Is the Sony QX100 really worth twice the price of the QX10? Looks like the QX10 has a 10x Z w/ 18MP 1/2.3" sens vs the QX100's 3.6x Z & 20MP 1" sens.
1771701
Honestly no. If you are looking for a point and shoot type camera then the QX10 is your camera. It is full auto has no manual aspects to it. I returned my QX 10 and hope the QX100 will come down in price some.
1771702
We bought the more expensive QX100 and had high hopes for this lense working with our iphone5. We were however very disappointed in the performance of the lense. When linked to our iphone5 using the wifi connection, we found the lag to be so bad that when we clicked the capture button on the iphone5, the picture taken was not even close to what was displayed on the iphonr5 screen. Sony is a great brand, but perhaps this lense came out a little before it's time. Any FYI, we did return to the product for refund, hope this helps!
1771703
I don't know if worth the difference, but I have the QX100 and the sensor quality is amazing. I decided for QX100 just because the sensor size and quality.
1771704
4x the sensor surface + the fact that the 1" sensor is of the BSI type + the f/1.8 Zeiss lens = superior imaging. It's worth it for people who shoot in a lot of low light or who want to do a lot of post processing to the image, or people who deal with high contrast situations a lot. The QX100 is better imaging quality than all but 5 compact cameras in the industry, thanks to its specs. I think it's worth it.
1771705
I'm sorry i can because i bought the qx10 and I'm very happy with it i don't think the qx100 with 20 mp has a lot of difference
305770
The image quality (sharpness, contrast, bokeh) of this 28mm prime is vastly superior to that of the 28-300mm. Primes are going to beat zooms 9 times out of 10 when it comes to IQ anyway, but even moreso when compared to a super-zoom like the 28-300mm. The 24-70mm f2.8 would be a closer competitor, but still falls short when solely comparing IQ.For reference, I own both the 28mm and the 24-70mm, and have used the 28-300mm a handful of times.
973283
Quality-wise, the SX1000 is as good as it gets at this price and this form factor. As far as better than the 712, I can't say as I haven't heard one of those, but this one has a limiter and a low-cut filter, which will save your life sometimes in certain situations (i.e. you have manually set the recording level for a live band in a club, but they get a little bit louder sometimes and you don't find out till later). And as Jay Jay Jay said in one of his replies to a question about lectures, the stereo mode with appropriately-set mic sensitivity was far superior to trying to use the monophonic and directional lecture mode with this device. Quality-wise, the SX1000 is as good as it gets at this price and this form factor. As far as better than the 712, I can't say as I haven't heard one of those, but this one has a limiter and a low-cut filter, which will save your life sometimes in certain situations (i.e. you have manually set the recording level for a live band in a club, but they get a little bit louder sometimes and you don't find out till later). And as Jay Jay Jay said in one of his replies to a question about lectures, the stereo mode with appropriately-set mic sensitivity was far superior to trying to use the... » Read More Quality-wise, the SX1000 is as good as it gets at this price and this form factor. As far as better than the 712, I can't say as I haven't heard one of those, but this one has a limiter and a low-cut filter, which will save your life sometimes in certain situations (i.e. you have manually set the recording level for a live band in a club, but they get a little bit louder sometimes and you don't find out till later). And as Jay Jay Jay said in one of his replies to a question about lectures, the stereo mode with appropriately-set mic sensitivity was far superior to trying to use the monophonic and directional lecture mode with this device. « Show Less
155653
The Sony is a LITTLE better lens, but a lot more expensive. Neither is crazy sharp. Both are sharp enough for most people in most circumstances.
1830265
A lot of blue noise at 1,2 lux. Compared to Sony z1u (a very old model) there is no comparison, the z1u can't even go anywhere near that low light. Seriously, this is better in every way than a camera 10 years ago that costed $5000 except it doesn't have buttons for every single thing ever or a hot shoe but you can add an extension bar for that and you don't need all the buttons.
1893810
It's hard to say, the 7X gives a wider field of view, the 10X a more detailed view...if it's across a distance, for example 50 yd + shots are common then I'd want the 10X. Personally I wish I'd gotten the zoom model myself, the optics are good so I don't think image quality would suffer to a very great extent.
572666
Owning both the 55-200VR and the 70-300VR and have compared not only both but two copies of the 55-200 on two Nikon DX cameras against the 70-300. Viewing was done on two hi-def monitors (25" and 27") using close to two thousand pics. Bottom line- the 70-300 blows away the 55-200. It is not even close. The MUCH heavier 70-300 is considerably sharper, colors are balanced and accurate (as they are on the 55-200) but much richer, brighter, with better contrast and much better bokeh. Skin tones and portraits in particular are wonderful with the 70-300. Downside on the 70-300 is that it is heavier. I have read some comments that the 70-300 begins losing sharpness after 200mm but my copy is super sharp at all focal lengths. If you are a serious amature and can justify the price go for the 70-300.
2236560
I spent a lot of time researching and have decided that the wait is worth it (although, unbearable!) The FZ40 is an improvement over the FZ35 as far as startup speed, image quality (not only higher MP, but also a better sensor). The zoom also is worth it to me. If you do some searching, there are a lot of reviews now. The FZ40 also has panoramic, not sure if the FZ35 has that or not.I don't think that the FZ100 is worth the extra 1 hundred. There still is some debate over the quality of the images with the MOS sensor and the 1080 video vs 720 wasn't worth it for me.
676554
Does anyone know the differences in the sensor size for the two cameras? Megapixel count doesn't necessarily mean better PQ, but a larger sensor does, right?
120624
Thank you very much, ALT, I really appreciate your feedback. Yesterday I ordered the Fuji S1000fd instead. For $231 the 10MP and 12X optical zoom was just unbeatable. Now I've got to find out if I can use filters on it, too. Thank you!
1963666
Isn't the RX100 smaller as well? Big plus. I had a Lumix LX5 and my RX100 is smaller than that one.
1134719
Oddly enough, I ended up going with neither of these. I compared these to the Sony CX130. Picked them up in the stores and found the image of the Sony to be more brilliant. The Sony form factor was smaller as well which will be good for traveling. Best part is that it's only $350. It uses SD cards (no internal memory), but that didn't bother me since SD cards are so cheap now.
1823801
I'm wonder the same, esp. since the Q2 hypes Zoom 96/24 full fidelity PLUS Mid-Side recording (for more realistic, wider and deeper sound). Yet the Q4 is 3 times the price! Sounds to me like at best it's a close call between the 2 machines.
2073936
I just read your posting and it has been a month since you put it up so I don't know if your still interested in a comparison, so I will keep it brief. I got the X100 in July and the S95 a year ago but by coincidence I just took some test shots in the back yard this morning to compare the two as I will be using both at a BBQ on Sunday. The S95 looks good until you see it next to the x100. The X100 is the first digital camera I have owned where the photos look a bit more real than the other digital cameras I have used. I also have a Nikon D7000 and did some test shots while on vacation using it and the Nikon 12-24mm lens ( set at 23mm) and the X100 looks better, sharper than the $1000 Nikon12-24 lens. There are some down sides as is mentioned on many websites, but you can get used to them, or at least I did. On the video, I like the S95 by far as it is easier to get usable footage. The X100 is sharper and cleaner by a little bit, but the focus is not as good as the S95. The X100 is a great camera for what it is, and I really like mine.
1738615
I've tried both and for me the extra $100 is beyond well worth it. S100 has much better low light performance and overall picture quality(although 110HS is very good). Video looks substantially better to me as well. The S100 is truly at another level in so many aspects. The 110HS is extremely impressive for it's low price and has to be one of the best at that price range but if you have the extra money to spend you won't regret moving to the S100(assuming you don't get the dreaded lens error).
2051967
The big difference is that the AX100 is 4K and has 4 times greater resolution than the CX900s (3840 x 2160 vs. 1920x1080). Even if you don't have a 4K set, the down sampled 4k video is reported to be substantially better quality.
1234928
It is 12 megapixels vs 10.0 for the Canon. It is 4x optical zoom vs 5x optical zoom on the Canon. We had the first version and loved it and bought this one this summer because we wanted an underwater enclosure. We have only had Olympus cameras since 1999 and we love them. We have two of these smaller cameras, a slightly bigger version and a full blown DSLR and we have never had any problems with them and we love the Scenes features in the ZX series cameras. And they are a couple hundred bucks cheaper than the Canon's that I can see. Hope this helps.