Does this camera have any image stabilization?
The pictures in the Gallery that I like the best are the ones taken with the Zeiss 24/1.8 lens. The sharpness and color rendition are the most pleasing to me.
TJGKG: I have a question about lenses for this camera. Since I basically use only 35mm lenses for the type of shots I take, which would be better: the Zeiss T* FE 35mm f/2.8 which is a full frame lens or the Sony 35mm f/1.8 OSS Alpha E-mount Prime Lens which is an APS-C lens? Even though the Zeiss is a FF lens, would I still get 35mm or would it be cropped to 50mm thus losing the wider angle. If I use the Sony 1.8, would I get the 35mm angle? I'm trying for the best quality but I really need the wide angle. Thanks.
Thank you all very much for your help!
I have a question about lenses for this camera. Since I basically use only 35mm lenses for the type of shots I take, which would be better: the Zeiss T* FE 35mm f/2.8 which is a full frame lens or the Sony 35mm f/1.8 OSS Alpha E-mount Prime Lens which is an APS-C lens? Even though the Zeiss is a FF lens, would I still get 35mm or would it be cropped to 50mm thus losing the wider angle. If I use the Sony 1.8, would I get the 35mm angle? I'm trying for the best quality but I really need the wide angle. Thanks.
Does this camera have a low pass filter? If it does, can I shut it off?
It is bad enough the first version of this camera did not get a gold award when it clearly deserved one. But now the MkII version, which is supposedly better than the original, also gets a silver award you really have to question the ratings. Granted these are high marks but as someone who owns the first version of the camera, I can tell you it is extraordinary. Not only are the pictures fantastic, but the movies are incredible. In fact, the movies are far superior to movies on my other gear: the Nikon D7000 and the newly acquired Ricoh GR. The in camera charging is a nuisance but I bought an external charger for my spare battery so that issue is negated. I took this camera on vacation and it was just a pleasure to use with fantastic picutres.
Kodachrome200: I bought one. I have been loving the hell out of it. I did try a coolpix and i found the autfofocus and user interface to be just unusable. I found this to not only be the best pocket size camera ever but so good it is hard to believe it is as good as it is
much has been made about the 1/3 stop iso advantage of the coolpix a so for everyones edification iso 6400 well handled in raw http://www.flickr.com/photos/kodachromewolf/9036967643/in/set-72157634119481540
also if youd like to see some more Ricoh samples i upload pretty high res to flickr http://www.flickr.com/photos/kodachromewolf/sets/72157634119481540/
Really fabulous pictures! They make me want to go out and get the GR! I just wish you had the exposure information on each picture. Pictures are very sharp. Actually the black and whites look even better than the colour shots. I'd like to use this camera for travel. My shoulders can't support carrying around a big DSLR and gear any more.
After all this, the Sony RX-100 still scores higher! Whilst both got a silver award, the Sony got a 78 and the Nikon a 75. Interesting. From the review I would guess the GR is going to score even lower.
WOW! Excellent shot. Thanks for sharing!
Paulo Ferreira: $47,000/61=$770 per picture! Cheap! Either the Beatles are not what they were or the photos are not what they should.
Why pay anything for these photos? They aren't rare or behind the scenes. They are of a concert at Shea Stadium that pretty much any Beatle fan has. There is nothing special about them. They aren't even autographed or anything. So why waste money?
Douglas F Watt: Well after the RX-1 has proven a market for this type of camera, perhaps Nikon is aiming at folks that can't afford the high price of that camera. Does that make it an RX-1 wannabe? Or if the RX-1 is, as some have suggested, a Leica wannabe, does this mean that this camera becomes a Leica wannabe wannabe?
Or does this post just prove that I should have had more coffee this morning before hitting the blogosphere?
Maybe Nikon should have had more coffee before they set that insane pricepoint on this camera!
TJGKG: Why would I get this camera when the more flexible G1X is available and much less expensive? In fact, the updated G2X(?) is probably right around the corner that will address any shortcomings of the first generation. A 28mm lens is not really going to be all that useful. And maybe 2.8 is not as bright as a prime should be. And is Nikon studying pricing from Sony?
The G1X is generally acknowledged as taking some of the best pictures in the compact class. How can you possibly state that it is not capable of the IQ of this camera? And if I had one focal length to choose from, it would be 35mm. The DX 28 works out to about 18 which is way too wide. Look at Nikons sample shots.
Why would I get this camera when the more flexible G1X is available and much less expensive? In fact, the updated G2X(?) is probably right around the corner that will address any shortcomings of the first generation. A 28mm lens is not really going to be all that useful. And maybe 2.8 is not as bright as a prime should be. And is Nikon studying pricing from Sony?
I voted for the RX100. It has produced spectacular images since I purchased it. Took it to the UK and never missed my D7000-especially its bulk. It was a pleasure to use, easy to configure and also took astounding movies. I can only imagine what the RX1 will be like. But I will have to imagine because I don't have three grand lying around!
rusticus: do not understand the hypethe films is much better the HX9VPhotos and I would never want to do with the RX100 - for photo I take APS-C or MFT
It sure sounds like you don't understand much more than just "hype". You claim to use only APS or MFT yet your gear is listed as an X10 which has a smaller sensor than the RX100. The rest of your posts sound just as ignorant as this one.
photog4u: USA TODAY calls the RX100 “Groundbreaking”. Pogue at the New York Times calls the camera “a Revelation”. Butler at dpeview calls it a “Spectacular piece of engineering” with “TARDIS-like” design.
Not awarding the RX100 the Gold is an egregious error and should be corrected immediately!
So basically you are saying that all cameras given the gold award are perfect? It's version one of a ground breaking series. Sony obviously did its homework, but nobody gets everything right in any version one. Omitting ND filter is not a mortal sin. A slow on/off isn't either. Neither of those minor issues detract from the fact that this is an oustanding camera in a small footprint. Yes it is expensive, but so is the P7700 and S100 for what they have to offer.
LaFonte: very tempting, specs wise. but somehow i don't like any of the provided samples too much. Still no doubt this puts every other compact to shame, but still not enough reason to upgrade from xz-1, as it seems.
Wow what excellent pix! Thanks for sharing. I am looking forward to taking my RX100 to England in November for some shots that hopefully will be just as memorable. Really looking forward to carrying that around as opposed to the D7000 and all the gear.
Valentinian: It seems a good compromise between portability and image quality: a camera small enough to be all the time in your pocket and capable of taking decent photos 90% of the times
The RX100 takes more than just "decent" photos.
Hentaiboy: No one seems to be acknowledging the price of this camera. At almost twice the price of an S100 it SHOULD be good. But is it twice as good? No. That's why it doesn't deserve gold.
Actually it depends upon what you define as good. To me Sony has made a game changer and those always cost more in the beginning. This camera essentially makes an S100 obsolete for those "prosumers" looking for a camera that takes outstanding pictures whilst allowing the user almost total control. Sony has packed a great sensor, lens and AF system into a tiny body. The S100 did the same thing a while back and charged a premium over smaller sensor cameras too. Is that camera worth twice as much as a 1/2.3 sensor when the RX100 is only 50% more expensive than a 1/1.7 sensor yet the Sony has a sensor 3 times larger? Again this is a game changer and if you are using that as a criteria, then the RX100 deserves a gold because there is no need for an S100 or P7700 anymore with the RX100 and G1X out there. And future versions of these cameras will only get better. The 1/1.7 cameras are mature.
An excellent and fair review. As an owner of the RX100, I pretty much agree with everything in the Conclusion. The score is representative enough for me. It matters not whether the camera gets a Silver or Gold Award. I think Sony did a great job in giving us a camera with so much power and functionality in a small footprint. I think the folks here whinging about lack of an OVF or macro focussing distance (amongst other complaints) need to realise that this is a COMPACT CAMERA NOT A DSLR. It is not meant to go on assignment. It was designed for those who want a lot of control over their shots, high IQ in a small camera. For pros/enthusiasts, it is a second. To that extent the RX100 excells. There certainly is room for improvement: ND lens, higher top shutter speed to name just two. But this is a great first version. I think next year we will see better versions of the G1X and the RX100. But for now, there are some great small cameras out there for tired shoulders and backs like mine.