The RX100 II is a camera designed for use by people who understand photography, in a category often referred to as 'high end', 'enthusiast' or 'premium' for example.
Why is it referred to in the review and in some comments below as a 'point and shoot' camera?
Surely 'point and shoot' refers to shooting in Programmed or Automatic modes, those modes being available on Compact System Cameras and DSLRs too.
It seems to me that simplifying the range of filters is a very good idea, as is the rebranding to Creative Filter System, because that describes exactly what it is.
I have Cokin A filters, now to be called Small, which I use (as appropriate) with my Nikon P7100 using the Cokin A Digi Holder:
2 x Neutral Grey2 x Graduated Neutral Grey1 x Circular Polariser
I'm sure photographers have a need for the CFS, I hope the company prospers.
The P7700's in-camera raw processing facility is perhaps understated, on the P7100 I find it to be excellent. The G15 doesn't seem to offer that facility.
The P7700 offers monochrome shooting, i.e. LCD may be viewed in black and white and shots made either as jpegs or raw. It has yellow, orange, red and green filters to apply for those looking to shoot B&W traditionally. However, shooting in raw enables the filters to be applied if desired during in-camera raw processing, to compare the tone-differenciations they make. Also, shooting in raw enables colour, B&W or both to be processed in-camera. The raw images can of course be processed using computer software if preferred (particularly useful for those preferring to obtain B&W images by means of conversion - rather time consuming though imho).
I don't think the G15 offers sophisticated/controlled B&W shooting in either raw or jpeg.
I think these are significant differences between the cameras.
I can't see any reference to black and white shooting in the review.
Forgetting about any 'effects' settings like grainy monochrome, does the camera cater for the monochrome photographer, i.e. can the camera be set to b&w (but still shoot in raw) with the screen displayed in b&w and having internal filters such as yellow, orange, red and green?
Or does the camera cater only for the colour photographer, any black and white shots having to be converted by software later?
RichardAB: I went to Steve McCurry's exhibition in Brimingham (UK) in August 2011.
Obviously there were some fantastic images on display, including the 'Afghan Girl'. A detailed description was given explaining how the eyes were achieved, post production. Basically, the eyes are not those of the Afghan Girl.
For me, I don't like manipulation to that degree, it crosses the line, there is no authenticity as a portrait.
I expect some will agree and that some won't. For some, lines don't exist, anything goes. For others, lines are drawn but in different places.
Quite simply, Karoly Posgay, the Afghan Girl does not have 'sea green' eyes, no Afghan does (genes).
There were other manipulations too. Suggest you attend an exhibition of the photo along with with diagramatic details of the manipulations made so you can see for yourself. I don't think anything I say here will convince you.
If you follow this link, you can see for yourself:
I have the book National Geographic The Photographs by Leah Bendavid-Val, in it it says the photo was taken in 1984, I don't think it was published though until 1985.
I went to Steve McCurry's exhibition in Brimingham (UK) in August 2011.
Wishing everyone a Merry Christmas and a healthy and happy 2013.
Barrie Davis: The standard of English in this LX7 review is lower than is usual in DPRreviews. Is this because it has a different source, I wonder [?]
My personal opinion is that the examples you quote don't contain significant flaws, just that you'd have written them differently. Apparently you do not wish to make allowances for American-speak on an American site.
In my opinion your writing above does include a significant grammatical flaw. You start the penultimate paragraph "If that was not bad enough, ....." To me, that is an example of the grot-speak you deplore. 'If that were not bad enough, .....' would have been correct.
The bottom line is that none of us is perfect when it comes to the written word.
I expect you meant no harm with your comment. However, the writer makes his living by communicating through the written word so to imply his English useage isn't up to standard is quite a serious accusation to make.
Rather than making an easy-to-state general criticism, are you able to back-up your assertion with specific examples?
A reputation is at stake although I doubt you thought in those terms when commenting.
The sensor has a crop of 5.1 (4.7 x 5.1 = 24) (17.7 x 5.1 = 90).
The sensor is therefore smaller than the 1/1.7" stated which has a crop of 4.67. The sensor is more like 1/2" so the LX7 has the smallest sensor of all the 'premium compacts' - worth knowing.
Eric Glam: Though the photos submitted here were OoC JPEGs, I think I can draw a few conclusions.
1. It doesn't match the Nikon D4 and Canon 1D-X at high ISOs.
2. The lens, though supposedly good, is a limiting factor. I always need zoom!! There are many situations where you simply can't get close, and a zoom must be used. I wish the lens was 35-70mm f/2.0, for x2 zoom. This is really the bare minimum to justify buying a camera with a non-removable lens.
3. I wish it had an articulating LCD, like in the A77 and A99.
4. USB3.0 would have been more adequate in this day and age.
5. The price is a problem. Well, the price is always a problem, but for the RX1, Sony should have aimed for a lower target price.
Too much nonesense is spoken about high ISO comparisons, imho.
Like many, I learnt photography using Kodachrome 25 and Kodachrome 64. These days, shooting in the range of ISO 100 - 400 therefore seems to be high to me, a luxury in comparison. Just about anything can be shot in that range.
So, photographers who purport to use ISOs of 3,200 or 6,400 or even higher because they need to, well, are they really photographers? Or do they simply use high ISO comparisons as a means of justifying their own equipment choice, wanting to believe it's better and at the same time demean others' equipment?
Will the new lens testing include fixed lenses too, such as on the Sony RX1, Sony RX100, Canon G1X, Fufi X100, Fufi X10?
The ladies will love this camera as a fashion accessory.
Drmole: A 25% price hike for the UK nice! Nikon Scum
Scroll down two posts.
RichardAB: It's plain daft this site quoting US prices excluding sales tax and UK prices including sales tax (VAT).
Surely it would be better to use the same basis for both, to compare apples with apples.
What a buyer wants to know is the total price to be paid, that includes sales tax.
There are many comments on this site about the apparent US/UK prices, folk are confused, especially here in the UK, because regard to the exchange rate suggests there should be a greater price differential.
Something needs to be done, examples:
$2100(+ tax)/£1995 $2100(excl tax)/£1995$2100(+ 0-5%)/£1995 $2100(+ tax)/£1995 (£1663+£332 VAT)
Any preference? Any other ideas?
It's plain daft this site quoting US prices excluding sales tax and UK prices including sales tax (VAT).
unlearny: If anyone cares I took some side by side photos using both the Sigma DP2 Merrill and the Sony RX100 and posted full size jpegs on Flickr.http://www.flickr.com/photos/9729517@N04/sets/72157631312117380/comments/#comment72157631347851076
cut and paste or search "rx100 vs dp2 merrill" on FLICKR
I therefore need to save up a tad before I can buy my DP1-M...I hope Lensmate will get going on some accessories.
Please see my comment immediately above unlearny's which is in reply. I must have made a mistake, thought I'd clicked on reply but mustn't have done.
Thanks for doing that and providing a link, it's interesting. Like you say on Flickr your comparison is unscientific, however it gives an indication.
Whatever someone's individual preferences, both cameras are capable.
On a broader front, it also demonstrates that differences between the results of most digital cameras are not huge when low ISOs are used. Given control of the shutter, aperture, ISO and white balance, a good photographer will probably produce good outcomes with almost any digital camera.
justmeMN: The existence of this camera makes it hard for Canon not to update the G12, particularly since the Canon G1 X isn't selling well.
Canon isn't in the business of making losses, the G1X may be quietly dropped at some point.