LX3 for higher quality images; Lumix TS-1 for anything involving water or risks. I'm trying to convince my wife that I really need a TS-2 (gave her the TS-1 for her weekend out of town trip hoping she will fall in love with it so I can get a TS-2 for me), but I might have to pass on it and save for a GF1 instead.
Sat 04-May-13 12:32 PM | edited Sat 04-May-13 12:36 PM by blw
I generally like my Fuji x10, although now I'd obviously choose an x20 instead. It is not equal to my D3 + f/1.4 glass, but then again it nestles inside the hood of my 24-70, so it's due a few breaks!
I tried a Nikon P6000 and it really didn't do the job. I sold it and moved on to the x10. I debated the Canon G10 or G11, but they're bigger. And they're Canon
Realistically I think that the x10/x20 are about the best ones out there right now. To do much better I think one has to go to the mirrorless ones, such as an Olympus MD5, Fuji x1-pro, and some others. By the time we get to that level, the prices are so different that it's not clear to me that they're competing for the same function as things like the x20.
_____ Brian... a bicoastal Nikonian and Team Member
My gallery is online. Comments and critique welcomed any time!
Loved my S90 until someone dropped and broke it. Replaced it with an LX-3 which I've never gotten excited by, although it takes great pix. Not sure what to replace it within anything; I take more pictures with my iPhone 5 these days.
I'm entirely with Brian here. There are other offerings, but imho the X20 has an advantage over the RX100 mentioned in this thread: it feels like a camera.
There's also the Panasonic LX7, but even as an ex-LX3 shooter (see here above ) I prefer the X20. Entirely subjective, though. Same goes for the Samsung or Olympus expert ones. Subjective, with the exception of the included optical viewfinder, which is a real advantage of the X10 over the rest, and the info in the X20's OVF give it a real edge over the X10. I know, I have the X20 after the X10
My reasoning is that I want something that looks and feels like a camera. If I want small, as in "really small", there are very small cameras with very small sensor that shoot jpeg only. I gave one to my wife. Nice. For snapshots. But there is usually no latitude for any PP work, whereas the comparatively bigger sensor of the X10/20 give them some.
Maybe something to think about is a phone. There are excellent cameras in modern smartphone, and one usually has a phone in one's pocket. But again, I prefer a camera if I want a camera, and I'm even ready to carry a shoulder bag for my compact.
Olivier Rychner __________________________________________ Jetez un oeil à ma galerie if you feel like it! And it's a bit void as of now, but I also have a Nikonians blog
Auta i lomë! And my Nikon's only awaiting daylight...
Wed 22-May-13 02:16 AM | edited Thu 23-May-13 02:16 AM by SteveH
Just picked up an RX100. My main criteria was small enough for a pocket. it's not much bigger than an iPhone, the lens just sticks out a bit more,
My other option was the Fuji X20. The sensor in the sony RX100 is larger than that in the X20–1" versus 2/3"– and has a higher megapixel count; 20.2mp versus 12mp.
The 3" LCD has worked fine even in bright sunlight. the aluminum body–amazingly–feels very solid for such a small camera. And it has a Zeiss T lens. The lens slows from 1.8 to 4.9 where the X20 is an f2 to f2.8 which is nice. The Fuji does have a view finder and a hotshoe but they make the camera larger so I went with the Sony RX100 because of the sensor and Zeiss glass.
I have a Sony RX100 on the way. Should be here Thursday. Opportunities are lost if you have no camera with you, and this one will fit nicely in my handbag. Besides the fact that a photographer on the Alamy forum shoots with it. He knows all the camera parts, how they work, and to say he is technical is like saying the sky is blue on a clear day. I figure if he sold his D600 because the images weren't as sharp as the RX100's, that's good enough for me. Besides all the sample images I've seen convinced me. My mainstay is my D800, wonderful camera, and a D7000. But I need this little pocket camera. I'll let you know what I think once I've shot some images with it.
>I figure if he sold his D600 because the images weren't as >sharp as the RX100's, that's good enough for me.
I hear wonderful things about the RX100, but I am not certain what I would make of a person who said their D600 images were not as sharp as those from their RX100. Granted, there are many things that could cause somebody to make this statement, but ceteris paribus, I would personally find it a hard statement to accept without some detailed explanation. I am curious, did they provide any details as to why they felt this way?
Wed 05-Jun-13 03:00 AM | edited Wed 05-Jun-13 03:02 AM by Betty L
Hi, Ken, I looked up the post in question and here it is. This guy, David Kilpatrick, is a pro. Camera makers often send him cameras to test before they come out. Somebody had asked if he uploaded the full size RX100 images to Alamy.
Full size for most pix. However, 3200 ISO at night, grab shots wide open etc - reduce to 2400 x 3600. I do exactly the same with other cameras. We needed to reduce the Nikon D600 files to 2400 x 3600 nearly every time. The RX100 raws will enlarge to 25 megapixels. I have some on Alamy at that size and you can't tell them from native A99/A900/D600 files. Except the D600 files were so rarely sharp all over we have given up on that and sold the outfit.
>Hi, Ken, >I looked up the post in question and here it is. This guy, >David Kilpatrick, is a pro. Camera makers often send him >cameras to test before they come out. Somebody had asked if >he uploaded the full size RX100 images to Alamy. > >Full size for most pix. However, 3200 ISO at night, grab >shots wide open etc - reduce to 2400 x 3600. I do exactly the >same with other cameras. We needed to reduce the Nikon D600 >files to 2400 x 3600 nearly every time. The RX100 raws will >enlarge to 25 megapixels. I have some on Alamy at that size >and you can't tell them from native A99/A900/D600 files. >Except the D600 files were so rarely sharp all over we have >given up on that and sold the outfit. > >Who knows, maybe he had a bad copy of the D600.
Thank you for posting this additional information. I can't say that this is how I would judge camera images, but if it works for him, it's his business and income. If he tests cameras, I'm a bit surprised that he was not able to identify the issue with the D600. I know that every manufacturer turns out a few bad units, but you would think that he would be curious enough to find out why he was not getting what he expected from the D600. Regardless, I hope that you enjoy your new Sony!