Sony RX-100 - III or VA?

dCap wrote: I am somewhat perplexed (as an RX100 owner) at the contrasting comments in this thread - sure some are from people who have only touched it (and mistakenly thought it was made from plastic) ... but as a reference point it is either unusable garbage or excellent!? It is a compact camera not a 5x4" field plate camera. It is something that slips into actual trousers/pants pocket. I've honestly seriously considered not having any other camera and just running my RX100 IV - now, it isn't 'that' good. It is a compact camera. And I have assumed that the OP (and anyone else reading) has held a compact camera before. And understands that to make something small it won't have the biggest EVF ever made or a medium format sensor. It is almost invisible on the street compared to the smartphone in everyone else's hand and just 300g. Having owned (far far too) many cameras in the last 34 years I'm sure if any of my other tools broke or got lost I'd look around and think what to replace it with. With the RX100 - I'd just get another one asap. I kinda want to see the pockets that people are slipping the a6000000000000 with super-duper zoom into ... and can y'all actually walk with this in your pocket? Foxed I am.

I don't own one. I did hold it in my hands and play with it a bit in the store, not for me.
On EVF's; the sensor/mirror size is no longer a limiting factor in the size of the EVF's. But Sony seems to be only interested in producing tiny EVF's or full size back panel screens on their lower priced offerings. With my a77/a99 I have the screen turned in and do most shooting / navigating / reviewing through the EVF. I would seriously consider an RX100 with no back screen but an EVF the size of the a900 VF.
On invisibility; the cell phone is so ubiquitous, it is invisible to most people and no one cares. I've noted many experience where I pull out my DSLR and people act like I pulled out an AR-15.
On pockets; I don't think I would put a camera in my pants pocket but my TG-860 fits easily enough. If the camera is the size of your hand and thinner than a fist it should fit most unstylish jackets

Edited by LAbernethy - 29 December 2021 at 23:08

LAbernethy wrote: On EVF's; the sensor/mirror size is no longer a limiting factor in the size of the EVF's. But Sony seems to be only interested in producing tiny EVF's or full size back panel screens on their lower priced offerings. With my a77/a99 I have the screen turned in and do most shooting / navigating / reviewing through the EVF. I would seriously consider an RX100 with no back screen but an EVF the size of the a900 VF.

Oh, so true for me too. My favourite pocket camera in film days was the Rollei 35 classic (This one). Metal chassis, pocket sized, OVF the size of the A900 ... . I took one around Europe for many years with a Miranda Sensorex DSLR & prime lens set too, and the Rollei got plenty of use.

LAbernethy wrote: On invisibility; the cell phone is so ubiquitous, it is invisible to most people and no one cares. I've noted many experience where I pull out my DSLR and people act like I pulled out an AR-15.

You're not the only one. I once saw a neat line of schoolchildren at the seaside, all dressed identically and all staring over a wall at the sea (looking away from me). I thought the scene made a nice image of the kind I used to see in those classic b/w photography year books in the 1960s and took a picture with my DSLT. The teacher turned around and gave me a long haranguing demand that I delete the picture because her children were 'vulnerable', whatever that meant. Nothing I said (including the fact that their faces were not shown) affected her but I argued my case and didn't back down. However the experience shook me, and now I find myself feeling slightly guilty whenever children appear in my pictures, which is a pity because the innocence of children enjoying themselves in the playground is an appealing one that reminds me of my own childhood.

Edited by Miranda F - 30 December 2021 at 06:57

Miranda F wrote: Oh, so true for me too. My favourite pocket camera in film days was the Rollei 35 classic (This one). Metal chassis, pocket sized, OVF the size of the A900 ... . I took one around Europe for many years with a Miranda Sensorex DSLR & prime lens set too, and the Rollei got plenty of use.

The Rollei 35 has an magnification of 0.6x, the A900 .73x. Close but not close enough

Let me plug another camera: the Ricoh GR (I, II or III): with the snap focus you can do the zone focussing of the Rollei and if you like the imprecise framing of the Rollei, just add an optical viewfinder.

dCap wrote: ... I kinda want to see the pockets that people are slipping the a6000000000000 with super-duper zoom into ... and can y'all actually walk with this in your pocket? Foxed I am.

I haven't had mine for long, so I've been wearing a winter coat with pockets that take my A6000 + PZ 16-50 in a neoprene pouch along with whatever else I stuff in. It will fit in my suit jacket pockets. But you do have a point, in the summer I will rarely have a suitable pocket.

LAbernethy wrote: On pockets; I don't think I would put a camera in my pants pocket but my TG-860 fits easily enough. If the camera is the size of your hand and thinner than a fist it should fit most unstylish jackets

Unstylish is a perfect description of my jackets.

Perhaps I focused too much on the portability point - and the OPs mention of not wanting to reach into a bag to get a big camera out. So, logically is/was considering a compact. I have been there and had my small mirrorless (X-T3 + 23/2) in the small bag on my shoulder ... and just pull my phone out for a quick snap. But I'm also very happy to go for a photo wander with just a phone in my pocket and no bag at all (so no 'real' camera), or the RX100 IV in my hand.

It is also not always winter.

If it wasn't for the RX100 and my enjoyment of simple studio lit stuff I could probably not have a dSLR/mirrorless at all. For studio light I need a sync socket (or hot shoe gizmo). I think my one studio light cost just under "$100" new. But it is the wired variety and my XT-3 has a sync port. I have a side-hobby that needs macro-ish and studio light. If it wasn't for that then the X100V or GRIII (IV with flippy LCD please) would be all I really need. I've been tempted to do a year with just a phone though (my new iPhone 13 ready to be turned on having enjoyed my first ever iPhone (SE2) this year).

I'll probably do some side-by-side shoot with my RX100 IV and iPhone 13 at some point - on a sunny day for most IG type snaps I doubt many people would know which camera was being used. RX100 is more involved (has a physical button and flippy screen, and a zoom which I mostly ignore). GR III is so nearly the camera I need.

For this thread I dug through some shots and found the ONE and only time I'd shot the same subject with X-T3 and RX100 IV and iPhone SE. But the framing was quite different - I posted the triple to IG a while back as an example comparison. Doubt anyone would know which was which if I'd not labelled them.

RX100 III/IV/V/Va all have the 24-70/1.8-2.8
IV was the first with 4K (I think).
III is gonna be a super price/size solution for a mainly stills shooter
they get progressively faster processers ... but it is a compact so III/IV is fast enough
(it won't be as fast as the Sony A1 but it is also smaller)

VI & VII are the slower 24-200/2.8-4.5 ... got to really want/need 200mm
but also has touch and one-step EVF pop up/out
and the fastest processor and fps

Having used my RX100 (IV) for 18 months I'd happily not have the EVF. The EVF is very good (for a compact camera, and it is small because the camera is also small). So I don't think it is made to be used 100% of the time as an EVF camera, it is there for bright light times. But you could leave the EVF popped out/up all the time if you want. I specifically didn't get the Canon G7XIII because I thought I'd miss the EVF. Now, I'd like to handle one but the Sony prices are so much nicer. My earlier mention of G5XII price was wrong (I was looking at the dual battery version) it is 'just' £850 - compared to £400 for the RX100 III.

Sadly, the Panasonic compacts with 1-type sensor appear to have internal dust problems. Lots of threads about that. So, I totally ruled them out. And couldn't 'easily' find mention of people saying they had dust issues with the RX100 (I don't after life in a town on a beach).

Plus I've been watching a YouTuber for over 5 years with a very muddy/dusty lifestyle and never seen dust on the videos [until he employed staff with a mirrorless camera, and now I see dust on those shoot and not when he is alone with his RX100]. Real life example.

Not being able to add anything big/expensive/good to a GRIII, X100V, or RX100 is also an important factor. No decisions on which lenses to take - you always have the correct lens attached!! Likely not to have/bother with filters too.

jenik.nk wrote: But there's one thing I'm afraid of. You can buy more lenses. Mmmmm... what about a bright 35? A bright 50? Or even 85? Even the dedicated Sony 35/1.8 costs about the same as the whole RX-100 III. Do I need it? Buying a compact camera with build-in lens helps to save time (thinking about more lenses) and money.

That is the best reason not to go for an interchangeable lens camera

I looked at the samples over at imaging resources - that is another option next to the Dpreview sample galleries. For me, those were the reason to go for the Canon G1x3. Didn't like the foliage on any 1" camera, but the Sony's were the best among those.

If you're fine with using the screen mostly, the RX100's should be great I think. You'll have the EVF when needed in for instance sunny light or in the dark when it is inappropriate to use the screen. But it is not the best out there. It is smaller then the A6000 one (only checked mark III).

You mentioned the Canon G9x mark II. Those are the same price as the Sony RX100 III (in The Netherlands). I do not think they are worth that unless you want an even smaller camera. But the lens is not as good, has a smaller range and slower aperture. If it was €100,- less it would be a contender, but as it is I don't think so.

Edited by addy landzaat - 30 December 2021 at 16:51