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.
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.
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
Zvonimir Tosic: I personally think camera manufactures have gone bananas, suffering from "I also must have a huge lineup" inferiority complex. And then they blame smartphones for their lack of common sense.I thought Pentax was last gone crazy with the K500, "produced" by dumbing down the good basic product of K30/K50, just to shave off $50-100 or something like that. And it saturates and complicated its own line not with no real choice at all.Fuji is doing same: X-E1 was already a good value, but with X-M1 I already started rolling my eyes recognising the trend, and then ... tada!, an X-A1. More dumbing down of the same camera, same sensor, same everything. Nikon is doing same with both APS-C and FF, Canon is doing same. Olympus does same, but from the bottom up. What is given to users is not a real, genuinely good choice, but rather an artificially fabricated and overproduced handful of compromises in a dumbed down same camera that loses all its value the moment it's shipped.
You are posting nonsense, dude. Apple doesn't sell cameras. They sell cellphones. Yes Apple makes money with just one model, but so does Samsung with a dozen models. So what? The dozen versions doesn't seem to hurt Samsung profit.
It's not the same. It's $200 cheaper than X-M1. That means anyone who couldn't afford it $800 might think again at $600. That's more money in Fuji pocket.
Zvonimir Tosic: Fuji exhausting itself and users with utterly modern concept of dumbing down of the same device for market saturation, while selling us apparently 'a retro-looking appeal'? A contradiction in its best.
So I guess there's be an X-B1, made of recycled biscuit tins and with EVF, but no back LCD?
And an X-C1 too, made out of recycled cardboard and with EVF but with no flash, flash shoe, and no mode dial?
Well,. according to Zvonimir, best cameras on the market right now are Pentax Q, Q7, K01, Pentax MX1. And just by sheer luck they happen to be all Pentax branded.
rxbot: Big competition for Ricoh GR, NikonA, Sony RX100, NEX series and Samsung NX300. With the new 23mm this is going to even compete against Fujis own X100 and x100S.
It's competition against Nex-5R. With zoom lens, this is not even close to RX100 in size.
Anadrol: It's too bad that the Sony Z1 doesn't have stabilization !
The videos do have electronic stabilization.
This is a video camera (and even then special purpose video camera). For stills "large pixels" cameras like that will be a big failure.
For those interested, this is what I wanted to see:
Sony Xperia Z1 vs Nokia Lumia 1020
Xperia Z1 Nokia 808 PV and HTC One mini
Get a weekly update of all that's new in the digital
photography world by subscribing to the Digital Photography Review