siberstorm27: These comparisons will inevitably lead to fanboy flamewars here in the comments section, most notably from Nokia and Sony fanboys with little sense and big egos. The cameras, especially on the Nokia, have overblown claims of superiority based on fancy tech jargon. The end result is a mixed bag, and all these phones produce phone quality images regardless. You can focus on the "phone" part without fear of losing much image quality from one phone to another. The Galaxy S4 Zoom, however, stands out as having a unique 10x zoom that you can't approximate on other phones. It's also way thicker.
"all these phones produce phone quality images regardless. "
Well, duh. Yes these are phones and "produce" phone quality images. Is your full name Captain Obvious?
OneMoreComment: Sony RX 100 opened the way to 1' sensors, IMHO the "G 17" for Canon and "P 7900" for Nikon will be equipped with 1' inch sensor
le_alain, G16 includes a zoom lens. J1 does not. Try putting the zoom lens on J1
So did 2005 R1. That had a bigger close to APSC size sensor. RX100, however, is truly a pocket camera and appears to be directly inspired by Canon S90 series.
zodiacfml: Excellent and now with a hot shoe, but the price killed it for me. The price is too close to a Ricoh GR though Sony still deserves to price it that high.
No, RX100 has a faster lens. The bigger sensor doesn't make the slower lens faster. What it does is allow the sensor to capture more overall light, so high ISO is better on a larger sesnor. In this case GR has bigger sensor and RX100 has faster lens so these two things negate each other.
However, RX100 still has image stabilization so overall RX100 would take better lowlight photos as you can use lower ISOs and still keep it handheld.
yabokkie, is there are a reason why you keep ignoring the other part of my sentence? GR doesn't have image stabilization. RX100 does. Combine faster lens and image stabilization, and you will need to use 2 stop higher ISO on GR. GR is not 2 stops better than RX100
But don't forget rest of my comment. GR doesn't have image stabilization. Combined that with slower lens, and I am sure RX100 beats GR even in low light. You can use ISO 800 on RX100 in a low light scene that will require ISO 3200 on GR
Faster lens plus image stabilization.
Nikon 1 are not a compact cameras. They are interchangeable lens cameras and should be compared to other interchangeable lens cameras; all of them (except Pentax Q) have larger sensor than Nikon 1
topstuff: I see no reason for the camera to exist while the Sony RX100 is on the market.
I can think of no possible reason to choose it. This is a good thing - it will make Canon work harder and raise their product standards.
Its gotta be said, the reasons for getting a compact camera are getting fewer and fewer, so they have to be exceptional.
I am pretty sure it doesn't outsell RX100. Not even close. It's still $550 camera. The street prices of RX100 M 1 are around the same.
According to flickr stats most popular p&s camera on their site is RX100
GR at 28mm is F2.8. RX100 at 28mm is F1.8, so GR doesn't really have any lowlight advantage, despite the larger sensor.
Add to the fact that RX100 has image stabilization. GR does not. That adds one more stop advantage to RX100
Add wifi, tiltable LCD, 60p video, zoom lens, all missing in GR
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 resolves more detail, has better dynamic range, lower noise, and focuses faster.
No contest here.
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.
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