Joe Coolpix: I'm not liking the trend for the RX100 to get thicker. As a guy who likes to throw his P&S in my front jeans pocket, the original RX100 at 36mm was appealing. But the ii and now iii have grown in thickness a couple mm each time. At this rate, the RX100ix in 10 years will be another inch thicker. I like the Canon S trend better, with each successor getting thinner until this last S120 bumping up to 1.14 but still thinner than the S90's 1.22 inches. We're talking pocket cameras here not cars and each new one should get smaller not larger.
I couldn't agree more. The RX100 was just pocketable. The mk II not so much. The mk III iis thick. It is definitely NOT pocketable anymore. In fact, at this rate, it's two iteration away before it catches up withe the full frame A7. Sadly, I'm not joking.
Seriously Sony, this is supposed to be a pocket camera. Please get rid of the gimmicky tilt screen and the pop-up viewfinder, and slim it down. Please make this camera functional, not cool.
Would you please include in your review how much better the new flash position may be in practice? Theoretically, being on axes, it should eliminate some of the nasty shadows I get with the Mk I and Mk II.
Sadly, I also get red eye with the Mk I and Mk II. That may have gotten even worse with the Mk III. Oh well, this is a compact camera (that once was pocketable but alas not anymore....)
Also, what makes this camera so much thicker? Is it the new lens or is it that useless pop-up viewfinder? (Sorry, nobody under 30 knows / cares what a viewfinder is.)
We know the useless flip screen added 2mm to the thickness.
For various reasons (the list is very long,) I cannot be on an Apple. If I want a light and powerful Windows laptop for image editing that has good battery life, is there anything that can match the MacBook Air and MacBook Pro in terms of performance? I’ve been looking for one, but even models like the newest Razer Blade 14 and the Alienware 14 are lagging behind on various performance benchmarks. Not to mention how they look (the Alienware and MSI GT70 Dragon would be simply embarrassing to pull out at a business meeting, and they are huge and heavy…)
Still no Auto ISO when you use flash... Puzzling.
aerorail: thom hogan
If you're looking for the best image quality you can produce from a shirt pocket camera that has a great deal of flexibility, then buy the RX-100. Or the RX-100II if you think the tilt LCD, WiFi, or EVF option will be useful. I've been carrying this camera around the world with me for over two years now. It's never disappointed me for compact-type camera usage. Never. That's saying a lot.
I couldn't agree more. Diamond award from me. As dpreview admits, this is the clear class leader. I'm somewhat confused about their "silver award"...
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?