airsurfer

The RX100-V is indeed a nice camera, but 1000fps ? I thought it is 240 max.
The Canon Powershot G1XmkIII is a nice one as well and the EOS M 10 is an affordable compact one with exchangeable lenses. Any thoughts on these cameras ?

wco81

Lot of nicer cameras for $1000.

I know some people favor portability but not the greatest bang for the buck.

But it must be popular, as it's over a year old and its price has held up.

nkedel

I really like the Canon EOS M series, but I'm a bit weird. They have a big-ish (APS-C) sensors and good image quality, and the simpler models are quite inexpensive. The big down side is that they have a relatively narrow range of native lenses available, but they have the ability to use the cheaper and more common EOS (EF-M and EF) lenses with a passive adapter (the real Canon-branded ones are a bit pricy, but there are $40 aftermarket ones on Amazon that I'm told work work fine; I got mine used from B&H for I think about $60 although they're selling quite a bit higher right now.)

The M10 (or M100) is sort of coat-pocketable but not really that small.

That said, I can't recomment the M10 unless you're seeing much better prices on it than I am ($449 on Amazon) or worse prices on the M100 -- it has an older autofocus system, and the newer replacement, the M100 is only marginally more expensive on Amazon ($499) and is a MUCH better camera due to the newer generation "dual pixel" AF -- the M10 will focus quite a bit slower. See https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canon-eos-m100-review

I have the EOS M3, which is a slightly bulkier model with some more manual controls of the same generation and AF as the M10 and am happy with it, but am leaning towards upgrading to the M6 (M100-generation AF.) I've got the older 18-55 lense, which is a good bit bulkier than the newer 15-45.

That said, if you don't have any attachment to existing Canon lenses, and unless size is a big concern the Sony A6000 (an older model that's been superceded by the A6300, but kept in production as a less expensive model) might be a better option unless size is a big, big concern. It's a bit bulkier, but adds an eye-level EVF and built-into-the-body sensor-shift image stabilization. If size is a big concern, the Micro-4/3s system offers almost equal image quality to the APS-C models and is a bit more compact.

The G1X Mk III is a good bit bulkier and pricier; I've never seen the point in spending that much on a non-interchangeable lens camera, but some people seem to really like them. In bulk and manual controls, it is much more comparable to the EOS M5 in form factor and price. Or to the Sony A6300/A6500.

For something high quality, and very portable, the G9X Mk II ($429 on Amazon) and G7X Mk II ($629 on Amazon) are both interest, although the latter is quite pricey and over a year old so it might be worth waiting for a Mark III. They do have a smaller (1") sensor but they're pocket-able.

Detailed comparison of the cameras mentioned above.

jacknyoc

Interesting discussion. Agree Sony RX100 series very good; very sharp and new versions have the pop up viewfinder. some of the mid-models (iii, iv) are bit less expensive than the latest v but with many of the same or similar features. I had a mid-model for a while. tried to like it. very sharp pics. menu was extensive but manageable. the wide range was nice but I hated the shorter zoom reach. I also wasn't a fan of the typical flat sony colors and tones. I ended up trading in for the Canon g7x for the colors/tones, zoom reach what I view and fairly comparable sharpness (98-99% IMHO). I also found the camera body size/shape bit easier to handle in shorts and jacket pockets.

BHM2017

Similar here. I h\use a 5D MkIV with 2.8 glass, usually the 24-70mm to keep things lighter. I use my LG as well.

richard

Panasonic G7

richarddd

Any downsides to the G7X compared to the RX100, other than the lack of an EVF? I'm trying to decide between the RX100 III and the G7X II.

dascc

Just picked up a Fuji X-T20 and it seriously has me questioning if I should keep my Nikon gear. I love the performance and ergo of the D500 but its really nice using something so compact, light (READ: easy on my poor back) and discreet for travel. Plus their lenses are a step up from Nikon's DX offerings.

Polytonic

I fly with an Olympus PEN-F and 12-40mm f/2.8 PRO lens. Compact, lightweight (for a camera anyway), great image quality. I've gotten more than a few comments from people e.g. "hey cute camera" ... a little embarrassing, but worth it so far.

That being said, low light performance on the smaller sensors is a little disappointing. I've been contemplating trading up to a Sony A7, as it's similarly sized, but full-frame.

nkedel

RX100 III is pretty old; they're up to V:
https://www.dpreview.com/products/co...ony_dscrx100m5

The big differences specs-wise vs. the RX100 III seem to be:
* EVF, stronger flash, faster continuous shooting on the Sony
* Longer zoom range on the Canon

The RX100 V adds 4K video, even faster continuous shooting, and (on the down side) worse battery life.

Personally, unless you really want the faster lens at longer zooms, I'd also give at least a quick look at the G9X Mk II which is lighter, smaller, and a good deal cheaper, and still has a 1" sensor.

richarddd

I mainly shoot RAW stills of non-moving subjects, so the added features of the RX100 IV and V compared to the III are not really useful for me. Perhaps the higher resolution EVF of the later models and some minor firmware upgrades would be helpful, but those are not major considerations. dpreview, as well as just about every review I've seen, agrees that the IV and V are not really worth it for such a stills shooter.

I prefer more manual controls (v touchscreen), and a faster lens is important to me, so the RX100 or G7X would seem better than the G9X for me.

The G7X has a better lens range and the RX100 has an EVF. The G7X ergonomics seems better. The RX100 may have better optics, but unit-to-unit differences (aka lack of quality control) on both cameras appears to swamp this.

I'm hoping jacknyoc can provide some more information on the experience of using both cameras and reasons for switching.

aaflyer93

I'm still an amateur photographer and love my Nikon D7200... the lens prices are a little steep for the good ones, but I think it takes great pictures.

jacknyoc

HI richarddd, mostly noted in my original note. Sony: liked sharpness; didn't like overall chunky feel, menu interface, zoom range and flat colors/tones (my opinion but had also read that from others). I like the overall feel of the G7X, menu interface (having used Canon P&S previously, zoom range and colors/tones. I felt sharpness was extremely similar but maybe off a tick in the Canon vs. Sony (but not enough for me). I don't use video much so can't compare. I hope this is helpful.

richarddd

That is helpful. Thanks.

FWIW, for me it comes down to the zoom range and feel of the Canon versus the EFV of the Sony. I also like the live highlight overexposure warnings of the Sony, but that's not a major issue. As a RAW shooter, color/tones are less important. I don't shoot video either. I used to use a Canon S95 P&S, which I liked but now seems primitive compared to my Oly E-M5 which has an incredibly thorough and complex menu system.

I really wish the Canon had an EVF. That would make the decision much easier.

JClishe

Honestly the S95 seems primitive compared to most current flagship smartphones. And I was big fan of the Sxx line having owned an S90, S95, and S100. But now that raw capture is possible on both iOS and Android I have a hard time justifying the S line.