Canon EOS 6D vs Sony Cyber-shot RX100 III

I think that it's very, very good for both sands, that focusing issue with stills. I wouldn't use autofocus when it comes to shooting video, because i...

These changes justify the sticker price and make the RX100 III our Editors' Choice for premium compact cameras. If you're not quite willing to pay $800 for a pocket camera, the RX100 and RX100 II remain in the lineup and deliver similar image quality at a lower price.

Its autofocus system also performs decently well when tracking moving subjects, though it's not as impressive as higher-end models.

If you just want to share a quick photo, you took on social media and the photos and videos that it does take are still awesome. The autofocus is supe...

My coworker and marks helped us out on a few videos. Mark's been a little unlucky in love, so we're gon na see if the Canon EOS 6d can change that we ...

I tell myself that if I want 30 frames per second later I can always reduce the frame rate during the editing process. Also, 60 frames per second allows for smooth slow motion, only 50% slower true, but it is full HD, unlike the 120fps mode, which is unpleasant to use and outputs poor quality video. So yes, I love 60P video and it is now all I shoot. My love of the 60P mode also helps me get over my biggest gripe about the camera

I have a decent compact now and for most shots I'm happy with it.It's not about the camera, it never was, the thing that gets the aahs and oohs is what's in the picture and how you arranged it, and that's the much more difficult part.

Is this faster lens, I'm going to try it here in just a bit, I'm going to try to get sort of thin depth of field shots see if we get much improvement,...

5L Macro USM($1,699.00 at Amazon) and the compact EF 28mm f/1.8 USM($1,699.00 at Amazon)

The previous two rx100 series cameras offered zoom ranges of 28 to 100 millimeters with a maximum aperture of 1.8 to 4.9. So, as you can tell the mark...

especially the eye autofocus), and the in-body image stabilization. And of course the 4k video (dunno how that compares to the other RF bodies, tho). And I prefer the control layout of the R6 over the others

And I find that holding the camera up to my face while using the EVF gives me the 'feel' of a more stabilized shot. And my pictures look better to me. This is important to me because now that I am in my 60's, try as I might, holding the M2 or my smartphone without an EVF - is not as steady as I'd like it to be or as I remember it was when I was younger. And I need image stabilization in lower light

I sold my 70D and bought a 6Dii and 24-105 f/4 just like you have. This was a long decision and looked at several options. I settled with the 6D due to cost mainly. Mirrorless range was generally too expensive for me

First off, the price is a little high and considering the price drops after the new versions are released, I thought this might be a little cheaper. It isn’t a big deal and you really can’t go into the RX100 line thinking that you’re just getting a point and shoot. Second, I would have loved to see a touch screen on this camera. In fact, if the MKIV included a touch screen, I would have happily paid the $200 more for a well implemented touch screen

) The only significant advantages it has over the RP are In-body stabilization and (much, much) longer battery life.

I also hoped to replicate the AA battery size used by my old Canon, so that I can buy replacements most anywhere when they go dead at just the wrong time. But again, alas, the DSC-RX100M3 uses a lithium one, only rechargeable while in the camera (~230 minutes to full charge!, according to the manual), unless one buys a separate charger. The stock Sony charger that comes with the DSC-RX100M3 is basically just a not-very-powerful USB charger (output 5 volts at only 0.5 Amps), with no way to charge the battery directly

For serious reach in birding you'll have to spend a lot more money. The 75 - 300 has decent reach and if you have it stopped down to f8 and are shooting in sunlight you should be able to get pretty good close-ups of birds. The Canon 100 - 400 mm L lens is a very popular birding lens that will be much sharper than what you have and can be had for under $1,000 used, but it's not going to give you much more reach. If you're looking to zoom in much closer, you're going to be in 500 to 600 mm territory which gets very expensive very quickly

But it is VERY good for the size and price. The zoom range is nice: 24-70mm. To be honest, I'd like it to reach 100mm like the earlier models but then I'm not ready to trade the smaller aperture for that ;-) A couple of other features I enjoy: you can shoot video in black and white .

So, even though I usually do recommend lenses over bodies as I said, in this case I'd say that selling the 24mm, 55-250 and 18-55, and getting a 6D and one of the 35, 38, or 24mm primes I mentioned above, would be your most appropriate move. The 50mm can stay as a new general-purpose lens and the 70-200 would fill the gap left by the 55-250, though if your bird photography is something you *really* enjoy I'd suggest ditching it and picking up a 400mm f/5.6L instead, if not a Tamron 150-600mm G2 or Sigma 150-60mm Contemporary.

But, after using the camera for just a brief time, I realized that I just cannot live with the immensely small (2.9x) zoom. It's even less than the last version. As good as this camera is and as spectacular as the image quality ends up being, the camera is just not practical for me without more optical zoom

Weight is similarly svelte, below every 5D and the 7D, and about even with the 60D. The larger cameras will balance a bit better with heavy lenses; this 6D will be the preferable travel body by a small margin. New relative to the 5D II are improved weather sealing and a much-appreciated mode dial lock. It's not clear how comprehensive the sealing is; I still wouldn't take it in the rain, and very few non-L Canon lenses are weatherproof

What was I going to do with an $800 paperweight and I really wanted this camera for Christmas photos. After trying to negotiate a more amicable solution, with no success, I agreed to the repair. This was an $800, "TOP OF THE LINE" Sony camera (plus case, batteries, and other accessories) that I used for one trip, owned it for a total of 90 days, and now I have to spend another $225 to have it fixed. I checked online and found a lot of similar complaints about this corrosion issue with this camera and others are in same situation having to pay out of pocket for repair