OH NO!!! More decisions???

[Jennifer Mitol]

OK. So I bought the Sony RX100 iii. I LOVE it. But it's unfortunately rekindled the sleeping photog in me, and now I'm wondering if I made a mistake and instead should have gotten the a6000 (with the kit lens, it's the same price).

Any of you folks who have been schlepping photo gear in the backcountry have anything to help me decide if I should exchange it???

a) I stopped bringing my Nikon P7000 because it was too bulky (took OK pics, but more like snapshots attempting to be well-composed). This is why the RX100 appealed to me.

b) I do like manual controls. I use them all the time – but I can do that on the RX100. What I miss is the tactile feel of a lens under my left hand, rotating the focus, etc. I feel very detached from shooting…

I can read left and right about the plusses and minuses of the a6000…that's not what I'm looking for. I'm looking for the backpacking opinion of keeping the small awesome camera that is the RX100 and then growing into a more expensive mirrorless (maybe full frame?) later – so I'll have a good camera that I'll actually TAKE with me on my longer adventures.

Versus going ahead and exchanging now, because I'll love the experience of shooting while on my hiking trips.

[HkNewman]

I do not know about the camera but now you will need another zimmerbuilt pack with at least half panel access (for various filters etc…) and solid pockets/webbing for that tripod. Be sure to post pics after Chris finishes your pack (I'd recommend mostly black dyneema grid for that black photog's "edginess".

[Nico .]

I've been shooting with, and carrying around, a Sony NEX body and lenses for about three years now. I recently bought a second body (a6000) to replace my NEX 5n as my primary camera. I haven't spent much time yet learning the ins and outs of the a6000, but so far it feels like a step up from the 5n in terms of ease of use (better menu, better layout of buttons/controls, includes a viewfinder, etc.) and improved capabilities (better focusing options, better iso performance, etc.).

That all being said, the a6000 is bigger and heavier than the 5n. The 5n (especially when I add a few lenses and filters, etc. to my kit) was already big enough that I was contemplating going in the opposite direction of you and picking up one of the previous versions of the RX100 just for ease of use and reducing the amount of camera stuff I carry on a trip.

I really like the versatility of the NEX system and its smaller size relative to a full size dslr, but it still sometimes is a pain to carry all that stuff (multiple lenses, filters, adapters, lens pen, etc.) not to mention worrying about keeping the sensor clean when swapping lenses. A small, high quality P&S (like the RX100 series) is very tempting in this regard. It can fit in a hipbelt or shirt pocket and still gives you quite a bit of versatility and great image quality.

Ultimately for me, since I was already so heavily invested in the NEX system and E-mount lenses, it made sense for me to stick with it. If I had the $$ though, I'd probably scoop up one of the RX100's for those trips where I don't want to lug a bunch of camera gear around yet still want some way to document my trip with high quality images.

Not sure if this helps or not…

[Jennifer Mitol]

Actually Nico that does help quite a lot. If I struggled with the "bulk" and awkwardness of carrying my old Nikon P7000 and ended up leaving it home more often than not, why would a mirrorless be any different? It didn't at all solve the problem of wanting to carry a camera in a belt pocket, not slung around my neck competing with my backpack straps.

So now you've got me back to thinking I keep the RX100 for my trips so that I DON'T have to carry lenses and such, but after I play around with it a bit more go ahead and go for something like the a7 full frame for a true artsy camera if I still feel the need.

The RX100iii is truly a wonderful little camera! It is certainly no compromise…just wondering if I should exchange before it's too late……

[Michael L]

I recently got a 6000 to use hiking instead of my D7100. It is a nice change. Not too big for me and barely notice it compared to the dslr. But I did consider the rx just to save even more weight. I only carry one lens hiking so it isn't bad for me.

only you can decide.

[Jennifer Mitol]

Michael, which lens do you use?

My other consideration is that at this point, I can't afford anything other than the kit lens. So I'd be swapping out the RX100 for the a6000 with the kit lens……..

[Michael L]

16-50 kit lens. I do miss the extra length. I have a 18-135 from by D80 I keep on my D7100. I miss that when I see animals. But I shoot landscapes and take picture to tell the story of my hike 98% of the time. So for the weight savings I like it.

16-50 is a compromise no doubt. I drop the coin if they had a good LIGHT alterative. The compactness is very nice for me. I use the capture camera system so dropping the weight of the camera was HUGE for me. I carry the kit lens, a cloth, and my trailpix tripod.

I was happy with the pictures from GNP I took over the weekend with it.

[Nico .]

I reckon one of the biggest factors will be to decide if you are satisfied with the focal range offered on the RX100 with its built-in lens (24-70mm, f1.8). If you need/want wider or longer lenses for your style of photography, then moving on to a mirrorless body like the a6000 is obvious.

But if the RX's 24-70 lens (which is quite nice) covers all, or most, of your needs, then the decision gets more difficult…
You have to decide if you want to start to invest in a system (multiple lenses, etc.). Or determine if the slight improvements in image quality, performance, etc. of the a6000 are worth the added size, weight, and additional parts. For some, it might be. For others, the simplicity, (relative) small size/weight and convenience of the RX100 will win out. The best camera is the one you have with you on the trip, the a6000 or a7 isn't an improvement if it gets left at home because it's too heavy, bulky, difficult to carry, etc.

[Jennifer Mitol]

Well, i think maybe I need to go handle one and see.

I do really like the idea of having such an awesome point and shoot though, esp one that will do as much as this RX100 will do. The lens is one reason why I went for the mark iii instead of the much cheaper and lighter version1. I'd like to go wider than 24 honestly – a fast 16 or something would be awesome!

I do eventually want to go with a kit with interchangeable lenses – I guess my question is whether I do that now and deal with the slight extra bulk with the a6000…or if I keep the RX100 for longer backpacking trips when weight and bulk really is a consideration and invest in a full-frame later on.

Argh.

[Ian]

Keep the RX100 and buy the A6000.

I recently purchased the A6000. It's been on two backpacking trips with me, one of which we saw plenty of rain. I've come to prefer the 16mm Sony lens and I don't think I'll bring the 16-55mm on another trip since 99% of my shots are wide angle. From reading the reviews, I thought I was supposed to hate this lens but I guess I'm not sophisticated enough to know better. It's been great for me and my next purchase will be the fish eye adapter for it.

So for backpacking, the only thing missing at this point is a zoom lens for wildlife. At one point, I considered buying a Sony 55-210mm for this purpose but I've decided to go another direction and buy the Lumix ZS-25 for a several reasons:

1. Around town, and when traveling, I like having a camera with me but don't always want one hanging around my neck screaming "I'm a tourist!" Even with the 16mm lens, the A6000 is only pocketable in a jacket so I'm left either carrying it around my neck or carrying a camera case when I'm in jeans and a t shirt.

2. The Lumix has a 24-480mm (35mm equivalent) f/3.3-6.4 Leica lens so this gives me a greater range than the Sony 55-210 F4.5-6.3 (82.5-315mm equivalent).

3. The Lumix with battery is half the weight of the Sony 55-210 lens and less bulky to carry on my person when hiking.

4. During a rain storm, I feel more comfortable working with a point and shoot than the A6000. Much of this due to the fact that I'm not rich and it's easier for me to replace a $150 camera than a $800 camera and lens.

5. If my A6000 ever decides to $#!+ the bed when I'm backpacking, I have a capable backup camera.

6. It's half the cost of the 55-210mm lens.

My dad owns the Lumix ZS-25 and it's his go-to camera for traveling. I've had an opportunity to play with it and check out his photos; I've been nothing but impressed and thinks it’s a great value at $150. The only "con" I'd give it is the lack of view finder which I find invaluable on my A6000 and use 90% of the time even though it uses more juice than the screen.

From playing around with a couple NEX cameras, I'm glad I went with the A6000 and have no regrets. I will mention that the video overheating issue persists with the A6000 and had that happen to me in Seattle last week after 15 minutes of recording. There was a heat wave (by Seattle’s standards) last week which may have contributed but whatever improvements they’ve made to the heat sink have been insufficient (anecdotally) for this to compete against other cameras video. That isn’t a problem for me since most of my video recording is limited to a few minutes here and there but ymmv.

[Stuart .]

My suggestion is base your decision around the lenses, not the bodies. I'm more of a prime lens person, and Sony's prime focal length choices for the A6000/NEX are quite peculiar. People seem to like the Sony 16-50 zoom lens but the specs don't wow me.

You mention you'd like to move to an interchangeable lens system. Any reason why you focused on Sony rather than Olympus or Panasonic micro 4/3? They have some terrific primes that are much smaller than – say – getting a full frame Zeiss and using an adapter to slap it on the A6000.

[Jonathan Chin]

I was debating these very choices recently. I wanted one camera that could do it all, but was relatively packable, so I ultimately went with a NEX-7 (scored one cheap on eBay) and picked up used SEL 18-55 and 55-200 lenses. Not as portable as the RX100 III, but cheaper and more versatile (great for sports and wildlife shots). Also, with this system, I can upgrade the body later but continue using the lenses.

I would have gone with the a6000, but couldn't justify the price/performance vs the NEX-7.

[Jennifer Mitol]

Stuart,

No REAL reason why I'm focused on the Sony, other than I just bought the RX100iii from Sony (got a great promo deal) and this would simply be an exchange for the a6000 (same price if I use the kit lens)

I've been lusting after a Zeiss Touit lens, but I don't know enough about lenses to really lust after anything just yet.

I'm looking for basically an entry-level mirrorless that will allow me to grow – my chief question here is whether or not to just stick with the RX100iii (which really is an awesome camera, by the way – NO complaints whatsoever) and buy a full frame mirrorless later, or just go with a more entry-level mirrorless now.

If I kept the RX100, I'd work with it, love it and enjoy it for now and later go all out for a Fuji or Sony's full frame a7, or the Olympus.

OR…

I simply EXCHANGE the RX100 for the a6000 and use that to grow from.

[Stuart .]

For all my comments disparaging zoom lenses, I keep coming back to the RX100iii as something I would use on my trips. Like you, I ask myself "what about (name the alternative)?" because it checks most, but not all of the boxes.

I've used Panasonic's LX1 – nice B&W rendition, but hopelessly lacking in low light conditions. I picked up the Panasonic GF3 with 14mm f/2.5 on a one-day special for less than the cost of the lens alone, and appreciate the m4/3 sensor and small form factor – but I keep fighting the automation in the body. If I upgrade the body I will be tempted to pick up the fast Panasonic Leica-branded primes, 15mm, 25mm and 42.5mm, but at that point I'm back to the "which lens for this trip?" dilemma. At least with the RX100iii I'd be done. It's a lot of coin for a point & squirt, but it's way cheaper than buying into a system.

If Fuji's X100s was weatherproofed, I would call it done. It has almost the identical form factor of my Leica M4 / 35mm Summicron that will be pried from my cold dead hands.

[Billy Ray]

Jen,
I'm not camera expert… not even close. But it is my understanding you are getting close to your solo JMT hike, right?

So I am wondering could this be the 'gear anxiety' that hits some of us as we get close???

I know I have a tendency to try to calm the unknown with gear changes, purchases, customizations etc. as I get close to a big hike… most of it completely unnecessary other than to make me feel better.

220 miles is a long way to carry a heavy camera. I'd just relax and keep the RX100iii.

When I did the JMT in the 80's solo I didn't take a camera at all :)

Billy

[Jennifer Mitol]

HA! Billy, I think you've probably nailed it. Now is NOT the time for me to be making "investment" decisions on photography, which is what I'm looking for.

The reason I upgraded from my Nikon was because I wanted a high-end pocketable camera. Going mirrorless at this point is totally against that, and my base weight is showing some serious creep right now anyway.

And Stuart, thanks – that's so true. The a6000 isn't that great of a camera, so what's the point of it? It's not smaller or easier to carry than my Nikon – and if I truly want a full-frame to grow into why not just make my mirrorless the right choice off the bat?

Thanks for all the help guys – so nice to have so many anonymous online friends ;)

I really need to go hiking with some of you at some point……..

[Ian]

"that's so true. The a6000 isn't that great of a camera, so what's the point of it?"

"Great" is subjective. If this camera had a price tag of $1400 with lens like one of its predecessors, the Nex 7, then I'd say that assessment is debatable. But it's a $800 APSC camera w/ lens that has some really nice features and is half the size of my D5000.

The "point" of it is that I can pair a fast prime lenses with it that outperforms a kit or built in zoom lens in an equivalent focal length.

I'm not saying it's the best mirrorless camera on the market but I'm comfortable with its limitations and think its an unbelievable value for the money.

My next camera will be the A7 but I think a patient person would benefit from letting that platform develop for a couple more years.

[Jennifer Mitol]

Oh Ian stop!

I'm trying to make myself relax and enjoy my RX100 and not feel the need to exchange it. I can't afford anything other than the kit lens, so I just wondered if the a6000 should be the mirrorless that I start with, or if I should keep the RX100, use it for longish trips, then later go ahead and buy a nicer mirrorless, or a decent body and a super nice prime lens.

Are you recommending that I should exchange the RX100 for the a6000?

Basically I'll have to do it quickly, before it's too late to exchange……

ARGH!

[Ian]

"Are you recommending that I should exchange the RX100 for the a6000?"

The RX1000III Sounds like a great camera for the JMT. I just reviewed the specs on it and didn't realize until now "24-70mm equivalent F1.8-2.8 lens." On paper, that's pretty damn impressive and fast.

In comparison, the standard 16-50mm (24-75mm equivalent) lens that you can buy as a package with the A6000 is F3.5-5.6.

You know what your needs are are in a camera and only you can say if the RX100 or A6000 is better.

If it was me standing in your shoes on the JMT and buying a second camera wasn't an option, and I thought I *might* buy the A7 in the next year or so, I'd keep the RX100iii for a few reasons:

1. Pocketable
2. Even though I own a DSLR and Mirrorless, I'll always want a quality P&S for times when I don't want to have a camera hanging around my neck.
3. For me, 99% of the pictures I'll take on the JMT in 2015 will be wide angle. The RX100 would be awesome for that.

If you've re-acquired the photography bug enough that you'll want to do some niche stuff that'll require a special lens long before you'll buy the A7, then the A6000 starts to look better.

In hindsight, I'm glad I purchased the A6000 over the RX100iii but there are times when the RX100 would be a better fit for me.

I realize that none of this is helpful.

[Jennifer Mitol]

a) I do not otherwise have a P&S, and they are good to have.
b) I eventually want a good mirrorless with excellent lenses and would like a body to grow with
c) I can't afford any good lenses right now
d) the rx100iii as is is PROBABLY better for my needs at the moment than the 6000 with the kit lens
e) i can keep the rx100 for now, use it on longer trips when photography is not the main goal and not schlepping a lot is, and get a super nice mirrorless (maybe the a6000, maybe the a7, maybe Olympus, etc) later on.

but in the end, I think I need to actually put my hands on the a6000 and see just how it feels and let that be my guide.

I do think you guys are onto something in terms of my having a bit of pre-trip gear "panic."

Thanks for being a sounding board everyone. All I need is another form of Gear Acquisition Syndrome.

[Michael L]

His finally getting the 6000 convinced me to do so as well. He will convince you to buy it buy pretending to be impartial! ;)

[Ian]

"He will convince you to buy it buy pretending to be impartial!"

Well that explains the "Ian, you're the devil!" PM I received!

Jacob D owns a NEX camera, the RX100 and is pretty knowledgeable on the topic, especially when it comes to Sony cameras. Hopefully he'll weigh in here.

[Marko Botsaris]

"I do think you guys are onto something in terms of my having a bit of pre-trip gear "panic."

Thanks for being a sounding board everyone. All I need is another form of Gear Acquisition Syndrome."

The doctor prescribes one JMT and make a purchase in a month if you are still suffering.

[Sharon J.]

Have you considered renting the A6000 or A7 to see how you like them? BorrowLenses.com definitely has the A7 (and a new shipment of A7s!), LensRentals.com probably does, and maybe even your local camera store. It's not cheap, but it's a good way to get your hands on the gear and test it in real-world conditions.

[Jennifer Mitol]

Well I stopped by Precision Camera here in Austin and the guy didn't even hesitate that the RX100iii will be much better for me right now than the a6000 with the kit lens. And he told me that knowing that it meant I would not be spending any money in his store today.

I handled the a6000 and the a7 and they are really nice cameras. But it made my decision much easier – the RX100 is just so darned tiny it will be an excellent backpacking camera, and the a6000 was quite a bit bigger than I expected, so that helped me.

I will keep research and learning about lenses etc and just invest in a nice body and a good prime lens later, when I have time to think more about it, handle more cameras in the store, look at more lenses, etc.

But in the meantime I'll be a proud owner and user of the RX100iii. It really is an unbelievable camera!

[Author]

Posts