iPhone X camera for travel pics and video?

[Luba]

I want to travel light on my next trip, but I'd like to have at least very good travel pics and video. Would buying a dedicated camera like the SONY RX100 take substantially better pics and video than an iPhone X? If yes, then I would get something like that and also carry either an iPad mini or regular size iPad, and leave my iPhone at home as I wouldn't want to pay the international roaming fees and I would communicate by texting or using FaceTime instead of making telephone calls. I don't really use my iPhone now for calls, so I don't think I would miss it. Anything I'm missing with my traveling light plan? Do you find you really need having your iPhone on international trips?

I like the SONY RX100 gen 6 for $1200 because it's small and could be put in a jacket pocket. I guess it's the latest and greatest?? If I'm willing to take on a larger sized camera would the pics and video be much better than the RX100? Btw, I would want to do almost no photo editing. I once had Lightroom and Photoshop, so on a photo that I liked very much I would take the time to try to "fix" it, but generally I'm looking to take high quality JPEGs and then store it on Apple's Photos app.

 

[akash.nu]

In terms of quality of photos, a dedicated camera almost always take better picture than a smartphone, but ultimately it comes down to your skills and requirements.

Having said that, If you’re asking those questions then I think you’ll be fine with your iPhone X.

 

[kenoh]

I agree. If you are still to enter the world of dedicated cameras, then you are not likely to get the best from the camera and so iphone will likely be good enough. I sense your driver here is to get nice pictures of your trip, rather than to learn to take better photographs in general ergo iphone is probably good enough.

Having said that, remember the iphone is a fixed focal length roughly 28mm so no optical zoom. The only zoom is software digital zoom which isnt the same.

So if you are going to want to use different focal lengths, zoom in for more detail at distance, zoom in to get that subject separation for a portrait, then a smartphone cant do that (apple portrait mode doesnt count btw). These however are things you need to know you want at the time of course so again if you arent thinking about these things then no camera is going to do that for you so why spend the money.

I also wouldnt suggest going overseas without a phone for emergencies. You only pay for what you use so take it and turn off data roaming in the setttings so you dont get charged for data. Keeps it in just in case mode.

If you are going to something like Utah for the rocky landscape then a dedicated camera will be a good thing to get as much texture as possible. If you are going to a busy close up market in Marrakesh, then an iphone will be plenty and less cumbersome.

Dont know if that helps. Probably makes it more difficult. Also depends where you intend to use the images. If it is social media then you dont need 24-50 mega pixel tack sharp images. If you intend to print them large bigger than A4/Legal size then a bigger sensor would be better (not necessarily more megapixels btw but thats a different discussion)

An RX100 is a very good choice and I would recommend a MKIII or a MKIV. Cheaper that the gen 6 and still plenty of fire power. I still have my trusty MK 3 for when I dont want to bring the big guns.

Also with that budget you have a lot of options to hand and can get a very good solution that would be better than iphone at the cost of a bit of bulk. Going back to your point, you could take iphone and pay roaming or get a rx100 and make do with ipad for communication. An RX100 MK 3 will come in at something less than $600 or so now meaning you can take both. MK3 doesnt do 4K though - not sure if that matters at all.

After all this, for me and I am an idiot who knows nothing btw, a dedicated camera wins everytime. Excluding all else, just emotionally I like to capture moments on a camera not another device that also has a camera if that makes sense. I dont feel like I am being serious taking pics on a phone - but I am a weirdo lol...

 

[akash.nu]

I agree. If you are still to enter the world of dedicated cameras, then you are not likely to get the best from the camera and so iphone will likely be good enough. I sense your driver here is to get nice pictures of your trip, rather than to learn to take better photographs in general ergo iphone is probably good enough.

Having said that, remember the iphone is a fixed focal length roughly 28mm so no optical zoom. The only zoom is software digital zoom which isnt the same.

So if you are going to want to use different focal lengths, zoom in for more detail at distance, zoom in to get that subject separation for a portrait, then a smartphone cant do that (apple portrait mode doesnt count btw). These however are things you need to know you want at the time of course so again if you arent thinking about these things then no camera is going to do that for you so why spend the money.

I also wouldnt suggest going overseas without a phone for emergencies. You only pay for what you use so take it and turn off data roaming in the setttings so you dont get charged for data. Keeps it in just in case mode.

If you are going to something like Utah for the rocky landscape then a dedicated camera will be a good thing to get as much texture as possible. If you are going to a busy close up market in Marrakesh, then an iphone will be plenty and less cumbersome.

Dont know if that helps. Probably makes it more difficult. Also depends where you intend to use the images. If it is social media then you dont need 24-50 mega pixel tack sharp images. If you intend to print them large bigger than A4/Legal size then a bigger sensor would be better (not necessarily more megapixels btw but thats a different discussion)

An RX100 is a very good choice and I would recommend a MKIII or a MKIV. Cheaper that the gen 6 and still plenty of fire power. I still have my trusty MK 3 for when I dont want to bring the big guns.

Also with that budget you have a lot of options to hand and can get a very good solution that would be better than iphone at the cost of a bit of bulk. Going back to your point, you could take iphone and pay roaming or get a rx100 and make do with ipad for communication. An RX100 MK 3 will come in at something less than $600 or so now meaning you can take both. MK3 doesnt do 4K though - not sure if that matters at all.

After all this, for me and I am an idiot who knows nothing btw, a dedicated camera wins everytime. Excluding all else, just emotionally I like to capture moments on a camera not another device that also has a camera if that makes sense. I dont feel like I am being serious taking pics on a phone - but I am a weirdo lol...

I’m completely on the opposite spectrum. Over the years I’ve noticed that I can’t dedicate time to carry around a proper camera just to shoot things. Most of my shots are impromptu and unplanned. My iPhone seems to be the only device with me most of the times when I want to take pictures.

I’ve since sold my DSLR & my point and shoot is gathering dust in some cupboard I’m unaware of.

I’ve made iPhone photography my motto now and I try to push the boundaries with all the restrictions that come with smartphone photography.

 

[kenoh]

I’m completely on the opposite spectrum. Over the years I’ve noticed that I can’t dedicate time to carry around a proper camera just to shoot things. Most of my shots are impromptu and unplanned. My iPhone seems to be the only device with me most of the times when I want to take pictures.

I’ve since sold my DSLR & my point and shoot is gathering dust in some cupboard I’m unaware of.

I’ve made iPhone photography my motto now and I try to push the boundaries with all the restrictions that come with smartphone photography.

And this difference in approach is what keeps it exciting.

I like one camera one lens.... Thats how I shoot the Leicas but a viewfinder I think is the difference to me. Personally I need/love a viewfinder...

 

[Ray2]

Having the "having the latest and greatest" will make a barely discernible difference in the hands of an accomplished photographer.

If you want "very good travel pics and videos" then you need to be able to take very good travel pics and videos irrespective of what you're shooting with. Do you think there was no good photography before the RX100M6?

"I would want to do almost no photo editing." Then you'll need to know how to take almost perfect pictures. Whether it's a Hasselblad or a phone.

"Wouldn't want to pay the international roaming fees". I can't imagine anyone paying roaming fees these days. You buy a SIM card at your destination airport (1 month minimum) and sufficient voice, data and text to get you through your stay. Out of curiosity, if you don't use your iPhone X for calls now, what do you do with it?

 

[HDFan]

Would buying a dedicated camera like the SONY RX100 take substantially better pics and video than an iPhone X?

Depends. You have more megapixels to work with, so more cropping options. Better zoom. You also learn more about photography using a camera with more controls.But the most important thing in the equation is the photographer. A better camera makes things easier, but great cameras can take terrible photos.

iphone is a fixed focal length roughly 28mm so no optical zoom. The only zoom is software digital zoom which isnt the same.

Don't know which iPhone you have, but the X has a "telephoto" lens

If you are going to a busy close up market in Marrakesh

I initially traveled with 2 Canon DSLRs and assorted lenses, but finally decided it was too much weight and hassle. My group trips are not photography focused and are fast paced, so there simply isn't enough time to setup with the right camera and lens.

I got a RX100 as my walk around, always with me camera. But because its zoom wasn't (and for me, still isn't) sufficient, I also had bought a high zoom, 1" sensor bridge camera. Initially it was a Panasonic, now replaced by an RX-10 iii with its 600 mm zoom. There are higher magnification zoom cameras around that price point, but they I don't think that they have the picture quality. Here are 2 screen shots from a 4K video I took:



Zooming in on the bright dot in the top just right of center:



Not great photos, but pretty good quality in dark conditions, and great memories.

One annoyance with the RX series 4K video recording is they overheat and you have to turn them off after about 4 minutes, or they will shutdown themselves. Not an issue with the iPhone.

With the increased quality of the camera phones, I now find that I use my iPhone much more than the RX-100. A couple of months ago we were walking along a narrow street when the garbage collector came by:



The iPhone was perfect for taking this shot. On the whole trip I took 3955 pictures with my iPhone, 1804 with my RX10, and just 298 with my RX-100. The only reason I carry the RX-100 is for recording indoor performances, because of its longer zoom and small weight and size.

HDR and bracketing are a pain in the RX series. You have to change from raw to jpg shooting, or set the brackets, and then remember to switch back to raw and single shot when you are done. The menu system is a total nightmare. Lots of great options, but impossible to find.

The iPhone just does it. In general with difficult light shots I find the iPhone does a much better job automatically. It's a bit of work to do that on an RX.

On the RX-10 I took about 31 shots of this sunset, 10 of which were totally unusable - either way too white, or way too dark.



On the iPhone I took 10 shots, all were useable



Totally unfair comparison, but it took lot of fiddling to get the RX-10 shots. The iPhone just did it.

Clearly an Alpha a7 or a9 would be a great camera. My very personal perspective is that I don't really want to deal with graduated density filters, tilt-lenses, etc. I just want to take travel pictures with little fuss and bother, most just for memories, but some for keepers. Although having a camera like the RX series which do have a lot of DSLR type controls is nice if I do get some urge to focus on photography.

 

[johannnn]

(+) The iPhone makes tons of automatic adjustments so that the photo will look good (in terms of lightning etc).
(-) While the photos will look awesome on the iPhone, if you open them on a 27" 5K iMac you will really notice how much better a real camera is. We have a camera that is incredibly old, and was really cheap even when new, and the photos still look much better than the iPhone X when viewing on my 27" 5K iMac.

So what do I use? iPhone X. 1) I don't have the motivation to learn how to take photos with a camera, I prefer the "it just work" model with the iPhone. 2) We never view photos on the iMac, we're more of an Instagram family.

 

[HDFan]

if you open them on a 27" 5K iMac you will really notice how much better a real camera is.

I disagree. I am viewing my photos on a 27" iMac Pro. Not that obvious to me. But I don't start looking for noise, fringing, etc. first thing when first looking at a picture. I watch a lot of Tony Northrup videos on Youtube and he talks about how awful a particular photo is, but most of the times I frankly don't see it until he zooms way in, and sometimes I don't see it even then.

Color range & balance, contrast, sharpness, composition, lighting are my hot buttons. Unless there is some flaw in the photo which is totally obvious (major noise, fringing, etc.) I just judge a photo as a whole, I don't zoom in to look for flaws.

you will really notice how much better a real camera is.

Interesting statement, that the iPhone is not (does not have) a real camera. I suspect a lot of people would disagree.

 

[kenoh]

Depends. You have more megapixels to work with, so more cropping options. Better zoom. You also learn more about photography using a camera with more controls.But the most important thing in the equation is the photographer. A better camera makes things easier, but great cameras can take terrible photos.



Don't know which iPhone you have, but the X has a "telephoto" lens



I initially traveled with 2 Canon DSLRs and assorted lenses, but finally decided it was too much weight and hassle. My group trips are not photography focused and are fast paced, so there simply isn't enough time to setup with the right camera and lens.

I got a RX100 as my walk around, always with me camera. But because its zoom wasn't (and for me, still isn't) sufficient, I also had bought a high zoom, 1" sensor bridge camera. Initially it was a Panasonic, now replaced by an RX-10 iii with its 600 mm zoom. There are higher magnification zoom cameras around that price point, but they I don't think that they have the picture quality. Here are 2 screen shots from a 4K video I took:

View attachment 772113

Zooming in on the bright dot in the top just right of center:

View attachment 772112

Not great photos, but pretty good quality in dark conditions, and great memories.

One annoyance with the RX series 4K video recording is they overheat and you have to turn them off after about 4 minutes, or they will shutdown themselves. Not an issue with the iPhone.

With the increased quality of the camera phones, I now find that I use my iPhone much more than the RX-100. A couple of months ago we were walking along a narrow street when the garbage collector came by:

View attachment 772109

The iPhone was perfect for taking this shot. On the whole trip I took 3955 pictures with my iPhone, 1804 with my RX10, and just 298 with my RX-100. The only reason I carry the RX-100 is for recording indoor performances, because of its longer zoom and small weight and size.

HDR and bracketing are a pain in the RX series. You have to change from raw to jpg shooting, or set the brackets, and then remember to switch back to raw and single shot when you are done. The menu system is a total nightmare. Lots of great options, but impossible to find.

The iPhone just does it. In general with difficult light shots I find the iPhone does a much better job automatically. It's a bit of work to do that on an RX.

On the RX-10 I took about 31 shots of this sunset, 10 of which were totally unusable - either way too white, or way too dark.

View attachment 772114

On the iPhone I took 10 shots, all were useable

View attachment 772115

Totally unfair comparison, but it took lot of fiddling to get the RX-10 shots. The iPhone just did it.

Clearly an Alpha a7 or a9 would be a great camera. My very personal perspective is that I don't really want to deal with graduated density filters, tilt-lenses, etc. I just want to take travel pictures with little fuss and bother, most just for memories, but some for keepers. Although having a camera like the RX series which do have a lot of DSLR type controls is nice if I do get some urge to focus on photography.

Lol I have an iphone X and a OnePlus 5T (work and personal) the iphone X has a gimmick lens at least with the software DoF simulation. The iPhone X tele is 57mm equiv which is on the short end of tele it is designed for portraits.

In the pictures posted, nice pictures btw, not questioning artistic merit but if you look at the image of the donkey, the detail of its hair is gone, the guys watch, it is blurry and there is no texture to his bag strap for example. I would want them to be sharp and I know the cameras I use would let you count strands of hair on the donkey. However... I am a pixel peeper so I look for these things, each to their own. No one is saying the iphone is a bad camera but it isnt the greatest camera. Have you got some examples taken in low light at night maybe?

 

[johannnn]

I disagree. I am viewing my photos on a 27" iMac Pro. Not that obvious to me. But I don't start looking for noise, fringing, etc. first thing when first looking at a picture. I watch a lot of Tony Northrup videos on Youtube and he talks about how awful a particular photo is, but most of the times I frankly don't see it until he zooms way in, and sometimes I don't see it even then.

Color range & balance, contrast, sharpness, composition, lighting are my hot buttons. Unless there is some flaw in the photo which is totally obvious (major noise, fringing, etc.) I just judge a photo as a whole, I don't zoom in to look for flaws.

The iPhone does excellent work on automatically adjusting lightning to e.g. sunsets, but that can easily be changed after taking a photo with any camera. The iPhone does add a lot of noise though, and that is definitely not easily removed after taking a photo.
And don't get me started on low-lightning situations. Still in 2018, no phone camera performs well indoors.
But if you can't see the difference on a 27" iMac Pro then there is no need for us to argue. Some people are more picky/observant than others.

Interesting statement, that the iPhone is not (does not have) a real camera. I suspect a lot of people would disagree.

I was referring to a compact camera in contrast to a phone camera. This is just semantics.

 

[kallisti]

I want to travel light on my next trip, but I'd like to have at least very good travel pics and video. Would buying a dedicated camera like the SONY RX100 take substantially better pics and video than an iPhone X? If yes, then I would get something like that and also carry either an iPad mini or regular size iPad, and leave my iPhone at home as I wouldn't want to pay the international roaming fees and I would communicate by texting or using FaceTime instead of making telephone calls. I don't really use my iPhone now for calls, so I don't think I would miss it. Anything I'm missing with my traveling light plan? Do you find you really need having your iPhone on international trips?

I like the SONY RX100 gen 6 for $1200 because it's small and could be put in a jacket pocket. I guess it's the latest and greatest?? If I'm willing to take on a larger sized camera would the pics and video be much better than the RX100? Btw, I would want to do almost no photo editing. I once had Lightroom and Photoshop, so on a photo that I liked very much I would take the time to try to "fix" it, but generally I'm looking to take high quality JPEGs and then store it on Apple's Photos app.

These are challenging questions to answer. Your question is actually much more complicated than I expect you imagined when asking it. Wanting to have "very good travel pics and video" is only tangentially a question relating to gear. Regardless of what gear you bring, the quality of the photos and video will be much more dependent on *you*. Choice of subject, choice of composition of that subject, etc.

Where are you going? Who are you going with? What types of subjects are you expecting to find? What types of photos are you hoping to come away with?

Are you planning on taking people pics (i.e. family/friends at your destination or people native to where you are going)? Are you planning on taking pics indoors? Are you planning on taking pics at night in low light? Are you planning on taking pics of animals far away (zoos or on safari)? Urban destination with lots of architecture? Street photography (or general walk about photography)? Landscape photography of grand vistas? Beach photography? Sports photography? Fireworks? The list goes on and on.

What are you planning on doing with your "very good travel pics and video"? Sharing them via email or on the web? Printing them small? Printing them large?

What are your standards for quality? What is "good enough"?

My suspicion from your post is that the iPhone X would be adequate for your needs. You can put it in airplane mode to avoid any cellular or data expenses and as @kenoh said, you always then have it for emergencies. It will be smaller and easier to carry than any dedicated camera.

The one piece of advice I would offer is that you consider spending some time before the trip practicing. Take some pics (many pics) with whatever camera you decide to take of different subjects in different light. Better to get a sense before you leave of how the camera behaves in different situations and how to "fix" it at the time of capture rather than coming home, looking at the pics, and being disappointed. Take pics indoors, take pics outdoors with strong backlighting, use (and don't use) the flash on the phone/camera. Figure out what you like beforehand (and how to use any options the camera has) before the trip.

 

[Clix Pix]

Some excellent responses in this thread, and I agree with them! If you are not an experienced photographer, you could pay thousands of dollars for a camera or just a few hundred and if you don't really know how to use it to advantage, the results are likely to be not all that satisfactory. The RX100 M 6 is a very sophisticated, wonderful little camera which can be used by those who never take it off "Program" Mode or "Auto," and those who prefer to shoot using all manual settings or adjusting their settings to fit a situation (shutter priority, aperture priority, etc.). The person who is just basically taking snapshots in Auto or Program modes will come home with.....some nice snapshots, yes. The person who spends more time with the camera and makes photographic images that are striking and visually pleasing will come home with....many excellent images which are due in part to the camera but significantly more so to the user who knew what he/she was doing with the camera.

So, as has been mentioned here in this thread, first off is for you to determine just what you plan to do with the camera and how much time you will be spending shooting as well as what types of images and how you will set up the camera. If you are really just interested in using the camera as a point-and-shoot (P&S) there are certainly other cameras out there which are significantly less expensive and which will do the job just fine. If you've got the $1200 to drop on the RX100 M6, that's great, but it may be a bit of overkill if all you really are interested in doing is grabbing some casual snapshots on your travels. There are other cameras which offer greater reach with the zoom, Sony's HX90V being one example. That camera has a reach of 600mm like the significantly larger RX10 IV which was mentioned in the thread, and the HX90V is lighter in weight than the RX100 M6 and very pocketable. It's easier on the pocketbook, too -- I think $400-500 or so. Like the RX100 M 6, the HX90V also has a popup electronic viewfinder, which can be very useful in a number of shooting scenarios.

In any event, yes, using a dedicated camera will be a better photographic experience with different outcome than using the iPhone, even though the iPhone X does produce surprisingly good results in many situations.

 

[glenthompson]

Another factor is how you will use the resulting pictures. If you’re just going to use them for social media posts or maybe some snapshot prints then an iPhone is fine. If you want to make large prints to frame and hang on your wall then a camera with a larger sensor is needed.

I prefer mirrorless cameras. My wife and I own two Sony mirrorless and love the compact size and great picture quality. She can drop her camera in her purse so it’s always handy. Even so the majority of our pictures are still taken on our iPhones.

 

[HDFan]

There are other cameras which offer greater reach with the zoom, Sony's HX90V being one example.

Yeah, it has a lot of great features, and the price is right. I was considering it. But the sensor is small:

(6.17 x 4.55 mm) vs (13.2 x 8.8 mm) on the RX10.

and it's a bit old now, 2015.

DP review has a relatively recent article about travel cameras:

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/buying-guide-best-cameras-for-travel

And a chart that compares their favorites:

https://www.dpreview.com/products/c...ii&products=sony_dscrx100m6&sortDir=ascending

 

[sunapple]

I bought the Fujifilm X-T20 with 18-55mm kit lens to take travel pictures. Having no experience whatsoever, I generally shoot on auto and let Lightroom do it’s magic afterwards. Yes, I know how that sounds, but I’d like to eventually get more into it by just trying to figure it all out.

Does a quality camera + no skills equal a smartphone camera when taking portability into account? I think the pictures look way better, but it takes much more effort. It basically comes down to how much you like taking photos. I’m still figuring it out.

 

[freezelighter]

Sony RX100 VI is a small monster indeed and absolutely the best cam for travels.

Its tiny size is simply unique for the power inside.

If you are ready to buy some lens, you should go for Sony a9.

But most important question is where are you going to watch your Photos/Videos?

On smarthones, tablets etc?

Then you will see absolutely no difference between iPhone X and other cams (except wildlife/macro with tele/macro lens).

Here is a snapshot with my iPhone X.

Made here in Lauterbrunnen Valley, Switzerland.

My cam did same job, but you can only see it at 100% crop on iMac 27.

 

[HDFan]

if you look at the image of the donkey, the detail of its hair is gone, the guys watch, it is blurry and there is no texture to his bag strap for example. I would want them to be sharp and I know the cameras I use would let you count strands of hair on the donkey. However... I am a pixel peeper so I look for these things, each to their own.

It's awesome that you notice that kind of detail. I generally don't. For me the composition comes first, story, general picture quality (color, contrast, shadows, etc.), detail last. If the noise and detail don't show up without zooming in I'm happy, unless I have to do an extreme crop.

Have you got some examples taken in low light at night maybe?

Let me see if I can find some. If I'm lucky we can compare the iPhone, RX-100, and a Canon DSLR.

but I’d like to eventually get more into it by just trying to figure it all out.

That is certainly an advantage of a more advanced camera. With the iPhone camera the opportunities to learn more about photography are limited. HDR, for example, is automatic. On the RX series, although it is a pain to set up, you have several bracketing options (3 F stops, 5 F stops, etc.). With practice you can learn which is best for a specific lighting situation. With the RX you waste a lot of shots but you learn to evaluate lighting. The iPhone will generally do a good job on the first shot, but may be beat by a properly configured RX shot, and it doesn't train you to use a more advanced camera.

Here is a snapshot with my iPhone X.

Awesome shot! Where did you take it?

Here's an iPhone X shot on a different continent:

Where the iPhone excels, without fiddling, is capturing a shot like this that has a lot of dynamic range. The blue sky top center left comes out fairly well, although the white clouds are blown out. An RX raw shot without bracketing on automatic would likely not do as well initially. RAW data gives more options in Photoshop or Lightning Post for to dodge those clouds, but maybe not since it is clipped:

View attachment 772282

But again, where the RX-100 fails and the RX-10 delivers is in the zoom shots, this one at 550 mm:



And here is one of the shots that convinced me to ditch my DSLR. I was at maximum 400 mm and would have liked to zoom in more on the faces. But the Canon 600 mm is like $12k, way over my weight and $ limits.



If I could take only one camera, RX-10 or RX-100, I confess I would be conflicted. The majority of shots would be fine with the RX-100. But I would miss the fox shot (550 mm) and that shot of an Airbus Beluga (which I had always wanted to see) flying way off in the distance. Sort of stupid that I would remember the trip not for the pictures I took but for the ones I missed.

If I could take 2 cameras my choice, as I've said, would be a no brainer. IPhone X for most of the wide angle landscape or short range shots, the RX-100 for the few times I would want to zoom in.

 

[kenoh]

It's awesome that you notice that kind of detail. I generally don't. For me the composition comes first, story, general picture quality (color, contrast, shadows, etc.), detail last. If the noise and detail don't show up without zooming in I'm happy, unless I have to do an extreme crop.



Let me see if I can find some. If I'm lucky we can compare the iPhone, RX-100, and a Canon DSLR.



That is certainly an advantage of a more advanced camera. With the iPhone camera the opportunities to learn more about photography are limited. HDR, for example, is automatic. On the RX series, although it is a pain to set up, you have several bracketing options (3 F stops, 5 F stops, etc.). With practice you can learn which is best for a specific lighting situation. With the RX you waste a lot of shots but you learn to evaluate lighting. The iPhone will generally do a good job on the first shot, but may be beat by a properly configured RX shot, and it doesn't train you to use a more advanced camera.



Awesome shot! Where did you take it?

Here's an iPhone X shot on a different continent:

View attachment 772281

Where the iPhone excels, without fiddling, is capturing a shot like this that has a lot of dynamic range. The blue sky top center left comes out fairly well, although the white clouds are blown out. An RX raw shot without bracketing on automatic would likely not do as well initially. RAW data gives more options in Photoshop or Lightning Post for to dodge those clouds, but maybe not since it is clipped:

View attachment 772282

But again, where the RX-100 fails and the RX-10 delivers is in the zoom shots, this one at 550 mm:

View attachment 772287

And here is one of the shots that convinced me to ditch my DSLR. I was at maximum 400 mm and would have liked to zoom in more on the faces. But the Canon 600 mm is like $12k, way over my weight and $ limits.

View attachment 772289

If I could take only one camera, RX-10 or RX-100, I confess I would be conflicted. The majority of shots would be fine with the RX-100. But I would miss the fox shot (550 mm) and that shot of an Airbus Beluga (which I had always wanted to see) flying way off in the distance. Sort of stupid that I would remember the trip not for the pictures I took but for the ones I missed.

If I could take 2 cameras my choice, as I've said, would be a no brainer. IPhone X for most of the wide angle landscape or short range shots, the RX-100 for the few times I would want to zoom in.

Lol I am crap at composition and art so the details are what I have left. Composition is great on these images but they are a little too soft. You summed it up yourself, close range you use your iphone then switch to RX100/10 for longer range which i agree with. Thanks for posting images

 

[Clix Pix]

Making sense of sensors......

DSLR cameras come with sensors which are either full-frame (35mm equivalent) or APS-C (in Nikon-speak these are called "DX"), and basically they are somewhat smaller, giving the effect of cropping the 35mm size.

Mirrorless cameras have omitted the mirror that is part of a DSLR and has a different type of shutter -- hence the name "Mirrorless." These can have a full-frame or an APS-C sensor.

Then there is Micro 4/3, which has a smaller sensor yet, and that, coupled with being mirrorless, allows the camera body and accompanying lenses to be significantly smaller than DSLRs.

The RX10, which is about the physical size of a small DSLR, has a permanently attached (fixed) lens, and the most recent version is the IV, which has a zoom range which goes to 600mm. However, this nomenclature is somewhat deceiving, because the sensor is smaller than the camera body would suggest. It is about an inch in size. When you think about it, pushing the lens to its full 600 mm is likely not to produce as satisfactory results as using a 600mm lens on a camera with either a full-frame or APS-C sensor. As Kenoh mentions, this is where one loses detail, resolution and clarity in the image. The examples we see in the post above demonstrate this pretty well. So while the RX10 is lighter in weight and more convenient to carry around and use than a DSLR with a 600mm or 800mm lens (which would be mounted on a tripod), the price one pays for that convenience is in the quality of images. Yes, it's neat to get a shot of wild animals at 600mm, but there is a reason wildlife photographers spend a lot of time and money with their gear and why their photos wind up on walls and on the cover of National Geographic.

Getting back to that 1-inch sensor......it also is on the RX10's little sister, the RX100, and it seems that with the RX100 line Sony has been targeting the photography "enthusiast," the experienced amateur, the professional who wants a sophisticated and functional small camera to carry in a pocket. The HX90V with its longer zoom, smaller 1/2 inch sensor and not as many features is more geared towards the person who wants a small, easy-to-carry around P&S with a long zoom. [NOTE: I've now corrected my error where I'd earlier written that the HX90V has a 1" sensor; it doesn't, it has the smaller 1/2" one: Sensor size 1/2.3" (6.17 x 4.55 mm)]

If you want a really long zoom in a P&S camera, Nikon has just released one with an astounding 3000mm range. The sensor in that is smaller than what is in the RX10 -- about 1/2 inch, I think, the same as in the HX90V. I doubt that many serious wildlife photographers will be tossing away their 600mm or 800mm lenses and DSLRs to use it, though.....

 

[Feltronc]

I have an RX100 MK3 for the same reason.
Better pictures and video than my iPhone X.

Here's the key though, over the past couple of years I've become too lazy to carry it with me even when I know I might want to get nice captures. So even though it's better, because it's an extra thing to carry, I end up just using my phone.

But to strictly answer your question; Yes, it's worth it in terms of quality and portability.

 

[Luba]

Yeah, it has a lot of great features, and the price is right. I was considering it. But the sensor is small:

(6.17 x 4.55 mm) vs (13.2 x 8.8 mm) on the RX10.

and it's a bit old now, 2015.

DP review has a relatively recent article about travel cameras:

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/buying-guide-best-cameras-for-travel

And a chart that compares their favorites:

https://www.dpreview.com/products/c...ii&products=sony_dscrx100m6&sortDir=ascending

How does DP's rating system work? There are cameras with the Silver award, but their score (84%) is higher than a "Gold" camera with a score of 82%?!? I assume a camera was rated/reviewed when it first came out and the review is not updated, thus a 5 year old camera with a higher rating is probably not as good as a recent camera with a lower rating.



Thanks so much for everybody's responses. I'm not a complete point and shoot user, but my experience with more advanced features is limited. I've played with and used aperture priority for bokeh portraits and fully manual for time lapse pics. I doubt if I'd get into that while traveling, but the pics others have posted in this thread I can see myself wanting to take those types of pics. I plan on looking at the pics in a desktop display, and saving them to Apple's Photos app. Perhaps 1 or 2 pics that I really like I would have framed. I've have used Lightroom and have photo editing software (Pixelmator, Acorn) that I could see myself editing on 1 or 2 pics. I'm not quite at the enthusiast level, but probably better than your average smartphone user. I feel taking pics with an iPhone X to be not ergonomic and it feels insecure taking pics with an iPhone as I'm holding it with my fingers not my whole hand. Anybody who bumped into me accidentally I would likely drop the phone. But carrying just an iPhone while traveling would be great. Seems like using only an iPhone as my travel camera I would lose zoom (reach) and looking at iPhone pics on a desktop display I would see less clear photos.

 

[kenoh]

How does DP rating system work? There are camera's award the Silver, but their score (84%) is higher than a camera award Gold with a score of only 82%?!? I assume a camera was rated when it first came out, thus a 5 year old camera with a higher rating is not as good as a recent camera with a lower rating.



Thanks so much for everybody's responses. I'm not a complete point and shoot user, but my experience with more advanced features is limited. I've played with and used aperture priority for bokeh portraits and fully manual for time lapse. I doubt if I'd get into that while traveling, but the pics others have posted I can see myself wanting to take those types of pics. I plan on looking at the pics in a desktop display, saving them to Apple's Photos app. Perhaps 1 or 2 pics that I really like I would have framed. I've have used Lightroom and have photo editing software (Pixelmator, Acorn) that I could see myself editing on 1 or 2 pics. I guess I'm not quite an enthusiast. I feel taking pics with an iPhone X to be not ergonomic and I feel funny taking pics with an iPhone as I'm essentially holding it with my finger tips. Anybody who would bump into me accidentally and the iPhone would I would likely drop the phone. But carrying just an iPhone while traveling would be great. Seems like using only an iPhone as my travel camera I would lose zoom (reach) and looking at my pics on a desktop display I would see a less clear picture.

Good luck and post some pics when you get back. Are you going somewhere exciting?

 

[Luba]

Good luck and post some pics when you get back. Are you going somewhere exciting?

I'm being completely serious . . . Clydebank. Know where that is? I like to visit Inverness, but was told it's quite far, 4-5 hours from Clydebank. And I heard they speak English in a way I wouldn't understand. Not sure when I'm going though, late Dec/Jan?

 

[kenoh]

I'm being completely serious . . . Clydebank. Know where that is? I like to visit Inverness, but was told it's quite far, 4-5 hours from Clydebank. And I heard they speak English in a way I wouldn't understand. Not sure when I'm going though, late Dec/Jan?

Clydebank? Glasgow? As in Scotland? In December?/January?

You live the high life my friend... I live in Glasgow... why on earth would you travel from afar to go to Clydebank? Each to their own I suppose but OK, I will be honest, that one threw me a curveball. I don’t know where you are currently but you know the weather will be rotten right? Not snowy wonderland rotten just cold grey dark achy bones rotten. Lol...

Inverness is about 3 hours away from Glasgow, you can get a train there. It is lovely but you miss the most amazing landscapes on the way. Best to drive but at that time of year the road may be closed due to snow.

If you are going to Clydebank and Inverness and walking round the town centres, I would just use your iPhone. If you are going to go to Loch Lomond, Falls of Falloch, Finnich Glen, GlenCoe on the way through to Inverness (I would HIGHLY recommend that) then you want something like the RX100 in a heartbeat. The A82 between Glasgow and the Highlands is breathtaking and Buchaille Etive Mor needs to be shot on a larger sensor than your iPhone from the road. You ideally want a tripod to get a long exposure.

Feel free to private message me if you want to talk about it a bit more but unless there is a Clydebank on the French Riviera and I am confused lol.

Trying to think what is in Clydebank to go see. Golden Jubilee hospital, The cranes, the BAE shipyards, Tallship, transport museum, the new micro brewery. Don’t get me wrong, we all take What is outside our front door for granted. So interested in what you are planning, hell, I can wander down there and take some shots on camera and Iphone and give you a comparison if you want.

On the accent, yes, the further up into the Highlands you go, the more weird their accent becomes. Having said that, the Glasgow accent isn’t exactly easy to the uninitiated either!

I am curious, why Clydebank there must be history there or something.