RX V1

[Betty LaRue]

24-200 lens. Wowza. Big price tag, too.

https://photographylife.com/sony-rx100-series-comparison

[John Mitchell]

Wowza for sure. $1600 CAN (+ taxes) here. That's a whole lot of PU and "unmentionable" sales.

 

Think I'll be passing on this one. Strictly for members of the millionaires club.

 

 

[MandyD]

this is the article I used when determining which one to buy, most helpful when it's all laid out like that.

[wiskerke]

deleted

Edited June 7, 2018 by wiskerke
me being dim

[parischris]

Hmmm. I have the RX100 V and the RX10 III.  The thing that jumped out at me is that the addition of extra focal length has been at the expense of lens speed. I can't say that the RX100 VI would make me replace the V as a result. 

[Allan Bell]

 

Pre-order at WEX in UK at £1,149 inc VAT

 

Allan

 

Edit: But what can one say about superzoom lenses. Wait to see results from regular photographers.

 

ITMA

 

 

Edited June 7, 2018 by Allan Bell
add postscript

[Betty LaRue]

The original zoomed to 100 and I like it. There were times I needed more reach. But often I could zoom with my feet.  I think it would be nice to have alongside my RX100-3. Horses for courses, but this last horse is too expensive. If one thinks in terms of buying a fine lens, and a lot of people spend the money...(it’s all about the glass, they say) then if you are already shooting with one of the RXs, and think of the V1 like you would a new lens, then it seems a bit more plausible. A camera “set”. Some buy a second camera for backup or to have a wide angle lens on one and a tele on the other camera so they don’t have to change lenses on the fly. This would rather be similar.

V1 for good light, nature, animals, zooming in situations when you can’t get close, then your other for low light and what you’ve already been using it for.

I’d like that.

At a lot less weight than most two camera sets.

Betty

[Allan Bell]

11 hours ago, Betty LaRue said:

The original zoomed to 100 and I like it. There were times I needed more reach. But often I could zoom with my feet.  I think it would be nice to have alongside my RX100-3. Horses for courses, but this last horse is too expensive. If one thinks in terms of buying a fine lens, and a lot of people spend the money...(it’s all about the glass, they say) then if you are already shooting with one of the RXs, and think of the V1 like you would a new lens, then it seems a bit more plausible. A camera “set”. Some buy a second camera for backup or to have a wide angle lens on one and a tele on the other camera so they don’t have to change lenses on the fly. This would rather be similar.

V1 for good light, nature, animals, zooming in situations when you can’t get close, then your other for low light and what you’ve already been using it for.

I’d like that.

At a lot less weight than most two camera sets.

Betty

 

Agree but I wonder about the quality of the image from the "superzoom" at the long end.

 

Now if it had been a 70 -200 (equiv) I would have said yes to it being a good second camera.

 

It would have tied in nicely with the Mk3.

 

Probably the only cameras anyone would need to shoot for Alamy. Indeed possibly at all.

 

Allan

 

 

Edited June 8, 2018 by Allan Bell

[Betty LaRue]

It’ll be interesting to read the reviews re: long end.