ponyman: I don't recall Hasselblad and Rolleiflex users bemoaning the lack of viewfinders. Personally I dislike having to peer through a tiny box. I remember cursing many times during the days when viewfinders became fashionable and I missed shots due to persons passing in front of my camera as I pressed the shutter. I much prefer being able to see what is going on around me and being able recompose accordantly, or be able to follow the subjects path and taking the photo as it aligns with the area in it's surroundings as I wish it - something I found very difficult to do through the tunnel vision a viewfinder provides.
Don't know about your Rolleiflex, ponyman, but my Rolleiflex (well, anyway, it was my Rollei until my wife and I separated and she got custody: lost wife & Rolleiflex all at the same time) certainly did have a viewfinder. You didn't hold it up to your eye and stare straight ahead; you held it pressed to your chest or your belly and stared down into it. Very nice and comfortable it was, too. (Which is why articulating screens on DSLRs should not swing out to the side -- awkward! -- but just tilt back and become waist-level VFs, like the Rollei used to have and like my Olympus E330 [a quite intelligent camera] still does.) What a camera should not require you to do is hold it out in front of you at eye level, with no support. (Unless, of course, that's what you like to do... Why am I going on about this? There seem to be enough others griping about the missing VF. I'm going back to the locker room.)
lbpix: Good attempt Sony but for me this is another 'almost perfect' compact. Deal breaker - no viewfinder. Availability of a plug in EVF would have sold it for me. I need reading glasses and much prefer a VF with dioptre adjustment. However good the LCD is it isn't good enough to replace a real viewfinder - optical or electronic.
"the view screen is the way people used to take photos a 100 years ago" ... with their cameras mounted on tripods! Not held at arm's length in front of them like an army of sleepwalkers. That sort of works for people using their phones to send Aunt Agatha a picture of the really terrific-looking hamburger they're about to eat. Not so much for photographers using real cameras to take real photographs.
So I'm in lbpix's camp. Took one look at the very nice-looking RX100, noted the absence of viewfinder (or connection for an accessory VF) and sighed: alas, I'll have to wait for the next best-camera-ever.
...for the thoughtful and generous feedback. Of course, I'm pleased to have scored high in the challenge, but that it's led someone to go on to my not-very-heavily-trafficked Web site is especially gratifying. (If anyone else wanders into this thread, please do take a look.) Again, I appreciate all your kind words and encouragement.
Would have had this in the top 5, not just the top 35. (Maybe the soppy title dragged it down, but the picture -- and the kid -- is nifty.)
Looked like the winner to me... Still does.
Get a weekly update of all that's new in the digital
photography world by subscribing to the Digital Photography Review