Pound for pound best point and shoot.

ethan

ethan

ethan

Soldato
Joined
16 Sep 2005
Posts
7,868
Location
What used to be a UK
Having just purchased a Fuji XT10 and a couple of lenses, it would seem I require a point and shoot. What would be anybody's recommendations concerning the X30, Xpro1 and XT series of camera?it's not always convenient or practical to carry the XT10 and I'm fed up of having to rely on my phone. Thanks.
 
Last edited:
Good suggestion. I'm just wondering whether iI would be limited by the fixed lens? Perhaps I really ought to be asking for best portable interchangeable lens camera given the fact I already own an XT10?
 
Didn't you just sell an X-A1?

The smallest interchangeable lens camera is the GM1/GM5 for m4/3 I think, but then you'd have to buy a new system of lenses.

The Xpro1 and XT series aren't point and shoots, they're interchangeable lens cameras. The X30 is a compact camera like point and shoots, but it has more controls than typical compact cameras. Tiny sensor though.

It hard to tell what you're after... :p
 
Yeah I got rid of the XA1. I got it into my mind I could get away with slinging and Xpro1 or something of similar size in my jacket pocket with a couple of small lenses I could quite happily reuse on the XT10. Just getting to weigh up the pros and cons.
 
Oh dear, I assumed it was slimmer and thus more jacket pocket friendly. I don't mind the weight. Thought it was less bulky as I had only seen it in a shop window.
 
Last edited:
ethan said:
Oh dear, I assumed it was slimmer and thus more jacket pocket friendly. I don't mind the weight. Thought it was less bulky as I had only seen it in a shop window.
Click to expand...

I shoot with a Olympus EPM2 when I want a pocket camera, it is much smaller than the Fuji http://camerasize.com/compare/#620,387

Furthermore the lenses are much smaller and lighter. I have no issues fitting it in jacket pockets and trouser pockets but would be a tight fit in skinny jeans etc. Some of the Nikon 1 camera will be a smidgen smaller and lighter when considering the lenses.

If you want soemthign that fits in small trouser pockets then you will have to give up on mirror less and go compact, you will find even the Panasonicn LX100 and Sony RX100 will still not be small enough for the shirt pocket tpye cameras.
See hre,
http://camerasize.com/compare/#569,387

The LX100 is substantial bigger than the EPm2 WITHOUT lens. The new Olympus 14-42mm is 22.9mm deep but some of that si the mount that goes inside the camera. I would guess the total depth of camera + lens to be about 52mm. The weight will be 35gram less in total, but the Olympus lens is a lot slower. There are a number of m433 pancake lenes that are even smaller and lighter, down to around 70g and 18mm deep.

The main reason to go for something like the Olympus epm2 is you can quickly change lenses to a very fast prime, or to a bigger telephoto lens. i have a 50-150mm lens, so 300mm FF equivalent reach and it fits nicely into my other pocket.
 
D.P. said:
Panasonic LX100, 1inch sensor and a fast lens, has a much wider effecive aperture than the Sony RX100 III, let alone the earlier models
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonic-lumix-dmc-lx100

The sensor also outperforms the sony RX100 III and it is also a smidgen cheaper.
Click to expand...

I did consider both then went for the RX100, I was looking for something to give me better IQ and low light performance than my tiny Canon s110 and something small for my wife to actually use (she never used the Canon 100D I got her). Size was the main reason that swayed me towards the RX100, the LX100 is just a bit too porky:

2YAIhsO.jpg.png


IQ for what it's worth, DXOmark... gave the same overall score as the LX..

What do you mean by wider effective aperture DP? (f/1.7 vs f1.8 on the wide angle?). Or do you mean the LX100 can produce a smaller DOF with the larger sensor?
 
Last edited:
Look at the graph in the likI added:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonic-lumix-dmc-lx100
The LX100 has a much bigger sensor so its effective aperture is far faster than the RX100 MK3, by at least 1 stop so it is kind of like comparing an APS-C crop DSLR to a FF DSLR.

the DXO mark overall score may be the same but that is a fairly pointless number, you need to look at the details. The LX100 sensor has a consistently higher dynamic range, by nearly 1 stop iSO400-800. At the higher ISO's Sony cheat and applies noise reduction. At base ISO there is some kind of amplifier noise limiting the LX100.

The RX100 MV4 improved the sensor a little, using new backside-illumination technology. This resulted in about a /3rd of a stop improvement in DR close the gap.


Not huge differences but you get around 1 stop more light and shallower DoF with the LX100 (so like crop vs FF) and 0.5-1.0 stop more DR over certain ISO ranges. The downsidw i the lens and camera are bugger to support the larger sensor, but the camera is also better built with more manual controls as well.


All just depends what you want, the Sony RX100 is smaller but still isn't a shirt pocket camera, the LCX100 is a good bit bigger but is still very much a pocket camera.
 
Looking at the above picture, the LX100 would never fit in my pockets. Maybe a coat pocket, but that's it. The RX100 (I've got the m2) is definitely pocketable.

And who wears shirts with pockets? :p
 
I weighed up the RX100 and LX100 and after handling both in store went for the LX100. After 6 months of use with it I was very happy with it, great camera, feels lovely in the hand and fantastic manual controls. Picture quality is great and despite the 12mp you could do some cropping - no complaints at all.

Except the size - even in a coat pocket it felt bulky and cumbersome to retrieve quickly.

I then saw a battered and bruised RX100MK1 on FleBay and put a bid in thinking if I did win it I could have a play - see what the fuss is about and then sell it on for a small loss or, ideally, break even.

After having it a week I sold the LX100

The RX100 is just so much more portable and (to me) there is no real difference on the image quality. I do miss the "feel" of the LX100 and the manual controls but again, after some use I actually find the RX100 more intuitive

Both are undoubtedly great cameras and its horses for courses but definitely (at the moment) glad I went for the RX100 :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom