I would hope that this has Google's attention, in the sense that they are seeing a huge opportunity in turning Picasa (or some variant) into a true Photoshop (or at least Elements) alternative.
Limitations of technology and physics dictate that compromise is necessary; anyone's "perfect" camera will be a reflection of what factors are most important to them. For me, portability and convenience are key, but I also want full manual control, reasonable photographic versatility, and excellent IQ. My Sony RX100 is very nearly perfect, for me, as it is. If I were able to do so, however, without compromising much on size, I'd add the following: full weather sealing, a usable VF (wouldn't have to be great--just usable), a couple more externally-accessible manual controls, slightly faster lens, and perhaps an even larger sensor. Price it at <$1,000 and I'll buy it immediately.
Is it just me, or is Canon's output in anything except their DSLR line increasingly yawn-worthy? As a former S-series owner & fan, this is disheartening. I'm now a Sony RX100 owner and have to say (hopefully without going too far down the road with the hype bandwagon) that it's now difficult to view these tiny-sensor enthusiast compacts as anything but irrelevant. My assumption was that Sony just happened to be lucky enough to be first to market with a large(ish) sensor in a pocketable form factor. I expected the next round of compacts from Canon, Samsung, and Panasonic to all sport larger sensors and be very significant upgrades to each respective model series... Instead: minor refreshes only, right across the board.
regehr: Quick questionAll the specs say 1" and then state 13mm ish sensor1" = about 25mm making this sensor about the same (a little bigger) than my 60d.
All the reviews seem to indicate that this has a smaller sensor than a G1X or aps-c dslr.
Am I missing something about the measurements of this sensor?
I believe the 1" figure is a diagonal measurement. Of course it's smaller than APS-C--by a lot. Point is, it's a far larger sensor than any other "true" compact. Roughly halfway between 4/3 and the sensors in other "enthusiast" compacts like the Canon S series, Oly XZ-1, and Panny LX series.
Adam Arwinowski: The most important thing is the camera effect. And this is a picture. My wife complains about Sony RX100 picture quality, and this is not her first camera. So I started testing and comparing with: Canon G11, G12, Canon A720 IS, the old Canon S45, Sony NEX-5 and FUJIFILM X10. I had a chance to have them in my possession for a longer time. Later I showed all pictures to some people, not indicating a camera. Excluding night pictures, always the picture from RX100 was chosen as a worst. Pictures were good after “the Photoshop treatment”, but Photoshop cannot add missing details.My conclusion: if you need average pocket camera, with a lot of functions, easy to use, and you don’t care about the price – buy it. If you want to spend some extra bug for better than average quality, stay away from it. There are better choices. Do not listen to Sony agents – a lot of them are here.
Yeah, this is some serious nonsense. I've owned a Canon S95, Lumix LX3, Olympus XZ-1, and now the Sony RX100. The RX100 has capabilities that markedly exceed all the other cameras, assuming you have any idea at all what you're doing. I've done a bit of my own "testing," comparing RX100 shots to nearly identical shots taken with a Canon 5D and Fuji X100. Given the size of the RX100, it actually stands-up very well for images taken under typical shooting conditions. Such was never the case for any of the other, small-sensor compacts. And--sorry--but a statement like pictures "...were good after `the Photoshop treatment'..." leads me to suspect you may not be entirely clear on how to use your camera.
mytake: My prediction is that this sensor will be trounced by Oly Em-5...just saying.
Hey mytake: I can't resist the spelling lesson, as regards your "grammer" lesson. I think you might have wanted the word "grammar," unless you were going for some sort of odd, vernacular reference to someone's grandmother.
So... slow news day at DPReview, eh?
wildeye: One problem with many of these small cameras seems to be battery life. How are people finding the RX100? I only got 105 shots from the first battery charge, but then I was enjoying the excellent detail the camera provides by previewing a lot. Hope the capacity will improve in future charges?
I would agree that this issue is probably the most glaring shortcoming of the ultra-compacts. I honestly don't know if it's a technological limitation thing, or simply the manufacturers saving cost by using lesser materials.
At $35, I think the Franiec grip to be a far better investment. I've found this sort of protective "shooting" case to be not only unnecessary, but obtrusive as well, for the ultra compact cameras. With my Oly XZ-1, I used the Franiec grip and an Op/Tech neck lanyard for carry-around shooting, and then just stuffed the whole business into a light, belt-clip pouch, for protective stowage and transport. I'll use the same system for my RX100.
cllcanada: Exterior charger will ship around 10/15/2012 according to Sony Canada...Expensive!
...or, go on eBay and score a third-party model, right now, for, like, ten bucks... Just sayin'...
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.
Tony Bromirski: Anyone know how long it takes Apple to release their RAW image support drivers for new cameras, specifically this unit the Sony DSC-RX100? I have Mac OS X v10.6 (Snow Leopard)
The I only see 3 Sony DSC models on Apple's list... ● Sony DSC-F828 ● Sony DSC-R1 ● Sony DSC-V3(Via their support site: http://support.apple.com/kb/HT3825 )
How long? In my experience, Apple is almost always last to the party with their RAW updates. I waited for months after acquiring my XZ-1, and suspect I'll have an even longer wait for my new RX100. It's one of the things that constantly makes me question my choice of Aperture for import & asset management.
Michael Doleman: A year ago I would've been fairly excited about this camera. With the arrival of the Sony RX100, however, it just seems to me that every other offering in this particular niche is suddenly well behind the curve. Particularly considering that the RX100 is one of the most compact, and offers a much bigger sensor than any of its direct competitors. Neither this, nor Samsung's latest compact-enthusiast offering will sway me from my plans to replace my Oly XZ-1 with the Sony RX100.
That's a legitimate observation, for sure, but I like to look at all the various aspects in light of what each camera is attempting to accomplish, and then discount the shortcomings that are sacrifces for realizing the primary objective. For me, the RX100's convergence of big sensor/small camera hits the sweetspot of what I want. I rarely zoom much with a small camera (and my expectations are appropriately realistic when I do), so f4.9 seems plenty fast at the long end, for me. I agree that the high pixel count gives me some pause, but I'm reading nothing but good things about IQ, with the early samples.My main point in downplaying the LX7 is that Sony has proven it's entirely feasible to put a reasonably large-ish sensor into a truly pocketable, all-in-one camera. It's time, thus, to move on to the next phase of evolution for the compact-enthusiast niche. I would love to see Canon respond, for example, by refreshing the S-series with a ~1" sensor. And an LX9 with m4/3 sensor...
A year ago I would've been fairly excited about this camera. With the arrival of the Sony RX100, however, it just seems to me that every other offering in this particular niche is suddenly well behind the curve. Particularly considering that the RX100 is one of the most compact, and offers a much bigger sensor than any of its direct competitors. Neither this, nor Samsung's latest compact-enthusiast offering will sway me from my plans to replace my Oly XZ-1 with the Sony RX100.
I'm not "unhappy" with Flickr--for the pittance that I pay for a Pro account, it does everything that I think it could be expected to do. The interface & usability experience could stand a bit of sprucing-up, is all, and perhaps a few more interesting "social" features. The way groups/tags are managed could use some re-thinking, too.On the other hand, though, if Flickr wanted to charge more for various "premium" services, there are some interesting things they could do. The biggest example I could think of would be to offer a true cloud-based storage/backup service for entire archives, and make that service seamlessly integrate with Lightroom, Aperture, iPhoto, etc. Perhaps even go all the way and offer a bona-fide asset management system accessed directly through the site. That would be cool.
fberns: If this camera size, sensor andlens is possible, why the heck didn't anyone build a camera like that before???And why are all the peers much larger?
I'm at the same time happy about the seemingly great package in a small size and wonder what the camera engineers have been working at if not a camera like that?Dpreview got it exactly right: Size versus image quality and the capability for a shallow depth of field is the main problem that is to solve for a compact enthusiast camera!
My two cents worth would be that it simply took a while for the details of the technology to converge with the will, on the part of a major manufacturer, to go ahead and do it. And finally, too, there seems to be a market for this type of camera. Up until very recently, consumers of pocketable cameras couldn't have cared less about sensor size, nor about lens quality--it was always about pixel count and zoom length. Now there's a market among knowledgeable shooters for a larger sensor camera that can shoot wide, at larger aperture, and that can fit reasonably into a pocket. This is simply the first "true" example of a camera in that class.
toomanycanons: Did all the major camera makers get together and agree to be done with viewfinders? Is their consensus that us buyers don't want them (WRONG) or what?
I love my DSLRs, don't find them too bulky, love their IQ and versatility. A camera such as this Sony comes along, looks great...but alas, no viewfinder so I immediately cross it off my list of potential next buys. Pentax just did that as well. What gives?
Viewfinders on cameras of this size & class were always (still are) crap, anyway. I think it's great if you don't find the size/heft of a DSLR to be any sort of hindrance. For much of the shooting I do, it definitely is so. Thus, a camera like this fits the bill perfectly for those circumstances. The lack of a VF can be limiting at times, but that's the (minimum) penalty you have to pay for the convenience of a pocketable camera. It works-out fine, IMO. I can compose quite well with modern displays, and now this camera--with a large(ish) sensor and an f1.8 lens? Are you kidding? I'm buying that.
This will undoubtedly replace my Oly XZ-1.
This may just bring me back to m4/3, depending on final street price. That's a pretty nice little practical shooter. I guess the rumors of Olympus' demise have been greatly exaggerated...
In a way I'd have rather seen them build an actual DSLR, especially given the styling--I mean, why mimic the OM of yore if it is, conceptually, not even close to the same camera? But, then again, the EVF sounds promising, it's a great-looking camera, it's amazingly compact, and I can certainly understand why Olympus wouldn't want to go up against the latest and greatest DSLRs from Canon and Nikon--it's wise of them to bail out of that market, entirely.
WOW! SIXTEEN megapixels?!? TWENTY-times zoom?!? Pocket-sized?!? Only $250?!? Take my money! Quick!