RX-100 v.1 vs. V.2 vs. V3

[mbisc]

I find it a tad surprising (in the days of digital cameras) that all three versions are still available in stores, so I wanted to get the impression from actual users on the relative merits of these three versions. At the surface (and I have not actually had any of them in my hands 😱), it seems that the viewfinder on V.3 is a mighty nice thing (I am coming from the film world:angel🙂, but is it worth the extra large sum of money?

Which of these cameras has the nicest image quality, especially at the wide end (e.g. any noticeable distortion)? I read a bit online on the changes in the UI between the models (and that some folks like the older version better) - any thoughts on that?

Thanks in advance,
Mike

 

[burancap]

Not much to offer, but I really like my Mk.I -enough that about the only thing in the later revs that raised an eyebrow for me was the inbuilt finder. I love a finder, but the kicker is that I have actually learned to love the screen on this particular camera. The Sony "WhiteMagic" technology employed in the screen is marvelous. Until my Mk.I cr@ps out, there is just not enough of "other improvements" to warrant kicking such a GREAT camera to the curb ... yet.

 

[f16sunshine]

They All make great images.

 

[GaryLH]

I have the mk1.. Some thoughts on the other 2 versions.
- people have said that the sensor on the mk2 was improved for better high iso - some say about 1/2 to full stop better..ymmv.
- what zoom range do u prefer --- 28 to 100 of the mk1 and 2 or 24-70 of the mk3
- not a fan of the pop up evf..a gimmick that I think makes it easier to malfunction. Panasonic zs40 and 50 has already proven what can be done w/ built in evf (not pop up) on a small p&s. I would rather have had it slightly taller, then this gimmick they came up w/.

Fwiw, I would have upgraded to mk3 if it was not for the pop up evf. I prefer the 24-70 zoom range and getting at least a half stop better iso performance would have been nice.

I am sure there will be a mark 4 out before the end of the year given Sony's track record for pushing new camera bodies.

Gary

 

[uhoh7]

the popup viewfinder is killer. v3 is far the best of them, but all are good, and v1 makes great pics, but it's LCD only.

 

[BlackXList]

I have and love the MK1, it's a tiny machine full of sorcery to produce what it does.

The MK2, 1/2 a stop wasn't enough for me to upgrade.
For my use (street) I'm unlikely to want to mount a flash, and I've never felt the need for an articulated screen, if those things appeal to you, then it's a clear choice.

The Mk3, the shift from 28mm to 24mm means it's not for me.
I understand why people like the VF, but it's not a must for me, the screens are great, and the size of the cameras lends them to screen shooting for me,

When my Mk1 eventually dies, I'd look at a MK2 to replace it, but until then, I love the MK1.

I'd reccomend getting an Aki Asahi skin on them though, greatly improves the handling

 

[kyte]

I managed to resist the first two versions and got the mark 3 because...

- EVF
- 24mm FOV
- Built in ND

I recommend getting a grip even if you have small hands.

 

[mbisc]

thanks everyone -- very interesting takes on the various models. I am intrigued by the 24mm FOV (for some landscapes and travel/monuments) - at least with film, I always liked my 25mm Distagon better than my 28mm lens for _some_ shots. Time to ponder things. The V.1 is currently on sale, making the price difference to the V.3 even larger...

 

[tbhv55]

Not much to offer, but I really like my Mk.I -enough that about the only thing in the later revs that raised an eyebrow for me was the inbuilt finder. I love a finder, but the kicker is that I have actually learned to love the screen on this particular camera. The Sony "WhiteMagic" technology employed in the screen is marvelous. Until my Mk.I cr@ps out, there is just not enough of "other improvements" to warrant kicking such a GREAT camera to the curb ... yet.

^^ This matches my view of the RX100 series. The MkII did not turn my head, whereas the MkIII did - a little. But only because of the EVF... and even then, it wasn't enough to make me give up on the MkI.

Ultimately, if you don't want/need the EVF too badly, then the MkI will get the rest of the job done very nicely.

 

[crsantin]

I have the MKI. Amazing little camera. IQ is good enough to replace my DSLR, especially for travel. Now I usually bring one film camera with me and my RX100 tucked away in my pocket. There are times when I want the convenience of digital and the Sony provides it...and shoots pretty good video too. I'll use it until it dies.

 

[burancap]

I just used my Mk.I a good bit over the last 24 hours. It really is one of the great cameras of recent times. So much in such a tiny little package. Love it.

 

[biogo]

What international forum do you turn to for exchanging info about the RX 100 (version III / IV) without being interested in video?

Here's the place to be for rangefinder cameras and film.
These are not the only topics here on the rff.com of cause, but I'll never stop using my M6TTL 0.85 and IIIg regularly.

What is the equally competent forum for the RX 100 series -
since the version 3 price has started to become attractive
and version 4's AF (they claim, due to the small&fast chip and the strong processor) is as fast as an entry-level SLR's,
while being compact?

 

[BlackXList]

Honestly the AF in the MK1 is lightning fast, so I can't see any of the other models being any slouch either, but if they say they've upgraded, then I'm sure it'll be something special.

Definitely a modern classic, my possible complaint, is that Sony insist on their proprietary RAW format, if it shot DNG, it would be perfect.

 

[AlexBG]

I love my MK1. £150 worth of point and shoot camera that I take everywhere, when it breaks I will buy another one for a bit less, then another and then another. I worry when I take my A7 out that it may break so it stops me taking it everywhere.

Each one from MK1 upwards has new features so go for what you can afford or if you really want a specific feature then get the model that has that. Like you said, if you really need the 24mm over 28mm then the 3 is the way to go. Or get a MK1 for a bit and see if you like it and if you do get a MK3 when the price drops a bit.

 

[biogo]

So isn't there a specialized international sub-forum for the RX100 series?

 

[burancap]

So isn't there a specialized international sub-forum for the RX100 series?

Oh, I think we are collectively as "specialized" as it gets... 🙁

 

[biogo]

Thank you, Jeff. This thread shows it. Couldn't find any other more recent here.
kyte hasn't been around since May and (s-)he's the only one to have version 3.
But overall everybody's happy with this camera and this is good to know.

Kind regards,
Simon

 

[tbhv55]

There used to be a dedicated RX100 website, which was set up shortly after the release of the RX100 Mk1, but it lasted only about a year (IIRC) before becoming defunct. 🙁
As far as I'm aware, there are no other RX100-dedicated sites, so it's either this sub-forum on RFF, or its equivalent on a couple of other sites.

 

[taemo]

I'm seriously tempted on getting a RX100 II or III for landscape use.
I just wish they didn't remove the hotshoe on the III as I like shooting with an auxiliary VF.
Not a big fan of Sony interface but a 24-70 or 28-100 should cover most of my need.

Might have to stop by The Camera Store again and play with their RX100 again

 

[dlynch]

Found this old post. Wonderful advice.
I've used an RX100-2 with the Electronic View Finder, and now the RX100-7

The -7 focuses so much faster! The colour is more satisfying to me. That's a strange admission. I'm colour blind (red/green) I do see colour, but not as you would.

DaveL
Toronto