>>4505216
Its basically the same quality as a smartphone. The long end of the zoom is very blurry and they break easily.

They’re really overpriced right now so you can sell it on ebay and buy a ricoh grIIIx

>>4505216
yea, don't listen to this poster >>4505220.
it's a fun camera, go use it.

>>4505216
looks like the inspector gadget of cameras, tbqh

>>4505250
Sell it before it breaks or enjoy samsung phone quarity. Your choice. There are many better small camera - simply not made by sony. Even an olympus omdem5iii is a huge upgrade. Because it won’t break.

There are a two inescapable facts in photography
Sony products are not well made
Sensor size is all that matters

Cope, if you must.

>>4505216
Assuming this is actually real because I don't know why any business would bin a $1.3k camera just because it has no box, yes it is a very good compact camera. It has image quality rivalling a Canon 7D which was a high end DSLR back in the day and can still produce great images today. It doesn't have the best lens of the RX100 series but if you're not trying to get photos of stuff miles away it's good, and if you do have to use it all the way zoomed in then it's better than just not getting the photo. Yes it's better than a phone. No it's not a fragile toy, my RX100 literally has a dent in the top and still works fine.

>>4505306
> It has image quality rivalling a Canon 7D which was a high end DSLR back in the day and can still produce great images today
what? that’s totally false
rockwell is that you?
you’re on a VGA monitor and are colorblind ken
go to best buy
and an optometrist

File: rx100vs7D.png (249.9 KB)

>>4505326
Sensor technology improves with time, newer 1 inch can compete with old APS-C, new APS-C can compete with old FF. I don't know why this fact upsets you so much.

>>4505294
you are retarded. please kys.

>>4505216
It supports manual and RAW. The perfect noob camera.
Everything that it sucks at you can spend money on a better platform and lens to achieve. Your images will suck, but you'll be able to take images that don't completely suck (aka, better than a phone, no AIslop) when processing from RAW.

It's basically a 24-200mm shitty kit lens but that's okay for noobie use. You can spend $3000 per lens later, once you figure out what focal length you like best if you really want quality.

>>4505342
Dear god canons sensors used to be super shit compared to nikon and pentax. Slide film tier but worse looking
>it was a professional camera!
Yeah back then digital had to meet lower standards. 35mm had better IQ than digital until the release of the canon 5d iv and nikon d800 and real film medium format was unquestionably superior. Professional digital camera meant you would be like, taking school portraits or shooting for the news. Quality didnt matter.

Most people couldnt even shoot raw if they wanted to because computation power and storage were more expensive and hadn’t plateaued.

Old canon performance really can’t be called professional anymore outside of like, passport photos. Even the news expects better.

>>4505345
sounds like you hate cameras

>>4505347
Sounds like you’re a shrimpy little redditor that collects ewaste if you think “old digital was shit” means “i hate cameras”

A lot of photography just wasn’t a good use of film and that was the standard ewaste like the canon 7d had to meet. Now ewaste canons are quirk chungus r/lomography toys.

>>4505345
Why don't you actually look things up instead of making assumptions. The D300s released a couple months prior to the 7D was around the same or a little worse in some areas, it wasn't until the D7000 a year later that the Nikon was better.

But regardless, if you can't get a decent photo with a camera from that era (or a newer one with the same quality but a smaller sensor) then that's a you issue. Stop blaming equipment for your lack of skills.

File: SNOYLIE.png (1.2 MB)

>>4505383
>>4505306
Stop coping. Stop lying. The rx100 is garbage and the 7d is pretty dogshit but its not nearly as garbage.

>if you cant take A good photo with this piece of shit
No one wants to be forced to shoot with flash just for crispy shit early 2ks digital “quality” and pass up shots a digishit cant nail anymore. Get with the times. Old digital is bad.

Digital was not as good as film for decades. Early digitals are not good cameras and never have been. They were made to take passport photos and shoot cheaply for the newspaper.

Imagine running defense for digishit.
>dey were profeshenul cameras!
Yeah in the exact era where that “professional” started meaning nothing

Its actually true. Digital started out being horribly, horribly bad. Digital was so bad it murdered all interest in developing photography as an art form. Photography became nasty computer graphics and everyone stopped caring.

Real darkroom prints evoke emotions that digital simply can not. The detail and tonality are not there to tickle to optic nerve. It’s like looking at anime porn instead of vintage playboy spreads shot on 8x10.

>>4505349
so what camera bodies do you like?

>>4505400
Film. And a few digital ones that aren’t equipped with super shit sensors for their size and aren’t too poorly made to trust.

Nikon post-d750
Canon post-5div
Sony post-a7c
Olympus in the short window after they got good and before they died (em1 and em5 ii and iii)
Working film bodies.

Otherwise its all ewaste and overpriced funko pops pretending to be cameras

>>4505402
nice, you ever share any of your pictures here?

>>4505404
Yes. But not for you.

>>4505216
Very cool camera concept.
Too bad it runs Sony's firmware, which is the worst I've ever tried (worse than Fuji)

>>4505345
>Old canon performance really can’t be called professional anymore outside of like, passport photos

nta but i had a passport photo taken with a canon bridge cam from 2005 last year, i dont even think it had 10 megapixels maybe like 3 or 4mp. was at a big usps post office that took them for you for $20 bucks

It's a great camera., way better than a phone, you could make a movie with it. The only problem is it looks like tubular fungi or some kind of distended barnacle, just absolutely hideous design look about the lens, which is the main reason I dint get it. Not because it'd make me look bad or unstylish, but that I'd have to point it at people

>>4505402
nofotofag

>>4505216
I have a mkIII, it's a decent camera. Don't really see the purpose of the viewfinder which is just another tiny screen and the lack of any filter thread or mount is a bummer.

>>4506284
It's a black rectangle, to the majority of people it looks no different to a similar Canon/Nikon/Panasonic compact.

>>4506289
It's good for when it's sunny out. The filter issue can be resolved with a magfilter adapter.

>>4506348
Ok bro you point it at models

>>4506363
Who the fuck is shooting models and can't afford something better than a compact?

>>4506396
lego models

>>4506396
It's quite expensive for a compact, probably 'cause of the Zeiss

>>4505216
It seems pretty cool, 200 mm in a pocket camera. You should probably never use it anywhere where you can use a bigger camera

>>4505294
what a dummy post

As someone who was just about to pay $1500 for this camera, but Adorama is closed for the weekend: What are better alternatives for someon looking for a small camera to take hiking for landscape & macro mostly, as well as street photography? I don't want to swap lenses.

>>4510490
Maybe the Ricoh GR, but I hear some things about dust issues. The other choice (which I've been considering) is an A6400 or A6700 and just putting on a pancake or kit lens that stays on it to use as a travel camera.

>>4510493
Yeah, I see that's what the anons in this thread say, but I've been researching for weeks now and th rx100 vii comes out on top for compact travel cameras on just about every photophotography site I can find, with many of them praising its photo quality.
If you're OP, would you mind sharing a few photos from it?

>>4510490
Just get a compact mirrorless and stick with one lens

>>4505342
total bullshit, I've seen sample pics fo this camera, they look like they were made on iPhone

>>4510536
To a normie, sure. I bet there are photos taken on much better and expensive cameras that also look like they were taken on a phone.

File: chartsreality.jpg (1.2 MB)

>>4510536
DR charts, not even once

>>4510582
Okay now scale the RX100 image down to match the res of the 7D

File: comparison.jpg (226.1 KB)

>>4510582
>>4510612
Actually fuck it, I'll save you the effort and do it for you. And before you piss your pants at the 7D being at 3200 that's what the chart shows, about a 1 stop advantage in noise at those levels. Looks pretty comparable to me.

>>4510613
Are you blind, snoycel?

>>4510613
Canoniggers... I don't feel so good...

>>4505342
>>4510582
you can post your gay faggot charts all you want, rx100vii pics still look like shit digital point and shoot from 2009, for the price better alternatives exist

>>4510671
>for the price better alternatives exist
Perhaps you've forgot but the whole premise of this thread was that OP got a free RX100 and was wondering if it was worth keeping and using. If he was considering buying one brand new then sure, there would be better options unless you specifically needed something pocketable.
>rx100vii pics still look like shit digital point and shoot from 2009
Skill issue

>>4510688
hardware issue. deal with it. buy a real camera if you want better pics. zoomer turds will pay out the ass for a “pocketable rangefinder” and gladly fund your nikon zf purchase.

>>4510613
>i-if i make the better camera use a higher iso it looks
>better still
KEK. Dpreview is notorious for cheating on these (download m43 vs nikon vs sony raws and observe the brightness differences - yes, they fuck with the lights) but fucking lol.

>>4510671
>for the price better alternatives exist
LIKE WHAT

>>4510710
I'm sorry you don't know how to use a camera and can't take good photos without a "real" camera
>>4510712
That's what the chart says. The other anon decided to compare at ISO 1600, despite the chart showing the 7D having a 1 stop advantage there

File: chartfggot.png (32.9 KB)

>>4510735
>the chart the chart!
It says they’re the same. Even with a 1 stop lower ISO the snoy looks like dogshit. I’m sure you have some absurd poorfag cope like
>but if you do this and this (and you have to or its NOT FAIR) some things should be the same theoretically
But i have a better theory

If you got a fucking job, you wouldn’t have to white knight for shitty snoys on 4chan to assuage your sour grapes. Raise your net worth before speaking again. Thanks.
>uhm i have the SKILL to use a shitty camera
What did I say? Get a job. Congrats you took a photo at noon with fill flash. It still looks worse than an employed individual shooting to the best of their ability. Get a fucking job, anon.

Better cameras are better.
Worse cameras are worse.
Charts are useless.
Get a job.

>>4510750
>It says they’re the same
You're looking at the dynamic range chart, not the noise one. The former is much easier to judge by eye using DPreview's studio images.
>all that yapping
I never even said I had an RX100, you don't even know what cameras I have. I wasn't shilling, I was just saying it can compare well to a much older DSLR. A DSLR that was considered rather good and has produced many great images. If you feel you must have more than that to get a good photo then the problem is you, not the equipment. Get good.

>>4510752
>no you’re looking at the wrong chart! my chart says the snoy has “26” noise and the canon has “25” noise!
>>4510613
These two images are not comparable. The snoy still looks significantly worse. Faded colors. Horrid skin tones. Purple tint creeping in. At a lower ISO.
The chart is fucking useless

Get a job poorfag. The world does not need you to white knight for shitty snoy cameras. If you need to look at a stupid chart you’ve already admitted you’re unemployed. When was the last time any decent photographer said “but, according to dxomark”? Fucking never. They just use a good camera when they want better looking pics and a worse one when they don’t care. Get a job.
>uhm ANY camera can take SOME good photos. owning nicer things than me is le waste of money.
And any car can go 25mph in a straight line which is plenty fast for a gokart course. Get a job. Fucking poorfag.

>>4510752
>it can compare well
it is visibly worse at the same iso and one or more stops lower
>but the chart…
isn’t analyzing perceptual effects. just the caculcated snr of a normalized whatevethefuck test chart. photography is perceived and is of real world photos. not calculated from test targets. charts do not show how real photos look they tell astronomers how many stars they might see clearly if they use that camera with a telescope.

>>4510720
iPhone 17

>>4510613
>Canon has a green tint now
dpreview really is retarded

>>4505220
It has more glass and bigger sensor than a smartphone.
Smartphones uses algo and ai to molest the picture to look half decent.

>>4505220
Not even close, it's a lot better than a smartphone and even a shitty compact camera from a decade ago manages that. Most phones max out at 12mp and still have a lot of processing junk, so even those ones that claim to be more than 12mp are just using pixel binning to achieve a higher mp amount. OP could buy a Canon Powershot from the early 2010s and still be better off than using his phone.

>>4505391
>iso 1600
hmm I wonder why you didn't chose base iso for both cameras as a point of comparison