Sony RX100 $568 with trade-in for any old/broken camera YMMV

Quote from Dudewithoutapet : Try the Olympus OMD EM5, many photographers are preferring to the NEX line due to better handling and IBIS (in body image stabilization). It's u4/3rds but the image uality is there and the sensor size difference between u4/3 and APS-C (NEX) is smaller than the gap from APS-C to full frame (5D2).

"due to better handling"?? Are you joking? It's well-known that the OMD-EM5's weakness is that it's hard to handle due to the almost none-existence grip (unless you buy the extra battery/grip add-on). The buttons are tiny as well. EM5 has many good things going for it but handling/comfort is definitely NOT one of its strong points. It is in fact, it's weakest point. I have handled both the NEX-6 and EM5 and decided to go to NEX-6 due to the larger sensor size which resulted in better IQ than m4/3. Also, the price on NEX-6 is cheaper than EM5 so that's a deciding factor too.

This is the best pocketable PS camera, it is not fair to compare it with mirror less cameras...I would wait until it drops to around $400:-)

Quote from hamarabajaj : If I have to pay so much, I will buy a SLR camera. Even tough SLR is bulky and all other so called cons, but atleast I will have a better camera and better pictures.

Bad comparison;
that's like comparing a $100K greyhound bus and $100K Corvette.
We all know what we want to drive!

Even comparing the RX100 to EOS-M + 22mm wouldn't be fair.
That RX100 is only slightly larger than my s95.

$600 is almost guaranteed to get you a rubbish DSLR & a crappy kit lens.
Maybe beter to use the money to buy used 2-yo DSLR body (and pay a lot more for decent lens)

Quote from MOkoFOko : That price ain't going to happen. The 16-50 lens alone is worth $300

Well they sell the A37M for $599, with the 18-135mm lens

The 18-135mm lens alone is $499

Quote from Dudewithoutapet : Not true at all. It's the same size as Nikon's mirrorless V and J series (which isn't a DSLR to begin with), it's smaller than NEX, FF, APS-C, APS-H, and even u4/3rds. It's a 1" sensor, same as J and V series Nikon mirrorless. Granted it is an excellent sensor for the size, it's definitely not large by any means.

Not large? Point me to a single P&S camera with a sensor as large--in the entire history of cameras.

You're just throwing out names at the end. Nex sensor size is essentially the same size as APS-C, so that's just redundant. No point in even mentioning APS-H and FF because they're both larger than APS-C--and they aren't even making APS-H sensors anymore.

Quote from Dudewithoutapet : Not true at all. It's the same size as Nikon's mirrorless V and J series (which isn't a DSLR to begin with), it's smaller than NEX, FF, APS-C, APS-H, and even u4/3rds. It's a 1" sensor, same as J and V series Nikon mirrorless. Granted it is an excellent sensor for the size, it's definitely not large by any means.

Oh lord.....you are right. I have a NEX and just assumed it is the same sensor. My bad and apologize for any confusion.

In that case, I'd say more than the lens is an issue. For that money I'd get the new 3n and pancake zoom and get the APS-C sensor.

Quote from tqlla3k : Well they sell the A37M for $599, with the 18-135mm lens The 18-135mm lens alone is $499

18-135mm can be had for $350-$400:
http://www.42photo.com/pd-product...m_lens.htm

A37M w/18-135mm is $600:
http://www.amazon.com/Sony-SLT-A3...B00836H2F4

Your numbers are off, chief. Admittedly, good price as a kit, but still don't see this happening. They're already bundling the 16-50 pancake with the Nex6 and Nex5r, and they add like $200-$250 for those kits over the stock 18-55 setup.

Basically if you will be using a camera for travel or will be going somewhere where you'll be carrying a camera with you like hiking for a long periods of time then this one is great, as it's very close to a DSLR quality. The Canon S100 is not as good overall, but if your main priority is on comfort vs picture quality, then I'd definitely get the S100 instead. Once again, if you'll only be using a camera for around the house or won't be carrying it for more than 5 minutes anywhere, then DSLR is fine. For travel, hiking, walking around with it for extended periods of time, then Sony RX-100 is the best if you can afford it and if not, the Canon S100 is a close second.

Quote from mokofoko : not large? Point me to a single p&s camera with a sensor as large--in the entire history of cameras. You're just throwing out names at the end. Nex sensor size is essentially the same size as aps-c, so that's just redundant. No point in even mentioning aps-h and ff because they're both larger than aps-c--and they aren't even making aps-h sensors anymore. There is no such thing as u4/3--you're thinking of m4/3

rx1??

Quote from gidal : That RX100 is only slightly larger than my s95.

No it's not, I have both of them. The RX100 is significantly larger than the S95 or S100 and weighs more too. The S95/S100 are like little toys compared to the RX100. Now the RX100 is MUCH smaller than the DSLR full size cameras however, if that's what you're trying to say.

Quote from flatlight : rx1??

That is not a P&S camera. That's a fullframe fixed-lens camera, with an MSRP of $2500+

Quote from buzhaker : No it's not, I have both of them. The RX100 is significantly larger than the S95 or S100 and weighs more too. The S95/S100 are like little toys compared to the RX100. Now the RX100 is MUCH smaller than the DSLR full size cameras however, if that's what you're trying to say.

I have them both as well--the rx100 is a good deal larger, but still way smaller than an LX7 or a Nex setup. RX100 is very very pocketable.

Quote from cyclecrazy : just picked up the lx7 and it's probably the best compact I've used. Do you know if the s100 is better than the s110, as I hear more people talk about the s100.

lx7 is not even close to what RX100 is capable of, and forget about s100. There is a reason all the compact price have dropped significantly in a month or two after RX100 came out to market.

I have a D7000 with a few thousands investment on high class lenses, then a nex 5N, still I ordered the RX100 as soon as I heard about it.

In short, RX100 shines in two key parts:
1. bigger 1" CMOS that gives you high ISO half good as those in ASPC's such as nex or DSLR. High iso allows faster aperture in dark lighting condition so you don't get a blurry result.
2. it's shutter speed (no compact shutter delays) as good as any DSLR, so snap taken on moving object won't be only a moment afterwards. people who has kids understand this better.

So in summary, you have a pocket size "DSLR" that gives your more opportunity to take a shot while otherwise you won't have a camera around due to the size and weight, or if you have one but compromised as lx7, s100 or even smartphone which takes crappy pictures that you only regret not have DSLR around. RX100 provide a solution to these problems, which is why it's worth the price tag and in high demand for at least 6 months while no other manufacture can produce anything similar.

If your goal is only to take family picture in real life, only to capture living moment, you don't have to spend thousands in large aperture expensive lenses coupled with decent DSLR (must have in pre-RX100 time) while suffer the size and weight of DSLR. If your need is only static snaps in a tour, landscape etc in daylight time, smartphone is enough already you won't need a camera (regardless any type) at all.

Quote from gidal : Bad comparison; that's like comparing a $100K greyhound bus and $100K Corvette. We all know what we want to drive! Even comparing the RX100 to EOS-M + 22mm wouldn't be fair. That RX100 is only slightly larger than my s95. $600 is almost guaranteed to get you a rubbish DSLR & a crappy kit lens. Maybe beter to use the money to buy used 2-yo DSLR body (and pay a lot more for decent lens)

Are you kidding? A $600 DSLR with any kit lens will kick the crap out of any camera that has a 1" sensor. Heck even a $400 dslr will do that. The difference in quality between a APS-C sensor and 1" sensor is tremendous. Heck I even tried micro 4/3 (which is bigger than 1"), and was somewhat disappointed for indoor use. Which rubbish dslr are you referring to at $600? Certainly not Nikon, Canon, Pentax, or Sony.

Quote from worthmining : lx7 is not even close to what RX100 is capable of, and forget about s100. There is a reason all the compact price have dropped significantly in a month or two after RX100 came out to market. I have a D7000 with a few thousands investment on high class lenses, then a nex 5N, still I ordered the RX100 as soon as I heard about it. In short, RX100 shines in two key parts: 1. bigger 1" CMOS that gives you high ISO half good as those in ASPC's such as nex or DSLR. 2. it's shutter speed (no compact shutter delays) as good as any DSLR. So in summary, you have a pocket size "DSLR" that gives your more opportunity to take a shot while otherwise you won't have a camera around due to the size and weight, or if you have one but compromised as lx7, s100 or even smartphone which takes crappy pictures that you only regret not have DSLR around. RX100 provide a solution to these problems, which is why it's worth the price tag and in high demand for at least 6 months while no other manufacture can produce anything similar.

I had wondered why the s100 price was falling like a rock, until I read about the rx100.

Shutterspeed only gets you so far if the AF system is no good--as good as the RX100 is, I'm not that impressed with its ability to focus and keep a lock on fast moving targets.

The LX7 does have some important points that set it apart from the RX100--features a much faster lens, with a wider max aperture at the long-end FL. I also prefer the front-ring design for the LX7 over the RX100. If the LX7 weren't such a behemoth (and had powered lens cover), I might prefer the LX7.