Sony RX100 or Panasonic GF6?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by HerHusband, Oct 18, 2013.

  1. HerHusband

    HerHusband Guest

    Our Nikon P300 point and shoot camera is starting to flake out, so I'm
    looking to buy a new camera for Christmas.

    We're just amateurs who have always used point and shoot compact cameras.
    But, we would like to find a camera that can take better pictures.
    Unfortunately, our budget is $500-600.

    My wife's biggest issue with the P300 is the shot-to-shot delay. She often
    misses a photo because she's waiting for the previous photo to be saved.
    She's also a "drive by photographer" who likes to take pictures from our
    car while we're driving. Obviously, half of those end up too blurry to
    keep. Finally, she wishes the P300 had a better zoom, even though half of
    her photos are close up macro shots?

    I would like a camera that takes better pictures in low light, especially
    in places like dark forests where a flash is inadequate. I would also like
    better color accuracy, less noise, and full HD video capability.

    So far I've narrowed my search to the Sony RX100 or Panasonic GF6.

    The GF6 is cheaper, has a larger sensor, and faster shot-to-shot times (1.1
    seconds with flash). Unfortunately, the zoom maxes out at 42mm (half of our
    P300). There are better zoom lenses available, but that's beyond our
    budget. I'm also uncertain about the larger size/format since we've never
    used anything but point and shoots. Especially since my wife likes to stick
    her hand out the car window to take pictures. :)

    The RX100 costs more, has a larger sensor than our P300, has the same 100mm
    zoom as our P300, and is a familiar compact camera format. It also produces
    better 1920x1080x60p video at a 28mbps bitrate (I think the GF6 is 30p at
    17mbps?). Unfortunately, the power-on time is twice as slow as our P300 and
    the shot-to-shot time is about the same.

    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?

    Thanks,

    Anthony Watson
    www.mountainsoftware.com
    www.watsondiy.com
     
    HerHusband, Oct 18, 2013
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. HerHusband

    Sandman Guest

    In article <XnsA25D56C7FD16Fherhusband@78.46.70.116>,
    HerHusband <> wrote:

    > Our Nikon P300 point and shoot camera is starting to flake out, so I'm
    > looking to buy a new camera for Christmas.
    >
    > We're just amateurs who have always used point and shoot compact cameras.
    > But, we would like to find a camera that can take better pictures.
    > Unfortunately, our budget is $500-600.
    >
    > My wife's biggest issue with the P300 is the shot-to-shot delay. She often
    > misses a photo because she's waiting for the previous photo to be saved.
    > She's also a "drive by photographer" who likes to take pictures from our
    > car while we're driving. Obviously, half of those end up too blurry to
    > keep. Finally, she wishes the P300 had a better zoom, even though half of
    > her photos are close up macro shots?
    >
    > I would like a camera that takes better pictures in low light, especially
    > in places like dark forests where a flash is inadequate. I would also like
    > better color accuracy, less noise, and full HD video capability.
    >
    > So far I've narrowed my search to the Sony RX100 or Panasonic GF6.
    >
    > The GF6 is cheaper, has a larger sensor, and faster shot-to-shot times (1.1
    > seconds with flash). Unfortunately, the zoom maxes out at 42mm (half of our
    > P300). There are better zoom lenses available, but that's beyond our
    > budget. I'm also uncertain about the larger size/format since we've never
    > used anything but point and shoots. Especially since my wife likes to stick
    > her hand out the car window to take pictures. :)
    >
    > The RX100 costs more, has a larger sensor than our P300, has the same 100mm
    > zoom as our P300, and is a familiar compact camera format. It also produces
    > better 1920x1080x60p video at a 28mbps bitrate (I think the GF6 is 30p at
    > 17mbps?). Unfortunately, the power-on time is twice as slow as our P300 and
    > the shot-to-shot time is about the same.
    >
    > 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. I'm sure there is an equivalent
    Canon, but I'm a Nikon guy.

    It has 4 fps, that's 4 shots per second, so you don't have to worry
    about that part. It does ISO 6400 so it's acceptable in a dim forest
    (use a steady hand and a tripod either way). And you can put it in
    different modes or shoot fully manually (fast shutter speeds means less
    blurry pics when she's taking pics from the car). Tell her to use the
    neck strap around her neck and then she can stick the camera whereever
    she wish :)

    It's a full DSLR camera, but in auto mode will work pretty much like any
    P&S camera apart from being slightly bigger. It's pretty small for a
    DSLR, though. And, being a DSLR, you can actually take your time and
    learn more about photography in the pace you like. Most P&S cameras are
    for those that just want to... you know, point and shoot. A DSLR has the
    edge on them by having an auto mode but always being instant-ON. There
    is no wait time from you taking up the camera and until you can take a
    shot. There is no wait time between shots, and as time goes by, you'll
    learn how to set up the camera for your special needs (in the car, in
    the woods, etc) and you have way more possibilities.

    The common kit is $547 on amazon:

    http://tinyurl.com/oz6ev7x

    But I wouldn't get that, I would probably buy the body alone for $410:

    http://tinyurl.com/kn22894

    And then add the Tamron 18-200 lens for $199:

    http://tinyurl.com/phvm9l7

    It's a decent cheap lens with *stabilization*, which is crucial for dim
    shots and even in the car shots.

    And, you can buy the lenses second hand as well.




    --
    Sandman[.net]
     
    Sandman, Oct 19, 2013
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. HerHusband

    David Taylor Guest

    On 19/10/2013 09:37, Sandman wrote:
    []
    > And then add the Tamron 18-200 lens for $199:
    >
    > http://tinyurl.com/phvm9l7
    >
    > It's a decent cheap lens with *stabilization*, which is crucial for dim
    > shots and even in the car shots.


    That's an awfully low price for a 18-200 mm lens!

    --
    Cheers,
    David
    Web: http://www.satsignal.eu
     
    David Taylor, Oct 19, 2013
    #3
  4. HerHusband

    David Taylor Guest

    David Taylor, Oct 19, 2013
    #4
  5. HerHusband

    Sandman Guest

    In article <l3thv6$e83$>,
    YouDontNeedToKnowButItsNoëlle <> wrote:

    > Le 19/10/13 10:37, Sandman a écrit :
    >
    > > The Nikon D3200 is really your best bet. I'm sure there is an equivalent
    > > Canon, but I'm a Nikon guy.

    >
    > I would support this too, being a Nikon girl :) but more the 5XXX series
    > : the lateral screen can be more convenient to shoot from different
    > positions, including from a car window.
    > Many reflexes can be used as P&S as well.
    >
    > Noëlle Adam


    Yeah, but the 5XXX breaks his budget, unfortunately.


    --
    Sandman[.net]
     
    Sandman, Oct 19, 2013
    #5
  6. HerHusband

    Sandman Guest

    In article <l3thh6$47h$>,
    David Taylor <> wrote:

    > On 19/10/2013 09:37, Sandman wrote:
    > []
    > > And then add the Tamron 18-200 lens for $199:
    > >
    > > http://tinyurl.com/phvm9l7
    > >
    > > It's a decent cheap lens with *stabilization*, which is crucial for dim
    > > shots and even in the car shots.

    >
    > That's an awfully low price for a 18-200 mm lens!


    Indeed. I have it myself, it's a really good lens for that price.


    --
    Sandman[.net]
     
    Sandman, Oct 19, 2013
    #6
  7. HerHusband

    PeterN Guest

    On 10/19/2013 4:57 AM, David Taylor wrote:
    > On 19/10/2013 09:37, Sandman wrote:
    > []
    >> And then add the Tamron 18-200 lens for $199:
    >>
    >> http://tinyurl.com/phvm9l7
    >>
    >> It's a decent cheap lens with *stabilization*, which is crucial for dim
    >> shots and even in the car shots.

    >
    > That's an awfully low price for a 18-200 mm lens!
    >


    Yes it is. The particular reseller has an excellent reputation. Now the
    bad news, if you read the reviews, you will see that the lens is soft,
    too much so above 100mm, and takes a long time to focus. They also fudge
    the focal length.


    --
    PeterN
     
    PeterN, Oct 19, 2013
    #7
  8. HerHusband

    HerHusband Guest

    >> 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.

    Thanks for the recommendation!

    Anthony Watson
    www.mountainsoftware.com
    www.watsondiy.com
     
    HerHusband, Oct 19, 2013
    #8
  9. HerHusband

    Sandman Guest

    In article <XnsA25E607B4FADEherhusband@78.46.70.116>,
    HerHusband <> 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 :)




    --
    Sandman[.net]
     
    Sandman, Oct 19, 2013
    #9
  10. HerHusband

    J. Clarke Guest

    In article <XnsA25E607B4FADEherhusband@78.46.70.116>,
    says...
    >
    > >> 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.
    >
    > Thanks for the recommendation!


    Here's a suggestion that's a little outside the box. You're OK with a
    point and shoot except you want faster response and a bit longer tele.

    Rather than going with the latest and greatest, you might be better
    served by going with an older model and a more comprehensive set of
    lenses.

    The Panasonic GF3 is very "point-and-shoot" like in its handling--it has
    fewer controls than the GF6, and fewer pixels, but it still in
    dpreview's tests achieved a 0.3 second response time from button-press
    to shutter-fire.

    Amazon has a limited number of new GF3KK kits in stock for $279--that's
    the body and the 14-42 kit lens.

    This leaves you with money for accessories.

    To get more on the long end, the 45-200 Panasonic lens adds $269, which
    puts you at $548.

    Macro lenses for the 4/3 system don't come cheap, but Chinese made
    automatic extension tubes do at $23, which should give a significant
    improvement in macro capability, and you're at $572.

    Now, if you occasionally want to actually carry that camera in a coat
    pocket, you can add the Olympus "body-cap" super-thin lens for $49.95.

    Note that I'd go for either Panasonic over the Sony simply because micro
    4/3 is a well established open standard with hardware from multiple
    vendors and is backward-compatible with the non-micro 4/3 system.
     
    J. Clarke, Oct 19, 2013
    #10
  11. HerHusband

    Wally Guest

    On Sat, 19 Oct 2013 20:48:32 +0200, Sandman <> wrote:

    >In article <XnsA25E607B4FADEherhusband@78.46.70.116>,
    > HerHusband <> 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
     
    Wally, Oct 20, 2013
    #11
  12. HerHusband

    David Taylor Guest

    On 20/10/2013 05:33, Wally wrote:
    > On Sat, 19 Oct 2013 20:48:32 +0200, Sandman <> wrote:
    >
    >> In article <XnsA25E607B4FADEherhusband@78.46.70.116>,
    >> HerHusband <> 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
     
    David Taylor, Oct 20, 2013
    #12
  13. HerHusband

    J. Clarke Guest

    In article <l3vr90$a62$>, david-
    d says...
    >
    > On 20/10/2013 05:33, Wally wrote:
    > > On Sat, 19 Oct 2013 20:48:32 +0200, Sandman <> wrote:
    > >
    > >> In article <XnsA25E607B4FADEherhusband@78.46.70.116>,
    > >> HerHusband <> 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.
     
    J. Clarke, Oct 20, 2013
    #13
  14. HerHusband

    David Taylor Guest

    David Taylor, Oct 20, 2013
    #14
  15. HerHusband

    J. Clarke Guest

    In article <l3vv5j$op3$>, david-
    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.
     
    J. Clarke, Oct 20, 2013
    #15
  16. HerHusband

    Sandman Guest

    In article <>,
    Wally <> 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]
     
    Sandman, Oct 20, 2013
    #16
  17. HerHusband

    Sandman Guest

    In article <l405ou$h7m$>,
    YouDontNeedToKnowButItsNoëlle <> 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]
     
    Sandman, Oct 20, 2013
    #17
  18. HerHusband

    Sandman Guest

    In article <l40gj9$csv$>,
    YouDontNeedToKnowButItsNoëlle <> 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]
     
    Sandman, Oct 20, 2013
    #18
  19. HerHusband

    J. Clarke Guest

    In article <>,
    says...
    >
    > In article <>,
    > Wally <> 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 :)
     
    J. Clarke, Oct 20, 2013
    #19
  20. HerHusband

    Sandman Guest

    In article <>,
    "J. Clarke" <> 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]
     
    Sandman, Oct 20, 2013
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. zzzzz
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    902
    Misa Mirkovic
    Feb 21, 2004
  2. Crow T Robot

    Panasonic or Sony

    Crow T Robot, Jul 24, 2003, in forum: DVD Video
    Replies:
    18
    Views:
    809
    Jimmy Hagg
    Aug 6, 2003
  3. J. Clarke

    Panasonic FZ7 Accessories in stock at Panasonic.com

    J. Clarke, May 12, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    498
    J. Clarke
    May 12, 2006
  4. Replies:
    1
    Views:
    906
    Thrill5
    Jun 24, 2009
  5. RichA
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    571
    RichA
    Feb 15, 2012
Loading...

Share This Page