New camera

I am not up-to-date on the latest camera models, so I can't give you specific advice. What I can say is I think you are focusing on the right attributes and the LX100 seems to fit those requirements very nicely. The only downside is that camera doesn't look very compact. However for a camera with a 4/3rd sensor and lots on manual control, I haven't seen anything more compact. If you like the Panasonic control, I think that looks like a great camera.

If you're looking for something pocketable, although it's a great camera, I'm not sure that the LX100 is the best bet. By all means please buy one as I'd love to have someone I could harass here at BPL for the down and dirty on this (seemingly) wonderful looking camera.

I currently carry the A6000 backpacking but still find that there are occasions where I'd rather have a pocket camera. Even with the pancake lens, the A6000 simply isn't a pocket camera.

So for me, I've narrowed it down to either the RX100iii or the LF1. Both have a viewfinder which is important to me.

For me, the RX100iii is the better option as it has the wider and faster lens of the two. I tend to take mostly landscape shots but would love to incorporate some nasty bokehliciously bokehditious bokeh on occasion. The LF1 though has 200mm equivalent zoom which would be handy from time to time; it's half the price of the RX100iii, shoots RAW, aperture/shutter priority and all that jazz.

At this moment, I'm planning on getting the RX100iii this spring instead of the LF1 for Christmas. Although knowing my luck, minutes after pulling the trigger, Sony will announce that they figured out a way to cram an APS-C sensor into the RX100iv without increasing the physical size of the lens or body.

Well I did pull the trigger on the rx100iii this summer, to take on my JMT hike this year. I vacillated between an mirrorless (like the a6000) or the rx100iii…but all the evidence came down hard on the small, pocketable rx100iii.

I have to say, I was simply blown away by this little camera. And for backpacking, I can't imagine a better camera unless you wanted to haul the heavier, interchangeable lens types (which I do like to do sometimes).

Check out my smugmug page (http://backpackerpt.smugmug.com) for sample photos from the sony.

I got a RX100i when the first came out a couple years ago or so. I have been extremely happy with it. I do miss the view finder in my previous P&S. I even bought a ClearViewer adapter that screws on to the tripod mount. It works well. However over time, as I learned how to use all functions, I find I rarely need the view finder adapter any more.

My wife wants to buy me a RX100iii for my birthday and I haven't decided if it will enhance my life at all.

Disclaimer: I am a rank amateur picture taker.

Thanks for all the input – the RX100 also seems like a contender. I'm not too worried about bulk (I tend to carry the camera in a case mounted on the waist belt instead of in a pocket,) but also am used to working without a viewfinder, so I'm not sure how important that is on the LX100. The most appealing thing to me about the LX100 is the faster lens and bigger sensor, but I'm not sure how that would really translate to real world performance…

I'll try to compare the two side by side when the Panasonic comes out.

How much does the Clear Viewer weigh, Nick? Maybe I should think about getting one for my RX100i…

DK,

I've haven't weighed it. I won't be back home until tomorrow and am then leaving on a weekend trip with my wife.

Send me a PM to remind me and I will quickly weigh it when I get home.

Otherwise, I won't be back home for awhile. I have decided to go visit Walden Pond next week and take some pictures of the autumn trees. Someday I might become a photographer :)

My Olympus TG is a great backpacking camera. The new TG 2 has a 60 ft. waterproof depth, up 20 ft. to my 40 ft. TG 1 depth.

I think that LX100 will probably top the RX100 in terms of image quality, and if you like taking portraits or shots with narrow depth of field, than the lx would be the obvious choice. I have the RX100m3 and its close to the perfect backpacking camera IMO. If I were buying a new camera today though, I'd probably go with the LX.

Thanks, Nick – I've sent a PM reminder. Have a great trip to Walden Pond! (and post some photos when you get back)

Just wondering that if you're willing to spend enough money to buy an LX100 and are comfortable with a bulky P&S, why not just go mirrorless m4/3 or e mount for basically the same weight, size, and cost but adding nearly unlimited lens options?

http://www.43rumors.com/lx100-vs-gm5-vs-sony-rx100m3-size-comparison/

GM5 with Kit Lens is the same price as the LX100 and GM1 is a bit cheaper although you'd lose the viewfinder, which you mentioned isn't important to you. Price of A6000 has dropped since I bought mine a few months ago so you could pick one up with a kit lens for less than the FX100 although I've personally stopped using the zoom lens for fast primes.

I'll give one very big answer in favor of the RX100i-iii and LX100, the fixed lens prevents glass acquisition syndrome.

Howdy,
Just got a G16 'cause the SO wanted night shots. Great info on this thread. Not sure what i'd get if it was up to me. I'm still using a canon 720is with over 20 thousand images on it.

I just figured out that some people here on BPL can take a better picture with a phone than I can take with my RX100. So… there is no need for me to get a iii.

I wonder if my wife will give me the cash instead. Anyone have any suggestions on how to make this happen?

I can't speak for the RX100iii but I've found the viewfinder on the A6000 to be invaluable, although sadly at lower resolution than its predecessors. I find that I use it far more often than not, although it does consume more juice than the screen.

"I wonder if my wife will give me the cash instead. Anyone have any suggestions on how to make this happen?"

Remember which ring was blessed by the priest!

Dave, you are a wise man!

The Sony RX100 2 and 3 have been pretty much considered the best. I'm looking t replace my Canon g11 and have been trying to justify one of those for a while. I am very sastisfied with image quality on my G11 but it sucks with action shots and it is bulky. BUT…there is a brand new entry. The new Canon G7X (not to be confused with the panasonic gx7) is a very real competitor to the RX100iii and just started shipping this month. It is superior to the Sony in some areas, inferior in a few. Those are the two I would look at if you can stand the price.

"I find that I use it far more often than not, although it does consume more juice than the screen."

Does that mean more juice than *just* the screen or literally more by itself than the screen? Can you just shut off the screen and use the viewfinder?

Depending how much you want to spend and how heavy you are happy to go but I can't say enough about the Fuji x100s. It's around 450g though. 16mp asp-c sensor like a lot of dslr bodies, manual settings, built in ND filter if you want to get that smooth looking water. Option to use view finder rather than LCD to save battery. No zoom though, but you like walking anyway so your legs are the zoom!

Benen

"Does that mean more juice than *just* the screen or literally more by itself than the screen? Can you just shut off the screen and use the viewfinder?"

There's a sensor that automatically switches from the screen to the viewfinder when you move it to your eye. I like using that feature so I haven't explored other options within the menu. But this way, it's one or the other; not both.

But yes, the viewfinder uses more juice by itself than the screen which seems strange but is true. Battery life has been fine for me though. Only used one and a half batteries in six days on the Wonderland. I'll tally up the number of photos and minutes of video for a forthcoming initial impressions report of the A6000 now that I've had it for a few months and have taken it on a few backpacking trips.

I agree with the comment above (sorry – can't remember who said it!) about why not just go with a mirror less system with unlimited lens options?

The RX100 has the compactness going for it – it really does fit in your pocket. But once you go a teeny bit bigger, then it doesn't. Which means why not just go for interchangeable lenses? I'm wondering where the LX100 would fit in the photographer's kit….

Of course, this is me talking because I can't have one ;)

I just saw this this morning on DP Review – the exact same argument! Is panasonic competing with itself with the LX100? http://www.dpreview.com/articles/0540594623/opinion-why-buy-a-panasonic-lx100-when-you-could-buy-a-gx7?utm_campaign=internal-link&utm_source=features&utm_medium=sidebar-block-Homepage&ref=features

Sorry, but it's going to complicate your choice.

I'll send you to my friend's smugmug page as well (I hope you don't mind Keith!), a fellow BPLer who also used the RX100iii on the JMT this year. I can't tell the difference between this year's JMT photos of his, and past trips when he lugged his DSLR (he has a lot of trips posted on his website). http://www.keithandgina.com/Trips/2014-John-Muir-Trail/

"I just figured out that some people here on BPL can take a better picture with a phone than I can take with my RX100. So… there is no need for me to get a iii."

Blasphemy. Think about where this line of reasoning might lead: "I just figured out that some people can enjoy backpacking more with a [insert example of heavy cheap piece of backpacking gear here] than I can with [insert name of expensive! rare, cuben-fiber alternative here]…so I don't need to get…

I'm getting a iii (as soon as I can get a deal on one). I need all the tools I can get to keep up with those good, phone-wielding photographers.

I have a Nikon DSLR with several lenses. It takes great pics and gives me huge flexibility. But, I found it to be too cumbersome to take along a bag full of lenses everywhere, and most of the time on trips I would end up just taking a 18-70 zoom and leaving the rest home (even though I LOVED my 12-24 zoom). Since I was basically carrying a single lens anyway, I bought my G11 just for the times I didn't want to bring along so much stuff. I found over time that I was taking my G11 almost all the time and the Nikon was just used for portraits. Its sort of like the whole backpacking light philosophy…taking so much crap along to be comfortable at camp made the hike less enjoyable. Optimizing the photographic capability also made my trips less enjoyable. The G11 took just as good of pictures 9 times out of 10, and it gave me the manual control that I wanted.

Now I want to go ultralight…and I hate that the G11 is so big as compared to the newer tech that can take just as good of pictures and has faster focus. To ME, the who idea of interchangeable lenses even on an "almost as small" camera would be a step backwards as taking advantage of it would require that I fuddle around with multiple lenses. I am trying to optimize my entire experience, not just the picture taking. I am excited about the prospect of a single 24-100mm f1.8-2.8 lens in a pocket sized camera that still gives me physical (versus menu) exposure compensation. As I said, your mileage may vary.

I am excited about the prospect of a single 24-100mm f1.8-2.8 lens in a pocket sized camera that still gives me physical (versus menu) exposure compensation.

So Doug… have you specified what camera that might be? Did I miss it in your post?

love to know…

billy