• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Thinking of buying the Canon SX700

R

Rdmkr

Senior member
I currently use the camera on my LG G2 for most of picture taking needs, which works alright in conditions of high lighting and short distance, but not outside of these.

The Canon SX700 should be decently portable and still offer considerably better photography than my smartphone camera. The 30x zoom should solve most problems where long distance shots are concerned.

One slight worry is the relatively small difference in sensor size between this camera and a smartphone's. The SX700 uses a sensor of 1/2.3", which is something you also find in Sony's high end smartphone offering. I had hoped to get something in a completely different ballpark, but no. Still, it's better than the 1/3.2" sensor I currently use.

It looks like the SX700 does have Optical Image Stabilization, which sets it apart from most smartphones. My G2 does also have OIS but a significantly smaller sensor.

I've read some reviews criticizing its ability to take low light shots well, which is an important issue for me. However, if my standards are defined by what a smartphone camera can do (specifically the LG G2's), can I still go wrong?

Does anyone have experience using point & shoots of a similar quality level and comparing these to what a smartphone can do? Is it worth carrying the two side by side?

I want to carry the camera in my jeans pockets, so suggestions of less portable cameras will be wasted on me.
 
I'd go for a compact with a 1/1.8" sensor at least now if you want to see any worthwhile differences. Even then I feel there's still that smeary aspect to images that's definitely 'compact' in look... but at that point at least it'll be a noticeable improvement to a smartphone.

Huge zooms on compacts are also more rarely used than people think: What you're inevitably doing most of the time is trading off the quality of 90+% of your images against the largely hypothetical requirement of the reach of the cameras.
 
Last edited:
Rdmkr said:
I currently use the camera on my LG G2 for most of picture taking needs, which works alright in conditions of high lighting and short distance, but not outside of these.

The Canon SX700 should be decently portable and still offer considerably better photography than my smartphone camera. The 30x zoom should solve most problems where long distance shots are concerned.

One slight worry is the relatively small difference in sensor size between this camera and a smartphone's. The SX700 uses a sensor of 1/2.3", which is something you also find in Sony's high end smartphone offering. I had hoped to get something in a completely different ballpark, but no. Still, it's better than the 1/3.2" sensor I currently use.

It looks like the SX700 does have Optical Image Stabilization, which sets it apart from most smartphones. My G2 does also have OIS but a significantly smaller sensor.

I've read some reviews criticizing its ability to take low light shots well, which is an important issue for me. However, if my standards are defined by what a smartphone camera can do (specifically the LG G2's), can I still go wrong?

Does anyone have experience using point & shoots of a similar quality level and comparing these to what a smartphone can do? Is it worth carrying the two side by side?

I want to carry the camera in my jeans pockets, so suggestions of less portable cameras will be wasted on me.
Click to expand...

Get a Panasonic FZ1000 if it's within your budget. It's got a much bigger sensor and better lens than the tiny-sensor-superzooms which imho are pointless because you will get noisy/grainy/soft results with those tiny-sensor-superzooms if you zoom out much... might as well just take a shorter-focal-length photo and crop.
 
vbuggy said:
I'd go for a compact with a 1/1.8" sensor at least now if you want to see any worthwhile differences. Even then I feel there's still that smeary aspect to images that's definitely 'compact' in look... but at that point at least it'll be a noticeable improvement to a smartphone.

Huge zooms on compacts are also more rarely used than people think: What you're inevitably doing most of the time is trading off the quality of 90+% of your images against the largely hypothetical requirement of the reach of the cameras.
Click to expand...

I zoom in on and crop photos a lot when I use my smartphone camera, even despite the massive quality loss from doing so. My estimation is that the zoom alone *almost* makes the camera worthwhile to me. Any increase at all in low light photography quality will get me across the line.

Get a Panasonic FZ1000 if it's within your budget. It's got a much bigger sensor and better lens than the tiny-sensor-superzooms which imho are pointless because you will get noisy/grainy/soft results with those tiny-sensor-superzooms if you zoom out much... might as well just take a shorter-focal-length photo and crop.
Click to expand...
Not pocketable enough. I tend to travel light and don't want to carry a bag with me everywhere I go, or to open it every time I want to snap something for that matter. Suspending it on a strap isn't ideal either; I'd be constantly worrying about it bumping into things. And yeah, it's pricey. I'm ideally looking for something below $500.

It has a small sensor - for most shots, your cellphone will have similar results.

If all you care about is zoom, and you want to keep it cheap, then it's an OK option.

If you care about quality (including low light), and can give up significant zoom range, there are much better options at the $300 range.

I just commented on something similar here:
http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost...88&postcount=2
Click to expand...
Zoom is important to me. 30x zoom? I could probably do with less. Your suggestions look interesting. Are these cameras you'd feel comfortable keeping in jeans pockets that are otherwise almost empty? Can the lens be detached and reattached quickly?
 
Last edited:
http://www.dpreview.com/products/sony/compacts/sony_dscrx100m3

I'm currently looking at this Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 III

The 1" sensor is massive compared to anything I've looked at so far.

It's quite pocketable. Probably something I can live with carrying it in a jeans pocket with nothing else in it. I've been carring a massive wallet that I've been wanting to downsize anyway.

Price is higher than I first hoped to spend, but the quality returned is huge.

Zoom is only x3, but the better sensor means a cropped picture at full zoom still retains a lot of quality.

Very high popularity rating at the site in the link...

Now there is one strange thing: it is nearly twice as expensive as the RX100 II version that is in most respects exactly the same. The II version also has a better optical zoom and is slightly thinner, lighter and has slightly better battery life. Is it a no brainer to just go for the older version..? See http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sony-cybershot-dsc-rx100-m3

Nevermind, the website with very low price for the II version is probably not reliable. Price difference is more like 75:100.
 
Last edited:
Rdmkr said:
Zoom is important to me. 30x zoom? I could probably do with less. Your suggestions look interesting. Are these cameras you'd feel comfortable keeping in jeans pockets that are otherwise almost empty? Can the lens be detached and reattached quickly?
Click to expand...


Pocket ability, zoom and sensor size. Pick any two.

My tier 1/2 choices are not pocketable - yes, it's fairly fast and easy to put the lenses on, but you would grow tired of that quickly.

Reading more of what you posted, that 30x P&S zoom might actually be perfect for what you need. In good light, all the better.
 
The RX100 III was just released.
It's biggest upgrade is it's faster lens compared to the I/II models.

Note that the III has slightly less zoom than the I/II models.

If you could deal with the limited zoom, the I and II are sure-fire picks that are cheaper than the III.
That faster lens on the III would mostly come into play in dimmer light.

Any of these cameras are "very" pocketable.
Rdmkr said:
http://www.dpreview.com/products/sony/compacts/sony_dscrx100m3

I'm currently looking at this Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 III

The 1" sensor is massive compared to anything I've looked at so far.

It's quite pocketable. Probably something I can live with carrying it in a jeans pocket with nothing else in it. I've been carring a massive wallet that I've been wanting to downsize anyway.

Price is higher than I first hoped to spend, but the quality returned is huge.

Zoom is only x3, but the better sensor means a cropped picture at full zoom still retains a lot of quality.

Very high popularity rating at the site in the link...

Now there is one strange thing: it is nearly twice as expensive as the RX100 II version that is in most respects exactly the same. The II version also has a better optical zoom and is slightly thinner, lighter and has slightly better battery life. Is it a no brainer to just go for the older version..? See http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sony-cybershot-dsc-rx100-m3

Nevermind, the website with very low price for the II version is probably not reliable. Price difference is more like 75:100.
Click to expand...
 
Rdmkr said:
http://www.dpreview.com/products/sony/compacts/sony_dscrx100m3

I'm currently looking at this Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 III

The 1" sensor is massive compared to anything I've looked at so far.

It's quite pocketable. Probably something I can live with carrying it in a jeans pocket with nothing else in it. I've been carring a massive wallet that I've been wanting to downsize anyway.

Price is higher than I first hoped to spend, but the quality returned is huge.

Zoom is only x3, but the better sensor means a cropped picture at full zoom still retains a lot of quality.

Very high popularity rating at the site in the link...

Now there is one strange thing: it is nearly twice as expensive as the RX100 II version that is in most respects exactly the same. The II version also has a better optical zoom and is slightly thinner, lighter and has slightly better battery life. Is it a no brainer to just go for the older version..? See http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sony-cybershot-dsc-rx100-m3

Nevermind, the website with very low price for the II version is probably not reliable. Price difference is more like 75:100.
Click to expand...

Not the same. II has hotshoe, 28-100mm f/1.8-4.9, no EVF. III has EVF but no hotshoe, 24-70 f/1.8-2.8, and significantly better video performance. The other differences are basically non-factors. If you really need that hotshoe or extra reach, to the point where you would sacrifice the EVF, then get the II. If you prefer wider wideangle and a faster lens, and especially if you want the EVF or top-notch video, the III is the answer.

I have a II and as much as I'd like the III, I can't justify switching right now, especially since I also have an a6000 so I already have an EVF-enabled camera. Plus I have some accessories for the II that I would like to keep using, including a flash which the III can't use (no hotshoe). If the RX100MkIV comes out with a built-in flash, EVF, AND hotshoe, I might make the switch... maybe.
 
I'm not strongly concerned about most of those things, so I'll go with the Mark II for pricing reasons. Picking it up later today if the shop I have my sights on mails back about having it in store.

What is the huge advantage of an EVF if you already have a regular screen..?
 
Last edited:
Welp, if anyone still wanted to dissuade me from blowing money on the RX100 II, it's too late now.

I still feel a little sore from the last-minute kidney transplant, but from my initial impressions I have a feeling it will have been worth it.

Between optical, "clear view" and digital zoom, combining for about a 14x factor, this thing is capable of shooting more than just passable pictures at a long distance. Fully zoomed in the quality of the result is still quite good. The 1" sensor definitely delivers in this regard. On that basis, my no 1 worry about this thing is dispelled.

Pocketability wise, it far surpasses my expectations. Easy to carry in a jeans pocket.

Other picture quality aspects have been looking good so far, though I haven't been able to subject it to rigorous testing yet.

Wifi transfer to the phone works alright. One thing I am missing so far is the ability to make the camera send files automatically to the smartphone, but it's a minor issue.

I'll post back in a week or so with more indepth experiences.
 
Rdmkr said:
Welp, if anyone still wanted to dissuade me from blowing money on the RX100 II, it's too late now.

I still feel a little sore from the last-minute kidney transplant, but from my initial impressions I have a feeling it will have been worth it.

Between optical, "clear view" and digital zoom, combining for about a 14x factor, this thing is capable of shooting more than just passable pictures at a long distance. Fully zoomed in the quality of the result is still quite good. The 1" sensor definitely delivers in this regard. On that basis, my no 1 worry about this thing is dispelled.

Pocketability wise, it far surpasses my expectations. Easy to carry in a jeans pocket.

Other picture quality aspects have been looking good so far, though I haven't been able to subject it to rigorous testing yet.

Wifi transfer to the phone works alright. One thing I am missing so far is the ability to make the camera send files automatically to the smartphone, but it's a minor issue.

I'll post back in a week or so with more indepth experiences.
Click to expand...

It's an excellent camera. EVF is useful in bright light when you can't see the LCD as well, as well as adding stability since you can brace it against your face, but the II's Sony LCD's WhiteMagic boost should make it usable in all but the brightest light.

NFC or wifi transfer to phone only sends downsized photos IIRC, for full size photos you need a USB cable. IIRC though so it may have changed. I think the idea is to send smaller photos to your phone where you can send it off on Facebook or whatever.
 
Something sounds wrong with the battery. I can turn mine on/off with long periods of on for 3-4 hr. and shoot video and still get 150-200 pictures out of one battery. I bought 2 Vivitar aftermarkets on Amazon and I get all day shooting and video.
 
The RX100MK2 produces great images under most circumstances, but under low light it can still disappoint at times. I seem to have trouble minimizing subject motion blur. Is there some kind of trick to doing this? I realize I should probably not use optical zoom too much under low light because it shrinks the relative aperture. Is increasing the ISO to reduce shutter lag recommendable?

Ideally I'd like to be able to fix the shutter time at some low value and let the camera's auto settings play around with the ISO and aperture size to get the right amount of lighting, is this possible and a good idea?
 
Starting to feel really glad that I didn't get one of those 30x superzoom cameras with tiny sensors. I can tell from my use of this thing's somewhat limited zoom that zooming beyond a certain point becomes useless on account of the excessive shaking that you can't do anything about. Add to this the fact that your minimum n in F/n rises as you zoom, compounding the motion blur problem, and I just don't see why anyone would want to zoom beyond, say, 10x, with a compact P&S cam.
 
Rdmkr said:
The RX100MK2 produces great images under most circumstances, but under low light it can still disappoint at times. I seem to have trouble minimizing subject motion blur. Is there some kind of trick to doing this? I realize I should probably not use optical zoom too much under low light because it shrinks the relative aperture. Is increasing the ISO to reduce shutter lag recommendable?

Ideally I'd like to be able to fix the shutter time at some low value and let the camera's auto settings play around with the ISO and aperture size to get the right amount of lighting, is this possible and a good idea?
Click to expand...

to answer my own question: Anti Motion Blur mode in Scene Selection works very well. Not only does it do exactly what I described I wanted - maximized shutter speed, maximized aperture and ISO raised to the point where lighting is acceptable - it also shoots multiple times in burst mode and automatically picks out the least blurry one. Getting pretty good results from it.
 
Rdmkr said:
to answer my own question: Anti Motion Blur mode in Scene Selection works very well. Not only does it do exactly what I described I wanted - maximized shutter speed, maximized aperture and ISO raised to the point where lighting is acceptable - it also shoots multiple times in burst mode and automatically picks out the least blurry one. Getting pretty good results from it.
Click to expand...

Or, does the camera have auto-ISO where you can set a floor for shutter speed?

ie., handheld, you never want your shutter speed to drop below 1/focal length - say, a safe speed is 1/60th.
 
It looks like I can set floor and ceiling to the ISO, but not to the shutter speed. I can fix the shutter speed in Shutter Priority mode, though. I find this works pretty well. Fix the shutter at around 1/125 and let the auto settings figure out where the rest should go. I also like to put Exposure Composition on -0.7 so it makes the images slightly less bright and minimizes the side effects to increasing lighting.
 
I'm pretty glad in hindsight that I didn't get the rx100 III and I recommend everyone who is undecided between these two to carefully consider the following:

the difference in zoom reach between these two is much greater than the 2.9x vs 3.6x figures suggest. The reason for this is the wider angle that the rx100 III starts out at. The rx100 III has lens angles ranging from 24mm to 70mm equivalent vs. the rx100 II's 28mm to 100mm. Do the calculation and you find that the rx100 III's most zoomed out setting of 70mm corresponds to that of the rx100 II at only 2.5x zoom. In addition to this, the F stop number to be compared is a lower f/4.0 instead of the maxed out f/4.9. That leaves a difference of 1.2 stops at 70mm eq. instead of the apparent 2.1.

The flipside is that the rx100 III has a wider angle lens at 1x zoom... Personally 28mm equivalent does the trick fine for me already, so the zoom is a much bigger issue; probably what I would call the rx100 II's closest thing to a weakness already. 2.5x zoom would feel very restrictive to me compared to what I have now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top