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.

Good point.

I have a desire to show off my average photos to strangers. Maybe instagram is the best place these days, considering the hashtag system and volume of users. But I like it to be "live" or chronological. Do I need a separate account? No, surely not, I already have one for the cat :$

tumblr seems popular with the *serious* photo crowd.

I don't do social media, I only put photos on my own hosted web site (but link to them from elsewhere). Flickr does weird scaling things that degrade picture quality, plus their links aren't real reliable from what I've seen.

Tumblr? Really?
I always thought it was for memes and kids. Never really ventured on there.

I did a parody called fumblr

http://designartcraft.com/photo/afbp-about.htm