Quebec, Canada
17 hours ago
 |
ManuH |
   |
|
Connect with dpreview
|
travelshots_dpr: I don't agree with Dpreview's complaints about the clickless front wheel. This is perfect for focus and zoom operation. If you assign other functions to the front wheel, you still have the display to control the values. If you want to have clicks, simply use the back wheel. I am very satisfied (in practice) with Sony's design decision and would hate if Sony would have built the camera the way Dpreview obviously likes.
According display in sunlight: Did you turn the display to sunny mode (not automatic)? In sunny mode the display is much brighter and I haven't encountered any situation when I could not use the display (in opposite to previous compacts I have had).
By the way: If there is any Sony camera (including DSLRs and SLTs) that deservs a gold medal, it is RX100.
Yes, if you read the RX100 designers interview, the lack of clicks was done on purpose to facilitate manual focusing. I like it that way too but I think the UI is a bit sluggish in the sense that you have to move the ring a bit too much. The sensitivity of this ring should have been customization. But it's minor nitpick IMHO.
I also agree with the LCD, it's the only LCD screen I can see somewhat in sunlight. All the others I used (920k screens, Amoled, etc) have not been this good.
Charlie Jin: It's been about a couple of weeks since I had Sony RX-100. Wow~! I just cannot believe how they can do this. It's so compact that I am bringing RX100 all the time, like my iPhone. I have been using Canon 7D and it's collecting dust since then. The image quality of RX 100 is so good that I wonder whether I really need 7D. With Eye-Fi, I save pics directly to my iPhone/iPad, and edit it there with various picture editing apps. Great !
What is really impressive is that the manual control is better than 7D. With 7D, 70% of the time, I used manual mode, and I was wondering whether any compact camera will give such DSLR like manual control. My Panasonic LX-3 was probably my worst buy. Expensive, so and so image quality and control was aweful. With Sony RX100, manual control was really delightful. I love it better than my 7D.
BTW, it is very strange that DP Review didn't give it a Gold Award though. No, I'm not a Sony fan. I have not bought a Sony product for quite a long time.
They are certainly comparable. At base ISO there's not that much that will distinguish it from a DSLR even with a good lens. Of course at high ISO the DSLR is better and they can use better lenses. But what this pocket camera achieves is already marvelous.
Now maybe the RX100 is better than 7D for manual controls but honestly it doesn't hold a candle to my Pentax K-5 (or any other Pentax DSLR I used in the past). But then Pentax is better than most cameras when you consider handling and ease of use. HyperManual and HyperProgram rule!
Jokica: @R Butler:
"Best in class doesn't guarantee a Gold - it has to be a standout camera."
1. OK, I can understand this.
2. Looks odd for Best-in-class camera not to get highest award.
Maybe DPR should reconsider the rating system to cover these situations.
Maybe there should be something like "Editor Choice", "Platinum", etc (you will came up with something more appropriate), or to give the camera more than one mark. Sorry, but seems, hmm... (I dont know the right word) for best in class not to be awarded with Gold. RX100 deserves to be somehow (beside %) distinguished from others, silver, not the best in class cameras. MHO. Regards.
Please define "standout" for me. English is not my native language but if the RX100 is not a standout I wonder what is.
Craig Atkinson: why do people get so excited? It's a camera, a good one, not a perfect one. I think a percentage rating is fine as long as it's read in context. I see it as being relevant today. Of course in six months it wont be the same, better cameras of the same type will be out. Today though the RX100 is best / second best [ricoh grd4] in its class. It might be the only camera of it's class, seems so.
Dpreview could develop two sliding scale systems. One which is the rating of the camera at the time of release and another which slides with time, so most likely will slide down as new tech is developed and released. 78% I think is fair. It's too small, it has no snap function or way of measuring distance. It has no real grip. It has no lens thread...A great camera but far from perfect. As far as the GRD4, they are both great cameras.
IMHO the percentage ratings are completely useless, I never even glance at them. These scales are too subjective. Even PopPhoto have better scales where you can actually compare things.
Fortunately the review is otherwise detailed enough that you can gather real information.
Nice review but the decision to give it only a silver award is a bit weird IMHO. The fact that this is an unique camera in many ways with an unmatched feature set for its size didn't seem to have weighted a lot in the reviewer final decision. I can understand that there are some glitches or some annoyances here and there but the RX100 is truly a game changer IMHO. It's a milestone that is pushing the boundaries of what a compact camera is supposed able to do. It's a benchmark for future high end compact cameras. And unfortunately Dpreview missed the opportunity to celebrate this...
ManuH: For 280$ That's quite a lot of camera. I like that they included a remote sensor (not even the 650$ RX100 has this important feature for any tripod work), a viewfinder (even at low res, but at this price it's good to have one), an useful zoom range (love the 22mm). More intriguing is the apparently mechanical zoom, or is it just a dial like the Canon S90?
Alas the suspense is over, it's not mechanical and there's no ring:
http://www.photographyblog.com/images/uploads_news/pentax_x5_2.jpg
The picture of the top is clear.
JJJPhoto: I would have been interested in this bridge camera if it had a hot shoe for external flash. I just don't see the point of a camera this big that doesn't have a hot shoe.
I agree, Pentax missed an easy opportunity here to sell more of their flashes.
For 280$ That's quite a lot of camera. I like that they included a remote sensor (not even the 650$ RX100 has this important feature for any tripod work), a viewfinder (even at low res, but at this price it's good to have one), an useful zoom range (love the 22mm). More intriguing is the apparently mechanical zoom, or is it just a dial like the Canon S90?
What about a f/4 constant zoom for a change? I like small zooms but I'm getting bored by f/5.6 zooms at the long end.
highwave: Finally, a successor to the FZ20 after 8 years!
And how convenient, the name just adds a zero to the right
Yes it's the spiritual successor of the FZ20. Not really the FZ30/50 though as it lacks the bigger sensor and the second dial but the f/2.8 constant zoom is just awesome.
ppastoris: To DPReview : a suggestion. Could you guys please post equivalent F-numbers (in terms of DOF and light gathering ability) when you post equivalent focal length numbers? E.g. LX7's 4.7-17.7 F1.4-2.3 is the equivalent of 24-90 F7.2-11.7, not of 24-90 F1.4-2.3; similarly for FZ200 it's either 4.5-108 F2.8 or the equivalent of 25-600 F15.6 in 35mm standard.
Being one of the most influential camera review websites on the Internet you could really help your readers to understand what a lens designed for a smaller than 35mm sensor is actually capable of photographically. Clearly posting the equivalent angle of view (by posting an equivalent focal length) is only half of the story.
1) I don't know why everything has to be compared to 35mm. For me it would be more useful to compare to APS-C which is what I'm using.
2) Even if the equivalence numbers are mathematically right, in practice the sensors efficiency are never scaling perfectly between formats. A 1/2.3" could be more efficient per area than a 35mm sensor.
viking79: I like how it out performs all the best L glass at 40 mm, of course you give up the added range. Looks like a winner for $200.
The new Canon behaves a lot like the Pentax DA 40mm f/2.8 also a pancake: good resolution very even across the frame from wide open but doesn't really reach much higher resolution on stopping down.
Gerard Hoffnung: My usual complaint. No optical viewfinder, no sale.
"What is the practical draw?"
Don't you take pictures outdoor? Even on the best LCD it's difficult to see anything in sunlight.
TheBees: Frankly, and with the maximum respect for the people working on this site, anytime a new model by Pentax reaches the shelves, the only real doubt about DP's review is where will they place the flaw, this time, and how much the final vote will be affected...
If the camera would have been from another brand from the "big bunch" the review would have oulined the unique design, unbeateable image quality and the great opportunities given by large number of customizable esternal controls... "if you are not a naturalist photographer and you think you can live up the AF relative slowlyness..." they would have written.
i love many things of this site but reviews...
that said, one of the ugliest and worst thought camera's ever, and bad news from assembly quality control, too. This is not good!
in my verrrrrry humble opinion...
"Didn't this very site laud the K5 and give it a gold award?"
Yes but the Pentax K-5 was perfect, they couldn't find any flaw even if they wanted ;-)
Seriously, bias is real and is unavoidable as it would be almost impossible to do tests in double-blind, except maybe for IQ. We have to live with it and it didn't deter me from buying the K10D a few years ago even if it was panned for so-called "soft JPEG" by dpr.
I'm also dismayed by the lack of EVF but I realize it's an entry-level camera that will replace the K-x and K-r. That's why there is no weather sealing and only one dial. And the price could very well drop under 400$ at some point which would be more difficult to achieve with a DSLR.
But I think the key feature is that Pentax choose to use the K-mount, it means that they don't take any risk with a new mount, it's good for them and their customers: no need to reinvest in a new lens line-up.
JPEG size optimization was done years ago by Pegasus imaging if I recall well. Why is it that a big news?
Anyway it's of no interest for digital cameras. What we need is a 16-bits JPEG format. Or any other better format.
The Photoshop JPEG engine explanation is good info though.