Point & Shoot Camera to Complement D750?

redlion

redlion

Messages
1,075
Edit My Images
No
Hi,

I have been spoilt by the D750 and all that it has to offer but am in need of a point & shoot camera. I know one won't compare to the D750 but am after something of decent quality to have on me at all times rather than the DSLR. I do have the Fuji XF1 but am looking for something better.

The short-list is the RX100 M3, Canon GX7 and Fuji X30 amongst a few others.

I primarily want something to:
  • Capture my toddler growing up.
  • Shoot decent small video clips of friends and family so good auto focus in video mode.
  • Hand over to family to use so an easy enough auto mode.
  • Small and unobtrusive to take to the park, on walks and restaurants.
  • Reasonably good in lowlight.
Any recommendations?

Thanks.
 
I've recently got a Panasonic LX100 to compliment a D90 - happy with it so far, despite a few features they missed out.

It has decent AF
Shoots 4k video if you want to ( I recently used it to video my youngest son's end of school production of the Lion King !)
Easy enough to set to Program or iAuto
Not as small as others you mention though, and it isn't pocketable.
Aperture is f1.7-2.8 through the zoom range, so does well in low light.

There are a few recent shots on my flickr if you want to take a look (rather than me cluttering the thread with samples !)
 
@GaryS70 a good shout for the Panasonic LX100. I had looked at this a while back but then backed out of buying it.

My XF1 is usually in a small pouch held in the hand during walks or in the pocket when not in use. The LX100 would probably benefit from a small pouch or a decent strap to not get in the way.
 
If pocketability isn't a consideration, the X-30 is well worth considering. How different is it from the XF-1 though in terms of image quality? (Not hugely IME!)
 
The Sony A6000 gets some good reviews and has a very good AF, if your considering the LX or X30 the Sony won't be much bigger if any. Linky > http://j.mp/1CRVIBy

Edit for Linky: If you look at the camera icons on top right of screen it will also give you the option to look at the cameras with lenses on and other positions.
 
Last edited:
.... also Fuji X100S/T.... actually scratch that, video isnt good.
 
Last edited:
Nikon 1 series for fast AF. Exceptional video quality- I don't know what voodo magic happens inside but it is astounding. Also could then get ft1 adapter for your big lenses.
Any body with the 10mm pancake will fit in your pocket.
 
@Nod the biggest concern on getting the X-30 was how much better in terms of image quality it would be. The XF1 works well but not always for my mentioned points especially poor video and low light.

@Swanseajack I have also taken a look at the Sony A6000 but wasn't sure on the kit lens and didn't want to be tempted in getting any more lenses.

@twist the Fuji X100S looks good but again Fuji are so poor at video implementation. The A6000 and GM5 do seem appealing but again would have to just go with the kit lens to avoid heavily investing in another system.

@Photopaque which Nikon 1 do you have? I doubt I would bolt on the DSLR lenses as would make it bulky. Investing in more native lenses drives up the cost.

The LX100, RX100 or GX7 seemed the compromise for fixed lens.
 
Last edited:
I picked up a used RX100 mk1 from on here as a carry anywhere and for my wife to use camera and so far have been impressed with it. I've not used video so cannot comment there but would imagine that it has only got better on the later versions of this camera. The lens is good and again I believe better on the newer versions and IQ is more than acceptable. I don't know how it compares to other P&S type cameras (well other than a very old Coolpix ;)) but I'm happy with it and it just fits in a pocket too.
 
redlion said:
@Nod the biggest concern on getting the X-30 was how much better in terms of image quality it would be. The XF1 works well but not always for my mentioned points especially poor video and low light.

@Swanseajack I have also taken a look at the Sony A6000 but wasn't sure on the kit lens and didn't want to be tempted in getting any more lenses.

@twist the Fuji X100S looks good but again Fuji are so poor at video implementation. The A6000 and GM5 do seem appealing but again would have to just go with the kit lens to avoid heavily investing in another system.

@Photopaque which Nikon 1 do you have? I doubt I would bolt on the DSLR lenses as would make it bulky. Investing in more native lenses drives up the cost.

The LX100, RX100 or GX7 seemed the compromise for fixed lens.
Click to expand...

The Sony 16-50 kit lens is actually really good, especially in the middle of the frame, extreme edges are slightly softer but that goes with most kit lenses. Its a powerzoom as you can see from the pics so zooming can be done via ring for fast zoom or slower and quieter via a rocker on the lens when shooting video.

Youd struggle to beat the A5100 and A6000 for video and especially continuos AF with the kids in both stills and video, M43 cant really keep up, only in AF-S. The A5100 has a huge benefit of touch screen for focusing over the A6000, it also has the benefit of power zoom rocker near the shutter when shooting video. Id say its a better camera than the A6000 if you didnt need the mode dial and EVF. I have both.

This was shot with an A6000... but the A5100 will AF just as well... bear in mind this is AF!

View: https://vimeo.com/99769499
 
Last edited:
I use a Fuji X100S. Great little camera. The only thing I don't like is the focus speed. It can be a little slow. Great camer though.

The other one I would look at is the OMD E5
 
I have had v1 and j1,2 over the years. They are crazy cheap on ebay. £140 for a refurbished with kit kens. What's not to like. Try and jf dont like sell for a small loss.
 
The problem with the Nikon 1 is that we have the RX100 available, its smaller, has the same sensor size and has a collapsing lens thats faster and longer than the Nikon offerings, its also only £200 used. If you bought the same lenses at the same aperture values for the Nikon system (you cant because the Sony has F1.8 28mm) to cover the RX100 you would be spending more and youd also be carrying 2-3 lenses (or the 10-100 which would give you more range).
 
Last edited:
@twist thanks for further information on the A5100 / A6000 and RX100. The continuous AF with the kids in both stills and video sounds very appealing. I manually focus with the D750 but for spontaneous kids this can be a mess in video. Also handing it over to anyone alienates them.

Good to hear the 16-50 kit lens is good as that will be the only lens I use for a while.

I will research the A5100 / A6000 some more over the original want of an RX100 M3.
 
redlion said:
@twist thanks for further information on the A5100 / A6000 and RX100. The continuous AF with the kids in both stills and video sounds very appealing. I manually focus with the D750 but for spontaneous kids this can be a mess in video. Also handing it over to anyone alienates them.

Good to hear the 16-50 kit lens is good as that will be the only lens I use for a while.

I will research the A5100 / A6000 some more over the original want of an RX100 M3.
Click to expand...

The RX100 mk3 is great and all if you want the smallest camera, other than that the A5100 / A6000 would destroy it in terms of AF / Sensor performance / Interchangeable lenses / touch screen (A5100) or much better EVF (A6000) and handling.

You can get the A6000 for slightly over £400 after £50 Sony cashback at the mo which is a bargain for what it offers.
 
Last edited:
The A5100 / A6000 still seem relatively small with the 16-50 and a lot smaller than the D750 for the times I want the light set-up. I usually put the camera in the baby or OH bag so it should still fit with ease.

The video AF does seem great and can get instant moments. It is a shame the touch-screen is not on the A6000.

It could also mean me being in the frame rather than behind the camera all the time.

The A6000 is £341.10 via Sony Outlet but have heard horror stories on Sony Outlet gear so hesitant to spend via that route even though it seems a bargain. They have a 30 day return policy.
 
redlion said:
The A5100 / A6000 still seem relatively small with the 16-50 and a lot smaller than the D750 for the times I want the light set-up. I usually put the camera in the baby or OH bag so it should still fit with ease.

The video AF does seem great and can get instant moments. It is a shame the touch-screen is not on the A6000.

It could also mean me being in the frame rather than behind the camera all the time.

The A6000 is £341.10 via Sony Outlet but have heard horror stories on Sony Outlet gear so hesitant to spend via that route even though it seems a bargain. They have a 30 day return policy.
Click to expand...

Go new, its only a few quid more I've read horror stories and experienced DOAs myself.
 
I'm a Canon G7X man. That sees more use than my DSLR at the moment.
 
twist said:
The RX100 mk3 is great and all if you want the smallest camera, other than that the A5100 / A6000 would destroy it in terms of AF / Sensor performance / Interchangeable lenses / touch screen (A5100) or much better EVF (A6000) and handling.

You can get the A6000 for slightly over £400 after £50 Sony cashback at the mo which is a bargain for what it offers.
Click to expand...
Although the A6000 is APS-C, I'm not sure it would 'destroy' the RX100 sensor wise, the sensor in the RX100 performs better than a lot of APS-C stuff out there, even at iso 1600 - 3200.

It would be better as its bigger, but the actual IQ differences are actually marginal.
 
odd jim said:
Although the A6000 is APS-C, I'm not sure it would 'destroy' the RX100 sensor wise, the sensor in the RX100 performs better than a lot of APS-C stuff out there, even at iso 1600 - 3200.

It would be better as its bigger, but the actual IQ differences are actually marginal.
Click to expand...

Over 1 stop noise improvement, sharper files, slightly more mp and more dynamic range. Thats not marginal.

Have you used both to come to that conclusion?
 
I've got an RX100, and I've played with a6000 and a5100 raws in LR. There really wasn't much in it. The axxxx files weren't really anymore malleable than the RX100 files when it came to processing, even noise control.

And how and the "files sharper"??
 
odd jim said:
Although the A6000 is APS-C, I'm not sure it would 'destroy' the RX100 sensor wise, the sensor in the RX100 performs better than a lot of APS-C stuff out there, even at iso 1600 - 3200.

It would be better as its bigger, but the actual IQ differences are actually marginal.
Click to expand...

I have both of these, the a6000 produces better images, but the IQ and size of the rx100 make it a fanastic camera as a carry around backup etc.
 
si019 said:
I have both of these, the a6000 produces better images, but the IQ and size of the rx100 make it a fanastic camera as a carry around backup etc.
Click to expand...


Admittedly I've only played with sample raws so not shot the a6000 myself, but I honestly couldn't see the advantage in overall IQ when I was looking for a lighter travel set up.

The performance / size / weight combo of the RX100 easily won it for me (my Canon 6d is my main body), and I agree I found the a6000 images slightly better, but only by a very small margin (not only is the sensor on the rx100 lovely, so is the Zeiss lens).

I'd still argue that the a6000 doesn't "destroy" the RX sensor wise, as twist dramatically described, more "slightly pulls ahead in the race and wins by a nose" better :)
 
Last edited:
odd jim said:
I've got an RX100, and I've played with a6000 and a5100 raws in LR. There really wasn't much in it. The axxxx files weren't really anymore malleable than the RX100 files when it came to processing, even noise control.

And how and the "files sharper"??
Click to expand...

Sure, if you don't think over 1 stop, more dynamic range etc isn't much. I consider it a lot. Larger sensors produce sharper result's look at the dpreview studio scene, the rx100 files look mushy in comparison. But then we had the discussion about the DR of the 6d and you thought it was just as good as the Sony/nikon's so I think our ideas of 'marginal' are very different. But let's not go there again.

You can argue that but if a bigger sensor didn't produce better iq then why do you use a full frame as your main camera?
 
Last edited:
twist said:
Sure, if you don't think over 1 stop, more dynamic range etc isn't much. I consider it a lot. Larger sensors produce sharper result's look at the dpreview studio scene, the rx100 files look mushy in comparison. But then we had the discussion about the DR of the 6d and you thought it was just as good as the Sony/nikon's so I think our ideas of 'marginal' are very different. But let's not go there again.

You can argue that but if a bigger sensor didn't produce better iq then why do you use a full frame as your main camera?
Click to expand...
Of course bigger sensors produce better images, or we'd all be using compacts or camera phones as our main cameras. You're missing the point I'm making so I won't labour it here as you can see for yourself if you simply look through flickr that real world shooting, relative lenses under normal conditions, there isn't much in it.

It when the conditions become less favourable the a6000 advantages become more obvious.

And the only way an RX100 image becomes mushy is if its shot oof or the user has very shaky hands!

I'm not disagreeing the a6000 is the better overall system (of course it is) but its the use of the adjective "destroy" I don't agree with!

And the DR of the 6d is just fine :)
 
Last edited:
odd jim said:
Of course bigger sensors produce better images, or we'd all be using compacts or camera phones as our main cameras. You're missing the point I'm making so I won't labour it here as you can see for yourself if you simply look through flickr that real world shooting, relative lenses under normal conditions, there isn't much in it.

It when the conditions become less favourable the a6000 advantages become more obvious.

And the only way an RX100 image becomes mushy is if its shot oof or the user has very shaky hands!

And the DR of the 6d is just fine :)
Click to expand...

Normal shooting for me involves mid to higher isos and pushing in post, not just a sunny day and the a6000 destroys the rx100 in those conditions not just in terms of sensor performance. I'm not missing any point, you commented on my post I replied. We just have differing ideas when it comes to marginal differences in performance. :)
 
Last edited:
twist said:
Normal shooting for me involves mid to higher isos and pushing in post, not just a sunny day and the a6000 destroys the rx100 in those conditions not just in terms of sensor performance. I'm not missing any point, you commented on my post I replied. We just have differing ideas when it comes to marginal differences in performance. :)
Click to expand...
It would seem so!

For example, my 6d destroys my old Fuji s3500 for IQ (and everything else) as you'd expect. A Nikon d750 destroys an old Nikon Coolpix. For me thats where the big differences are, most stuff like for like (albeit these are different systems, so the a6000 will always win AF, ergonimcs, flexibility and handling wise - this is just about sensor iq) there arent HUGE differences.

The extra resolution, noise control and DR advantage of the a6000 over the RX100 isn't huge (come on, 1 stop extra DR isn't much these days when the DR is already up there at +12 ev!).

Anyway, we keep taking things OT so we should stop this :D
 
And @twist, I know you love DXO so I've copied and pasted this from their sensor test of the RX100. I personally don't like DXO and I think they talk b0llocks, but you do seem to get a lot of your data from here so here it is (and this is the mk1 RX100 as this is what I have been comparing the a6000 with);

"With a DxOMark Landscape score of 12.4EV, the 1" CMOS sensor offers a high dynamic range for a digital compact. It ranks 32nd in the standings, tied with the APS-C sensor of the X100, and even surpasses several older-generation full-format reflexes such as the Nikon D700 and D3, and the Sony Alpha 850. By way of comparison, the Canon EOS 5D Mark II measured 11.9EV."

...so DXO in their infinate wisdom rate the RX100 mk1 sensor better than the FF sensor in the Canon 5d2 and Nikon d700. I'm not sure I'd agree, but it does show how good the RX100 is compared to the big guys. Just saying.

Anyway, resume normal service, sorry!
 
Last edited:
odd jim said:
It would seem so!

For example, my 6d destroys my old Fuji s3500 for IQ (and everything else) as you'd expect. A Nikon d750 destroys an old Nikon Coolpix. For me thats where the big differences are, most stuff like for like (albeit these are different systems, so the a6000 will always win AF, ergonimcs, flexibility and handling wise - this is just about sensor iq) there arent HUGE differences.

The extra resolution, noise control and DR advantage of the a6000 over the RX100 isn't huge (come on, 1 stop extra DR isn't much these days when the DR is already up there at +12 ev!).

Anyway, we keep taking things OT so we should stop this :D
Click to expand...

But for me that stop extra iso, dr, sharpness all adds up to make a big difference in final results. I'm not saying the rx100 is crap, it's bloody amazing for its size but imo overall ignoring size the a6000 is a much better camera. Depends on what the op wants to carry really.
 
twist said:
But for me that stop extra iso, dr, sharpness all adds up to make a big difference in final results. I'm not saying the rx100 is crap, it's bloody amazing for its size but imo overall ignoring size the a6000 is a much better camera. Depends on what the op wants to carry really.
Click to expand...
Indeed, its the last bit that swayed it for me, for a package I think its unbeatable which is why I will always recommend the RX100 over any other compact system.
 
odd jim said:
And @twist, I know you love DXO so I've copied and pasted this from their sensor test of the RX100. I personally don't like DXO and I think they talk b0llocks, but you do seem to get a lot of your data from here so here it is (and this is the mk1 RX100 as this is what I have been comparing the a6000 with);

"With a DxOMark Landscape score of 12.4EV, the 1" CMOS sensor offers a high dynamic range for a digital compact. It ranks 32nd in the standings, tied with the APS-C sensor of the X100, and even surpasses several older-generation full-format reflexes such as the Nikon D700 and D3, and the Sony Alpha 850. By way of comparison, the Canon EOS 5D Mark II measured 11.9EV."

...so DXO in their infinate wisdom rate the RX100 mk1 sensor better than the FF sensor in the Canon 5d2 and Nikon d700. I'm not sure I'd agree, but it does show how good the RX100 is compared to the big guys. Just saying.
Click to expand...

Just saying, but we were comparing a6000 and rx100 not other cameras. I compare real world results because I've owned both! Unlike you. Dxo isn't the whole picture... and I wasn't just talking about DR but the whole picture.
 
Last edited:
twist said:
Just saying, but we were comparing a6000 and rx100 not other cameras. I compare real world results because I've owned both! Unlike you. Dxo isn't the whole picture.
Click to expand...

Of course.

I've used DXO as the example as I know you go by their data from your previous posts. Personally I hate DXO.

But going by your argument that the a6000 "destroys" the RX100 for sensor performance, which DXO rate above the Canon 5d2 and Nikon D700, both brilliant FF bodies, relatively speaking you are pretty much saying (without actually saying it) its 'slightly' better than the Nikon D750 / 800 and Canon 5d3 or at least on par. As by "destroying" something rated above those bodies surely must also beat the D800 and 5D3??

Thats crazy.
 
odd jim said:
Of course.

I've used DXO as the example as I know you go by their data from your previous posts. Personally I hate DXO.

But going by your argument that the a6000 "destroys" the RX100 for sensor performance, which DXO rate above the Canon 5d2 and Nikon D700, both brilliant FF bodies, relatively speaking you are pretty much saying (without actually saying it) its 'slightly' better than the Nikon D750 / 800 and Canon 5d3 or at least on par. As by "destroying" something rated above those bodies surely must also beat the D800 and 5D3??

Thats crazy.
Click to expand...

Don't speak nonsense, you are quoting one characteristic of the sensor when I clearly discussed the sensor performance as a whole! So don't try tell me what I'm trying to say.
 
twist said:
Don't speak nonsense, you are quoting one characteristic of the sensor when I clearly discussed the sensor performance as a whole! So don't try tell me what I'm trying to say.
Click to expand...
No, I'm illustrating your irresponsible and dramatic use of adjectives :)

(oh, and that one characteristic of the sensor, DR, is what you're always banging on about!)
 
Last edited:
odd jim said:
No, I'm illustrating your irresponsible and dramatic use of adjectives :)
Click to expand...

And what I'm illustrating is you like posting about cameras you've never used via Flickr results and without any factual information (or you choose to ignore it) or previous experience to make a valid comparison. Go on, prove to everyone there's a marginal difference, sell your 6d and only shoot your rx100.
 
Yes I discuss DR, when it's the topic in the thread! It clearly isn't the only thing I posted.
 
twist said:
And what I'm illustrating is you like posting about cameras you've never used via Flickr results and without any factual information (or you choose to ignore it) or previous experience to make a valid comparison. Go on, prove to everyone there's a marginal difference, sell your 6d and only shoot your rx100.
Click to expand...
Whilst I've not shot the a6000 I have processed full raws which I downloaded, thats a lot more than looking at flickr would you say, as I'm pushing and looking at the files very carefully.

My point was never the RX100 is better than an a6000, or my 6d. It was about your over emphasis about how **massively** better the sensor is on the a6000 which I didn't agree with, which is reasonable. I simply think its slightly better.

As above in my other posts, its your careless use of adjectives I was pointing out ("destroy"?)
 
Last edited:
odd jim said:
Whilst I've not shot the a6000 I have processed full raws which I downloaded, thats a lot more than looking at flickr would you say, as I'm pushing and looking at the files very carefully.

My point was never the RX100 is better than an a6000, or my 6d. It was about your over emphasis about how massively better the sensor is on the a6000 which I didn't agree with, which is reasonable.

As above in my other posts, its your careless use of adjectives I was pointing out ("destroy"?)
Click to expand...

But you told me to check flickr for comparisons? You're entitled to your opinion but so am I and I'll stand by what I've said. It is a much better sensor but you must be a sunny day only shooter so you'd never see the difference.
 
twist said:
But you told me to check flickr for comparisons? You're entitled to your opinion but so am I and I'll stand by what I've said. It is a much better sensor but you must be a sunny day only shooter so you'd never see the difference.
Click to expand...
Yes, that was simply as a basis for real world shooting.

Why the veiled insults about me being a sunny day shooter?

I shoot sunny days, dawn, twilight, night, rain, fog, indoors, concerts, forensics, pretty much everything. With Canon, Nikon, Fuji and Sony.

This is silly, but I hope you've learnt about strong and negligent use of adjectives and will use them more carefully next time.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top