Are you happy with the results?
I just killed my Olympus M4/3 camera and am looking for a good replacement that is portable with better IQ than a phone.
Canon m50 ii is $860ish now which seems ok.
The Sony's zoom range is appealing too though…
People Who Bought Sony RX100 and Canon M50
Shane34 on 08/03/2022 - 21:13
Last edited 09/03/2022 - 12:23 by 1 other user
Last edited 09/03/2022 - 12:23 by 1 other user
Comments
Most "reviews" and "comparisons" are made to sell either the product being reviewed/compared or other advertising.
Are you happy with the results?
Yes
Which one do you have?
Neither, but i saw the results in the reviews, and I'm happy.
Oh jv you have done it again.
I have
Em5mkii
D600
A7iii
Rx100m6And have had
Pentax q
X100sI also have an iPhone 12 Pro.
I have not picked up any of my dedicated cameras since getting 12 pro.
TBH I am somewhat in this camp now too, A7iii with full lens suite and a photography hobby, and yet I still gravitate to my Pixel 6 Pro (previously Pixel 3 XL) most of the time lately.
I challenge OP to consider whether mid level dedicated cameras are worth it nowadays in the absence of specific photographic need (or desire)
I'm probably a little on the other end of the spectrum here. I have range of cameras from full-frame down to compacts, and my phone is an iPhone mini. I do take photos as a hobby, and I use Lightroom, Photoshop, and other software in processing them.
Whilst I appreciate the convenience of my iPhone, I'm afraid it doesn't touch any of my ILC's in terms of image quality. Of course, you probably wouldn't know it while viewing the photo on a phone screen.
So I guess, if you only take photos as 'snapshots', then yeah, a decent phone is probably the best option. If you want to record special occasions for printing, or are into photography as an enthusiast, then a phone won't do nearly as good a job as a half decent dedicated camera.
To take one example - I took an image of my son on a walking track backlit by the sun (in shot behind him). This is a difficult shot to take with any camera because of the huge difference between light and shadow in the scene. I was amazed by how much dynamic range the little iPhone 12 managed to get out of that shot. When I got it home I zoomed in to see if it could be printed, and the noise reduction applied to the shadows was insane. It looked smeary and painterly with very little preserved detail. Looked great on my phone though! Had I taken the same shot on one of my better ILC's, I'd have been able to bring up the shadows, and apply noise reduction, but still have a lot of printable detail.
If you don't have the time/desire for all that work though…use a phone….or maybe one of the newer micro four-thirds ILC's which have some nifty onboard computational grunt similar to a phone anyway (but I suspect will get way better results).
So the a7 probably just edges out phone in low light and huge prints but for everyday and social media they're pretty similar?
I have an original (first model) Sony A7. It was my first foray into Sony's full-frame system. Whilst I was disappointed with the image quality coming out of it compared to a more recent micro four-thirds camera (I expected the A7 to trounce M43, but the difference is not so huge), it is still way better than what comes out of my iPhone 12 mini (but I do need to process the A7 output for best results). The original A7 is tiny, and I use it as an every day carry purely because of that size.
What are you even trying to achieve? The Canon is a camera of the same style as the Olympus where as the RX100 is a P&S.
No one can tell you which is better unless you tell us what you're doing with them or want to shoot.
Both will be good quality.
Basically I'm trying to beat a phone with a small package. But by the sounds I might have to spend alot to get a noticeable difference
It's always going to be more effort than a phone….but if you're prepared to put in said effort, even older ILC cameras will give you better shots than a phone, particularly if you have some halfway nice glass in front of it.
But no, you're not going to notice the difference for most snapshot situations unless you are looking at the shots on something bigger than a phone screen.
Look at X100 line for sure. X100V is a big step up but the older models are great too if you don't need amazing AF.
True. Are they fixed or interchangeable lens?
Fixed 35mm eqv
Or…Ricoh GRIII for something truly compact, but with nice APSC sensor image quality. Wider 28mm equiv field of view from that lens/sensor combo too.
I am very happy with the stills from my Rx100mk3. The 1080p video is also acceptable but the newer models have much better video features. The focus on the rx100 is a bit fiddly and the lack of touchscreen for focus is a bit annoying however especially when taking pics of fast moving objects (i.e. children).
I am not a fan of the longer but slower zoom of the mk6 and 7 but if you are shooting outdoors by all means go for those. They have all the new AF features, but I could get something similar from Panasonic (tz110 or 220) for a fraction of the price if I am after a 1 inch long slow zoom. (In fact, I did pick up a second hand tz110 for $220 off eBay)
I have a clip pouch that hooks onto my belt that I carry a point and shoot in and it fits both the rx100 and the aforementioned tz110 so it is almost as convenient as a phone.
If only the internet had reviews and comparisons… Hmm, someone should work on that.