Canon s120

[kappel11]

Has anyone tried a canon s120? We have a trip planned soon and I am wondering if it will work well in Disney World!? Also, catching two fast moving kids? Thanks for any input!

 

[havoc315]

I haven't had a chance to try out the S120, but the S95 and S110 were capable enthusiast compacts, and it is my understanding that the S120 has a slightly faster lens and faster autofocus.
As far as compacts go, it should serve you pretty well at Disney. Keeping up with kids can be hard with a compact, as you need a very responsive camera. Not sure how well the S120 will hold up.
If you're willing to spend a little bit more, the top of the line compact zoom camera that I can vouch for, is the RX100, and the price has come down to about $550. So not *that much* more than the S120, but I can vouch that it is an excellent Disney camera AND excellent at keeping up with kids.

 

[kappel11]

Thanks for your reply. I've seen a few of your pictures on here & they look amazing. I have thought about the rx100ii. I honestly cannot make up my mind! Do you think the Sony would blow away the Canon? Thanks so much!! K


Posted from Disney Forums Reader for Android

 

[kappel11]

Sorry! Double post

 

[hakepb]

In terms of critical IQ, the RX100 is absolutely better than the s120 because the RX100 has a sensor nearly 3 times larger than the s120.

The biggest complaint of the RX100 is some of the "user experience" type issues like the menu layouts, some don't like the smooth action of the lens control ring (great for focus but weird for aperature), and the RX100's tendancy to stick with an old-school 1/focal length = shutter speed resulting in many wide angle photos with a 1/30 sec shutter speed. (Great for landscapes, but not ideal for moving people) there is still S mode to select a shutter speed, or adjust ISO in A mode to force shutter speed ranges...

The RX-100 and II are very popular cameras, and look to be very rewarding when handled well. There's nothing wrong with making an educated decision for another camera.

 

[havoc315]

Thanks for your reply. I've seen a few of your pictures on here & they look amazing. I have thought about the rx100ii. I honestly cannot make up my mind! Do you think the Sony would blow away the Canon? Thanks so much!! K


Posted from Disney Forums Reader for Android

"Blow away" may be too strong. And to some extent, it depends on your willingness to learn photography and the camera. As mentioned by hakepb, for example, really want to capture your kids running around, you need to remember to increase your shutter speed.
In the right hands, the rx100 is on another level than the S120. The s120 is excellent "for a point and shoot." The rx100 is simply excellent.

 

[kappel11]

So, would you say that the rx100ii would be difficult to learn? I am torn between the two. RX100ii/S120. From what I've read the sony is the better camera, but it's just so much more expensive. Would I notice the difference without experience.
I was thinking initially about getting the s120 now and maybe the follow up to the SL1 next year, so I would have a smaller camera and a nicer camera. (Two cameras.)
But possibly the RX100ii, would be more than enough for me and I wouldn't have to buy another camera. Then it is actually less expensive.
To review what I want: a sharp, fast camera to take pictures of my kids, indoors and out, and small size is a bonus! I would love to be able to get bokeh, but realize that's not easy with a point & shoot.
I also would like great video. We are taking a trip to Disney World soon, but don't usually travel much.
Thank you so much for any help in making my decision!

 

[havoc315]

So, would you say that the rx100ii would be difficult to learn? I am torn between the two. RX100ii/S120. From what I've read the sony is the better camera, but it's just so much more expensive. Would I notice the difference without experience.
I was thinking initially about getting the s120 now and maybe the follow up to the SL1 next year, so I would have a smaller camera and a nicer camera. (Two cameras.)
But possibly the RX100ii, would be more than enough for me and I wouldn't have to buy another camera. Then it is actually less expensive.
To review what I want: a sharp, fast camera to take pictures of my kids, indoors and out, and small size is a bonus! I would love to be able to get bokeh, but realize that's not easy with a point & shoot.
I also would like great video. We are taking a trip to Disney World soon, but don't usually travel much.
Thank you so much for any help in making my decision!

The RX100 isn't that much more than the S120. The RX100M2 is much more expensive, but do you really need a tilting screen and wifi? The actual use and image quality of the RX100 and RX100M2 are virtually identical.

In terms of "learning" the camera -- Depends how much you want to get out of it. The RX100 is very very good in auto-mode. You will get more out of it though, it you take it off auto-mode and learn manual exposure. At a minimum, you should know about scene selections, how to use auto-HDR, etc. None of this is "hard" but it can take a little time. I'm sure the same is true about the S120 -- the more you learn, the better the results you will get.

In terms of following up with the SL1 -- as a "nicer" camera. dSLRs are not automatically and necessarily nicer. A dSLR generally comes down to the lenses you attach. While a budget dSLR with a budget lens will easily out-perform a budget compact camera, that isn't necessarily the case once you look at the better compact cameras. I dare say that under many circumstances, the Sony RX100 will outperform the SL1+kit lens. (Though the SL1 has the potential for better performance if you start upgrading lenses) .

DXOMark which objectively scores various parameters of image quality actually rates the image quality of the RX100 over the SL1. (just barely, you wouldn't tell the difference with the human eye). The SL1 gets a better low light rating (not surprising as it has a bigger sensor), but the RX100 scores significantly better in color and dynamic range.

I use the RX100 AND a dSLR, but it depends on what you are shooting. Plus, I have some high quality lenses for my dSLR. When I went to Horseshoe Bay in Bermuda, one of the most beautiful beaches in the world, I was totally happy just bringing the RX100 instead of lugging around a big camera.


untitled-248.jpg by Havoc315, on Flickr


Horseshoe Bay Beach Bermuda by Havoc315, on Flickr

So it's not a matter of a dSLR being a "better" camera.. but there are a couple advantages of a dSLR:
If you want narrow depth of field --- Background blur -- a dSLR is far better at achieving that. If you want to maintain fast focus of fast sports, a dSLR is typically better. And if you want to change lenses, you need a dSLR. But for landscape shooting, for candids, a really good compact like the RX100 can match a dSLR.

The RX100 is actually really phenomenal at video, though I rarely shoot video. http://vimeo.com/45682834 is a good example of the potential.

As I said, bokeh and background blur -- that's where a dSLR (or larger mirrorless) is really superior to a compact. Though the bokeh with the RX100 will be better than the S120. I see the S120 does have a blur setting -- where I believe background blur is artificially added to the photo. I have no clue whether this works wonderfully, or is a useless gimmick.

 

[kappel11]

Thanks and beautiful pictures! It's nice to see one with a child. (So cute!) I'm So close to deciding on the RX100ii. I know it's the more expensive, but I really do want the wifi option.
The main draw of a DSLR for me is the background defocused shots (bokeh)and the speed, but I think the benefits of the rx100ii outweigh those for now. The size is really important to me. I love to be able to have a little camera with me all the time. I just want to be able to catch pictures of my kids.
: )
As far as the background defocus on the s120, from what I've read and have seen so far, it's not very useful. Having said that, I've never used that camera, so I'm not sure.
Thanks so much for your help!

 

[photo_chick]

Has anyone tried a canon s120? We have a trip planned soon and I am wondering if it will work well in Disney World!? Also, catching two fast moving kids? Thanks for any input!

The plain truth of the matter is much of the time whether or not a camera will work well in a given situation is up to the photographer. You can nitpick the specs to death, as many like to do, but the photographer is still the biggest factor. Even on auto.

Any digital camera on the market right now is capable of making great images outside during the day. Indoors and at night takes a little more from the camera but there are still many cameras that are more than capable (even some smartphones can do it). Dark rides are a different beast though and will take more than what most point and shoots offer because it is one of those few areas of photography where certain technical specifications do matter.

 

[photo_chick]

As I said, bokeh and background blur -- that's where a dSLR (or larger mirrorless) is really superior to a compact. Though the bokeh with the RX100 will be better than the S120. I see the S120 does have a blur setting -- where I believe background blur is artificially added to the photo. I have no clue whether this works wonderfully, or is a useless gimmick.

Bokeh is a term for the quality of the background blur and is affected by a few things like the design of the aperture blades, contrast of the lens, overall rendering quality of the lens... what is it about the RX100's lens that makes it better here? Bokeh is an often misused term, thanks to a lot of bad information that keeps getting regurgitated online, and if one really does have a better quality OOF blur than others I'm very interested as to why. It's one of those few areas where if it's an important factor to you the camera does matter.

 

[havoc315]

Bokeh is a term for the quality of the background blur and is affected by a few things like the design of the aperture blades, contrast of the lens, overall rendering quality of the lens... what is it about the RX100's lens that makes it better here? Bokeh is an often misused term, thanks to a lot of bad information that keeps getting regurgitated online, and if one really does have a better quality OOF blur than others I'm very interested as to why. It's one of those few areas where if it's an important factor to you the camera does matter.

I was using background blur and bokeh interchangeably, though I am aware of the technical difference.
And the larger sensor is what gives the Rx100 an advantage in narrow DOF, though still won't come close to a aps-c or ff camera.

 

[kappel11]

Thanks again, I understand (for the most part) that the sensor size determines the ability for DOF, bokeh...

On another note, one more thing that has held me back on the Sony is this. When I looked at the original rx100 in Best Buy and then looked at different Canon cameras, the picture on the screen always looks so dull in comparison. Is this just the way it is set up? Looking at the pictures posted here, they certainly do not look dull and blah, so I'm guessing it's not a problem. Any thoughts on that?
Thanks again for all of the help! I haven't ordered yet, but might later today so I can get it by my birthday! : )

 

[havoc315]

Thanks again, I understand (for the most part) that the sensor size determines the ability for DOF, bokeh...

On another note, one more thing that has held me back on the Sony is this. When I looked at the original rx100 in Best Buy and then looked at different Canon cameras, the picture on the screen always looks so dull in comparison. Is this just the way it is set up? Looking at the pictures posted here, they certainly do not look dull and blah, so I'm guessing it's not a problem. Any thoughts on that?
Thanks again for all of the help! I haven't ordered yet, but might later today so I can get it by my birthday! : )

Could just be that the LCD on the RX100 wasn't set at bright, possibly to conserve battery.

It is very hard to judge a camera in the store, other than judging how it feels in the hand. You absolutely can't judge anything about the image quality in the store.

Here is a pic I finally got around to uploading. Also a good demonstration of the Depth of Field and the Bokeh -- The waterdrops on the top left are a good example of actual bokeh.


rx100fall-11.jpg by Havoc315, on Flickr

 

[kappel11]

Right. I guess I don't have to worry about pictures looking dull. haha! Very nice!
The only place I have been able to look at a few cameras is Best Buy and that is with them attached to a big handle with the elastic cord, alarms often going off and also a three year old helping. I really appreciate your help in choosing a camera. I needed it.

 

[havoc315]

Right. I guess I don't have to worry about pictures looking dull. haha! Very nice!
The only place I have been able to look at a few cameras is Best Buy and that is with them attached to a big handle with the elastic cord, alarms often going off and also a three year old helping. I really appreciate your help in choosing a camera. I needed it.

Unfortunately, cameras are the type of items that you don't necessarily want to buy "unseen"... but seeing them in a typical store is often worthless. You can't truly use them in the store. Most stores have a limited selection of models. You can't get any sense of image quality.

Best you can do is use the store to get a general physical handle on cameras -- what size fits best in your hand. Use online research to determine what precise model matches your needs.
Then buy from someplace with a good return policy. So if you really find you made a mistake after a week, you can return it.

 

[photo_chick]

I was using background blur and bokeh interchangeably, though I am aware of the technical difference.
And the larger sensor is what gives the Rx100 an advantage in narrow DOF, though still won't come close to a aps-c or ff camera.

The larger sensor size giving shallower depth of field is a little misleading... when focal length, aperture and distance to subject are all the same the actual depth of field is the same regardless of sensor size. The difference in depth of field comes when you change the distance to subject to frame the same shot with a different field of view. There's also a perceived difference, not an actual spatial difference, that happens with print size and field of view that comes into play when you shoot the same shot from the same place with a different size sensor. It's important to make the distinction though between the actual and the perceived, especially if you're nit picking the specs. Because if you know how to leverage the math to your advantage the perception of less or more depth of field can be overcome.

 

[kappel11]

Hi,
I got my rx100ii a couple of days ago and I love it so far! Do you have any settings that you prefer or could recommend? I've been using S mostly since I have two fast kids! Any tips would be great! Thanks!

 

[havoc315]

Hi,
I got my rx100ii a couple of days ago and I love it so far! Do you have any settings that you prefer or could recommend? I've been using S mostly since I have two fast kids! Any tips would be great! Thanks!

Set up the 3 memory recall settings to your liking for speedy way to get to various custom settings. Like 1 mode with fast shutter speed, continuous focus and burst shooting, to get the kids in action.
Another mode set up for HDR, etc.

I also always turn off the auto-review of pictures to speed up the camera a bit if you're not chimping every shot.

 

[kappel11]

Great! Thanks again for all of your help. I have a little more than a month to practice before our vacation.