Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Sony RX100 or Panasonic GF6?

Reply
Thread Tools

Sony RX100 or Panasonic GF6?

 
 
Wally
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-20-2013
On Sat, 19 Oct 2013 20:48:32 +0200, Sandman <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>In article <XnsA25E607B4FADEherhusband@78.46.70.116>,
> HerHusband <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> >> Would you recommend the RX100 or the GF6 for point and shoot
>> >> amateurs? Is there another camera that we should also look at in our
>> >> price range?

>>
>> > The Nikon D3200 is really your best bet.

>>
>> It fits our price range, has a big sensor, fast speeds, and good video.
>> Unfortunately, it's probably bigger and heavier than she is wanting. We're
>> more the "stick it in your pocket" kind of folks.
>>
>> I will add it to my list of possibilities though.

>
>I think the result is worth the size. My wife "inherited" my Nikon D80
>when I got my first FF, and she hasn't used the P&S since. She's got her
>iPhone for taking pictures on the go, and the DSLR for taking pictures
>she wants to save


Many of us have way more camera than we need.

If all you do is view your pics on a monitor, then realize that a
monitor displays only around 2 megapixels. If your camera has 20
megapixels, you are not seeing 90% of them.

I gave my DSLR to my daughter when I moved up... she was a
point-and-shoot artist and had been drooling over the DSLR. She did
use it for a while, but now it is just collecting dust. Her compact
gives results that are as good as she needs (viewed on the monitor)
and is much easier to carry around.

A somewhat similar case: a friend of mine bought a big zoom ratio
small sensor point-and-shoot even after I had showed him my RX100 and
DSLRs. His selection was more convenient to carry and use, and more
versatile. He did grumble later about poor low light performance, but
that was a tradeoff he will need to accept.

Best to just buy what you need, assuming you know what those needs
are.

W
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
David Taylor
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-20-2013
On 20/10/2013 05:33, Wally wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Oct 2013 20:48:32 +0200, Sandman <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> In article <XnsA25E607B4FADEherhusband@78.46.70.116>,
>> HerHusband <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>>>> Would you recommend the RX100 or the GF6 for point and shoot
>>>>> amateurs? Is there another camera that we should also look at in our
>>>>> price range?
>>>
>>>> The Nikon D3200 is really your best bet.
>>>
>>> It fits our price range, has a big sensor, fast speeds, and good video.
>>> Unfortunately, it's probably bigger and heavier than she is wanting. We're
>>> more the "stick it in your pocket" kind of folks.
>>>
>>> I will add it to my list of possibilities though.

>>
>> I think the result is worth the size. My wife "inherited" my Nikon D80
>> when I got my first FF, and she hasn't used the P&S since. She's got her
>> iPhone for taking pictures on the go, and the DSLR for taking pictures
>> she wants to save

>
> Many of us have way more camera than we need.
>
> If all you do is view your pics on a monitor, then realize that a
> monitor displays only around 2 megapixels. If your camera has 20
> megapixels, you are not seeing 90% of them.
>
> I gave my DSLR to my daughter when I moved up... she was a
> point-and-shoot artist and had been drooling over the DSLR. She did
> use it for a while, but now it is just collecting dust. Her compact
> gives results that are as good as she needs (viewed on the monitor)
> and is much easier to carry around.
>
> A somewhat similar case: a friend of mine bought a big zoom ratio
> small sensor point-and-shoot even after I had showed him my RX100 and
> DSLRs. His selection was more convenient to carry and use, and more
> versatile. He did grumble later about poor low light performance, but
> that was a tradeoff he will need to accept.
>
> Best to just buy what you need, assuming you know what those needs
> are.
>
> W


In general, I agree. Different cameras suit different people's
different needs. I have both P&S and DSLR, and while the P&S is very
good (800 mm eq. max zoom), the DSLR is better in low light, and is my
preferred choice for quality shots, and those where I feel more need for
control (e.g. close-ups of electronics). But if I'm out on a short
journey, mainly outdoor shooting, the P&S is more convenient to carry.

The P&S has 18 MP and the DSLR 24 MP. Yes, I mostly display on
monitors, but having the extra MP allows for some cropping, and provides
a better image at the 2 MP display size through more averaging. Don't
forget that "4K" displays are starting to be available - and that's 8 MP
IIRC.
--
Cheers,
David
Web: http://www.satsignal.eu
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
J. Clarke
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-20-2013
In article <l3vr90$a62$(E-Mail Removed)>, david-
http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed)d says...
>
> On 20/10/2013 05:33, Wally wrote:
> > On Sat, 19 Oct 2013 20:48:32 +0200, Sandman <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >
> >> In article <XnsA25E607B4FADEherhusband@78.46.70.116>,
> >> HerHusband <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >>
> >>>>> Would you recommend the RX100 or the GF6 for point and shoot
> >>>>> amateurs? Is there another camera that we should also look at in our
> >>>>> price range?
> >>>
> >>>> The Nikon D3200 is really your best bet.
> >>>
> >>> It fits our price range, has a big sensor, fast speeds, and good video.
> >>> Unfortunately, it's probably bigger and heavier than she is wanting. We're
> >>> more the "stick it in your pocket" kind of folks.
> >>>
> >>> I will add it to my list of possibilities though.
> >>
> >> I think the result is worth the size. My wife "inherited" my Nikon D80
> >> when I got my first FF, and she hasn't used the P&S since. She's got her
> >> iPhone for taking pictures on the go, and the DSLR for taking pictures
> >> she wants to save

> >
> > Many of us have way more camera than we need.
> >
> > If all you do is view your pics on a monitor, then realize that a
> > monitor displays only around 2 megapixels. If your camera has 20
> > megapixels, you are not seeing 90% of them.
> >
> > I gave my DSLR to my daughter when I moved up... she was a
> > point-and-shoot artist and had been drooling over the DSLR. She did
> > use it for a while, but now it is just collecting dust. Her compact
> > gives results that are as good as she needs (viewed on the monitor)
> > and is much easier to carry around.
> >
> > A somewhat similar case: a friend of mine bought a big zoom ratio
> > small sensor point-and-shoot even after I had showed him my RX100 and
> > DSLRs. His selection was more convenient to carry and use, and more
> > versatile. He did grumble later about poor low light performance, but
> > that was a tradeoff he will need to accept.
> >
> > Best to just buy what you need, assuming you know what those needs
> > are.
> >
> > W

>
> In general, I agree. Different cameras suit different people's
> different needs. I have both P&S and DSLR, and while the P&S is very
> good (800 mm eq. max zoom), the DSLR is better in low light, and is my
> preferred choice for quality shots, and those where I feel more need for
> control (e.g. close-ups of electronics). But if I'm out on a short
> journey, mainly outdoor shooting, the P&S is more convenient to carry.
>
> The P&S has 18 MP and the DSLR 24 MP. Yes, I mostly display on
> monitors, but having the extra MP allows for some cropping, and provides
> a better image at the 2 MP display size through more averaging. Don't
> forget that "4K" displays are starting to be available - and that's 8 MP
> IIRC.


And I remember a product demo at IBM for the PC-RT in which they were
making a big deal of the "megapixel display" which cost umpteen
thousands of dollars.


 
Reply With Quote
 
David Taylor
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-20-2013
On 20/10/2013 07:38, J. Clarke wrote:
[]
> And I remember a product demo at IBM for the PC-RT in which they were
> making a big deal of the "megapixel display" which cost umpteen
> thousands of dollars.


Perhaps the 9+ megapixels:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_T220/T221_LCD_monitors


--
Cheers,
David
Web: http://www.satsignal.eu
 
Reply With Quote
 
J. Clarke
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-20-2013
In article <l3vv5j$op3$(E-Mail Removed)>, david-
(E-Mail Removed)d says...
>
> On 20/10/2013 07:38, J. Clarke wrote:
> []
> > And I remember a product demo at IBM for the PC-RT in which they were
> > making a big deal of the "megapixel display" which cost umpteen
> > thousands of dollars.

>
> Perhaps the 9+ megapixels:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_T220/T221_LCD_monitors


Naah, this was a CRT.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Sandman
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-20-2013
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
Wally <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> >I think the result is worth the size. My wife "inherited" my Nikon D80
> >when I got my first FF, and she hasn't used the P&S since. She's got her
> >iPhone for taking pictures on the go, and the DSLR for taking pictures
> >she wants to save

>
> Many of us have way more camera than we need.


*cough* I have no idea what you're talking about...

> If all you do is view your pics on a monitor, then realize that a
> monitor displays only around 2 megapixels. If your camera has 20
> megapixels, you are not seeing 90% of them.


Well, you have to account for cropping as well.

> I gave my DSLR to my daughter when I moved up... she was a
> point-and-shoot artist and had been drooling over the DSLR. She did
> use it for a while, but now it is just collecting dust. Her compact
> gives results that are as good as she needs (viewed on the monitor)
> and is much easier to carry around.


I'm sorry, that's either a really crappy DSLR or an amazing P&S or a
daughter that never got around to learn how to use a DSLR properly.

Granted, you say "as good as she needs", not "as good as the DSLR" so
maybe she didn't aspire to take great photos?

And "viewing on a monitor" has nothing to do with it. I.e. a DSLR having
larger resolution than your daughter's P&S isn't the only difference it
brings to the game.

> A somewhat similar case: a friend of mine bought a big zoom ratio
> small sensor point-and-shoot even after I had showed him my RX100 and
> DSLRs. His selection was more convenient to carry and use, and more
> versatile. He did grumble later about poor low light performance, but
> that was a tradeoff he will need to accept.


Yeah, he should certainly have opted for a DSLR. P&S and mirrorless has
come a long way, but they're nowhere near to touching DSLR performance,
or even range and quality of glass.

> Best to just buy what you need, assuming you know what those needs
> are.


Yeah, which is why I recommended the DSLR to the OP, based on what we
know about his and his wife's needs



--
Sandman[.net]
 
Reply With Quote
 
Sandman
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-20-2013
In article <l405ou$h7m$(E-Mail Removed)>,
YouDontNeedToKnowButItsNoëlle <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> > I'm sorry, that's either a really crappy DSLR or an amazing P&S or a
> > daughter that never got around to learn how to use a DSLR properly.

>
> May be a combination . But the point is, you take better shots with a
> camera you happen to have with you.


Indeed, and even better if that happens to be a DSLR

> If a DSLR (and Low end DSLR+ kit lens are ways cheaper than good P&S)
> is too big to be with you when you want to use it, you dont take the
> shots.


Indeed, there are many times where the camera you have with you is your
only choice. These days, that's your smart phone by a factor of
something like 100:1 at least. P&S cameras are rarely the camera you
have with you. I.e. you have to choose to bring the P&S with you, and if
you're choosing to bring a camera, and you have a DSLR which is slightly
bigger (the Nikon 3XXX isn't huge by any stretch of the imagination),
there are good reasons for you to take the DSLR.

> > Granted, you say "as good as she needs", not "as good as the DSLR" so
> > maybe she didn't aspire to take great photos?

>
> As good as she need is a fine mesure.


But then again, doesn't her smart phone take as good pictures as her P&S
in those cases?

> > Yeah, he should certainly have opted for a DSLR. P&S and mirrorless has
> > come a long way, but they're nowhere near to touching DSLR performance,
> > or even range and quality of glass.

>
> It depends. Some mirroless have a real good quality and optics and can
> be a good compromise


Indeed, but a compromise nonetheless. I have the Sony RX1R myself, which
I'm sure most would agree is one of the finest P&S cameras currently in
production. It lags behind my wife's seven year old Nikon D80 in many
ways even so. Glass is one thing, even with mirrorless, you never get as
good glass as with ASP-C/FF cameras, and with P&S you're stuck with the
glass they put on. The Sony handles ISO better than the D80, but the D80
is instant-on and has no lag between shots.

> but still low-end dslr are the best ratio when you
> look at image quality and price.


Yeah, it's pretty amazing what you get for the price these days.

> But the usability of something that fit in one's pocket is something
> else. It is another term in the equation.


I don't disagree at all. I just don't see the P&S to be in that pocket
anymore. It's the phone.




--
Sandman[.net]
 
Reply With Quote
 
Sandman
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-20-2013
In article <l40gj9$csv$(E-Mail Removed)>,
YouDontNeedToKnowButItsNoëlle <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> > I don't disagree at all. I just don't see the P&S to be in that pocket
> > anymore. It's the phone.

>
> The phone camera is eating up the market for low-end P&S.
> High-end P&S or small mirroless are another matter. They are really
> easier to carry around than dslr.


No doubt about that, but neither is pocketable. I.e. the high-end P&S
and the high-end mirrorless are usually not something you put in your
pocket, where your phone is.

So we're talking about someone that don't mind carrying a camera in
their bag, but would rather have a lighter camera in that bag. There
certainly is a market there for sure, and it's the reason I got the RX1R
to begin with.

> I think the market for that is emergent, and the marked for bridges is
> declining.


What do you mean by "bridges"? For me, that's something you use to go
over rivers

> I would definitively buy an "expert" compact to carry in my purse if the
> price was not repulsive for me. Let's say if I have 500 € available, I
> would consider "buy an expert compact or a upgrade one of my old lenses
> for dslr ". The new lens will win.


Good choice




--
Sandman[.net]
 
Reply With Quote
 
J. Clarke
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-20-2013
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
(E-Mail Removed) says...
>
> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
> Wally <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> > >I think the result is worth the size. My wife "inherited" my Nikon D80
> > >when I got my first FF, and she hasn't used the P&S since. She's got her
> > >iPhone for taking pictures on the go, and the DSLR for taking pictures
> > >she wants to save

> >
> > Many of us have way more camera than we need.

>
> *cough* I have no idea what you're talking about...
>
> > If all you do is view your pics on a monitor, then realize that a
> > monitor displays only around 2 megapixels. If your camera has 20
> > megapixels, you are not seeing 90% of them.

>
> Well, you have to account for cropping as well.
>
> > I gave my DSLR to my daughter when I moved up... she was a
> > point-and-shoot artist and had been drooling over the DSLR. She did
> > use it for a while, but now it is just collecting dust. Her compact
> > gives results that are as good as she needs (viewed on the monitor)
> > and is much easier to carry around.

>
> I'm sorry, that's either a really crappy DSLR or an amazing P&S or a
> daughter that never got around to learn how to use a DSLR properly.
>
> Granted, you say "as good as she needs", not "as good as the DSLR" so
> maybe she didn't aspire to take great photos?
>
> And "viewing on a monitor" has nothing to do with it. I.e. a DSLR having
> larger resolution than your daughter's P&S isn't the only difference it
> brings to the game.
>
> > A somewhat similar case: a friend of mine bought a big zoom ratio
> > small sensor point-and-shoot even after I had showed him my RX100 and
> > DSLRs. His selection was more convenient to carry and use, and more
> > versatile. He did grumble later about poor low light performance, but
> > that was a tradeoff he will need to accept.

>
> Yeah, he should certainly have opted for a DSLR. P&S and mirrorless has
> come a long way, but they're nowhere near to touching DSLR performance,
> or even range and quality of glass.


I have to take exception to "range and quality of glass". The Canon
mirrorless has an APS-C sensor and will with an adapter providing full
functionality accept nearly all Canon EF and EF-S lenses as well as
those purpose-designed for mirrorless.

The Nikon 1 has something similar for AF-S lenses, but its relatively
small sensor means a huge crop factor.

Both systems (and four thirds as well) will with third party adapters
take a huge range of glass from other manufacturers including most of
the Leica M and R lenses and just about any Nikon or Canon lens that has
manual focus and aperture available.

So whatever their shortcomings, "range and quality of glass" is not one
of them.

That said, I would not recommend the Canon mirrorless at this time--it's
a pretty weak effort.

> > Best to just buy what you need, assuming you know what those needs
> > are.

>
> Yeah, which is why I recommended the DSLR to the OP, based on what we
> know about his and his wife's needs



 
Reply With Quote
 
Sandman
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-20-2013
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
"J. Clarke" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> > Yeah, he should certainly have opted for a DSLR. P&S and mirrorless has
> > come a long way, but they're nowhere near to touching DSLR performance,
> > or even range and quality of glass.

>
> I have to take exception to "range and quality of glass". The Canon
> mirrorless has an APS-C sensor and will with an adapter providing full
> functionality accept nearly all Canon EF and EF-S lenses as well as
> those purpose-designed for mirrorless.


With full AF and IS? I didn't know that, actually. Not sure which camera
this is, is it the EOS-M?

> The Nikon 1 has something similar for AF-S lenses, but its relatively
> small sensor means a huge crop factor.


Indeed. And I would still put that glass on a real DSLR to get the full
benefit of it.

> Both systems (and four thirds as well) will with third party adapters
> take a huge range of glass from other manufacturers including most of
> the Leica M and R lenses and just about any Nikon or Canon lens that has
> manual focus and aperture available.


Well, unless the adapters provide full AF, then I wouldn't really
consider them in this particular discussion, but more in the terms "can
it be done"? type of thing.

> So whatever their shortcomings, "range and quality of glass" is not one
> of them.


Well, not all P&S are Canon EOS-M, and not all adapters provide AF/IS
etc so it doesn't take away THAT much from the statement.

> That said, I would not recommend the Canon mirrorless at this time--it's
> a pretty weak effort.


Oh? Well, I wouldn't know. I don't keep track of Canon gear.





--
Sandman[.net]
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Panasonic trying to disrupt sales the OM-D by offering up rumours ofa new, high-end Panasonic? RichA Digital Photography 3 02-15-2012 01:16 PM
Trunk beteen Panasonic IP-PBX Panasonic Cisco.ahmed@gmail.com Cisco 1 06-24-2009 10:30 PM
Panasonic FZ7 Accessories in stock at Panasonic.com J. Clarke Digital Photography 0 05-12-2006 05:00 PM
Sony DCR-TRV950 & Panasonic NV-MX500 Question ? zzzzz Computer Support 1 02-21-2004 06:50 PM
Panasonic or Sony Crow T Robot DVD Video 18 08-06-2003 03:40 PM



Advertisments