera you're using. I'm no expert when it comes to product photography, but for example if you have something with a lot of "3D" texture, like say a knit sweater, if you side light it, the texture is gonna pop out more. Things like that are the reason why you need to be able to finely control your light. As for strobes, you'll probably want to head over to the lighting thread and do some asking around there. However, for a ball park, you could probably get a barebones set with a manual flash, some grip gear and modifiers for $150, maybe less. Since this is for your business, and I'm sure you want to present your products as best as you possibly can, I'd highly recommend buying Light Science and Magic: An Introduction to Photographic Lighting. It's good for all photographers but it's heavily weighted towards product photography (which is good for you). It covers just about everything you'd ever need to know on the subject.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 5, 2013 02:17
|
|
|
yellowjournalism posted:Just cause the OP is over year old I figured I'd check. I'm looking for a cheap P&S ($100-150), as I don't have time just yet to get into how to actually shoot well, and just want to have something handy for practice that is also high quality. Should I just get an S90 on ebay? Yeah, s90 is still a great camera.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 8, 2013 04:51
|
|
|
Yeah, any of the S series (95, 95, 100, 110) are great. S90 was the first in the modern S line and the 110 is the most current and best.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 9, 2013 03:27
|
|
|
Queen Elizatits posted:I just realized I never thanked you for this. It's probably pretty obvious that I don't know much about cameras so information like this is incredibly helpful, thank you! And I will definitely pick up that book. I can see why this is driving you nuts, a shot like that can be tricky. The problem is the camera doesn't know what to expose correctly. Is it going to choose the black dress, your skin, or the white wall? In the first shot, the camera is leaning towards exposing your skin correctly, leaving the dress without details. In the second, it chose to over expose a bit to get the details of your leggings. It's a good example of why you want manual control; so you can choose what details you want. IIRC, I think the book has a guide on shots very similar to the ones you posted. You might just want to consider jumping head first into this photography thing and go with a SLR and some decent strobes. I think once you start getting the hang of it, you'll be able to pull off some really nice shots. Assuming that's you in the shots, you make a great model, which is a huge advantage. Being your own model allows you to work and learn at your pace and not worry about wasting anyone's time fiddling with the camera. You're also available at a moments notice and never flake out of a shoot. After awhile of practice, you'll find all this technical stuff is the easy part of photography. The real challenge comes making creative/ interesting shots. For the work you're doing, having an eye for fashion is going to be the most important thing. Unlike the technical parts of photography, something like that isn't easily learned. I'm assuming you do already, which would mean you already have a good grasp on the hard part of this whole thing. Lastly, considering this is going to help your business a ton, I think it's a no brainer. Going off the top of my head, a good (one that you won't outgrow for a long time) SLR set up would run you around $1500-$2000. This would be an entry level SLR, a lens or two, and a couple alien bee strobes with a bunch of modifiers. If you're interested, I can help you figure out what you need.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 20, 2013 01:42
|
|
|
What are the differences between the RX100 I and II?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 9, 2013 20:36
|
|
|
Good to hear. I'm tempted by the wireless on the II. I kinda hate that I can't do anything with my photos until I get home with them. Sometimes I wish I could just edit one or two on the ipad/phone and pop it up on facebook or whatever. I always hate sharing iphone photos when I have a much better version sitting on the camera.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2013 20:26
|
|
|
I'm mentally spending my tax return and I think I'm ready to replace my long lost S90. I'm debating between the Rx100 II and the Canon G1X. I've owned a G9 which I replaced with a S90. The S90 was nice but I ended up missing the the ergonomics of the G series. It felt like I was using a real camera and I feel like it was easier to compose a shot on. Pocket ability isn't a big deal to me. Which ever I get I'll only carry it around when I want to go shooting (but don't want to carry the dslr). I don't need an always on me camera since I have an iphone 5s. I'm pretty set on the point and shoot idea, I really don't want to bother with changing lenses and like to have a zoom. I'm leaning towards the G1X for the larger sensor and the ergonomics. I also like having the eye piece even if it's not perfect. Finally, I'm not sure if I'll bother or not, but it might be fun to use with one of my speedlites and a wireless trigger. I know the RX100 gets a lot of love here and not so much for the G1X. Am I crazy for wanting one?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 9, 2014 15:55
|
|
|
Yeah I certainly understand the RX100 love. I'll go check out the mirorless thread but I'm afraid I'll fall down the rabbit hole of buying gear for it when I should be spending money on my slr kit.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 9, 2014 18:08
|
|
|
I really like the X20, especially the manual zoom. The only thing I don't like is the sensor size. I think my perfect camera would be an x100 with a zoom.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 9, 2014 19:28
|
|
|
Yeah that fly by wire poo poo is so imprecise. I almost always have to do some additional feet/arm zooming to get it exactly where I want.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 9, 2014 22:12
|
|
|
I don't know anything about the under $300 cameras but I whole heartily agree with the rest.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2014 15:36
|
|
|
You mean you guys don't ever use the B&H 20% off coupon code?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2014 17:27
|
|
|
the night dad posted:Release these insider trading tips, please. I wish it were real  it would save me $940 off my upcoming 6D and 24-70 2.8 order.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2014 18:37
|
|
|
I just bought a couple photography books on my iPad kindle app and it's kind of janky with the photo layout. I don't like buying physical books but I probably won't buy anymore digital photo technique books.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2014 19:05
|
|
|
megalodong posted:If by "aperture control" you mean being able to change the aperture, lots of P&S cameras do that. The S100+ all have aperture priority and manual mode. All the S series from the original S90 have offered full manual control, AV, and TV.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2014 21:59
|
|
|
You can get to the point where you're reading more about photography than actually doing it (I've been guilty of this), but I agree with what you're saying Mathturbator. A good book can really jump start your photography/help you improve/get past plateaus. One of my favorite books I've read when I first started out was The Photographer's Eye, which is a book on composition. Honestly, I mentally refer back to that book every time I take a shot. Personally, I think things are easier to learn on a DSLR, but don't let only having access to a point and shoot stop anyone. I really wanted to get into photography in the late 90's but being a kid with no money, the prohibitive cost of film then later the cost of a DSLR stopped me. I waited 8 years until I finished HS, finished college, got settled into a job, and saved up money for my first rebel. I mistakenly thought that if I wanted to learn photography, I had to do it in a DSLR. Now I know that's not true and wish I was shooting seriously the whole time.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2014 15:19
|
|
|
whatever7 posted:If you want to learn photography, get an used SLR and a 35mm/1.8 lens. I guarantee you can find a bundle under 300. Much fast than reading a book and then learn on a P&S. I think most people get into photography because they see an awesome photo/s and think to themselves "drat I would like to make something like that" or maybe they feel it's their duty to preserve something and they would like to do a good job of it (family, culture, events, etc.). If you just want to go shoot pictures and hope the dice hits and you get a good picture, then you're not really into photography. You're just a person with a camera. There is nothing wrong with that, but I wouldn't call it a hobby at that point. Sure there are people who are naturals (or non-photography visual artists) that need very little instruction, however I think most people could use help. This is especially true if you have no art background what so ever. Good to hear! I think you make a good point about understanding and appreciating what your camera can do before upgrading. It's better to hit a technical wall, then buy gear, instead buying gear for technical boundaries that may or may not be an issue in your photography.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2014 16:33
|
|
|
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. You don't need to read a magazine to enjoy a video game, but to make a video game you probably need quite a few books.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2014 16:41
|
|
|
Krispy Kareem posted:Reading a book is nice if you need to know step X + Y to get result Z. Which if you're new, you will probably need. There are two sides to photography. One side is the technical, which revolves around knowing how to use your gear and understanding the behavior of light. This is the easiest part of photography to master and can be done by reading those X+Y=Z "recipe" books along with some practice. You only really need to read a few of those types of books to understand how things work, after that it's all about experience. The other side is the artistic, which is the most important and hardest to master. You can get to the point where you're perfectly happy with your technical skill, however, you should never want to stop improving your artistic skills no matter how good you are. There are lots of books out there that are more philosophical and go more into the "why" of shooting. Books like these can change the way you approach the craft and can help you improve in ways you'd probably never find out on your own. A good example (and one of my favorite books) is Within the Frame: The Journey of Photographic Vision by David duChemin. Read that book and tell me you didn't learn anything. Honest critique is a good thing for any body of any skill level, however, if you want it to be useful, you need to get critique from someone who is better than you. If you're new to the craft that's going to be almost any body around here. The longer you've been shooting, the harder you need to look for people to critique you. I think a lot of goons in his forum got really good and to the point where they weren't getting valuable feedback from the thread. They're at the point where they need to carefully chose their critique-rs and not just rely on who ever feels like posting in the thread at that particular moment. Maybe what we need is to set up one on one critique thread or something. I wouldn't mind doing that for another goon and there are certain goons around here who I would like to learn something from. Edit: Wait uhh the critique thread is still there and it seems like it's in good shape. Haggins fucked around with this message at 19:46 on Feb 20, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2014 19:40
|
|
|
Off topic for the P&S thread but I just switched from a 2.8 17-50 on a crop camera to a 24-105 f/4 on a full frame. I was kinda bummed that I was going from 2.8 to a 4, however it seems like I'm losing nothing dof wise and gaining a bit of range (not to mention better IQ from The L lens). That makes me happy and not worried about buying a 24-70 2.8 just yet.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2014 06:53
|
|
|
Bob Socko posted:I'm in the exact same boat, never considered a pop-up viewfinder. Assuming the lens is still sharp enough on the wide end at f/2, literally every criticism of the RX100 (except price) has now been addressed. I may not be an early adopter, but I definitely want one. The view finder really does it for me. I really hate when I can't shoot the camera next to my face. It may sound crazy but I feel that makes it easier for me to compose a photo. When I hold it out in front of me, I feel like I'm performing surgery with boxing gloves on. I almost gave up on the viewfinder idea and was leaning towards a g1x II. While it seems like an awesome camera, it's size just doesn't compliment my dslr very well. If I'm going to carry something around that size, I may as well carry the dslr.
|
|
#
¿
May 17, 2014 04:47
|
|
|
Huskalator posted:So, I bought a Sony DSC RX-100 and I'm kinda disappointed it doesn't take better pictures than my buddy's camera phone and its way more of a pain in the rear to use. Cameras don't take pictures, people do. It's like buying a $500 Kitchenaid mixer and wondering why your cakes don't taste as good as your favorite restaurant. You may have a great tool for the job, but there are many other factors that require consideration (and skill) to make a great final product. Your RX-100 is an excellent camera but if you want to make great pictures you will need to learn how to use it and learn about photography. If you're not interested in putting in the time and effort to learn, then you won't get the most of your camera.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 17, 2014 06:12
|
|
|
Lady Gaza posted:What does everyone think of the new G7X vs the RX100 III? I like the touchscreen but the battery life and EVF look better on the Sony. I was pretty set on the RX100 III (which I'll have the funds for after xmas) but yeah now I'm looking at the G7X too. I haven't played with one yet, but the VF on the RX does seem like a killer feature for me. Especially after hearing the good reviews about it in this thread. Personally, I really dislike composing on the back of a LCD with my hands in front of my face. I feel like I do a better job when I use a viewfinder and I get a bit more stability with the camera resting on my face. I guess that comes from being more of a DSLR shooter.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 19, 2014 05:19
|
|
|
TheEye posted:My mom asked for my help picking out a new point-and-shoot under $300, and naturally I told her to get the S110 from Amazon since it's down to a pretty decent price. But no, it has to have "at least 10x zoom". I tried to explain the basics of zoom, reach, and image quality, etc., but it's not gonna happen. Tell her if she knows what the gently caress it needs to have then why the hell is she asking you. That is obviously the best way to handle this.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 13, 2015 21:47
|
|
|
Hocus Pocus posted:I know a lot of the buzz around the RX100IV are the improvements on the video side of things, but does the new sensor layout (or any other developments) make any improvement on the stills image quality? For me $600 is about the max I want to spend on a point and shoot, so the III is really pushing it at $800. I'm going to do it just for the viewfinder as I really hate composing/shooting with the back LCD. Otherwise I'd go with the II. I plan to buy one this Friday. Anyway, about the IV. It seems DP Review doesn't think there are any improvements: quote:Sony made no claims of improved image quality from the new 'stacked' BSI-CMOS sensor at its announcement. A look around the scene in Raw or JPEG mode confirms that major changes aren't present. Any differences in sharpness between the RX100 III and RX100 IV are likely due to copy variation, something no camera is immune from. This makes the III a no brainier for me. I don't ever shoot video so I don't care about the slo-mo stuff. The only thing I feel like I'm missing out on is the better viewfinder.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 26, 2015 17:22
|
|
|
Zaq posted:Welp, I caved (somewhat because of the awesome slowmo options) and got the RX100 IV after all. Well the good thing about the learning curve now a days is you're not paying for film anymore. Just go out shooting, and if you don't make any winners, it's not a big deal. You just have to keep at it. Also, don't feel like you have to be at a special location or special event to shoot.When I first started, I felt like there had to be something going on or I had to be in an interesting place for me to pull out the camera. Sure those things help, but good photos can be made anywhere. Shoot everywhere and anywhere and try to keep your camera on you as much as you can. It's just like anything else, the more you do it, the better you become.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 1, 2016 21:51
|
|
|
Yeah I'd say film is the way to go. S90 was cool back when it came out, but now it days it doesn't feel much better than iPhone camera. I'm sure it is still objectively better, but not to the point where it's worth carrying around with a phone. I think I stopped using mine around the iPhone 4S.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2016 02:42
|
|
|
If you don't have a phone then a S90 would be a good choice. With a modern phone I think a lot of lower end point and shoots become redundant for the most part. In my opinion they're not worth carrying around unless it's around the same quality of something like a RX100.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2016 06:37
|
|
|
I love the RX100 series (III and up, I own a III) for two main reasons. First, I suck and I hate composing a photo using something without an eye piece. Holding a camera out in front is way less stable and harder to examine what's in the frame before I shoot. When I use the eye piece it's very stable against my face and the eye piece eliminates all visual distractions aside from what's in the photo. This helps me immensely. The second reason is because it's a mostly flat compact (jeans pocketable) with a "large" sensor. Now that I have a smart phone in my pocket with a decent camera, if I'm going to go through the trouble of carrying something around, it better be able to do much more than the phone. The RX100 is well worth carrying around for that purpose. Here are a couple of my favorite shots from the camera:  IMG_0506.jpg by Ryan Tamm, on Flickr Lake Washington Ducks by Ryan Tamm, on Flickr Columbia Tower by Ryan Tamm, on Flickr
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2017 18:31
|
|
|
Krakkles posted:Have they really not updated the Canon S in 3.5 years? I think when the S90/5 came out, it was much better than what the phones were doing at the time. I had a S95 for a long time and as my iPhone got better, it just wasn't worth bringing along the S95. I think point and shoots with sensors that size are dead and you should look at the many different 1 inches available. Aside from allowing manual control, I liked the S series because they were jeans pocketable cameras. IMO Sony's RX100 is the best jeans pocketable camera with the 1 inch sensor. If you don't care about that, I'd look at the other brands that use the same sensor. I have the III, and the other feature that got me is the popup EVF. I've always hated using the LCD to compose and the EVF is the perfect solution. If gives me stability in my shots (since it rests on my face) and it's much easier to compose when you eliminate all visual distractions. I'm sure the 4 and 5 are good, but there is nothing wrong with a 3 at all. If you don't care about the EVF, then a 2 is still pretty solid. I've had my 3 for a couple years now and I really don't care about upgrading (I only do stills and I don't need fast AF, that's what my SLR is for).
|
|
#
¿
May 13, 2017 22:56
|
|
|
whatever7 posted:You want to get a camera with a 1" sensor. Otherwise it's too close to the quality of a new smartphone. Agreed. Anything else isn't going to be worth carrying now a days.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 19, 2017 22:05
|
|
|
alr posted:I've never used the RX100 series, but I have a Canon G7X mkii I love. Pretty much the only things I needed were the ability to fit it in a jacket pocket, good ergos, and good colour straight out of camera. Have heard good things about the Panasonic LX10, too. G7X ii has good image stabilisation that works with the video, and audio that's noticeably better than what I've seen from the RX100 series. If you're recording audio separately and running images/video through post-processing anyway, then go to a store and see which you like the most. I loved how the Canon felt compared to the others so that's what I went with. I think the G7X mk ii shares the same sensor as the RX100, probably the Panasonic too. That's a good thing because, that sensor rules. I don't think you can go wrong with any of the cameras using that sensor, it's just going to come down to price, features, and compactness. I think the RX100 series gets the most love because they were the/one of the first to use that sensor, they're very jeans pocketable, and the later versions have some unique features such as the popup viewfinder (which is why I went with the RX100). If you're going to be shooting at home and compactness/portability isn't a concern, then there might be some better options out there.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 25, 2017 16:48
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 9, 2024 10:32 |
|
|
Etrips posted:How much better is an RX100 iii over an iPhone 6S+? I wouldn't mind taking better pictures... Basically it's a tool that gives you more options/capabilities for making a photo. As for taking better pictures, that's all in the photographer. The only way to take better pictures is to be a better a photographer. However, better gear can make things easier and give you more capabilities. So with that said, I have both the Rx100 III and the 6S+ and I feel like it's easier for me to get the results I want and I'm able to do more on the Rx100. The big thing for me is the viewfinder. I've never been good at shooting on a LCD. I do a better job of taking a photo when the frame takes up most of my vision eliminating distractions. When I use the LCD, I'll get crap in the frame I didn't want (or just framing I didn't want) because I didn't notice it when I was holding the camera out. Secondly, the camera is way more stable when it's resting on my face. It's harder to hold it out in front of you and keep it steady. Physically, it's a better camera to take photos with. For the rest of it, you have the software and the hardware. As for software (for the capture, not the editing), Apple's is top notch. It automatically figures out the best settings for a good photo and does a great job at it. It's smart enough to take a few exposures when needed and blend them on the fly (HDR). They really work to get the most they can out of that tiny camera. As for Sony, the software is pretty good as well. It's smart enough to pick a good exposure in most conditions and has a few advanced features. With the RX100, more of the photographic decision making is going to be on you, instead of automatically with the iphone (if you use the default camera app). That's not a bad thing as people who know what they're doing more prefer it (including myself). For hardware, the RX100 III is far superior. The two main components that affect picture quality in any camera are the lens and sensor. The lens on the RX100 opens up wider (f/1.4 to 2.8) which allows for shallower depth of field and better performance in low light and has a zoom lens with a great range of 24-70 of 35mm equivalent. That basically means it goes from wide angle, covers normal vision, and then goes into telephoto which is a very useful range. The iphone is just a fixed focal length lens that can't zoom or do any shallow depth of field without software manipulation. As for sensors go, generally speaking, bigger is better. The iphone, being a phone, the sensor is tiny. On other hand, the RX100 has a large sensor for being a point and shoot (1inch in size). This larger sensor provides for better performance in low light, more detail, and better dynamic range (or more detail in the bright areas while still showing the dark areas or visa versa). As I mentioned before, Apple will fake this dynamic range by blending a few photos. As for extra detail, not much they can't do software wise yet. I know I've posted these photos in this thread a couple times, but going through what I currently have on Flickr here are a couple samples of things I feel like I couldn't get on my iphone:  IMG_2038.jpg by Ryan Tamm, on FlickrThis one is at a concert, low light and I can only get so close to the stage. The sensor and the lens worked in combination to get enough light to make it sharp and I was able to zoom in for the crop I wanted. If I did that with an iphone it would look very noisy/blurry and I'd have to shove the phone in the bassists face which I'm sure he wouldn't appreciate.  Lake Washington Ducks by Ryan Tamm, on FlickrThis one demonstrates how much extra detail you get from using the larger sensor. I don't have a side by side comparison, but I feel like with the phone, there wouldn't be much details in those waves. If I had a full frame camera, there would be even more detail but I'm happy with the RX100's results. Did that answer your question? Haggins fucked around with this message at 19:22 on Jul 26, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jul 26, 2017 19:18
|
|