RX100 concerns...

Started May 19, 2013 | Discussions
salla30
Senior MemberPosts: 2,452Gear list
Like?
Re: RX100 concerns...
In reply to dood77, May 20, 2013

Here's the link for the batch resizer:

http://imageresizer.codeplex.com/

Best thing is you just select multiple files then right clight and there's an option for RESIZE. No software interface in the way!

also a very useful tool is the Bulk Rename Utility which allows you to rename multiple files and use wildcards and all sorts and even rename folders in batches.

Excellent tools, both of them.

BTW... The Light Room thing is addictive and time consuming, lol.

Watch out for hours slipping by as you tweak light levels and colours, especially if you want to work on a whole series of images¨.

 salla30's gear list:salla30's gear list
Sony RX100 Sony RX1 Sony RX100 II Sony Alpha NEX-5N Sony E 35mm F1.8 OSS
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Toccata47
Senior MemberPosts: 2,240
Like?
New eyes in old light
In reply to dood77, May 20, 2013

Camera technology as advanced to the point that your definition of low light (as seen by your oly) may no longer be quite so low. Likewise, flash technology and processes have advanced too and flash is alot more useful than it was several generations ago.

The rx100 has an advantage in low light over almost every other compact camera, due to the amount of  light it's larger sensor gathers relative to competitors. That said, if you prioritize low light capability (are we talking about af, iso or both here?) above of size, you might find something like a fuji x100, ricoh gr or nikon coolpix A to offer a significant advantage.

As to file size, well, yes compression does negatively effect image quality but that degradation may not be obvious as the low resolution of the files you send is low enough to cover any gaps.

Again, a used x100 (amazon warehouse, for example) would be somewhere in the ballpark of a new rx100 and would offer you better af and iso in low ligh with smaller files in a bit bulkier package.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Dennis
Forum ProPosts: 14,113
Like?
For low light ...
In reply to dood77, May 20, 2013

dood77 wrote:

Very important is good pictures in low light, which my cell phone and the Olympus really cannot do

But it seems to have better low light ability then say Canon s100/s110, fuji xf1/x20, etc., etc.

For good low light photographs, you want to put as much light onto the sensor as possible.  This is accomplished by a fast lens, which increases the light intensity (how much light hits any portion of the sensor) and a larger sensor.  If you take a look at the chart on this page:

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/2367736880/roundup-enthusiast-zoom-compact-cameras/2

you'll see lens apertures expressed in terms of "equivalent" apertures.  Basically, this is taking into account the sensor size, acknowledging that f/2.8 putting light onto a bigger sensor may be as good as f/1.8 light at a greater intensity onto a smaller sensor.  (In practice, you'd be shooting at a higher ISO at f/2.8 but the larger sensor might be less noisy at that higher ISO).

If that explanation is too in-depth, don't worry about it.  Just look at the chart and realize that the lower you are on the vertical axis, the better for low light.  You'll see that the RX100 is the champ up through about 60mm equivalent.  Above that, the LX7, XZ2 & X10 enjoy a modest benefit.

Image stabilization also comes into play *if* you're shooting something that can be shot at a slower shutter speed.  (Often you need a fast shutter speed to minimize subject motion blur, but when you don't, image stabilization can help).  All of these cameras have IS; some a bit better than others.  The RX100 has been tested to be somewhat subpar in this regard, but I've had no concerns.  Probably because I'm not pushing it to try to get 4 stops or anything crazy because I have little use for such slow shutter speeds.  More typically, I'm dropping down as low as 1/30s and not at full telephoto.

The LX7 is often available at a nice price and is a tempting alternative.  It's a bit bigger, and in the end I opted for the more compact camera.  Already, I think there are times I've carried the RX100 somewhere in a pocket that I might have left the LX7 behind - not often, granted.

Personally, I think that if you choose any of these cameras that show up near the bottom of that graph, you'll be doing much better than you'd do with any of the cheaper tiny sensor digicams and while they may not handle every low light situation, you'll be doing the best you can without springing for a larger sensor (larger camera, larger price) model.

1.  20 megapixels is going to use up a TON of hard drive space.  I really don't need all these megapixels.  I am guessing I can turn down the megapixels on the camera e.g. to 12 to take photos-- will this significantly affect the image quality of an online image?

I haven't tried camera-generated jpegs, but should be fine.  The other option is to use software like Lightroom, import raw files, then immediately (after any tweaks you want), create jpegs of the desired size and toss the raws.

and the RX100 images beat images from other cameras even at 4 x 6 on my computer screen.  Is it necessary to have the 20 mp to do this?

No.

Would shrinking the images down on e.g. photoshop eliminate the high picture quality I am buying the camera for in the first place?

No.  Obviously, you're getting 1MP of resolution instead of 20MP, but nobody's going to see 20MP on a screen anyway.  The real strength of the RX100, IMO, isn't the resolution of the sensor, but the size of the sensor.  And that holds when you downsample.  (You mentioned a couple of times that low light is important; you never mentioned 20x30" prints, so you want a big sensor and fast lens).

3.  Said differently, by the time I might take images at e.g. 12 megapixels, then shrink to 1024 x 768, would I just be better off with some $100 Nikon coolpix (which of course wouldn't perform as well in low light!-- you see my struggle).

No.  Unless shooting in daylight all the time (and even then, the RX100 does better with dynamic range, color depth and some limited capacity for shallow depth of field.

- Dennis

-- hide signature --
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Ron AKA
Veteran MemberPosts: 4,875Gear list
Like?
Panasonic DMC-LX7 Probably Better Fit...
In reply to dood77, May 20, 2013

I think your needs better fit the Panasonic LX7 than the Sony RX100. The LX7 has a significantly faster lens for low light conditions, and a smaller sensor. The large sensor of the RX100 is not going to benefit you as you are interested in smaller image files and web publishing does not take much. The cost of the LX7 is less, but the physical size is bigger.

 Ron AKA's gear list:Ron AKA's gear list
Sony RX100 Epson Stylus Photo R3000 +1 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
DJF77
Regular MemberPosts: 385Gear list
Like?
Re: For low light ...
In reply to Dennis, May 20, 2013

If low light is your priority,  why not pick up a used Fuji X100? You'll get one for the same price (if not lower than an RX100), what you'll also get is a much bigger APSC sensor with amazing lowlight ability and a reasonably fast F2, pin sharp lens. You will lose the zoom and will have to suffice with a fixed 35mm eq focal length.... just a thought.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
DFPanno
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,012Gear list
Like?
RX100 is more camera than you need.
In reply to dood77, May 20, 2013

A little like buying a Porsche to go shopping.  Nothing wrong with that but it is a lot a capability gone to waste.

 DFPanno's gear list:DFPanno's gear list
Sony RX100 Sony RX1 Canon EOS 5D Mark III Sony Alpha 7R Canon EF 50mm f/1.2L USM +13 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Edmund Dorf
Senior MemberPosts: 1,207Gear list
Like?
I Do Not Recommend Downsizing Your Pictures
In reply to DFPanno, May 21, 2013

My goal is to produce the best quality photos I can. I do not worry about space used by the files. As someone said a few posts above, hard drives are cheap these days. I just ordered a 4 TB drive from Newegg for $150.00. I can put a lot of pictures and a lot of videos on that drive.

I was looking at photos recently that I took at my high school reunion in 2000. I believe they were 2 megapixels and that was state of the art back then. I sure am glad that at least I have the original 2 megapixel photos and did not try to save space by downsizing them.

Whatever camera you end up with, I suggest striving for the best quality photos and videos that it can produce and not to try to save space on your hard drive by downsizing them.

Let us know what you decide.

-- hide signature --

Currently shooting:
Fujifilm E550
Fujifilm HS25exr
Olympus PEN E-PL1 with Kit zoom lens, Olympus M.Zuiko
17mm F2.8, Olympus M.Zuiko 40-150mm, Olympus 45mm F1.8, Canon FD 50mm F1.4, Olympus Zuiko 50mm F1.8, Pentax 135mm F2.5, Panasonic 20mm F1.7, Panasonic 14mm F2.5.
Panasonic DMC-GH2 with the kit lens, Panasonic 45-200, Panasonic 14-140mm, and all of the lenses that I have for my Olympus PEN E-PL1
Panasonic HC-V700 camcorder
Sony DSC-RX100
Sony DSC-TX7

 Edmund Dorf's gear list:Edmund Dorf's gear list
Sony RX100 Fujifilm FinePix HS50 EXR Fujifilm FinePix F900EXR Canon EOS 60D Olympus PEN E-PM1 +6 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
DavieK
Contributing MemberPosts: 695
Like?
Re: I Do Not Recommend Downsizing Your Pictures
In reply to Edmund Dorf, May 21, 2013

Most web images only need JPEGs, and the RX100 has some very good features when you switch it to shoot JPEGs, and these only get better if you decide you can be happy with smaller files. You have a choice between 20M, 10M and 5M in JPEG size.

First of all, you can shoot RAW+JPEG and select 5M. This produces about as large a JPEG as you will need for any web posting, and a raw file you can process if you need to.

But this locks out CLEAR IMAGE ZOOM and DIGITAL ZOOM. You get these if you shoot JPEG only. Why have two types of digital zoom in addition to 3.7X optical zoom? The answer is that the first stage, CLEAR IMAGE ZOOM, works by making a larger interpolation directly from the raw data, something that is significantly better than a simple digital zoom which just blows up the image. You get 2X additional zoom using this, so the lens is extended to go to 200mm equivalent, and you can actually get useful 20M files, perfect 10M files and exquisitely sharp 5M.

So, set 10M or 5M and this function, and you get a far more versatile camera for your web shots which will outperform anything else on several fronts.

If you also enable the second option, DIGITAL ZOOM, you get a further 2X - taking the lens to a 400mm equivalent. This also maintains the full file size, and it really is not worth doing at 20M. But at 5M size it's near-perfect, just a little softer than the exceptional sharpness the camera is capable of.

So, if you want web images, use the fast FUNCTION button to switch to JPEG only, have your image size set to 5M, have the zoom functions enabled, and you get a great versatile camera. Switch back to RAW and you lose the zoom extension but get exhibition quality files you can process for prints at 20 x 30".

Finally, when using JPEG only, you can have DRO+ enabled (it also works with raw on the RX100 but only affects the JPEG preview, or simultaneous JPEG). This function corrects and tames many small exposure errors or lighting problems. JPEGs made with DRO+ enabled (try Level 3 manual, or Auto, for natural looking results) are often as good as the best you could manage from raw conversion.

It's your decision whether or not to shoot, or keep, big files. The RX100 is many cameras rolled into one.

David

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
sbszine
Regular MemberPosts: 464Gear list
Like?
Re: Please advise as to your photography style, goals and percieved needs..we can assist...
In reply to dood77, May 21, 2013

If you're interested in low light performance and don't need to zoom, also look at the Ricoh GR and maybe the Nikon Coolpix A. These are a little step up from the RX100, but the downside is they are larger and can't zoom.

 sbszine's gear list:sbszine's gear list
Olympus Tough TG-2 Olympus OM-D E-M5 Olympus PEN E-PM2 Panasonic Lumix G 14mm F2.5 ASPH Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 14-42mm 1:3.5-5.6 II R +4 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
dood77
Forum MemberPosts: 94
Like?
Re: For low light ...
In reply to Dennis, May 21, 2013

3.  Said differently, by the time I might take images at e.g. 12 megapixels, then shrink to 1024 x 768, would I just be better off with some $100 Nikon coolpix (which of course wouldn't perform as well in low light!-- you see my struggle).

No.  Unless shooting in daylight all the time (and even then, the RX100 does better with dynamic range, color depth and some limited capacity for shallow depth of field.

- Dennis

-- hide signature --

Great point!  Of course!  The other characteristics that you list would also make the photos better.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
dood77
Forum MemberPosts: 94
Like?
Re: For low light ...
In reply to DJF77, May 21, 2013

DJF77 wrote:

If low light is your priority,  why not pick up a used Fuji X100? You'll get one for the same price (if not lower than an RX100), what you'll also get is a much bigger APSC sensor with amazing lowlight ability and a reasonably fast F2, pin sharp lens. You will lose the zoom and will have to suffice with a fixed 35mm eq focal length.... just a thought.

Absolutely fanastic suggestion, great camera, exactly the kind of images I'm looking for.  A few concerns with *this* one though, that I wouldn't have specified above:

1.  I have to be able to hand the camera to my wife and it has to function to let her take a picture or two.

2.  Really looking for pocketable and this is stretching the limits.  Such a great cam though maybe I could make an exception.

3.  I know he gets flamed on here alot, but Ken Rockwell says the Fuji X100 is *not* for beginners.  And gives some details as to why.  I am definitely a beginner and am beginning to wonder if even the RX100 is too much (see DPanno's post).

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
dood77
Forum MemberPosts: 94
Like?
Re: I Do Not Recommend Downsizing Your Pictures
In reply to DavieK, May 21, 2013

DavieK wrote:

Most web images only need JPEGs, and the RX100 has some very good features when you switch it to shoot JPEGs, and these only get better if you decide you can be happy with smaller files. You have a choice between 20M, 10M and 5M in JPEG size.

First of all, you can shoot RAW+JPEG and select 5M. This produces about as large a JPEG as you will need for any web posting, and a raw file you can process if you need to.

But this locks out CLEAR IMAGE ZOOM and DIGITAL ZOOM. You get these if you shoot JPEG only. Why have two types of digital zoom in addition to 3.7X optical zoom? The answer is that the first stage, CLEAR IMAGE ZOOM, works by making a larger interpolation directly from the raw data, something that is significantly better than a simple digital zoom which just blows up the image. You get 2X additional zoom using this, so the lens is extended to go to 200mm equivalent, and you can actually get useful 20M files, perfect 10M files and exquisitely sharp 5M.

So, set 10M or 5M and this function, and you get a far more versatile camera for your web shots which will outperform anything else on several fronts.

If you also enable the second option, DIGITAL ZOOM, you get a further 2X - taking the lens to a 400mm equivalent. This also maintains the full file size, and it really is not worth doing at 20M. But at 5M size it's near-perfect, just a little softer than the exceptional sharpness the camera is capable of.

So, if you want web images, use the fast FUNCTION button to switch to JPEG only, have your image size set to 5M, have the zoom functions enabled, and you get a great versatile camera. Switch back to RAW and you lose the zoom extension but get exhibition quality files you can process for prints at 20 x 30".

Finally, when using JPEG only, you can have DRO+ enabled (it also works with raw on the RX100 but only affects the JPEG preview, or simultaneous JPEG). This function corrects and tames many small exposure errors or lighting problems. JPEGs made with DRO+ enabled (try Level 3 manual, or Auto, for natural looking results) are often as good as the best you could manage from raw conversion.

It's your decision whether or not to shoot, or keep, big files. The RX100 is many cameras rolled into one.

David

Cool this makes the camera less daunting!

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
dood77
Forum MemberPosts: 94
Like?
Re: I Do Not Recommend Downsizing Your Pictures
In reply to Edmund Dorf, May 21, 2013

Edmund Dorf wrote:

My goal is to produce the best quality photos I can. I do not worry about space used by the files. As someone said a few posts above, hard drives are cheap these days. I just ordered a 4 TB drive from Newegg for $150.00. I can put a lot of pictures and a lot of videos on that drive.

I was looking at photos recently that I took at my high school reunion in 2000. I believe they were 2 megapixels and that was state of the art back then. I sure am glad that at least I have the original 2 megapixel photos and did not try to save space by downsizing them.

Whatever camera you end up with, I suggest striving for the best quality photos and videos that it can produce and not to try to save space on your hard drive by downsizing them.

Let us know what you decide.

-- hide signature --

Currently shooting:
Fujifilm E550
Fujifilm HS25exr
Olympus PEN E-PL1 with Kit zoom lens, Olympus M.Zuiko
17mm F2.8, Olympus M.Zuiko 40-150mm, Olympus 45mm F1.8, Canon FD 50mm F1.4, Olympus Zuiko 50mm F1.8, Pentax 135mm F2.5, Panasonic 20mm F1.7, Panasonic 14mm F2.5.
Panasonic DMC-GH2 with the kit lens, Panasonic 45-200, Panasonic 14-140mm, and all of the lenses that I have for my Olympus PEN E-PL1
Panasonic HC-V700 camcorder
Sony DSC-RX100
Sony DSC-TX7

Hey there, thanks.  I think if that is the standard then yes I could simply buy more hard drive space.  Not too much trouble on that one now that I think about it...

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
dood77
Forum MemberPosts: 94
Like?
Re: RX100 is more camera than you need.
In reply to DFPanno, May 21, 2013

DFPanno wrote:

A little like buying a Porsche to go shopping.  Nothing wrong with that but it is a lot a capability gone to waste.

I hate to say it but I'm starting to think you may be right!

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
dood77
Forum MemberPosts: 94
Like?
Re: RX100 concerns...
In reply to dood77, May 21, 2013

dood77 wrote:

Hey there, I'm a complete photography novice but am looking for an upgrade to my 10 year Olympus Stylus 300.

Very important is good pictures in low light, which my cell phone and the Olympus really cannot do

I considered a compact interchangeable lens system, but probably would never even buy another lens, and I am in no way ever going to carry a camera bag.  If I ever decided to go this route, I'd probably go full dSLR, but it will probably never happen.

All I ever wanted was something that made great pictures in low light.  I really want it simple, and don't need anything else.  All of my searching has led me to the RX100, although it is probably actually waaay more camera than I need.  But it seems to have better low light ability then say Canon s100/s110, fuji xf1/x20, etc., etc.  I suppose I might ever actually convert a RAW file to a real picture on my computer but would probably use almost exclusively the jpegs made by the camera, and maybe I'd print a picture out now and then, but I really am just looking for something that makes great photos to put on web, send to friends/family, screensaver etc.

So my concerns with the RX100:

1.  20 megapixels is going to use up a TON of hard drive space.  I really don't need all these megapixels.  I am guessing I can turn down the megapixels on the camera e.g. to 12 to take photos-- will this significantly affect the image quality of an online image?  e.g., on this website and others there are sample images from this camera that on my computer screen are like 4 x 6 inches, and the RX100 images beat images from other cameras even at 4 x 6 on my computer screen.  Is it necessary to have the 20 mp to do this?

2.  Even with my 10 year old Olympus stylus 3 mp camera, I typically shrink photos to 1024 x 768 or 640 x 480 on photoshop (like a 10 year old version of photoshop) prior to sending them-- nobody wants to open ten 20 mp images through their email, if it's even possible to send such a thing.  Would shrinking the images down on e.g. photoshop eliminate the high picture quality I am buying the camera for in the first place?

3.  Said differently, by the time I might take images at e.g. 12 megapixels, then shrink to 1024 x 768, would I just be better off with some $100 Nikon coolpix (which of course wouldn't perform as well in low light!-- you see my struggle).

Please go easy I have been researching but am a complete photography noob so any help is appreciated.

Thanks!

Much thanks for all the incredibly knowledgeable and friendly input from everyone in these threads... truly impressive!

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Toccata47
Senior MemberPosts: 2,240
Like?
Re: For low light ...
In reply to dood77, May 21, 2013

dood77 wrote:

DJF77 wrote:

If low light is your priority,  why not pick up a used Fuji X100? You'll get one for the same price (if not lower than an RX100), what you'll also get is a much bigger APSC sensor with amazing lowlight ability and a reasonably fast F2, pin sharp lens. You will lose the zoom and will have to suffice with a fixed 35mm eq focal length.... just a thought.

Absolutely fanastic suggestion, great camera, exactly the kind of images I'm looking for.  A few concerns with *this* one though, that I wouldn't have specified above:

Hey, that's what I said 2 posts up!

3.  I know he gets flamed on here alot, but Ken Rockwell says the Fuji X100 is *not* for beginners.  And gives some details as to why.  I am definitely a beginner and am beginning to wonder if even the RX100 is too much (see DPanno's post).

If you can point the camera and press the shutter you are qualified to use the x100. You can keep it in full auto and reap the benefits of using new technology that matches your task. If you decide to take a more active hand in the control of the camera the x100 up to the task and is far more responsive than most cameras (main controls are external, easy to see rather than multi click-menu driven alternatives).

When it was released the x100 was a nightmare. It has changed dramatically. Rockwell's review may not account for this.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Antony John
Senior MemberPosts: 1,098Gear list
Like?
Re: RX100 concerns...
In reply to dood77, May 21, 2013

A sample from my RX100 taken at the beginning of the month in Casablanca. RAW file with a little manipulation in LR4. Sized at HD resolution. Not sure how it will come out on this site but, whilst not technically perfect (if only and BTW cropped from portrait view) - and maybe not aesthetically overly pleasing - gives some idea of my limited expertise with the camera.

-- hide signature --

AJ
Carpe diem quam minimum credula postero

 Antony John's gear list:Antony John's gear list
Sony RX100 Nikon D90 Nikon D600 Olympus OM-D E-M10 Nikon D810 +18 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
elliottnewcomb
Senior MemberPosts: 6,951Gear list
Like?
Re: RX100 concerns...
In reply to dood77, May 21, 2013

you said

All I ever wanted was something that made great pictures in low light.  I really want it simple, and don't need anything else.  All of my searching has led me to the RX100, although it is probably actually waaay more camera than I need.  But it seems to have better low light ability then say Canon s100/s110, fuji xf1/x20, etc., etc.  I suppose I might ever actually convert a RAW file to a real picture on my computer but would probably use almost exclusively the jpegs made by the camera, and maybe I'd print a picture out now and then, but I really am just looking for something that makes great photos to put on web, send to friends/family, screensaver etc.

If money is not an issue, with no hesitation, I say get the RX100. It is the best pants pocketable compact in existence  which means: you will have it with you when opportunities occur. You will get excellent low light results.

If not making large prints, it will give you excellent images at 10mp, or even 5mp.

Disappointingly, it has no wireless, so, to send a picture, my solution is:

use a micro sd card in an sd adapter in the camera.

move the pic from camera to your phone that uses micro sd card: (take card out of adapter, put into phone slot, copy pic to gallery, send in email).

If that sounds like a frequent pain, then you should look for a camera that has wifi.

The forum will help you as you move up in capability with any Sony you buy, and the other brand forums will help you as well..

-- hide signature --

Elliott

 elliottnewcomb's gear list:elliottnewcomb's gear list
Sony Cyber-shot DSC-S85 Sony Cyber-shot DSC-R1 Sony RX100 Olympus Stylus 1
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
dlorde
Junior MemberPosts: 29
Like?
Re: RX100 concerns...
In reply to salla30, May 23, 2013

Lightroom does have batch export and batch application of settings, so you can export a batch of photos resized to disk or web, etc., and you can apply a bunch of settings to a selection of photos; but you're right, it is easy to get totally absorbed in getting an image just-so and find that time has flown by.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
gulffish
Senior MemberPosts: 2,176Gear list
Like?
Re: RX100 concerns...
In reply to dood77, May 24, 2013

Unreal that this thread still has legs, why?

-- hide signature --

Kirk

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads