Michael Doleman: Having just taken delivery of my RX100, I'll try to add my two-cents to the pile, here. Background for me is that I've never owned a Sony before, and it replaces my Oly XZ-1. What mystifies me about so many of the comments here are the things people point-out as "detractions" from the camera: e.g., "slow" aperture at the longer focal lengths, the "poor" macro focusing distances, even lack of a VF. It's like complaining that a Toyota Prius can't accelerate from 0 to 60 as fast as a Porsche. There's just no point to the comparison. You don't buy a camera like an RX100 if photographic versatility is your priority. You buy it because you have a need for a very small camera with the best image quality possible, given "normal" shooting conditions. You always have to give something up to get something else, and in this case you're giving-up on broad versatility in order to have a tiny camera with great IQ. Sony has done a great job, here, and basically created an entirely new camera class.
Not sure I agree they've created a new class, but it does seem they may have hit a home run in the high-end compact class.
Frenske: Interesting little camera. I hope they will improve the lens range since you can't change lens. 28mm is a bit too tele for me when going on holidays and I shoot a lot of architecture and landscape. A 24-120mm would be great if it doesn't affect the IQ.
For wide architecture and landscape shots, try image stitching software like Image Composite Editor. It really does a remarkable job. I won't claim that wide lenses are obsolete, but these days you can get the same composition with two or more non-wide images, and some post processing. Provided your subject's not moving of course... ;-)
dannyboy5400: Let me get this right. They are going to charge similar prices for an equivalent 24-70mm 2.8 when it uses LESS OPTICAL GLASS. Oh, but you pay more for less but it is lighter. Yeah, a lighter wallet.
What costs in any of these hi-tech products is design, development, precision tooling, and number of finishing and machining steps. Raw material costs are probably just a few percent of final price. So while the glass and metal in a smaller lens may be a few dollars cheaper, the same amount of engineering time, and factory floor time, is required regardless of size.
Looks nice... hope the video codec is revamped from the XZ-1.
From a technical standpoint, what additional hardware (if any) is required to implement RAW? Isn't it mainly software... with an additional production unit cost of about .01% ?
I'll be okay with Oly JPEGS but I too don't see why RAW wouldn't be included.
Hmmm... I recall the car companies got their knuckles rapped by the FTC for trying to do something similar. In fact I believe they not only have to make parts available, but also shop manuals and other service information. I wonder what the parallels might be with this situation.
Seems like a greedy grab on Nikon's part in any case, and the exact opposite of what professionals would want from their camera company. The shop in town might get your gear fixed today in time for tomorrow's shoot... the service depot two states away, not so likely.
What Hans-Helmut said! Does this contain hidden improvements and bug fixes, or is it of concern only if one is operating a DMW-MA1 (whatever that is)?
These seem like intelligent upgrades; I hope it retains the sharpness and image quality of the S90/S95. I expect it will as Canon would be nuts to squander the S95's class-flagship status.
Biggest win in my eyes is zoom during video, that was a show-stopper for me about the S95.
Hate to be a curmudgeon but I hope the GPS can be turned off so it doesn't add to battery drain... I don't have much use for this feature.
Great action pic.
I had to chuckle at the DPR message below the photo... "This photo is marked as: *Safe". I think it goes in the "Don't try this at home... or in your Cessna" category, myself!