Realistically I wanted the A6500 but I didn't have that sort of budget. As I was replacing my SLR with whatever I bought I wanted the ability to switch lenses if I needed to, and potentially use my old Pentax lenses, which I have been able to with a very cheap adapter.

I did seriously consider a compact and did look at a number of them, and some micro 4/3 cameras, a Panasonic something or other being one of them.

And size wise the A6000 just fits in a cargo short pocket, if that's any help.

I've sworn by my Canon S95 as my small camera for the last few years. Does everything you'd want it to do (OK, it does everything I'd want it to do, no doubt you will have some arcane requirement which will discount it, on account of it not being able to interface with a ColdFusion database, or something), and it's small.

What mobile do you have? Worth considering one that fixes some or all of those points?

I also hear a lot of good things about the Sony RX100 - specifically the mk3 if you want to save a lot of money over the mk4 and 5 and not shoot 4k video.

Not sure taking pictures indoors is particularly arcane, but it's successor the S120 does increase the max ISO from 3200 to 12800 so might be worth considering.

OnePlus2, but there are none that fix ergonomics even if they could give acceptable performance (of which I'm dubious).

Looking at the RX100 range you're right there'd definitely be no advantage in mk4, and even comparing mk3 to mk2 it's not clear if there's £160 worth of difference (£85 after cashback at Wex).

I don't know a lot about them but I think the step up involves faster optics... do you take indoor shots much? I usually go for the "I'm buying this once, I'll just get the fancier version to make sure" in this sort of situation.

Nothing where image quality matters that much, but something that can cope with twilight would be handy.

The mk3 does have a newer processor and ND filter which may help prevent blown highlights.

There's also the Canon G7 X mk2 which is similar price and features, and the Panasonic Lumix TZ100 which is better in some ways and worse in others. No doubt combining the three would give me just what I'm after. :/

So it shall always be, I fear. Until Corbyn gets in and we go full communist and just have one National Camera.

Any idea which looks nicest to use? If they're all much of a muchness that should be the key thing I suppose.

Probably the Canon, but not sure - I'm going to check and make sure I'm not overlooking others, but avoid making up my mind before I can have a fondle.

Park Cameras is v close to the Fitzroy Tavern :-)

Drunk purchase!

Indeed. :)

So, turns out the Canon G7 X mk2 was actually my least favourite to hold and use the controls for. The RX100 mk3 was a bit better, but had a similar system. I didn't see a Sony A6xxx to try, though the place was very busy.

Anyhow, the Panasonic TZ100 is what I went for - controls felt better - similar to what I'm used to from Nikon, even if actual operation is something I'm getting used to; a lot of functionality and options crammed into relatively few controls, but it does appear to be sufficiently customisable, and the viewfinder is acceptable (no EVF is good, compared to optical, but it wasn't as bad as the review suggested).

So, when do we see some examples of what it can do?

A few moments after you search for "TZ100 sample images"?

If you want examples of what I can do with it, you'll have to wait.

Indeedy, I want to see your pictures.

On the topic of photos, how do people show their photos online these days?

Facebook doesn't seem the right place. I put stuff on instagram when on holiday (or when doing something vaguely interesting), but that's usually a quick on the spot job rather than for photos I may bother to process the raws of, since I like it to be chronological. Does anyone still actually use Flickr?

If you mean for family/friends where you want to share personal photos, I just use a shared Google drive folder.

For things I want to exhibit (though that's probably too grand a word) I've used artfinder.

A chap at work a while back mentioned something about selling photos to stock art websites, where they pay a nominal fee for your pictures. It's never something I looked into, but sounds interesting.

I was thinking more the exhibit/show off/get some exposure. Where Flickr maybe still is the best generic place maybe.

Flickr being Yahoo puts me off. They seem about as secure as a rickety shed.