Neither, or - the one you're more likely to carry with you.
The 600D will take better pictures with practice but if it's too big and conspicuous to carry with you everywhere then what's the point?
The RX100 is a much better camera than the G-series Canon. The S-series Canons have the same innards as the Gs but are much smaller and lighter - easily fit in a pants pocket.
I had (still have actually) a G11 and it was brilliant. Small, tough and took a great picture. Replaced with a NEX 5N as my main shooter and the difference once I'd been shooting for a while was substantial. I don't mind the extra size (with the 55-210 lens it's pretty big - with a 16mm pancake it's not much bigger than the G11) so it's a great walk-around shooter. Anything bigger than that though, like a full body SLR just felt enormous. The only SLR I've found that I wouldn't have an issue with is the new little 100D.
I have found that you can't really buy the NEX-5N anymore. But you can get the NEX-3N. And with a base 16-50mm lens it's easily within my price range. Around $550. I'm pretty sure that is the model after the NEX-5N. And I quite like that camera. It looks nice, is a nice size and has the interchangeable lenses as some people have told me I should be getting. Not for now but if the future if I ever want to venture out I have the options to do so.
The camera I have does not have to be pants pocketable. Just able to be easy to put in a bag and "it's a great walk-around shooter" is what I am after. And it's a better price then the RX100-2. Honestly I'm not 100% happy with that camera at that price point. But that NEX-3N really interests me. Thanks so much.
What are you going to do with the camera? Bothof these are for some one more serious about photography. If you are just taking vacation snapshots you should look at the SIZE o the camera. Get one that fits in a pocket.
About the 600D SLR, this is just a body, what lens would you get to go with it? The lens is FAR more importent than the body. Heck, et a used 400D for $150 and I doubt anyomne will know wich body you used bit they can see which lens you used in the final image.
These expensive cameras do NOT take better pictures, they allow a photographer more options. If you don't care about this you can sve some money and more importantly have a smaller camera that you will actually take with out and use.
One othe question. About how many shots per month do you take?
Are you shooting RAW images or JPG images and do you plan to shoot RAW format. If not then why pay for a camera that can do that?
Finally the most important question: What is "wrong" with your current camera? Is there a problem with the images? If you can clearly state a problem it is easy to fix but vaugely wordd problems are not so easy to fix. Justsaying "I want better pictures" is not enough. But if you say you need a faster handing camera because you tend to miss the action, well then you need an SLR. Maybe you want to shoot in poor light with no flash? Be specific.
Yes I am looking closely at the size of the camera.
And I'll go into some more detail with the camera I have (Which I have to return one day, I just have it on an indefinite loan)
1. The sensor size is a little small (I think). Compared to some other cameras they take more of a photo. Like at times I wish I could get that little more in the sides of each photo. Sensor issue I think.
2. Low light photography is garbage on this camera. I know very low light will always be bad no matter what camera, but for this camera I have even with half decent light or a really cloudy day and there is defo some noise there in the photo. I'd like to be able to take some decent photos at night. As it stands walk into a really well lit area at night and boom lower picture quality because no sun. But I think a better camera would fix this.
I have never shot in raw before. I'm not even sure the camera I have used will do raw. I never bothered to investigate that to be honest.
What I want to do is have a camera I can take around the place and also one that is good enough to make a photo coffee table book with. I don't take photos every day. Really only when I go out. But when I do I will take like 250 each day I am out. Can say that from experience as I took that many each day in Melbourne with the little camera I am borrowing now. Those photos are ok. Well some of them are good. The night time ones are well . . . the points above describe that pretty well. So how many a month, hmmm probably 3-4 days per month of 250 a day. I don't have too much time to take lots of photos. But when I can I can go a little crazy on the photo taking.
If you need anymore information from me, please let me know. Not sure if I have given you the problem detail you need.
The differences between the RX100 and the RX100-2 probably aren't a big deal for you. It got a connector for an external flash, wifi and NFC. The sensor apparently got a bit of an upgrade too. But it's the same lens and roughly the same body. In my mind, the 500$ RX100 gives you more for your money.
I think Sony is a good camera brand. They haven't been recognized much at the pro end of the spectrum but lately they've been coming out with some good compact cameras. Like the RX100 and also the nex line which is similar to the 4/3 cameras in that they are interchangeable lens cameras but without a mirror so they are smaller. Though the nex has a larger sensor than the 4/3 cameras. They make great sensors, actually Nikon uses Sony sensors in a few of their cameras, I think Olympus does as well. Most of the high end Sony lenses are designed by Zeiss which are quite highly regarded. I've heard some say that the ergonomics and the menus systems on the nex line can be a bit confusing at times.
If you want to complicate things further you might want to look at the Nex 3N it's a very small, can change lenses and has a large APS-C sized sensor (same size as the t3i). For 450$ you can get it with a good zoom lens that's retractable so the whole package is fairly small.
I'm not too familiar with the 4/3 system. I'd go with Nex over it as I tend to shoot in low light and I like a shallow depth of field look (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shallow_depth_of_field). Both are areas in which the nex has an edge over 4/3. So I can't really recommend you any models.
As for future proofing, it really depends on what you want to do with your camera. If you see it more as a tool to document things and take snapshots rather than an artistic medium and tool, I don't think you'll be gaining much from a camera with interchangeable lenses. If you don't want to learn a lot on photography and just spend time taking pictures you might as well save your money and get a smaller camera that's just made for a more casual shooter that just wants to point and click. But if you see taking up photography as a hobby, maybe an nex or a 4/3 camera would be better suited for you.
Thank you very much for all of that information.
"Like the RX100 and also the nex line which is similar to the 4/3 cameras in that they are interchangeable lens cameras"
I thought the RX100 was a fixed lens camera?
And I hear you loud and clear. I need to put some serious time into learning how to take a proper photo and think of it as art and not just a tool for getting a photo. Sure I think I can take a photo, but I bet the ones I have taken to a professional eye are pure garbage. I realise a better camera is just gives you more options to take a better photo and you need better skill/subject matter to get that photo. I understand this quite well as I write song lyrics and music. I have for years now. And in that realm, it's not what you use, but how you use it that matters. The same few words or sounds, but in a different order or creatively used can make all the difference. And I would assume the same applies to a camera. Go get creative with the photos, learn how to use what you have a lot, and you'll take better photos.
In saying this, I would like to get into photography. It would possibly fuel one of the things I've always wanted to do. Food photography. I do cook for a living and have realised the food I cook looks not too bad, but the photos I take of it are complete garbage. Almost to the point, I'd not serve the dish up based on it's photo, but in real life it's fine. But that is an aside, as that would probably need some special pro camera to do that well, I have no idea, so I want to just start small here.
So after saying all of this, I think the NEX-3N is probably what I want. I have options in the future, and I do want to step it up in the future or have the option to do so. Looks like I'm going to try out the NEX-3N in store to see if I like it
