Jeff Fenske: DPReview, your reviews are very informative, and greatly appreciated, but you've been neglecting one key issue, which hasn't been fair to other cameras which do have good IMAGE STABILIZATION.
Whether it's improved or not, please cover Image Stabilization for still photos in your coming complete review, this time, since IS has been the RX100's achilles heel, as a commenter rightly called it — clearly subpar compared to probably all other compacts in this category.
IS is extremely important for compact cameras, which are almost always handheld, IS being the compact camera's tripod substitution.
I am pleased with the IS of my RX100 M2. My wife took handheld shots in Carlsbad Caverns with no flash. She got some fairly sharp pictures, even at 1/5 second. I would post a picture, if I could figure out how.
I think the colors look pretty natural; you must be used to super-saturated colors.
I have compared lots of cameras (including the D600) here to the NEX-5n. The NEX-5n pictures usually look better (at least in terms of sharpness) to just about anything else at most ISOs. Am I missing something, or is the NEX-5n that good?
Scales USA: The Image quality page is missing.
The Image quality page won't load for me either. Nor will the Nikon D4 studio shot comparison. The studio shot comparison for the Samsung NX200 does load OK. I cleared my cache.
The G1X looks like it could be an interesting second camera, but the lack of an electronic viewfinder is a big negative for me. We have an S70 that we really like, except that the optical viewfinder doesn't accurately show the boundaries of the picture, and the LCD is hard to see in bright light. Thus, it is difficult to compose the shot the way you would like. With a good EVF, the G1X could be a compelling camera.
duartix: The lenses are almost as big as m43, the cameras follow suit, the prices are surreal. Where do they think they are going with this system?I mean these cameras have an amazing sensor readout performance but anything else just doesn't make any sense...
The Nikon 10-100 lens is about the same size and weight as the Sony 18-200 for the NEX. The V1 with the 10-100 is about the same weight as the NEX7 with the 18-200. This makes no sense. Why did Nikon use such a small sensor if they weren't going to make the camera and lenses smaller than Sony's APS-C NEX system?
It can't compare with the NEX-5N, but it doesn't look bad compared to the GF3 and E-P3. Panasonic and Olympus need better sensors.
The NEX-5N looked very good compared to just about everything at every ISO. Put that sensor in a NEX-7 body and Sony won't be able to make enough of them.
The NEX-7 looks like a awesome camera with a very high price. I hope Sony migrates the compact body with viewfinder form factor down to the NEX-5 range. With a 16MP sensor and an $800 price, THAT would be a compelling camera.
pixel_colorado: It's a shame they made it bigger than the A33, A35 and the A55.
Yup. There is now quite a gap between the A35 (definitely entry level) and the A65. I hope Sony fills it with an upgraded version of the A55.
I was hoping the A65 would be closer in size and weight to the A55. You could get an A55 with18-250 lens weighing in about 2 lb. I want a great camera without excess bulk and weight. That was a big attraction of the SLT cameras. As I get older, I would rather carry less weight - especially backpacking. Now I am leaning toward the NEX-7.