Canon 70D or Sony RX100 (mk 2 or 3)

Goody13

Goody13

Messages
474
Name
Peter
Edit My Images
Yes
I have a dilemma and I don't know whether I want advice or reassurance. For the past year I have had a theoretical £500 burning a hole in my pocket by way of a long service award at work. I have a Canon 450D owned from new in 2008 and have the following set-up: Sigma 17-70, Canon 10-22, Canon 70-300, Canon 50mm f1.8, Sigma 30mm f1.4, Canon 430 EX flash plus a tripod and a couple of polarisers.

I was pretty certain I wanted to upgrade to the 70D, but a year ago it was still quite expensive so I was waiting from the price to fall. I can now get it for £605 at HDEW so will only have to put £105 towards it. What appealed over the 450D? Well, articulated screen, higher fps (for when I shoot airshows, although TBH I don't find the 450D lacking much in that respect) and better focussing. I am not a serious airshow photographer though and only go to a couple a year. My main interest is railway photography, but generally I am able to pre-focus where I want to take the shot.

However, something has stopped me from buying the 70D up until now, and I think I have had a nagging doubt in the back of my mind that maybe I should get something smaller, not bigger, that I would carry with me more, leaving the smaller compact for regular use and keeping the 450D for when I go out with a camera bag.

I have never been much of a video shooter, but I have a toddler who I would like to get more videos of as she grows, and that is something my 450D cannot do, although I have a Samsung S4 that isn't too bad at video. I imagine the RX100 would be better than the phone at video but possibly not as good as the 70D.

So what would you do in my position? Upgrade to a 70D knowing that it will only go out at certain times, or get the RX100 (or similar - any alternatives considered) that I would be more likely to carry with me? My issue with compacts is using the LCD as a viewfinder and shutter lag. I note you can get an external flash for the RX100, so that would be good for daughter pics, leaving the 450D for pics in good light and at home when I have time to set it up ready for some shots. Would I find shutter lag on the RX100 an issue or would video be lacking much compared to the 70D?

Help me get out of my year of indecision please!
 
I had a very similar dilemma. I do a lot of cycling, and often wished I had my 60d with me, but could never find a suitable way of carrying the kit. Especially mountain biking, so I ended up going for an RX100mk2. Unfortunately this meant the 60D got even less use and has now been sold, as the RX100 can just be put in a backpack and go, no special camera bags etc. I guess there will always be compromises with the two different types of cameras but at least the RX is getting used! Of course I miss the SLR, but love the portability of the Sony!

Isn't the saying something along the lines of "the best camera is the one you have on you"!!
 
SaintSLR said:
Isn't the saying something along the lines of "the best camera is the one you have on you"!!
Click to expand...
Thanks. That's the lines I was thinking along. A comparison between the 450D and RX100iii on one of the sites shows the RX100 as being the winner. I like the idea of the portability as I could always have it with me rather than having to compromise with my phone.

How do you find things like shutter lag? From what I can gather it is comparable to a DSLR. I would keep all my DSLR gear for when I want to go out taking photographs and was thinking of the RX100 for when I am out and may want to take photographs. Having thought about it, I'm not sure a 70D would give me *that* much extra quality than my 450D other tan, perhaps, low light capability, but I imagine the RX100 would be better than the 450D at higher ISOs.

I think I am now talking myself into the RX100iii and your post has indicated pretty much what I was thinking.

Does anyone else have any thoughts?
 
I think I'd struggle to deal with the hit in IQ changing completely to a camera with a sensor nearly 50% smaller.

Why not see if you can pick up a used RX100, give it a go and if you don't like it, the chances are you'll be able to sell it on with little to no loss.
 
I had this exact issue in a way!
I had a 60d with sigma 30mm and sold it to downsize and bought the rx100 mk11, the camera itself was good but I did not enjoy using it and regretted making that change! I sold the sony with intentions of getting the 70d but was out of my reach so opted for a 40d which hopefully will see me alright until I can afford the 70d! If you enjoy the 450d then stick to dslr's!!
 
Goody13 said:
How do you find things like shutter lag? From what I can gather it is comparable to a DSLR. I would keep all my DSLR gear for when I want to go out taking photographs
Click to expand...

There is a slight difference in shutter lag but it depends on what your shooting as to whether it becomes an issue or not. If your going to keep your slr then the rx100 series would be great addition for those times you don't want to take the full kit out. (Well I think so, more than happy with mine!)

mikehiow said:
I think I'd struggle to deal with the hit in IQ changing completely to a camera with a sensor nearly 50% smaller.

Why not see if you can pick up a used RX100, give it a go and if you don't like it, the chances are you'll be able to sell it on with little to no loss.
Click to expand...

Agree there are compromises between the two cameras.
Great idea to pick up second hand one.
 
mjb123 said:
the camera itself was good but I did not enjoy using it and regretted making that change!
Click to expand...
In what way did you not enjoy using it? Was it the quality of the pictures? I was thinking of the Sony to complement my 450D as an alternative to replacing the 450D with the 70D. So, my choices are 450D plus existing lenses plus RX100iii, or 70D with existing set of lenses.
 
Last edited:
No the quality of the pictures was good! I just preferred having a view Finder and and am so used to canon that I found it hard to convert myself.
The zoom range also annoyed me!
 
I see that the RX100iii has a viewfinder. Lack of viewfinder has always put me off too. My SLR failed around 1995. I was not taking so many photos then so got a cheap compact but was very disappointed with the results. It wasn't until I got an SLR around 2003 that I was happy with my photos again, and then I got my DSLR in 2008. I don't think I'd ever wasnt to move away from a DSLR, but something small and good quality has a certain appeal to it, and I do have the work long service award to soften the blow of the cost.
 
I have owned and well used both a Sony RX100 II and a Canon 70D for nearly a year and there is absolutely no comparison! I only shoot RAW format and no video.

The difference is that the Sony fits in your pocket but it lacks so much in comparison (I have now sold it) and am soon selling my 70D for a 7D II. I have replaced my RX100 II with a Lumix TZ60 and although it also cannot possibly compete with a DSLR, it's very useful in pocket all the time.

The RX100 II has excellent low light capability but it's soooo sloooooooow to focus etc compared with the 70D and cannot match the DSLR controls over the image results nor offer the extensive system of Canon lenses.

It comes down to Horses-for-Courses and what you want to shoot.
 
There more cameras that go together, the RX100 is great when you dont want to carry a camera, you still have something that produces great images, with zero hassle.

I originally got my Rx100 to replace my 40D, which it did for a year then i got an A7R but the Rx100 still goes everywhere with me.
 
robj20 said:
There more cameras that go together, the RX100 is great when you dont want to carry a camera, you still have something that produces great images, with zero hassle.
Click to expand...

....Yes, that's exactly what I do but I bought the RX100 II to replace my FinePix F500EXR (which I wore out!) but although I totally acknowledge that it's an excellent quality pocket camera I simply didn't enjoy using it. The limited reach of its optical zoom is appalling! My Lumix TZ60 has some limitations of course but I intensely dislike phone cameras.

You gotta use what you personally feel most comfortable with and for me it's a nice weighty DSLR with a comprehensive system of high quality lenses - Set it up > Aim > Fire! > Bang!! You nailed it and it's almost orgasmic :D
 
Thats fair enough but i wouldnt be taking the DSLR out with me to say a family meal where the RX100 you can, its nice to have it for when the DSLR is just too much.
So i say get the DSLR first and get a RX100 a bit later. :)
 
robj20 said:
Thats fair enough but i wouldnt be taking the DSLR out with me to say a family meal where the RX100 you can, its nice to have it for when the DSLR is just too much.
So i say get the DSLR first and get a RX100 a bit later. :)
Click to expand...

....Something which I really liked a lot about the RX100 is the ability to tilt and bounce flash off a ceiling for example. Superb quality images too.

Yes, excuse me while I poke this 400mm lens in your face while you are eating! :D
 
More from a weight point of view, I had the Fuji X20 and Nikon D7000, I decided to change to mirror-less for the weight reduction and the better IQ over the X20. I sold the X20 & D7000 and bought a Fuji Xpro 1. I have since changed to the Fuji XT1 and with the 35mm prime it's not a lot bigger than the X20. For me it's just about jacket pocketable or the wife carries it in her bag. To me I killed two birds with one stone.

Above worked for me, but another thing to think of, is changing to M4/3 and just have one camera.
 
Interesting views and thanks to all for your replies. So, stick with 450D and add RX100iii or replace 450D with 70D ...
 
Goody13 said:
Interesting views and thanks to all for your replies. So, stick with 450D and add RX100iii or replace 450D with 70D ...
Click to expand...

....That's what I would do and, in a way, did do exactly this time last year - I swopped my FinePix F500EXR pocket camera for a Sony RX100 II and also bought a 70D (my first DSLR). The result is that you then have a choice of the right horse for the course.

We are good at spending other people's money here on TP, aren't we! :D
 
I see these advanced compacts as more an extra, no matter how pricey the model. I had the Rx100, and it's a cool little bit of gear. Perfect for casual shooting, get-togethers, shooting gigs/shows, that kind of thing. Where you cannot take the dslr with you, or just don't want to.

I sold it off in the end though to fund a lens for the dslr, end of the day, I prefer using that wherever possible. The Rx100 was just nice and stealthy and I could even throw it into my partner's handbag so I didn't even have to carry it :D

I will say the low light performance was impressive. What I felt it lacked was a little more reach. Whenever I did use the zoom, I felt I would get way better quality using a dslr and an 85mm lens say, and cropping down if needed. And though a dslr + 85 isn't pocketable, it's a pretty light and non-fussy combination.

Still wouldn't say no to the Rx100 III to have as an extra. But I wouldn't replace anything to have one.
 
Last edited:
Cagey75 said:
Still wouldn't say no to the Rx100 III to have as an extra. But I wouldn't replace anything to have one.
Click to expand...

....Apparently the RX100 III has even shorter zoom reach! Poor zoom is one of the features why I sold my Mk II.
 
RedRobin said:
....That's what I would do and, in a way, did do exactly this time last year - I swopped my FinePix F500EXR pocket camera for a Sony RX100 II and also bought a 70D (my first DSLR). The result is that you then have a choice of the right horse for the course.

We are good at spending other people's money here on TP, aren't we! :D
Click to expand...
I'm certainly warming to the idea of the RX100iii as an easy-to-carry camera that is good quality, leaving my 450D and other lenses for more serious shooting. I think I will get more out of that combo than replacing my 450D with the 70D, although the idea of the 70D is nice ...
 
Last edited:
As an amateur enthusiast, definitely not anywhere near professional.....I actually upgraded from the 450D to the 70D earlier this year. WOW what a difference. I thought the 450D was good, but the 70D is far superior in all aspects. I'm finding the AF is so much faster with all my lenses, and much more accurate. Low light photography (no flash) is also very very much easier - even using slower lenses, like the 24-105mm f/4L which I never had any real low light, no flash success with on the 450D. Yes, its bulky (I have grip as well), but well worth carrying around for the added quality and flexibility. If you want a new DSLR I highly recommend the 70D.... IMHO I would even suggest its a pro standard camera.
 
Oh dear! Back to square one! Why is making a decision so difficult?! :)
 
Only just bought a used 70D 2 months back, added a grip and have been very impressed so far. Mainly used for a couple of Motorsport events and trips to the zoo, but very happy with the results. The autofocus is very accurate, has the similar autofocus system to the 7D, but without autofocus expansion and the auto ISO mode comes in very useful. I've still got lots to challenge the camera with, but its ticked all the boxes so far
 
In your position I would 100% get an RX100 mk3. It is an incredibly effective camera, and because it is so small you will have it with you much more of the time so take more pictures which will improve your compositional skill and ability to 'see' a good picture.

I have done numerous professional shoots with my RX100 mk2, taking advantage of it's very high flash sync speed (1/2000th) and it's silent shutter (very useful when working alongside film crews). Nobody has ever commented on any lack of image quality. OK so I'll have a brace of 1D bodies and L lenses with me but often use the RX100 for specific reasons.

I've also used it when out mountain biking, hiking, on planes, up mountains, skiing etc etc when I'd never have taken a DSLR with me.

The new RX100 mk3 has a faster lens so you can indeed get good subject isolation for portraits even with the small sensor. It's (I think) a 70mm equivalent at the long end, but just walk closer if you need closer. You're not going to be using it to shoot wild lions on the savannha.

If you want to get significantly better image quality (that your average person will notice) you're going to need a DSLR and some seriously expensive lenses, all of which will be heavy and cumbersome. I'm blessed with some significant kit, but bang for buck the RX100 wins by a mile.
 
Thanks for that insight, Andy. I think that's just what I'm looking for. Of course, I'll still have my 450D for when I want that extra reach or flexibility, but the RX100iii sounds ideal for photographing my little girl when I don't have the DSLR with me.
 
buy a sigma dp, itll be between 2.5 and 3 times sharper than your 450d

it does have faults, but you will love it anyways :p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top