forpetessake: This review is 6 months too late. Everybody who was interested in this camera already bought it, tried it, and sent it back.There are at least two very serious drawbacks that somehow the reviewers missed. One is the kit 16-50 lens. It's so bad that it can compete with Sony 16-50 for the worst kit lens on the market. Selling 28MP camera with such poor lens is a complete waste of megapixels.Second, other reviewers noticed, and I verified it myself, is the shutter shock problem with this camera & kit lens. It's pretty bad, people need to be aware of it.It's also strange that the reviewers praised the low light performance. It's actually pretty unremarkable. There is a blue noise in dark areas, and the resolution goes down the tubes.
I was actually impressed at the 16-50 IQ .... Mines tack sharp ... You must have had a dodgy copy or been drinking :-)
I'm sorry, but aside from the fact I couldn't afford/justify the price, this shoebox sized slab of a camera is just too butt ugly! I hope the image quality FAR outweighs the negatives of looks and price, but I'm sorry all you Leica snobs, I seriously doubt it!
Rick Knepper: Why would I buy a fixed lens camera that MSRPs for the same price as an interchangeable lens version (which can be found for $500 less from eBay dealers) that provides a world of flexibility?
Rick: the A7 is small yes ..... But not small enough to fit discreetly in a coat pocket and act as a true semi pocketable solution.
The one lens logic is also sound ... I've saved a fortune on lenses and enjoyed having to be more 'creative' (even change my style!) with a fixed solution. I'm finding it more fun picking up the RX1 and going out .... Instead of spending 15 minutes deciding what lens to take then wishing I'd brought another when I reached my destination.
Realises it's not for everyone, but it set me free lol!
Because a stock lens on (for example) the A7 won't compare in quality to this fixed Lens beauty ... Nor would you be able to fit it in your coat pocket. I also don't miss the headache of deciding what lens to carry ... shooting with a fixed lens, for me, really brings out the fun / challenge in getting the ideal shot (the fun off composing a shot rather than relying on zoom). You'll also save a fortune on a one lens solution!!!!
No G7X update ... shame ... I've been holding off for an upgrade; hope I haven't wasted my time waiting!
iudex: I wanted to critisize the G9x for slow lens but then I realized I had a Canon S100 a couple of year back and it had f2-5,9 lens despite having small 1/1,7" sensor. This camera is comparatively big (or better say small) but has a much bigger sensor in it. Ideal for people who know nothing about photography, do not want a big camera but want a decent outcome (which the 1" Sony sensor surely delivers).
iudex: There was nothing wrong with the S100 or other S models - there was nothing else available at this size at this time, so I don't understand your criticism of what (for me) was a fine POCKETABLE camera
Yet they fail to add an SD slot purely for greed!
chadley_chad: I've been waiting for an RX1 v2 with tilting screen. Seems like Sony have forgotten about this gem of a camera in favour of every other model in their range! Why?
Because it doesn't have a tilting screen!
... improve it and they'll buy ... simples!
I've been waiting for an RX1 v2 with tilting screen. Seems like Sony have forgotten about this gem of a camera in favour of every other model in their range! Why?
Jennyhappy2: Either way it's gonna sell.
As of today on Amazon, here are the top sellers:
LX100 - #113RX100 II - #104RX100 IV - #20RX100 III - #19RX100 - #18
Like it, then buy it. Otherwise, look elsewhere.
I just wish Mike would use a spell checker. Reading his posts hurts my brain :-)
guydr: All RX100's have good IQ, I'm not gone argue that and you pay for the version you want. My only gripe with Sony cams is the launching price in the EU. RX100m3 was 849€ when introduced, now the RX100m4 will be 1149€. I think Sony lost touch with reality here and at that price they are gone sell 0,000³ units in the EU. Don't BS over the VAT, that's the price we have to pay. The G7X is now around 500€ in comparisation.
@jennyhappy2. What evidence do you have to support your statement that the 'demand isn't there'? I for one moved from the RX100 to the G7X thanks to the touch screen and better zoom range; plus the fact I didn't need an evf on what really is a pocket camera. Complications with the lens? I get better images from the canon than I did from the Sony. Your statement is incorrect then ... Some people don't want or need an evf ... Especially at £'ssss more!
Jefftan: People who are interested in RX100 IV should seriously consider GM1, this is written by a happy new owner
way exceed my expectationsharp lens, excellent IQ, fast auto-focus, good image stabilization,fast operation
Mainly because of the great sharp lens, to my great surprise IQ even beat my NEX-5N with Sony 10-18mm F4 lens (already much better than the garbage 16-50mm kit)
why by this overpriced camera? just for being a little bit smaller?
And tolerate lower IQ and much more expensive? It is your money but I really can't understand
You clearly have a broken NEX!
spaghettii: Battery life: 280 shots
Really? Play around with the setting on that bright screen and take a few shots the battery is dead! At this price I expect the battery life at least 700 shots.
My first dslr is the Sony Translucent then comes NEX and my last Sony camera is the A6000 but never satisfied with any of them. I was impressed with the features and hypes but....but....but....the battery life is terrible and the lens selection is even worst (expensive). Sold them all on craigslist.
Purchase my first Nikon camera last week, the D3300 for $399 with 18-55mm and 55-200 kit lens. I was blown away with the IQ and the battery life last forever and happily invest 35mm 1.8 and 55mm 1.8 and some extra accessories.
Enjoy lugging that beast of a camera around ... My NEX6 fits very comfortably in my coat pocket :-)
Tom Holly: Overpriced junk. It resolves barely 25 megapixels of fine detail, and to get that you have to stop it down a bit, which we all know renders a lens useless.
Sorry, but to call it 'overpriced junk' just shows a persons arrogance!
Photoman: I wonder if these adapters will be any good. I thought you only put adapter lens on video cameras? I would prefer a FE 21mm with no attachments on it.
It's so cheap, just buy and try ... and if you don't like, eBay it to get your money back! You won't however be disappointed!
There seems to be a lot of people commenting on here, in some cases silly comments, embarrassing themselves IMO, ignorant to both camera technologies and the market for these types of cameras! Don't like, don't buy, don't understand, don't comment!
tom1234567: I don't no why camera makers keep producing cameras with these SMALL CRAPPY SENSORS
It's time the public were educated to what they are buying Instead of being ripped off by ALL camera manufactures
Tom; way to show your ignorance of both camera technologies and the market. You should also perhaps 'educate' yourself on spelling (no = know!) alongside the above two points!
I use the above setup and the results are stunning. It can't be true I'm sure, but with all the pictures I've shot, it looks like use of the adapter IMPROVES sharpness! For what I paid £99 (silver years ago), it's the best lens I've ever purchased!
Drama: No viewfinder = defect camera
Want a viewfinder; buy a DSLR and stop posting silly comments on threads about cameras aimed at different markets!
Vilas7: Lot of features on RX100 III as well as Powershot G7 x has been discussed but I want to know if there is any digital zoom on those cameras and how are the results of those digital zooms as far as movie and photos are concerned indoors for school and church programs. I may be shooting from a distance of 30 to 50 feet and the optic zoom may not be sufficient. Does any one know the quality of digital zoom on each camera?
Thanks for coming back. After testing myself I agree, but I still have the Canon pegged as my next purchase!