Ed Rooney Posted January 6, 2020 Share Posted January 6, 2020 Mark, I had a RX100/3 for a long time, the first model with a viewfinder. The only problem with it was the autofocus was slow and hit and miss. Autofocus is much better on the later models. For what I do now, in retirement, nothing compares with these little Sonys. 😎 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Chapman Posted January 6, 2020 Share Posted January 6, 2020 11 minutes ago, Ed Rooney said: The only problem with it was the autofocus was slow and hit and miss. I have mine set to small area focus (flexible spot mode I think Sony call it) which seems pretty reliable and means I stay in control. Mark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bionic Posted January 6, 2020 Share Posted January 6, 2020 You guys have only gone and done it now, pushed me over the edge that is! I've been ummhing and ahhing over getting one of these for about 18 months now and reading this threads just encouraged me to pull the trigger on a mkIII. Thanks folks, any chance any of you are up for explaining this to my better half? 🤣 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiskerke Posted January 6, 2020 Share Posted January 6, 2020 21 minutes ago, Bionic said: You guys have only gone and done it now, pushed me over the edge that is! I've been ummhing and ahhing over getting one of these for about 18 months now and reading this threads just encouraged me to pull the trigger on a mkIII. Thanks folks, any chance any of you are up for explaining this to my better half? 🤣 Your chance to give one to her as a Christmas present has just passed. 🎅 🤶 wim 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Chapman Posted January 6, 2020 Share Posted January 6, 2020 (edited) 10 hours ago, Bionic said: You guys have only gone and done it now, pushed me over the edge that is! I've been ummhing and ahhing over getting one of these for about 18 months now and reading this threads just encouraged me to pull the trigger on a mkIII. Thanks folks, any chance any of you are up for explaining this to my better half? 🤣 Make sure to get a grip (Sony AGR2) and spare battery too... Mark Edited January 7, 2020 by M.Chapman 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Betty LaRue Posted January 7, 2020 Share Posted January 7, 2020 I’m still enjoying my Sony MK3. I’ll never give up one of these. Goes great with my Fuji x-T2, of which I have everything from 10-24 to 100-400 with some nice primes, too. Betty Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Tucker Posted January 7, 2020 Author Share Posted January 7, 2020 3 hours ago, Betty LaRue said: I’m still enjoying my Sony MK3. I’ll never give up one of these. Goes great with my Fuji x-T2, of which I have everything from 10-24 to 100-400 with some nice primes, too. Betty I had a Fuji X-E1 when they first came out with the 16-55 and 55-200 lenses. Fujinon lenses are up there with the best. However I sold it and the lenses when I started getting into video as at the time Fuji had no decent video solution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bionic Posted January 7, 2020 Share Posted January 7, 2020 Thanks for the tip about the batteries and grip, I'm going to try without the grip initially as I want to keep it as compact as possible and I've only got smallish hands, batteries are on order though 5 hours ago, Betty LaRue said: I’m still enjoying my Sony MK3. I’ll never give up one of these. Goes great with my Fuji x-T2, of which I have everything from 10-24 to 100-400 with some nice primes, too. Betty Thats pretty much going to be my combination so its good to know it works for you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Harrison Posted January 7, 2020 Share Posted January 7, 2020 21 minutes ago, Bionic said: I'm going to try without the grip initially as I want to keep it as compact as possible I think you'll find that the grip is tiny, but very effective. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P3UXNartMvI Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MDM Posted January 7, 2020 Share Posted January 7, 2020 9 minutes ago, Harry Harrison said: I think you'll find that the grip is tiny, but very effective. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P3UXNartMvI That video guy does ramble on more than a bit. I wonder does that grip fit the later models as it only says up to Mark IV on the Sony website. I haven't got a grip for my VA but I always make sure I am using the strap around my wrist as it would be very easy to drop the camera. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Harrison Posted January 7, 2020 Share Posted January 7, 2020 1 hour ago, MDM said: That video guy does ramble on more than a bit. Always a mistake to put in a link to a video without actually watching it. For me the grip looks like it might make the difference between dropping it and not dropping it, wrist strap notwithstanding, I can see me dropping it whilst just putting the wriststrap on, I should just probably steer clear of cameras as small as that. Not that I'm always dropping cameras, the Fuji X100 has gone down a couple of feet a couple of times but it's light and strong, no problem at all. 7 years and still going strong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allan Bell Posted January 7, 2020 Share Posted January 7, 2020 When I first obtained the RX100 mk1 I got the Feniac, (may have the spelling wrong), grip from the states. Don't think it is available now. When I purchased the Mk III I transferred it to that camera. Still have the Mk1 but hardly use it now. Sits in the car for emergencies. Allan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marianne Posted January 7, 2020 Share Posted January 7, 2020 (edited) I'm hoping to travel to Europe in the later half of this year and am toying with whether I should get one of the RX100s, or instead get the 24-105mm for my Sony or the similar zoom for my Olympus M4/3, since I find using a variety of primes when I travel means I sometimes miss the shots I want and with the Sony, many of my primes are actually rather large. I'm so glad I went with mirrorless and love using primes normally, and love the low light capability of the Sony, but wonder if adding a large zoom while walking all day long will outweigh the benefit of having a light camera. I've got the original OMD E-1. Are the newer models/Panasonic equivalents appreciably better in low light? Having a D700 and now the Sony a7rii have really spoiled me for nighttime shooting with no noise. Any thoughts from those of you with m4/3rds cameras? Or does getting an RX100 and keeping a small prime on the Sony make more sense? I'm not likely to use a large zoom at night anyway, I guess as holding a large lens still combined with a slower f/stop isn't a great combo for these old hands. Any thoughts? If you opt for the Panasonic, I'd be interested to hear more. Thanks. Edited January 7, 2020 by Marianne Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Tucker Posted January 7, 2020 Author Share Posted January 7, 2020 My only experience with the Lumix cameras is the GH5, which is not renowned for its low light capability, the GH5S however is very good at higher ISO but lacks the fantastic IBIS of the GH5. So, to come down a size to the GX9, that too has fantastic IBIS and if you use a native lens with AIS then you can shoot at lower ISO than some cameras and so low light is quite feasible. Watch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Heinrich Posted January 8, 2020 Share Posted January 8, 2020 No problem with submitting images from M43 cameras. I have uploaded and sold images from: Olympus ePL5, EM5, EM10 Mk2, EM1 Mk1 and EM1Mk2. I've had no issues in low light (my go to lens is the 12-40 PRO) and only minor problems in poor light with the relatively basic kit lenses. Unless you are a bokeh fanatic M43 makes a lovely light and portable kit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MizBrown Posted January 10, 2020 Share Posted January 10, 2020 On 06/01/2020 at 05:06, Joe Gaul said: I do believe that the Sony 6000 series cameras would be slightly superior but they don't seem to have a good standard zoom lens. Hope this helps. There is a new but rather pricey zoom for it now which was released recently (16-55mm, constant f/2.8 at $1,398 US). I haven't bought it but it appears to be getting favorable attention and reviews. I've been pleased with my a6000 and I think that's what others have. It's not pocketable unless you've got a jacket with big pockets. Still lighter than a number of options. The other thing to do with an a6000 series camera is stick a small prime like Optical Steady Shot 35mm f/1/8 or the 24mm Sony/Zeiss f/1.8 on it. I have both and the 30mm f/3.5 macro. My zoom is the 55-200mm, which is decent but not impressive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Caram Posted January 11, 2020 Share Posted January 11, 2020 Those Sony cameras look great, and i have had a look at Ed Rooney's folio and his images taken with these compact versatile cameras are impressive...I can see along with others here that they can be your main camera or go to for ease of use and portability.I am still using a Canon full frame 5D3 and 5 lenses...heavy kit i know but i like the quality.I have thought of changing over to the Fuji TX3 to shed some weight or maybe a Sony RX100 V and Sony RX100 V1... Then i look at the new Canon RF L lenses for their mirrorless system and want them..Well i like great gear and i have great gear lol so i will resist changing over and spending money i don't have...I will most likely buy a Canon 5D4 for the extra dynamic range in the future and stick with what i have, but when i am over the heavy gear then i will look at these more compact alternatives..Until then like Chuck i will keep doing my push ups and weight exercises for my arms....and envy you people with the compact gear 😀 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mickfly Posted January 11, 2020 Share Posted January 11, 2020 Nice to get a red arrow on my post about cameras, but a comment would have been more useful. The first image used to illustrate the camera was for news and I wouldn't consider it good enough for stock. The second image was just to show the reach of the camera and was deleted afterwards. The images were shown to demonstrate the capability of the camera not the quality (if that's the reason for a red arrow) I hope I haven't done the RX10 MK4 an injustice showing the previous pics, I do shoot clearer ones! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now