Sell my S95 for the RX100

Does this make sense? I'm just getting back into photography, and I've read unbelievable things about this RX100. I figured it's a good P&S to get me on my feet before I move back into the DSLR world. Good idea? Bad idea? How much could even get for an S95 now-a-days?

Well, is the S95 letting you down anywhere? If you're not bumping up against limits when you use it, then why upgrade? And if you're bumping up against limits, are they limits that the RX100 will lift? Or are you just going shopaholic again?

Jon wrote in post #15651387
Well, is the S95 letting you down anywhere? If you're not bumping up against limits when you use it, then why upgrade? And if you're bumping up against limits, are they limits that the RX100 will lift? Or are you just going shopaholic again?

Jon, I can't tell you how much I appreciate you even remembering that part of my life on this forum. However, I'm all grown up now, with bills, and responsibiliies, so no, I will not be going shopaholic again.

You raise a great question. What will the upgrade really do for me? I guess my answer is this: I find the S95 all but sucks in lowlight. I don't need an expensive point and shoot camera for day light land scapes. Pretty much every PnS across the board does a somewhat good job at taking your typical well light landscape shots. If I do get back into this game, I know I'd want to start shooting lowlight/night time landscapes with dim lights and playing around with that sort of stuff. I hear the RX does a great job in low light, with (new to me) unheard of ISO ranges that actually render decent pictures. Is this enough to justify a switch though...that's the question....

If you want to know how much S95's are going for used, just go to the Sell forum and do a search (some people delete the selling price after items are sold, but they aren't supposed to, so hopefully you will find some useful information). Keep in mind that sometimes people do negotiate slightly lower prices though (I did).

I too have the occaissional struggle with low light situations using my S 95, but I'm a novice with it at best. I have seen some spectacular low light shots taken with an S 95, so I continue to try and learn what it can do. Maybe we will both get lucky and someone will offer some tips that will help. I have wondered about how much would be gained by going to the RX100 since it seems to be very highly regarded, but looking at the price of those things gives me much pause to say the least, not sure if there are enough gains to justify the expense in my case.
And yes, I admit I am somewhat of a cheapskate/tightwad, LOL!

In low light situations are you shooting wide angle (fast lens) or tele? (relatively slow lens?)

It seems to me that a newer camera might produce better images at high ISO. BUT that may be over simplifying things....

Two changes in photography have really helped me. vibration reduction. high iso performance. With the latter, I feel I don't need fast glass as much as I used to.

Jon's comments are really helpful. When I get the bug to buy new gear I ask myself,
...what is missing in my images now
...how will new gear fix that
...what do I need to learn to keep the gear I have now?

It doesn't always work.

I catch myself buying new gear when I am ticked at something else I can't change. New gear is exciting!

Dave

I often look on Flickr for examples of images produced by a camera I'm thinking of buying, vs the one I currently have. I've been taking another look at what I can do with my "old" Canon G9 that will "only" shoot at a high ISO of 1600. By shooting RAW, and processing with careful Noiseware Pro corrections, I can get pretty good results...not great. But, without zooming to 100% it looks fine. Here is a recent ISO 1600 example;

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/picsdennis/8511​021684/

Lots of really helpful information here. Thanks guys. To reply:

ozzie - I did that and I'm looking at taking about $180-200 off tag of an RX100, which makes the camera seem much more reasonable given its capabilities.

barn9 - I have seen these too. Maybe it's my S95, or maybe it's post processing that I simply don't know how to do. Either way the RX100 is calling my name, and although not a cheapskate, I do need to be money conscious as well.

2mnycars - I VERY rarely zoom, even for portrait shots, I've always tended to move myself closer rather than zooming in. For landscapes I will always use the wide angle. So my answer is wide. I asked myself all those questions, answer leads me to keep my S95, but the itch is REALLY strong on the RX100

denncald - That was really help info. Even after the comparison, I don't know if I could fight the itch!!

...sometimes you just gotta' scratch that itch...but I usually find it itches even more.

Dennis

august23 wrote in post #15658499
Lots of really helpful information here. Thanks guys. To reply:

ozzie - I did that and I'm looking at taking about $180-200 off tag of an RX100, which makes the camera seem much more reasonable given its capabilities.

barn9 - I have seen these too. Maybe it's my S95, or maybe it's post processing that I simply don't know how to do. Either way the RX100 is calling my name, and although not a cheapskate, I do need to be money conscious as well.

2mnycars - I VERY rarely zoom, even for portrait shots, I've always tended to move myself closer rather than zooming in. For landscapes I will always use the wide angle. So my answer is wide. I asked myself all those questions, answer leads me to keep my S95, but the itch is REALLY strong on the RX100

denncald - That was really help info. Even after the comparison, I don't know if I could fight the itch!!

Reason I asked was if you were using the lens zoomed out, and having issues in low light, you should look at lens specs to see which had a larger aperture when zoomed out....


I understand and suffer from gear acquisition syndrome too.

Great review site...

http://www.imaging-resource.com …ony-rx100/sony-rx100A.HTM


edit...
http://www.imaging-resource.com …a-of-the-year-awards-2012

Here's another RX100 review, if you need one.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com …/cameras/sony_r​x100.shtml

Dennis

I am in exactly the same situation, I feel like sony rx100 just killed Canon's S line.

Do it.
I would've done it, but the RX100 was only avail a week prior to my last trip.

I tried the RX100 when it first came out, while I was in Changi.
I knew my s95 days were numbered then.
The RX100 was ridiculously faster & better than my then aging s95 (now antiquated, lol)

Anyway, I tried the RX100 again recently, still great!
Also tried the RX1, amazing camera - but I think I'll keep my 5DM2 for now.

I owned an LX3 in the distant past, I enjoyed using other folks' S series to the point I considered buying (and the interface experience is slightly better than Sony's), but the RX100 is a really great little camera once you get used to the interface. Only things I would really change would be better bracketing options (+- 0.7 EV and 3 shots sucks) and add a clicked rather than clickless wheel, since I don't tend to manual focus or zoom with the control ring...