Sephirotic: i'm the only one that over the 10mpx mark doesn´t care anymore for more resolution, but only on actual pixel-dot size? Larger the better?
This camera has a pp of 1.6 microns. Roughly the same of a standard 10mpx P&S.
i'm the only one that finds ridiculous to see how all the companies are dropping the mpx race and rolling back their maximun resolutiom even on prosumer/enthusiast market to the 10~12mpx mark while sony alone keeps running alone increasing their resolution and sacrificing IQ at iso 400+? Look at the noise of this camera at ISO 800, is awfull.
Not alone i find ridiculous this posture of Sony, i see no point at all in this camera at this price point. i can have a larger sensor (4/3), virtually the same body size with much better overall IQ, specially at low light for a LOWER PRICE POINT (either pen, or gf3).
What's the point of this camera again? Another Sony camera im passing. Try decreasing your resolution next time and i may consider buying from you guys again
Of course not, yes, we still need some studio comparisons for proper low-light evaluation. My point still stands:
At such small pixel dot, and relative large sensor area, the lens will have to have suberb optics performns to delivery sharpness enough, specially at bordes at such high apertures. Center sharpness is fine at f2.8, but over f5, specially at bordes, we can clearly see that things are getting dull. Those extra 20mpx are being wasted even at perfect light conditions.
JesperMP: The sample image DSC01011 @ISO2500 looks just as good as or maybe a bit better than my S95 @ISO800. To me, it seems that RX100 delivers on the sensor IQ at high ISO.
Really excited about RX100. Shame I cant really justify replacing my S95 so soon.
Btw. I just hate it when people refer to RX100 or S95 or similar cameras as "point and shoot" cameras. It is a derogative term that does not acknowledge that these cameras gives you as much control as a "higher end" DSLR do. To my opinion RX100, S95 etc. are superior to the typical entry-level DSLR with the kit lens mounted.
Your maths are wrong. Don´t compare the sensor area, only the pixel size.
RX100 = around 1.7 microns by pixel (still need the official numbers)Regular 12mpx 1/2.3 P&S = 1.5S100 = 1.8 S95 = 2.03J1/V1 = 3.8612mpx m4/3 = 4.2418.1mpx APS = 4.29Canon g1x = 4.16Canon G12 = 2.03Sony nex7 = 3.9Panasonic LX5 = 2.0
Of course, PSNR also takes in acoout current technology implementations, differenct manufactures of different generations have different performances. STILL MORE than 20%-30% increase in physical size of individual pixel can hardly be compensated by only enginering improvements in cameras from only 1 or 2 years apart. Specially this day and age where we have still new releases of cameras of different brands with 3yr old sony 12mpx sensors.
Even if this sony sensor is brand new, top notch enginerring, i can hardy believe it'll ouperform cameras with pp roughliy 30% larger. We still need more low-iso samples, tough. (no to mention the airy-disk issue at F4+ at such size
LowlightShadows: Interesting camera, but 20 MP is too much pixels even for this slightly larger sensor. Translated to the proportions of a APS-C size this would be 66 MP and 40 MP for a four-thirds. 12 MP combined with larger sensor on a compat camera would be way enough and more interesting i'd say.
Completely agree with you, sony is racing alone the mpx race, everyone has already dropped it, shame on you.
Thomas Richter: Dear Sony,
Make such a camera with 6..10 megapixel and I'll buy it blindly!
I have always waited for the "perfect" S95, a slighty bigger sensor (aroung 1/1.6-2/3, or even 1) camera,but without losing compactness (c'mon, g12 and G1x are monsters, can´t be considered a "secondary" or backup camera to put on a jeans) with a varifocal lens non-interchangeable lens with some decent range (in the margin of 100mm) and big aperture (2.0+). We always knew it was possible, sony has proven it, but ruined it with it's high price point and the already discussed overkill pixel count.
And pretty much all manufactures are rolling back to the 10~12mpx line because is the best compromisse between printable size/resolution to noise, even on larger sensors
While 6mpx i think is a little overkill to a "big" sensor like this 1", 10 or 12, would be the ideal. like nikon did. (not saying nikon is a perfect camera but) 1.6 microns for each pixel is TOO small. Ok, you do gain some extra resolution at base iso, but only on perfect light cituations. YOu'll have to sacrifie on price to have a great glass good enough to render such small pixels all over the frame (in the cornes this camera still doesnpt have glasse good enough fully opened, tough). I don´t know about you guys, but i like taking pictures at iso 800~1600 with my m4/3, i can´t find myself doing that with this kind of camera and won´t have it as a pocketeable backup for such high price tag, i mighty if it was around 500. or better at higher iso. Just look at the barrels picture at iso 1600, water-paint.
i'm the only one that over the 10mpx mark doesn´t care anymore for more resolution, but only on actual pixel-dot size? Larger the better?
CameraLabTester: There is just so much limited QUALITY that one can cram into a typical1/2.3" (6.17 x 4.55 mm) SENSOR that camera companies use (Canon, Nikon, Sony, Olympus, Panasonic, Samsung, etc)
The selling points are then waged on features, menus, bells and woots.
For a sensor size of 1/2.3" (6.17 x 4.55 mm), the best balance is just 5 to 7 Mp!
But because camera companies have zombied buyers into thinking more Mps is more good, they don't DARE do a 5 or 7 Mp modern camera.
A 5 Mp or 7 Mp P&S with a 1/2.3" (6.17 x 4.55 mm) sensor can set outstanding standards, but they won't do this... (maybe Leica, because they think OUTSIDE the mirror box...)
Each following year, revisions in sensors make then better than last generation in a pure PSNR account. So comparing a 4 years old 7mp camera to a 14 mpx contemporany is not a good thing, it doesn´t imply a camera twice worse in noise.
So is it true, that enthusiast larger pixel-dot cameras, aren´t 7mpx, they are 10, wich in fact, if you analise comparing to entry level APS, has a decent quality at low base iso. (LX5, s95, s100, G12, etc).
Also, i've found this article posted by camera lab tester, not very cientific. The artifcacts of looking like a "blurry aqua" background seens to me much more related to pure optic perfomance to this fable "theoretical minimum size for a light spot as 1.5 micron".Proof of that is the enthusiast compacts cameras at 10 mpx with more than proven exceptional quality outside the dslr world.However, each new gen in the last years, SONY INSIST IN KEEP THE MPX race, ALONE may i add. I will never buy a sony camera while others options wich SMALLER PPI
David Zamora: Hmm, is it me, or are these images pretty darn soft at 100% crop? I'm not liking the IQ too much.
Yet the S95 has HALF the resoltion of the RX100, while the 1" sensor isn´t double the size of the 1/1.7, (1.7x larger). This means the S95 has actualy LARGER INDIVIDUAL pixel size. Sony hasn´t dropped the Mpx hype, i donpt get it. I want to see 100% image crops to compare it with others fully manual fixed lens compact camers.
i've missed and always wanted something like this for years now. A intermediary sensor betwen APS-C and 2/2.3 with compact body, fixed quality clear lens (altough i would expect a little bit extra zoom) for years.
But the only reason i wanted one of these, as a backup to my DSL, would be, apart from the size, for the reduced price. At 650USD this becomes pointless to me. i'd rather have a 2/3 sensor and a tid bit more of zoom (5x) for 500usd. 650 USD is coming close to my my GH2, with hardly half the quality of it. I'd rather buy a GF3 for less than 400 usd.
Also, 20mpx? less than 1.5dot pix? That's even smaller than regular high quality 12mpx compact! What's the point of making the big sensor then? Bokeh? Hardly. Come on sony, you never learn? All the other companies STOPPED bumping megapixels in small sensors. Why won´t you?
bussyboy: I'd love to see sample photos in truely dark environments - especially given the f1.8 apeture - I need to know how it shoots in a darkened nightclub!
Probably bad, since it has a dot pix similar to any 12mpx P$S
vtinitus: i had never planned to use sony equipment exclusively, but whenever i want something new, sony provides the best overall solutions for my needs. i'm very happy with my a55 and lenses (including some decent minolta glass, which is technicaly the same breed) and this little could be the ideal replacement for my aging dsc-h20. I also like its lines - let's hope it keeps up with its promises.
I have a suspect the IQ will be smaller than the S100 or even the LX5, specially at higher ISO.
jgoring: Looks like there's space... A little tab of double sided sticky foam, and my hot shoe optical view finder will fit right between the two microphones. Looks like Sony just obsoleted the S100.
so what that the sensor is 2.5x bigger? The dot pix is ridiculous small, smaller than the S100 and in par with any regular 12~14mpx 2/2.3 camera.
I'm the only one hat would rather have a bigger dot pix instead of those nearly pointless extra "8mpx" (or should i say, only 800pixels in horizonta?.)
Shutterbug108: I am hoping they will put a 1-inch sensor into a bridge camera with a big zoom lens.
i'd like that too, but i also think the 1 inch would need a lens too big. Maybe a quality sensor, 1/1.6 or 2/3 with 12mpx could make a good balance. And a 25-450 zoom would be more than enough for most pratical cituations.
Maybe using the Panasonics pancake zoom design could help reduce the lens size? That 14-42 lens is amazingly sharp.
But the only reason i wanted one of these, as a backup to my DSL, would be, apart from the size, for the reduced price. At 650USD this becomes pointless to me. Nearly the same price of my GH2, with hardly half the quality of it. I'd rather buy a GF3 for 350 usd.
Also, 20mpx? less than 1.5dot pix? That's even smaller than regular high quality 12mpx compact! What's the point of making the big sensor then? Come on sony, you never learn? All the other companies STOPPED bumping megapixels in small sensors. Why don´t you?
What i'm really curious about is the performance of the new DIGIC5 processor regarding to video encoding. In the preview it was mentioned that the compression now have intraframes, that is a good step up, but what always ruined the 5D for video was it's poor downsample that used lineskiping and not all the pixels of the sensor. The videos of the 5D may have that nice booke film-like look, but it also had awfull aliasing, moire, a blurry look, and a real video resolution of less than 700 lines. that is worse than HDTV. Of course we are talking about a PHOTOGRAPHY camera here, not a camcorder, but still, with al the hype of HDSLRS this is a very important thing that should be tested ASAP! It'll mean a market share taken back from panasonic Gh2.