I want a new compact

Yes the LX100 or RX100 would be compact yet have a more useful zoom range than a CSC with a pancake.
 
odd jim said:
A CSC is more than marginally bigger than a pocket camera! With a mid to big zoom you're at DSLR size. While the RX100 is a pocket camera. Yet it delivers images well and above that.
Click to expand...

Fair point. I think I need to go out and get my hands on some of the kit mentioned. I often find that the cameras sell themselves when in the hand.
 
odd jim said:
A CSC is more than marginally bigger than a pocket camera! With a mid to big zoom you're at DSLR size. While the RX100 is a pocket camera. Yet it delivers images well and above that.
Click to expand...
had a look at camerasize.com as this allows comparisons with lenses (unlike snapsort) and i tried a D3300 with an xpro1 both with the 18-55 kit lens and whilst the lens size is not hugely different the dslr is about twice as "thick" from front to back
http://camerasize.com/compact/#258.359,509.36,ha,t
 
boliston said:
had a look at camerasize.com as this allows comparisons with lenses (unlike snapsort) and i tried a D3300 with an xpro1 both with the 18-55 kit lens and whilst the lens size is not hugely different the dslr is about twice as "thick" from front to back
http://camerasize.com/compact/#258.359,509.36,ha,t
Click to expand...
Yes indeed, but closer in size to a DSLR than a pocket camera, which the RX100 truly is.

A CSC would never really be a camera you could comfortably fit into a pocket, even with a pancake lens (that might fit in a BIG pocket though:))
 
ianp5a said:
Yes the LX100 or RX100 would be compact yet have a more useful zoom range than a CSC with a pancake.
Click to expand...
For me the LX100 isn't a truly pocketable camera. Also you can get a 12-32mm pancake for CSC which is 24-64mm so only 6mm shy of the RX100/LX100, or 14-42mm pancake which overall has more range but not quite as wide at the short end.
 
odd jim said:
Yes indeed, but closer in size to a DSLR than a pocket camera, which the RX100 truly is.

A CSC would never really be a camera you could comfortably fit into a pocket, even with a pancake lens (that might fit in a BIG pocket though:))
Click to expand...
Agreed, I bought the EM10 and 14-42mm with the intent of it being pocketable but it really isn't IMO. Even in a large coat pocket I found it bulky.
 
I’ve heard good things about the Panyason FZ1000 with 2.8 lens a nd big sensor.. not sure if its too big for you what you want thought maybe,,
 
lawrenceots said:
I’ve heard good things about the Panyason FZ1000 with 2.8 lens a nd big sensor.. not sure if its too big for you what you want thought maybe,,
Click to expand...

But it's another rather large camera, with a slower lens than the RX100 / LX100. Definitely not pocketable!
 
If you want a pocket camera that takes great images and size is a big contributing factor for you, I think you have found the camera - the Sony RX100 (mkIII or MKIV)

If you are interested in a CSC or M4/3 system, thats a different question altogether.

Im after something to fit in my pocket that takes great images when I dont want to lug around my 5D. For me the RX100 IV does that.
 
messinghamp said:
If you want a pocket camera that takes great images and size is a big contributing factor for you, I think you have found the camera - the Sony RX100 (mkIII or MKIV)

If you are interested in a CSC or M4/3 system, thats a different question altogether.

Im after something to fit in my pocket that takes great images when I dont want to lug around my 5D. For me the RX100 IV does that.
Click to expand...
The mk1 and 2 deliver just as good IQ :)
 
odd jim said:
The mk1 and 2 deliver just as good IQ :)
Click to expand...
Depends how you interpret that. The mark I and II have much slower lenses than the mark III and IV so there are times (such as low light) where the III and IV have a big advantage.
 
Now, just to throw this into the mix. After raving aboutthe RX100, I have just read DXO's comparisson between the RX100 mkiv and the Canon G7X. The canon scores HIGHER !!!! and can be haf for just over HALF the price (£329).

Saving £300 and as good. It has a longer lens up to 100mm (equiv) compared to the Sony's 70mm (equiv). This might be it for me, not sure I can justify an extra £300 for the Sony that may be slightly (not noticably) better.

Sorry to confuse you all.
 
messinghamp said:
Now, just to throw this into the mix. After raving aboutthe RX100, I have just read DXO's comparisson between the RX100 mkiv and the Canon G7X. The canon scores HIGHER !!!! and can be haf for just over HALF the price (£329).

Saving £300 and as good. It has a longer lens up to 100mm (equiv) compared to the Sony's 70mm (equiv). This might be it for me, not sure I can justify an extra £300 for the Sony that may be slightly (not noticably) better.

Sorry to confuse you all.
Click to expand...
Yep, this is why I'm going to get the G7x when I've saved up enough. Longer reach than the RX100 Mark III is probably more useful to me than the viewfinder, and has a faster and wider lens than the mark II.
 
snerkler said:
Depends how you interpret that. The mark I and II have much slower lenses than the mark III and IV so there are times (such as low light) where the III and IV have a big advantage.
Click to expand...
That's true, though in low light I tend to use it like a 28mm f/1.8 prime :)
 
messinghamp said:
Now, just to throw this into the mix. After raving aboutthe RX100, I have just read DXO's comparisson between the RX100 mkiv and the Canon G7X. The canon scores HIGHER !!!! and can be haf for just over HALF the price (£329).

Saving £300 and as good. It has a longer lens up to 100mm (equiv) compared to the Sony's 70mm (equiv). This might be it for me, not sure I can justify an extra £300 for the Sony that may be slightly (not noticably) better.

Sorry to confuse you all.
Click to expand...
Forget DXO, they talk utter b*****ks.

I'm not comparing or saying anything re the g7x but seriously, ignore DXO.

According to DXO my RX100 has better DR than my 6d! Really as good as it is, it doesn't, not by a long shot!
 
Last edited:
ianp5a said:
The G7X doesn't have a viewfinder though. Where the RX100 mk 3 and 4 do.
Click to expand...
Yeah I alluded to that in my post above. But they are £200 more and £400 more respectively, and have less reach. I'm not sure how much I'd use a viewfinder on a compact? I quickly tried the one on the RX100 III and found it awkward to use tbh. It doesn't fit into the eye socket well, and I found the whole thing cramped when it was up to your eye. I'd imagine 99% of the time I'd use it without tbh hence why I said the extra reach would be better for me, especially when the whole package is much cheaper. Obviously this is all personal preference though.
 
Right, thanks for all your input. I think I may have settled on a good compromise between portability and IQ: I think I'm gonna get a Fuji X-E2 with the 18-55 f2.8-4 kit lens and picking up a prime - perhaps the 27mm pancake.

This way I can take both lenses where space allows and, if not, just the body and pancake.

At present the kit also comes with a free 50-230 XC lens. Not great I know but it's free.

Does this plan sound like a good one?
 
Last edited:
CSCs are great. But the XE2 is not a 'compact' solution. Even the tiny Panasonic GM5 with a pancake is a bit bulky.
 
Last edited:
I think it's going to be hard finding a camera that meets all your criteria without some compromises and prioritising. If such a small size wasn't one of your main requirements I would have suggested a Fuji X-T10 and 18-55 zoom. It's a superb camera with a superb lens, plus Fuji technology.

I'm also on the lookout for a quality compact but having a FF and APS-C at the moment I really don't know what to go for as anything will be worse for IQ.
 
southernjessie said:
I think it's going to be hard finding a camera that meets all your criteria without some compromises and prioritising. If such a small size wasn't one of your main requirements I would have suggested a Fuji X-T10 and 18-55 zoom. It's a superb camera with a superb lens, plus Fuji technology.

I'm also on the lookout for a quality compact but having a FF and APS-C at the moment I really don't know what to go for as anything will be worse for IQ.
Click to expand...
You'd be surprised by the RX100, I certainly was (and I'm coming from plenty of other systems, APSC, FF etc)
 
Hi guys. I have a confession. Went to my local camera shop and fell in love with something that, whilst not exactly compact, was far more compact than my D300/MB-D10/17-55 combo. I came home with a graphite XT-1, XF18-55 and 27mm lenses. Oh and a Hama bag and Manfrotto travel tripod.

Am I bad?

:)
 
Last edited:
Fail
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top