Liz Z.: I would have liked to see the original RX100 in the drop-down comparison options, especially in low light, where the RX100 II is supposed to have a noticeable advantage.
Please add olympus XZ20 and Pentax MX1 too
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.
Or you can plug the camera to a computer and charge it while transferring files. Or you can plug the camera in a car with car charger while driving.
The pros far outweigh the cons.
This is simply stupid con that DPR has invented out of thin air.
Zigadiboom: This review is very good but it can be summed up by the following:
Next time Usain Bolt wins the 100m he should be given a silver medal.
RX100 in imaging-resources studio shots easily out resolved XZ10. If DPR shoots the new scene with XZ10, you will see RX100 20 MP would do the same here.
The old studio scene was not credible as it was too small. That meant the studio scene was only reflecting close focusing performance of a lens, not real world performance.
So no you're wrong. RX100's 20 MP sensor and lens combo is better than XZ10.
Marvol: From the introduction "The RX100 II has a list price of $750 - $100 more than that of the original RX100"
From the review "Sony promised better low light performance, and it has indeed been delivered. Is it $150 better?"
That, DPR, is a cheap shot and well below the belt. You of all people should know not to compare introduction prices with current market prices. You can make any camera look good or bad by comparing it to cherry-picked current prices of any other model.
That is even before considering the fact that the "$150" does not only go towards better low light quality, which the reviewer also conveniently ignores there.
This sounds like the reviewer was looking for something to justify the pre-concluded Silver Award. Very unprofessional.
Marvol has a valid point. Previously simon joinson himself commented that comparing MSRP of new camera to street prices of old camera would make all new cameras look overpriced.
gavp: It does indeed look very capable in low light. Probably far less so in bright light - a base ISO of 160 and only 1/2000th on offer will potentially be quite limiting. Something like an LX7, with ISO80, 1/4000th and built in ND filter certainly trumps it easily there.
Also, you would need a separate charger only when you are buying an extra battery. You can buy the charger when/if you are buying the battery.
sensibill: I really wish DPR had just stuck with the old test scene. You've totally nuked the comparative database of years of other cameras (even if it wasn't perfect). The new scene has a lot of wasted space and lacks detailed skin tones, faces, specular objects, etc. in the center. Why relegate all the useful subjects to the outer thirds of the scene, where many lenses lose sharpness? Almost all you have in the center are black and white patterns.
The old studio scene was bad. It was too small that required the shots to be taken from close distance. This introduced several problems
(1) Forcing DPR to shoot at F8 when most 50mm lenses are sharpest at F5.6. Even that didn't resolve the focus and DOF issues and several cameras looked worse due to focus shift /lens issues (look at all older Sony shots taken with 50mm F1.4 before they switched to SAM lens, and all are focused back at queen of hearts).
(2) Most compact and cellphones lenses are not optimized for close focusing performance. That made some compact cameras (including RX100) looks far worse than they would perform in real life. That meant the studio shots were not representative of real world shooting experience.
That old studio scene needed to go, and I am surprised DPR took THIS long
Greynerd: A valiant attempt by Sony to match the G1X but spoilt as usual in true Sony compact fashion by too many pixels when the light dims. The razor sharp image of the Queen's head if you select the G1X on the noise page, as the Sony descends into mush when you raise the ISO is pretty compelling. Especially as the ISO performance of the enormous sensor in the RX100 is supposed to offset the slow fully zoomed lens.
I won't judge detail from noise page, as G1X looks sharper than full-frame D4 -- so does D4 have too many pixels too?
We don't have G1X images with the new studio scene. It was already known that RX100 images in the old studio scene are not representative of real world usage, as the old studio scene was too small, requiring the shots to be taken with very close distance. Not all lenses (especially not RX100 lens) are optimized for close focusing performance.
Let DPR shoot the new studio scene with G1X and I bet RX100 will outresolve it, at base ISO.
tokugawa, in the conclusion they mention $150 number. That was comparing street prices of old camera vs retail prices of a new camera.
Niala2: Fujifilm X-M1 seems sooo much better in all comparaison shots with the RX100 II (RAW, JPEG, Low-light, Day-light, all ASA settings)...
So either I made a mistake, or it is truely so and not "tolerable" that this is not pointed out allready directly in the review.
Because I beleve the Fujifilm X series are not even full frame, and have (excellent) interchangable lenses...Where am I wrong ?
You are wrong because you are comparing apples vs oranges. RX100 II is a pocket camera with smaller 1" sensor and built in zoom lens. Try fitting X-M1 in pocket with the kit (zoom) lens attached to the camera.
Second, images of X-M1 were taken with the $600 35mm F1.4 lens. That (camera + lens) is a $1500 combo, twice the cost of RX100 II
Third, with the kit lens that comes with X-M1, I won't be surprised that RX100 takes better mages even in low light, at wide angle. RX100 lens at wide angle is F1.8, more than 1 stop faster than X-M1's kit lens that is F3.5 That would mean you would need something like ISO 4000 on X-M1 when ISO 1600 would work on RX100
Mediterranean light: Jan. 2012 DPR review of Nikon 1 J1:"[...]we can't help feeling that with the J1 and V1 Nikon has missed an opportunity to offer a product that fulfills that other great un-met point-and-shoot need: a small automatic camera that works well in a wide range of lighting conditions, from bright exterior to dim interior. [...] Also, although we try not to be influenced by a retail price when writing our reviews, it's impossible to ignore the fact that at street prices of around $600 and $800, respectively (with 10-30mm lens kit), the J1 and V1 are entry-level mirrorless cameras that cost significantly more than several higher-end alternatives. Got a 67% overall score.
Informative, perhaps. But how can one understand the above, more so when the 1 System (same sensor size, first to use it) has an extra advantage: interchangeable lenses? Nothing against Sony, which is a great product. I'd just like to understand the meaning of 'unbiased'.
What a weird comment. So what you are basically saying is that since RX100 with 1" sensor received 79 score, Nikon 1 with 1" sensor should receive similar score too. If we follow that logic then every APSC camera ever made must have the same score, every FF camera must have the same score as all other FF cameras made in history, and all cellphones must have the same score as all other cellphones made in history as long as the sensor is same size.
sensibill: The UI is fiddly and various shooting restrictions are annoying, but my primary user complaint is how super tiny the thing is. Did it really need to be this small? Could've made it a bit wider and incorporated a proper control wheel. The X20 (for less money) blows this away in terms of ergonomics and style. The AG-R1 grip is mandatory, so is a leather case.
In the RX100M2's defense, it does take unbelievable images. I'd say this is more than a full stop above where Micro 4/3 was in the 12MP days, easily. I'd bet the 1" 20.1MP gives the new 16MP models a real challenge, too.
I find the WiFi almost useless. Sure, you can send images to your phone with no problem, but the images get resampled down. Sending to PC involves dealing with firewall and UDP issues, and while I was able to connect, the transfer itself is slow, and there's no automation ala smartphones sending to DB. To do that, you might as well load it off SD or USB cable.
I thought PlayMemories app has the option to download original full-size images. At least with QX100/QX10 PlayMemories app has that option
When image size "Print" is selected, HTC one images don't seem to be aligned. Please fix it.
Clyde Thomas: How is it that Sony, the sensor maker, looks BY FAR worst of all?
Other phones using the same 13 MP sensor seem to be doing fine. Z jpegs are just outright crap.
Z is real crap. When are Z1 shots coming?
ErikvdH: One more thing, if you bring back the watch, somewhere in the bottom right corner please...
You can't bring back the "watch" as it will look totally different (tiny) in this much bigger scene.
Wow Phase One can resolve printing dots on the playing cards
ianimal: Ain't the Sony SLT auto-focus limited to only f/3.5 aperture? And the Canon can in theory use any aperture? I just asking, don't blame me :)
"Sony SLT auto-focus limited to only f/3.5 aperture?"
In video mode. This doesn't apply to liveview still shooting
spidermoon: The Fuji X-M1 looks terrible, soft and muddy At high iso, the K500 have better raw than the Nex6, despite having same sensor.
It's a fact. Look it up.
Pentax applies RAW noise reduction at ISO 3200 and up. That means comparing noise grain at ISO 3200 and up is invalid, as one camera is applying raw noise reduction.
Pentax applies RAW noise reduction at ISO 3200 and up