bert01: I think dpreview is being a troll on it's own review just to create controversy. Giving the RX100 the Silver award for being the best in its class makes a mockery of their rating system.
i suppose Daniel is being sarcastic here...
BTW, I love the UI! If you customize your Fn button, you can put everything on there that you need quick access to.
Joseph Mama: I don't understand the complaints about the battery charger. It is WAY easier to charge using any ole random mini-USB cable, rather than drag around a specific battery charger. It makes for a more elegant charging table.For a whopping 18 dollars, you can buy TWO backup batteries and an external charger from @mazawn. This is what I did with my RX100 and the backups have worked excellent.
oh, and if you're not an iDiot, you'll love the NFC!
same here. i charge my RX100II through my phone's charge (if you're not an iDiot, you can do it too.) a lot more convenient than making sure you're not forgetting your outside charger.
it's a Pro, not a Con!
DPReview007: Thinking about it more, this camera is so innovative, so peerless, so amazing for its size, so without competition, pushes the envelop SO MUCH, if this is not a GOLD, what is???
:) i bought one the first week it came out. I also bought the RX100 the first week it came out. yes the price is punchy. but it is punchy for a reason. no competition. still. a full year on. nobody is even getting close.
i think the price is justifiable. yes, it costs as much as a mid range, APS-C DSLR. but it takes just as good pictures. So i don't see why people are complaining.
BTW, I'm not a Sony sales rep. my full frame camera is a Canon, and I love Nikons, too. (Had my D600 not spit oil all over its sensor, I would be on Nikon.) But whenever i touch a Sony camera, it stuns me how much better the functionality is. they are years ahead of Canikon in terms of giving the customer what the customer wants.
Thinking about it more, this camera is so innovative, so peerless, so amazing for its size, so without competition, pushes the envelop SO MUCH, if this is not a GOLD, what is???
This should be a GOLD. Really.
I owned the RX100. I didn't last a year. So I had to buy the RX100II. It's amazing.
I HATE the tilting screen (and the hot shoe, although less so.) It makes the camera bulkier, and its completely useless. This camera should fit into my pocket. The RX100 barley fit in there. The MkII is worse.
Re some of the negatives listed in the above review: the tracking AF is a lot more reliable than on my full frame Canon (Canon's AI servo really blows.) To be fair, given the smaller sensor / much thicker focus plane, it is easier to get it right here than on full frame.
Re the shooting experience, I love it. I put everything I need on the Fn Button. Works really well. Sure, if you are coming from Canikon, it'll be different. But I find it better than Canon's.
The functionality of this thing blows my mind. I wish my Canon 6D could do this much.
What's badly needed is a touch screen that doesn't tilt, and the MkIII will be a real winner.
DEFINITELY A GOLD!
i got my rx100M2 last week. complete with its bulky, really stupid tilting screen and equally bizarre hot shoe:
- number of times i have tilted the screen / will ever tilt the screen: every time i drop it until it break off completely and adds an additional $300 in repair cost to the camera's $750 price- number of times i cursed the Sony execs who made the fattening and really stupid tilt-screen decision: every time i tried to jam the fattened device into my jeans' pocket- number of times i wished the screen was a touch screen: every single time i tried to focus on off-center subjects i.e. a lot
Kudos for the NFC. It works awesomely well (sorry iFanatics, you won't have that. but then you don't have a lot of things every other smart phone user has, and nothing they do have:)
WiFi: one cannot control basic settings: aperture, ISO, shutter speed. only shoot. Really? Really? i think you can also touch focus, which is fantastic.
lens: it is a bit soft. especially if i compare it to my superbly sharp Canon L lenses. i realize it'll never be as sharp as a full frame system. if Sony could improve sharpness, that would be great. probably quite en engineering challenge.
touch screen? nope. in 2013, there is no excuse for this. touch to focus would we SOOOOO nice.
what defines this camera is superb IQ in a POCKETABLE package. Once it's no longer pocketable (unless you are one of those loosers who wears over-sized chinos with running shoes - think 40-year-old virgin...) it looses it's appeal.
i only bought one because my RX100 died of "corrosion damage" (how did that even happen, it never got a drop of water) and was uneconomical to repair.
in summary, this is a good camera with good image quality and a lot of obvious and easy improvement potential (slim it back down, ditch the tilt screen and the hot shoe, add a touch screen.) if Sony implements those, the M3 could be a superb camera. The M2 certainly is just good enough.
DPReview007: OK, so this one was clearly designed by marketing people, not photographers. It was designed to sell, not to take great photos. Two astounding choices:- they crammed 16 Megapixels on a 28mm2 sensor... Ahhhmmm- they crammed a 10x zoom into it...
It'll basically give you the same image quality as a crappy little "super zoom" compact...
Let's hope Nokia, Sony and Google Nexus (i.e. Nikon) will make more intelligent choices when they show their hands later this summer / year.
Thankfully, 2013 will be the year of the real camera phone finally.
As an anecdote, I bought my ex GF a Sony RX100 for her birthday. She complained that her sister had a much better little Sony camera because that had a 20x zoom... The fact that the lens in that 20x zoom camera was slow and its sensor was tiny didn't bother her at all :). Clearly, she would have been much happier with a $200 camera with a soft 20x zoom than with the superb $650 camera she got...
Whatever makes the customer happy. Long live capitalism!
Hmmm, I have never seen a high quality lens that had 10x zoom. The reason is simple. It's impossible to make one.
The sad thing about this camera (from my perspective / for my needs anyway) is that it has a twice as big sensor as the average cell phone camera. But that is completely cancelled out by a high pixel count and a lens that is a stop slower than the lens in an average cell phone camera. The IS should compensate hopefully.
Still, my point is, a lot higher IQ could have been jammed into this device. Samsung opted to please the crowd that understands headline numbers only, and not what makes for high IQ. Which makes perfect business sense.
That's precisely the point. The priorities should be:- large sensor- fast lensThat give you good low light performance (90% of cell phone photos on my FaceBook are taken at parties / in restaurants in the evening / at night.)
As opposed to a large zoom range (and corresponding slow lens as space is limited) and a large Megapixel count (corresponding to small photo sites...)
Sadly, even most tech reviewer sites today quoted the Mpix count and the zoomX number without saying anything about sensor size as if that was irrelevant...
OK, so this one was clearly designed by marketing people, not photographers. It was designed to sell, not to take great photos. Two astounding choices:- they crammed 16 Megapixels on a 28mm2 sensor... Ahhhmmm- they crammed a 10x zoom into it...
How does this compare to the Nikon D600's or D800's uncompressed video output? Is this better? Still worse?
If it is better, how much better and why?
Could this be done on the 6D or is the 6D's buffer too small for this / it's image processor too slow?
huyzer: I hope they come out with Nikon RAW video output. But it looks like they're focused on Canon, and getting that done right, first?
The Nikon D600 does have raw video output out of the box, without having to hack it. Is that not the same as what this is? If not, how is it different?
DPReview007: How does this compare to e.g. the Nikon D600's uncompressed video output? Is this better? Still worse?
Could you please elaborate? Why is the Canon's video "by a massive gulf" better than the Nikon's? Also, I'm not finding any comparison video on youtube comparing the Canons and Nikons. Could you please add a link?
How does this compare to e.g. the Nikon D600's uncompressed video output? Is this better? Still worse?
If this or the Coolpix A had an f1.8ish lens, I would already own one. Hoping Sony or Canon will come out with an APS-C sensor pocketable camera with a faster lens before Christmas. (Rumor has it, Canon may announce one in June?) That RX10 would be nice to see.
Until such time though, my pocket camera remains the RX100. Yes, the sensor is three stops smaller, but the lens is 1.3 stops faster, and it's a zoom lens = not enough of an advantage for the Ricoh GR / Nikon Coolpix A to upgrade. Especially not at the Nikon's list price...
Anybody disagrees? Am i doing the math on this right?
1. Is the 6D better in low light than the D600 Nikon?
2. How much better?
3. Is it better only in JPEG or also in RAW?
4. If it is better, why does DxO Mark have a much higher ISO rating on the D600 (all high end Nikons)
5. (bonus question to DPReview,and for the record, I love you guys) What's the ETA of the full review please?