Sony RX100 Vii - Anyone taking the plunge?

[Yackers1]

Whilst searching for a "have on me at all times" camera I noticed the Sony RX100 series mentioned time and time again. It seems this is a highly regarded camera among the Alamy community, so with this in mind and the fact that (according to the B&H Photo site) deliveries are expected next Friday is anyone taking the plunge and buying the RX100 Vii? The £1,200 (ish) price tag here in the UK is pretty steep for a compact. I realise it is full of tech and features, but the sensor is still only an inch and the lens isn't particularly fast. I have yet to find my ideal "have on me at all times" camera and not really sure whether to take a (very expensive) punt or not. 

[MDM]

You need to think about exactly what you want from the camera. Each version is different and has different features so it is important to consider what you need or are likely to need rather than just buy the latest version. There are various comparisons available and links in the other threads on here. 

 

If it is mainly stills from a carry anywhere camera, then the VA might be your best bet. I got one back in May for £699 including a Sony cashback which seems to be still going. It certainly does the job I bought it for. 

Edited August 9, 2019 by MDM

[Ed Rooney]

My choice when upgrading from the Sony RX100-3 was between the V (now the VA) or the VI. I went with the VI with the 24-200 zoom. It has become my go-to camera, not just a pocket camera.

 

I had problems with the auto-focus on the 100-3. If you click on my blue number you will see images taken in Spain, Ireland, and now Liverpool. Almost all were taken with the 100-6 except for the two very wide snaps of the Liverpool Museum on page one. Those were taken with the a6000.

 

Edited August 9, 2019 by Ed Rooney

[John Mitchell]

You mean taking the plunge into debt? I've already done that. 🙃

 

OK. so I'm a tad jealous. How is vii different from vi?

 

Also, how easy is it to manual focus with these little cameras? I use MF a lot with my a6000, usually to tweak initial AF.

[Yackers1]

1 hour ago, Ed Rooney said:

My choice when upgrading from the Sony RX100-3 was between the V (now the VA) or the VI. I went with the VI with the 24-200 zoom. It has become my go-to camera, not just a pocket camera.

 

I had problems with the auto-focus on the 100-3. If you click on my blue number you will see images taken in Spain, Ireland, and now Liverpool. Almost all were taken with the 100-6. 

 

 

Presumably the VI 's auto focus is good? There are some really pics in your port, and if these were captured using the RX100 VI then I am going to have to dig a little deeper in this range of cameras. 

[Yackers1]

34 minutes ago, John Mitchell said:

You mean taking the plunge into debt? I've already done that. 🙃

 

OK. so I'm a tad jealous. How is vii different from vi?

 

Also, how easy is it to manual focus with these little cameras? I use MF a lot with my a6000, usually to tweak initial AF.

 

About £200! In all seriousness there do seem to be a few tweaks in the VII but I am not sure if they would benefit me and what I want this camera for. As for manually focusing, I have yet to try. The focus ring does seem small, which may cause issues. I can foresee MF being an issue where focus is critical, such as shooting wide open, but when trying to maximise DOF and get as much in focus as possible I wouldn't have thought there would be too many issues. I may be wrong though......

 

I am going to have to get down the local camera shop and see if I can have a "play" with a VI and see what it's all about. 

[John Mitchell]

1 hour ago, Yackers1 said:

 

About £200! In all seriousness there do seem to be a few tweaks in the VII but I am not sure if they would benefit me and what I want this camera for. As for manually focusing, I have yet to try. The focus ring does seem small, which may cause issues. I can foresee MF being an issue where focus is critical, such as shooting wide open, but when trying to maximise DOF and get as much in focus as possible I wouldn't have thought there would be too many issues. I may be wrong though......

 

I am going to have to get down the local camera shop and see if I can have a "play" with a VI and see what it's all about. 

 

Yikes! £1200 (which I think you meant) is almost $2000 CAN. That's a lot of PU sales! 😛

 

I find that MF can be a bit awkward with Sony power zooms, but it works fine once you get the hang of it. The Sony a6000, which I use most of the time,  has a "focus magnifier" rectangle that you can move around to fine-tune the focus manually. It works very well and can dramatically improve sharpness across the frame with some lenses.

 

 

[Ed Rooney]

I have a 4 Sonys at the moment:  VI, 3, a6000, and an RX10. They are all solid, useful cameras and all I need for stock. I am going to give the 100/3 to a friend after I find a place to live. I don't use manual focus on the VI. The only time I use the backscreen to compose and focus is when I do overhead food shots at a restaurant table. 

 

I am not planning to buy the VII. It might solve some problems for some shooters but I have no problems with my kit. 

[wiskerke]

1 hour ago, John Mitchell said:

 

Yikes! £1200 (which I think you meant) is almost $2000 CAN. That's a lot of PU sales! 😛

 

I find that MF can be a bit awkward with Sony power zooms, but it works fine once you get the hang of it. The Sony a6000, which I use most of the time,  has a "focus magnifier" rectangle that you can move around to fine-tune the focus manually. It works very well and can dramatically improve sharpness across the frame with some lenses.

 

 

 

MF on the RX100 works the same. I use it a lot on the big Sony, but almost never on the RX100s though. The focus ring is plenty wide enough btw.

It has DMF also. Useless hand held, but it's there. (Explanation in this 2013 thread on this most useful forum.)

2 things are really new: the new auto focus (eye) tracking and the single burst.

For video there finally is a microphone socket, which may well be the decisive feature for many. The new autofocus works in video also and is looking very promising (see that 2nd link).

 

Not enough for me to switch over to the VII. (I am currently using the V and the VI.)

 

wim

[Richard Coombs]

Interesting thread!

I have just bought the RX100 Vl a couple of days ago, but haven't had a chance to use it yet. My intention was to use it for other agencies/libraries that I supply but, having read the comments here, plus looking at Ed Rooney's pictures, I am reconsidering its purpose.

 

Can anybody tell me what sort of maximum ISO level it will stand for Alamy submission?

I usually draw the line at 1600.

 

Ed Rooney, some of your food shots must be 800 to 1600?

[Ed Rooney]

And, Richard -- I often crop and sometimes downsize. The image quality is very good on these little Sonys. Unless I make a sloppy mistake, everything passes QC. 

 

1600 is the max I do, with 800 or 1250 preferred. All my food shots are at a high ISO. Anything at 800 or over gets the LR noise reduction of about 40 in both luminous and color. You're gonna love that 100/6. 

[wiskerke]

What Ed(o) said. However I try to stay below 800 ISO.

As a remedy for high ISO hand held, I use image stacking. This is helped enormously by the 24 fps. If you can live with jpg only, the Hand-held Twilight function does the same with only a few images (4 or 6 -not sure) in-camera. Multi frame NR again does the same AFAIK, however you have to manually change to jpg only in the menu first.

 

wim

[Richard Coombs]

I got the chance to use the RX100 Vl today for the first time and yes, I agree with Ed and wiskerke, it is an extremely good and capable camera. And Ed, yeah, I do love it!

 

Yackers 1 Cant comment on the Vll, I did look at one in the shop but couldn't find a reason for the extra 200 quid.

 

I normally use a full frame Sony A7lll and opening up the RX files in Lightroom was a bit of a shock, but with a bit of fiddling about, applying a sharpening figure of 60-65 and using Ed's Luminosity figure of 40 followed by downsizing a little in PS, I ended up with images that I am happy to submit to QC.

 

Interesting to note, when opening the files in Lightroom, they render a damn site better than the A7 files, didn't have to do half as much work with the HSL sliders to get the colour right!

 

Yackers 1 go buy a Vl, like Ed Rooney said, you'll love it!!!

[wiskerke]

There's one more important new feature on the VII: the video barrier of 5 min has been broken. Someone reported having been able to capture 4K for an hour I think. However cannot find the link.

 

wim

[Yackers1]

14 hours ago, Richard Coombs said:

I got the chance to use the RX100 Vl today for the first time and yes, I agree with Ed and wiskerke, it is an extremely good and capable camera. And Ed, yeah, I do love it!

 

Yackers 1 Cant comment on the Vll, I did look at one in the shop but couldn't find a reason for the extra 200 quid.

 

I normally use a full frame Sony A7lll and opening up the RX files in Lightroom was a bit of a shock, but with a bit of fiddling about, applying a sharpening figure of 60-65 and using Ed's Luminosity figure of 40 followed by downsizing a little in PS, I ended up with images that I am happy to submit to QC.

 

Interesting to note, when opening the files in Lightroom, they render a damn site better than the A7 files, didn't have to do half as much work with the HSL sliders to get the colour right!

 

Yackers 1 go buy a Vl, like Ed Rooney said, you'll love it!!!

 

From what I have read, as I don't have any actual experience with either the VI or the VII, it seems the VII has improved video features and AF and FPS. I am only interested in stills, so the video is wasted on me. As for the AF, I understand the VI is plenty fast enough (?), and since I rarely go for super fast subjects this is also wasted on me. Ditto re the FPS. All things considered the VI does seem to be the better option for me.

 

I didn't get the chance to go to the camera shop over the weekend for a play, so have got another week left to read/research too much and think about it. The big question is, "Can I justify the cost?"................

[Ed Rooney]

Wim's details confirm my thoughts that the VII is not for me. Thanks, Wim.

 

If I were to get a second RX100 to replace the 100-3, it would be the RX100-VA. It has the same auto-focus as the VII with a faster lens. And the 24-70 zoom would be enough to do 85 to 90% of my editorial stock. 

 

The rare time that I do a video, it's for personal use and I use my iPhone. We're talking about tools for taking pictures here, so the choice involves a judgment call for our needs. 

 

Edo

[MDM]

8 minutes ago, Ed Rooney said:

Wim's details confirm my thoughts that the VII is not for me. Thanks, Wim.

 

If I were to get a second RX100 to replace the 100-3, it would be the RX100-VA. It has the same auto-focus as the VII with a faster lens. And the 24-70 zoom would be enough to do 85 to 90% of my editorial stock. 

 

The rare time that I do a video, it's for personal use and I use my iPhone. We're talking about tools for taking pictures here, so the choice involves a judgment call for our needs. 

 

Edo

 

I totally agree - that is why I went for the VA rather than the VI. The extra reach of the lens is not an issue for me as I would not be intending to use this camera for portraiture (sports or wildlife similar) where one might want to put backgrounds out of focus - not a strength of the tiny sensor). In fact the wider maximum aperture of the VA would probably allow better out of focus backgrounds than the VI at the same focal length. For portraiture it is back to the Nikon for me. The VI has a touchscreen whereas the VA doesn't but not a big issue for me. 

[Ed Rooney]

And, Michael, you are still a working pro. I would not want to show up at an assignment of any kind with a midget Sony. That would be bad PR. 🙄

 

In Montreal in the summer of 2018 when I bought my RX100/6, my choice was between adding the then-new, high-quality street zoom (24-105) for my a6000 or the new 100/6. That 24-105 was not available. Wim suggested the Sony budget street zoom (28-70), so I got that and the VII. I use the a6000 with the 10-24 most of the time. That's how the VII became my go-to camera. (I don't trust either of my 24-200s (VII and RX10) at the long end. 

 

Since I arrived in Europe, I've only done two planned shoots, both in Seville. For those, I used the a6000 and a tripod. The other Alamy images I've captured were done while moving around and trying to do other things. So I've been using the VII as a pocket camera and my go-to camera. 

 

Edo

[Yackers1]

44 minutes ago, Ed Rooney said:

Wim's details confirm my thoughts that the VII is not for me. Thanks, Wim.

 

If I were to get a second RX100 to replace the 100-3, it would be the RX100-VA. It has the same auto-focus as the VII with a faster lens. And the 24-70 zoom would be enough to do 85 to 90% of my editorial stock. 

 

The rare time that I do a video, it's for personal use and I use my iPhone. We're talking about tools for taking pictures here, so the choice involves a judgment call for our needs. 

 

Edo

 

I thought the  VI was your go to camera? What if you didn't have the VI or the III (or any RX100 - like myself) - Would you still buy the VI for the longer reach?

[Ed Rooney]

In fact, I did not buy the VII for the longer reach. I bought it mostly for the better auto-focus and considered the 24-200 a bonus. I just commented on this in my post to MDM.

[MDM]

 

1 hour ago, Yackers1 said:

 

I thought the  VI was your go to camera? What if you didn't have the VI or the III (or any RX100 - like myself) - Would you still buy the VI for the longer reach?

 

The VA was a major upgrade from the V and they incorporated a lot of the features from the VI in it. As far as I know they use the same AF system (wim can correct if this is wrong but I think it is right). This would have all been very new around the time that Edo was taking the plunge I guess. I checked all this out when I bought back in May and came to the conclusion that the VA was best for my needs (stills, high quality images, pocket camera).

 

Check this for an up to date and detailed comparison of the entire range. 

 

 

Edited August 12, 2019 by MDM

[Yackers1]

1 hour ago, Ed Rooney said:

In fact, I did not buy the VII for the longer reach. I bought it mostly for the better auto-focus and considered the 24-200 a bonus. I just commented on this in my post to MDM.

 

 

Missed that one - apologies. You have convinced me the 100/6 is worth a look. A faster lens would be nice, but then I want a lens with a little more reach than 70mm. 200mm is a bit of an overkill (for my needs) but the 85mm - 135mm is ideal. What's the image quality like in this focal length please? Does it start to degrade too much to pass Alamy QC?

 

Thanks all for your input with this. 

[Ed Rooney]

The 135mm was my favorite walk-around prime telephoto back in film days. 

 

I don't do bench tests on lenses. And I don't tend to shoot teles much these days. You'll have to make your own judgment calls on your images. No matter what focal length you use, hopefully, you'll judge sharpness at 100% before submitting your images. Good luck. 

[Steve UK]

I still only have a MK1, even used it for some broadcast video in Mexico earlier this year. Its got a spot on the sensor, but i just clone that out.

[wiskerke]

14 minutes ago, Steve UK said:

I still only have a MK1, even used it for some broadcast video in Mexico earlier this year. Its got a spot on the sensor, but i just clone that out.

 

I had one cleaned: only 65 euros at the official Sony repair center here.

 

wim