Why the change Mike? Is that the RX10 or RX10 II? Is this a general comment Mike (in which case I can understand it, although of course you know my view about it), or is it equipment-specific? (in which case I don't understand it) Overall you would have one stop less control over dof with the RX10 (f/2.8 to f/16 for the RX10 versus f/2.8 to f/22 with the Canon and 100 Macro). Here is how that pans out. f/16 on the RX10 equates to about f27 on Canon APS-C, so you could get half a stop or so more DOF (and diffraction) than with the Canon 100 Macro, which is f/22 minimum I think. Although from what you say you may not want to go there. f/2.8 on the RX10 equates to about f4.8 on Canon APS-C, so you would have about a stop and a half less in terms of minimum DOF. This would only matter to you if you are into narrow DOF images. If you normally use f/5.0 or smaller then there wouldn't be an issue. Personally I don't fancy a swivelling LCD (as against the side articulated one I use for macro work) - no good in portrait mode. But presumably you are in the habit of using the viewfinder so that wouldn't be an issue for you. Have you checked out how much zoom is left to you with a Raynox on the RX10 after dismissing any zoom range that has vignetting? The RX10 is fairly wide at the wide end and the tele end is relatively short, so I don't know how that would work out. I've been experimenting with my Panasonic TZ60. It is more useful that I would have imagined, especially when applying DXO Prime noise reduction to its raw files like I do for the FZ200. But that isn't appropriate here as it isn't for closeups (apart from some flowers perhaps - although the 70D will always be better for that, when I have it to hand - and perhaps later in the year for larger insects like butterflies, damselflies, crane flies etc). I've been writing it up a bit at the dpreview Panasonic small cameras forum instead. I don't think there's a suitable forum here.