Sony RX 100 mk1

garry71

garry71

Messages
366
Name
Garry
Edit My Images
Yes
I see Jessops are selling what looks to be the mk1 version for £249.
As the mk1 is 4 years old now, how does it stack up against current cameras in the same price range? I'm not bothered about wifi,etc, just image and build quality.
ISO performance is important to me as my missus likes holidays in woodland type places with variable lighting situations.
Would it be worth moving up to the MK2 version at £329?

Thanks a lot.
 
As a rx100 owner I'd go for the mk2, the flipout screen alone would make it worth the extra to me.
 
stu.artd said:
As a rx100 owner I'd go for the mk2, the flipout screen alone would make it worth the extra to me.
Click to expand...
Yep have to agree I had a mark 1 and now a mark 2 and the flip out screen is a bonus as well as the other small improvements etc.
 
I have the mark 1 - I am not so sure that the flip out screen is worth an extra £80. Depends on what sort of photography you do but this addition has never motivated me to move to the Mark 2.

Whatever you decide it is a cracking camera.
 
Mark III and IV have a wider lens but less reach (24-70 vs 28-100), both have faster lenses at the tele end (f2.8 vs f4.9 on the mark I and II), and both have viewfinders which I and II don't.

Canon G7x is worth looking at too, no viewfinder but fast f1.8-2.8 lens and 24-100mm

All have pretty much the same sensor so ISO performance will be pretty identical, but the faster lens in the Mark III and IV and G7x will help keep ISO down.
 
Last edited:
I've had the Mk 2 then sold it and purchased a second hand Mk I later, not a lot of difference but the flip screen is handy. I bought a used Mk 1 for around £160 like new so for me the price difference just wasn't worth it.
 
Got my mark 2 for £175 so bit of a no brainer for me...Which ever model you get I am confident you will be very pleased as the rx series are superb cameras.
 
garry71 said:
I see Jessops are selling what looks to be the mk1 version for £249.
As the mk1 is 4 years old now, how does it stack up against current cameras in the same price range? I'm not bothered about wifi,etc, just image and build quality.
ISO performance is important to me as my missus likes holidays in woodland type places with variable lighting situations.
Would it be worth moving up to the MK2 version at £329?

Thanks a lot.
Click to expand...

John Lewis are also doing the MK1 for £249.99 and theirs comes with two years guarantee.
 
Jessops have the Mk II for £329 with free leather-look(!) case.......................
 
Last edited:
garry71 said:
I see Jessops are selling what looks to be the mk1 version for £249.
As the mk1 is 4 years old now, how does it stack up against current cameras in the same price range? I'm not bothered about wifi,etc, just image and build quality.
ISO performance is important to me as my missus likes holidays in woodland type places with variable lighting situations.
Would it be worth moving up to the MK2 version at £329?

Thanks a lot.
Click to expand...
Still one of the best compacts out there. I took mine travelling last year and it performed flawlessly. Very good high ISO, especially for its size.

212 by -Odd Jim-

22 by -Odd Jim-

48 by -Odd Jim-
 
Last edited:
Thanks for all the replies, those pictures certainly look good enough for me :)
 
Just for info, I bought a Mk1 when it first came out.
Recently bought a Mk3.
Recently sold the Mk3.
Kept the Mk1.......
 
davek said:
Just for info, I bought a Mk1 when it first came out.
Recently bought a Mk3.
Recently sold the Mk3.
Kept the Mk1.......
Click to expand...
Interesting, why's that? I've just bought a used Mark III but still on the fence.
 
snerkler said:
Interesting, why's that? I've just bought a used Mark III but still on the fence.
Click to expand...

Still on the fence? I think the Mk II gives the best combination of price and features. But everyone has their own opinion of what is best :)

AL
 
Al1944 said:
Still on the fence?

AL
Click to expand...
Well I've been toying which compact to get, but saw a great deal on a used Mark III with 12 months warranty so decided to give it a punt and am now putting it through it's paces. Just trying to decide if it's good enough to make me part with my Olympus EM5-II for travel, and also whether I'd prefer the extra reach of the G7x/G5x.

Don't get me wrong, the camera's great. there's just far too much choice in life :facepalm: ;)
 
On a different note, which aperture do Mark III owners find is the sweet spot at 24mm and 70mm, especially 24mm for landscape?
 
All these posts about the MK1 and I keep looking at the Canon G7x and G5x. Talk about sitting on the fence!
 
redlion said:
All these posts about the MK1 and I keep looking at the Canon G7x and G5x. Talk about sitting on the fence!
Click to expand...
Sounds like you're going through what I went through ;) Trouble is they're not cheap things, it's a lot of cash to spend on a compact camera (albeit a very good one) and on top of that there's a fair bit of choice now. Fortunately finding the one I did made my mind up for me, hopefully something similar will happen to you.
 
snerkler said:
Interesting, why's that? I've just bought a used Mark III but still on the fence.
Click to expand...
In good light there's no difference in IQ and in poor light the Mk3 isn't hugely better.
I prefer the 28mm pov (95% of my 4000 Mk1 images) and you get the full 1.8 aperture with the Mk1/2 at that focal length.
The whistles and bells -wifi, tilting screen, evf etc, I just didn't use.

The biggest difference tho is the pocketability. If you want a take everywhere camera the Mk3 is just a bit too big to be comfortable.
So it was an interesting diversion but I'm back on the straight and narrow with the Mk1. My GAS has been alleviated, temporarily.
 
I have the Mk1 as my "always carry" camera.
I find that, probably because it is so compact, I tend to underestimate just how good it actually is.
I always shoot raw and find that, even at high ISO (3200), the results are simply amazing, and it's almost impossible to tell the shots were not taken with an SLR.
I'd agree that the tilting screen is a nice thing to have, but I'm not about to shell out for an upgrade.
As for the wider angle lens of the Mk3 & 4, you can often take mutiple images and stitch them to give a wider view.
 
davek said:
In good light there's no difference in IQ and in poor light the Mk3 isn't hugely better.
I prefer the 28mm pov (95% of my 4000 Mk1 images) and you get the full 1.8 aperture with the Mk1/2 at that focal length.
The whistles and bells -wifi, tilting screen, evf etc, I just didn't use.

The biggest difference tho is the pocketability. If you want a take everywhere camera the Mk3 is just a bit too big to be comfortable.
So it was an interesting diversion but I'm back on the straight and narrow with the Mk1. My GAS has been alleviated, temporarily.
Click to expand...
Thanks. I didn't realise the dimensions had altered tbh.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top