First decent camera: Sony RX100 MIII vs Nikon D5500 w/18-55mm VRII vs Canon EOS 700D w/18-135 STM

[unixunderground]

Hello photoforum !

After shooting photos with whatever phone I had on hand for years, and most recently with the iPhone 6 and Note 4, without ever being too satisfied with the result, I have now decided that I want to take it one step further with a "real" camera.

---

I have narrowed down my choice to the following:

• Sony RX100 MIII
  
  
• Nikon D5500 w/18-55mm VRII
  
  
• Canon EOS 700D w/18-135 STM
  

---
Although I suspect that both the larger cameras would perform better than the RX100, at the same time I really like the idea of still getting decent photos in such a pocketable format.

Even though I already consider myself a "good photographer" in terms of composition, subjects and framing, I don´t currently have much if any knowledge of the technical aspects of photography.

Though being a quick learner, and very technologically and technically inclined, I foresee that I will quickly get the hang of it by perhaps reading a few books on the subject or following online guides.
---
With all this in mind, what are the pro and cons of each? Does the much decreased portability of a larger camera like the two I mentioned justify the difference in photo quality from the ultra compact RX100 M3?

Will any of these be a decent step up from an iPhone 6/Note 4?

Thanks!

 

[sashbar]

Sony is a good pocketable camera, but so is your iPhone, and in that respect you will have some improvement with a good dedicated camera but you may feel underwhelmed with it if you want to jump into a "real" photography. This Sony has a one inch sensor which is ok for snapshots and probably some street photography, but is quite limiting if you want to explore you creative side. You will not have enough control over depth of field and decent low light photography will be very, very challenging.
With aforementioned Nikon (which I prefer) and Canon you will have a much larger sensor with a better dynamic range that will allow you to shoot in more difficult light conditions or exploit various lighting conditions to create images, it will give you better control over DoF which means you can have sharp objects on blurred backgrounds etc. The image quality overall will be much better. these cameras will also perform faster, with a better autofocus. What is most important - these cameras will allow you to use various Nikon or Canon (and third party) lenses of a superior quality.
The size and weight though is a very important factor either and there is little sense in having a camera that spends most of the time on the shelf. So the choice is yours.

 

[IronMaskDuval]

The d5500 is a great camera, but with the going price of a d7000 at keh, I would drop the money into a d7000 and buy a 35 and 50 mm prime and would still come out on top and cheaper than the 5500.

The 5500 wins over the 7000 in portability and compactness, however, but the 7000 will take you further into advanced photography skills.

 

[IronMaskDuval]

You should also look at the Olympus em10 if you want pocketable and great performance.

 

[goodguy]

The Sony and the other 2 DSLR are just completely different beasts, no comparisons.
Its apples and oranges.
The Sony RX100 III is my favorite P&S and I wish I could justify getting it but I cant.
The DSLR's has a much bigger sensors and huge array of lenses, they are bigger and will outperform the Sony in basically any situation.
If good results are on your mind then you will have to go with one of the DSLR if you want comfort in carrying around the camera and is willing to compromise with system flexibility and get less results then the Sony is your camera.

From the 2 DSLR the Nikon is the clear winner, its got a much better sensor which has better low light performance and better Dynamic range.

 

[beagle100]

DSLR's are larger and heavier than the Sony mirrorless and use interchangeable lens for different photo situations and they are going to give you better results but there is a trade off in size and price. You need to go to a store and see if the extra weight and lens are justified over the smaller mirrorless. I prefer Canon for the better image quality, lens selection, AF, etc..

 

[Solarflare]

Uh-hu.

I prefer Nikon for the exact same reasons.

Especially Canon insists on making their own sensors, while Nikon simply gets the best they can. Which means Nikon sensors offers substantly more reserves in critical situations than Canon.

Also, right now, well I'm sorry but Nikons entry level DSLRs are superior to Canon offerings.

About lenses, the biggest advantage I can think of of Canon is the brand new EF-S 10-18mm f4.5-5.6 IS which is a cheap, also cheaply build, but very affordable wide angle lens with high image quality, something Nikon currently doesnt offer; Nikon offerings are more expensive and most would probably rather get the Tokina 11-16mm f2.8 (or the Sigma 8-16mm if you want extreme wide angle) instead of one of the pricey Nikon offerings.


With the RX100, I prefer the Mark 2 over the Mark 3 because more telephoto is of more interest to me than more wide angle and more light at the long end. There isnt much shallow depth of field with a 1" sensor anyway, in low light I would just stay at the 28mm equivalent wide angle end.

 

[jinx703x]

I was standing In Your shoes a few months ago. I went with the D5300 and hvent looked back. Had I known then what I know now; I would have sprung for the D7100. 1) I prefer the convenience ofexternal buttons to the menu driven style of the 5000 series and 2) the 7000 series has the built in focus motor which opens up the door to a whole different set of lenses.

Just my .02

Want to buy a D5300?