Nikon D90Nikon 16-85VRNikon 70-300VRSigma 10-20Sigma 150 2.8 MacroSlik 330EZ Lightweight TripodNikon SB800Canon S95
ecm: Huh. A new-generation R1..... for $1300?? Nah.
For $820 I could get a Panasonic G6 kit plus the 45-150 and get better quality photos and videos in a smaller package, faster lens notwithstanding. If I was willing to go a bit larger I could get the Canon SL1 kit plus 55-250 for about $850..... Or the Nikon 3200, or, for that matter, Sony's own A58, and STILL kick this thing's #$$ for a lot less dollars.
You speak nonsense. Who wants a lens that starts at 45 and ends at 150? You get cheated on both sides of the tube. Put equivalent glass on the end of that Nikon 3200, and you'll be into the game for more money, and have just about the same performance. Step away from the keyboard and actually try a camera for a change.
mosc: I think the RX10 is overpriced. The lens is great but in a few years it can't be used with a newer 1" sony sensor that offers new things like 4k video or real action tracking on-chip PDAF. If they make an RX20 one day, you'll have to re-buy the lens. Maybe it'll be a little longer at tele or a little lighter but your old glass is throw away. Usually, fixed glass comes at a discount. No mount to deal with, the lens can have fewer compromises, saves money. That makes up for it. This one doesn't seem to have that.
You can't find 1" lenses that compete with this but there are plenty of APS-C sized lenses that do. The article lists a couple, the EF-S 18-135 and the very impressive sony E 18-105. There's also the 18-200 sigma that just came out which is under a pound and has 11x instead of 8x range and usable macro. The dimensions of the RX10 isn't revolutionary either compared to one of those lenses attached to a small camera. Several combos come out LIGHTER than the RX10, all are CHEAPER.
@Mosc - Why would you compare an 18-105 to the RX10's 24-200 lens? How is this making any kind of point in terms of light gathering?
bawbaw: Best thing to do if considering an rx10 ... buy an rx100. Unless video is your 100% primary concern ... it does 99.9% of the same thing. Has the same sensor. A slightly better lens if you go by the comparison on this review on raw.
Big thing is .. it goes in your pocket.
I shoot a Leica M9 normally.. although.. what do I grab most of the time due to space ... my rx100. It's that annoyingly good.
Oh and you can still get them new for £300 if you hunt about as they don't have wifi BOO HOOO.
You forgot the lens...minor oversight.
Boky: That is a lot of money for a camera with a small sensor and firmly attached lens, that will be obsolete in a year or 2. The sample photos look lifeless; however, I don't see as much of that famous RX100 yellow overcast, so it appears it is better at least in that regard. It is dslr-like size, costs a lot, but unusable at anything above ISO800...
The bulk of the people that buy DSLR's rarely take off their walk around lens. Are those cameras obsolete as well? And what 'mediocre' performance are you talking about? People like you get hung up on pixel peeping, and would rarely be able to tell the likes of an old D40/D50 combo versus today's D7100. The differences are just not there unless you are looking for speed or constant low light capability. I'm glad that people like you are there to trade up for the latest and greatest every cycle. You keep the water warm and camera companies fed until i NEED to upgrade....Thanks in advance.
Black Box: Yet another travesty from Sony. As a prototype exercise to keep the engineers on their toes, it's wonderful! As a consumer product, it really isn't.
This review keeps calling this monster a "compact". But with the weight and the size of a front-loader it's really not that small. Actually, it's just a tad larger than the Moon. And at the price, bulk and weight of the excellent Nikon D7100, why not have... the D7100?
If Sony were a car manufacturer, they'd install a jacuzzi in a Corolla. A BRILLIANT idea, if you don't care about size, weight and fuel economy!
So, again, we have a BRILLIANT product that noone cares about. And all of us who have trusted Sony for years and agreed to pay extra for the quality are becoming less and less happy about paying for Sony's neverending experimenting and get NOTHING in return.
My endless respect for Sony is rapidly coming to an end. I just don't care about them anymore.
You sound like an envious Nikon owner. I have owned a variety of Nikon bodies and glass over the years, but can see many spectacular areas that this camera has over my 7100. One is video. The video on the 7100 is ridiculous. Canon has owned Nikon in this category for years, yet Nikon continues to churn out the same crippled garbage, for whatever reason. Secondly is glass. Try finding a constant 2.8 aperture in the RX10s range. First off, you won't be able to, and second, you wouldn't be able to afford it if you did. Finally, in regard to portability, it trumps the 7100. I, as well as many, get tired of the bags of bodies, glass, etc., when going on an outing. Would be nice to have it all together for once. So, keep your envy in check. It will keep you from looking like a nob.
No Hotshoe. So much for the premium branding...
One point that is not hammered enough is the portability of a smart phone. This is why all of the money is being dumped into this sector. This is the same trend as to why DSLR's continue to get smaller, and the serious introduction of the 4/3rds because of size. The bulk of consumers and enthusiasts alike are getting tired of all of the bulky equipment that needs to be lugged around in order to take a shot. I've always been a Nikon DSLR fan, and have my share of investment in decent glass. That said, I'm always on the lookout for a bridge cam with a great lens, larger sensor, and the ability to catch action, in order to replace everything that I have. The Sony RX10 that was just release is very close, but not close enough for me to make a switch. I can however tell that it won't be long before a couple more revisions are released and I make the switch as well.
If I had $2800 to kick around, I'd get one. Although not completely ideal in many categories, I do like the retro look and its blocky physique. That said, wouldn't be my first camera that I'd buy, but just on an enthusiast level. This is where the camera will fail, and I'll get a good price down the road.
Edmond Leung: FF is the future.Olympus, Fuji, Panasonic, Pentax..... Wake up!Where are your FF?Do you want to quit the camera market?
Future for whom? The 5% of the market that actually make money with their gear, or the other 95% that doesn't know what FF is, and could frankly care less? If the camera is small, takes a few lenses, and is competent on the soccer field and birthday parties, that is good enough for the masses.
Looks great. Smart phones are getting very close to regular digital camera quality for travel photography. I see more and more people wondering why they are lugging their DSLR's around. You may not get the same DOF or low light performance that you get with a DSLR, but the compact trade off can be worth it.
Maybe they finally need to get rid of that dud Ashton Kutcher as the faceman of this product line. He lays a steamy pile everytime he touches something. Although, I did like the Butterfly Effect. But even a broken clock is right twice a day.
cmvsm: How does the Canon score a Gold Award at 78%, yet the Nikon D5200 scored 79%, but received a Silver Award? Furthermore, all other cameras reviewed within the last year, that scored a 79 or above, all received Gold Awards, except for the Nikon D5200.
I really could care less either way, just trying to understand DVR's scoring/rating system, as its a bit inconsistent.
Shawn states - "Awards are not based on numerical scoring, but on perceived value in the category." If this is the case, then the reviews need to be consistent across the board, if the scoring is not going to coincide with the overall award. As I stated in my post, any camera rated over the past year by dpreview, that came in at a 79 or under, all received Silver Awards, except for this review of the Canon. So how exactly does that make sense for someone looking to purchase, that holds weight in your reviews? Sure, there is no substitute for holding it and using it, but many don't have that luxury.
If a camera, Nikon, Canon, or otherwise, deserves an award, then so be it. But the measurement to get there must have a baseline of consistency. If the scoring has nothing to do with the overall award, then maybe it needs to be reconsidered, as it is a bit contradictory.
How does the Canon score a Gold Award at 78%, yet the Nikon D5200 scored 79%, but received a Silver Award? Furthermore, all other cameras reviewed within the last year, that scored a 79 or above, all received Gold Awards, except for the Nikon D5200.
marike6: The review is extremely misleading regarding the D5200's video quality. Video is dramatically improved over the D5100, yet surprisingly the D5200 and D5100 scores for video are identical. And the T3i / 600D scores significantly higher for video performance in spite of significant moire/aliasing, poor almost unusable AF and no HDMI-out. This is unfortunate.
Here is what EOSHD said about the D5200:
"The Nikon D5200 is the best mid-range Nikon yet for video. What is more of a surprise is the relish in which it takes on the much more expensive 5D Mark III, Panasonic GH3 and Nikon’s own flagship the D800 and D4."
He goes on to say "The D5200 is particularly welcome for budget shooters, since Canon have stagnated with their Rebel line. Now it is pay back time because the best selling DSLRs for video – the 7D, 60D and 650D – are firmly out-performed by the Nikon D5200. "
@ET2 - I'm not sure why you keep putting so much stock into the Red.com lawsuit against Reid, as it was dismissed. That means that there was not enough evidence to support the case. I don't think that Reid claims to be a Pro film maker. As I said before, he specializes in DSLR video. Seems as if you don't know the difference yourself. And, at the end of the day, one thing is for sure. You knew who Reid was because of his blog, but doubtful he knows who you are. From visiting his site, he seems to be very interactive, posting different articles almost every day. That takes a lot of work to keep that going on a regular basis, and that's something that I'm very familiar with. Maybe that's where your insecurity comes from? Either way, who cares? Move on with your life.
Justin Francis: Why in the world would anyone get the D7100? Maybe 2% might need the extra features in the D7100.
Wireless triggers operate more effectively than Commander mode, and can be had for about $30. Two command dials are certainly more convenient, but not a deal breaker. The D5200 actually has things laid out very nicely where access is easier than cameras of the past.
rfsIII: The one question I have is why does everyone denigrate articulated LED screens like they are only for video shooters and amateurs? It is a truth oft repeated that all the really good photographs exist at very awkward angles; greatness can only be achieved when the camera is either too high, too low, too sideways, but definitely not at normal eye level 1.5 meters above the ground. So why the hating of a feature that makes it easier to stand out from the mediocre photos crowd? Is it that people are too inhibited artistically to look beyond their normal field of view? Are they afraid that using unique and compelling angles would make them look foolish to their peers? Are they ashamed of producing something truly beautiful?
Articulated screens should be on EVERY Nikon made. I can't understand why they are not. It opens up creativity to a whole new dimension for stills and video.
@ET2 - Andrew Reid specializes in DSLR video, which is effectively what his entire website is about, and why Dpreview is interested in his opinions. He doesn't look to be a professional film maker, but that is the beauty of the new breed of film makers, as they have the power of film making in a $700 camera, versus spending thousands on traditional equipment. You sound like you are not understanding the flexibility that DSLR film making is giving the industry and individuals alike.
We can get an extensive preview of this thing, but no full Nikon D5200 review. What gives?
Why is the D5200 full review taking so long? You all previewed it in February, yet still no full review 3 months later. The D7100 was previewed at the first of April, with a full review by the end of April. What gives?
ashwins: After reading all these comments, I feel that (for the sake of consistency of the DPR reviews—and eventually—creditability of this site) the reviewers should re-write the conclusion part and omit the LiveView AF comparisons to mirrorless cameras. So, just compare apples to apples (like in the case of scorings, cameras within the same category).
Also, statements of the kit lens's inability to resolve all 24MP without evidence are not very scientific. Photozone.de wrote in the verdict of the test of 18-55 VR, that:
"…there's not really much to complain about its performance regarding center sharpness, CAs and also vignetting. On the current high resolution sensors however the border and corners resolution falls a bit behind."
So, depending on the object of shooting, the 18-55 VR could do the job just fine.
ET2 is just getting his Sony fanboy rage out. He lost faith when the wheels fell off of the Sony HX20V Review.