Honestly the number of comments protesting the Silver rating for the RX100 seems like 70% of the posts.
If Dpreview gave the RX100 a Gold Rating, I'd be the first to post in protest.
The RX100 DOES NOT deserve a Gold Medal. Live with it. The IQ is too much of a compromise to warrant a Gold rating. Sony did not pull any miracles on the RX100. They just comprised the lens a lot so you'd get high ISO performance in exchange for low lens performance thinking there would be a good market for it and they were right. People can see high ISO performance but they cannot see lens compromise.
This goes with the GM marketing slogan: Give them leather, they can smell it. Who cares about overall performance.
You can always count on Dpreview to give a professional review and never miss a beat. Nikon D800, NEX7, Nikon V1, they always give a proper well judged rating and never yield to fanboys.
If you want fanboy rating with Gold and Platinum there are plenty in the web
highwave: After having a look at the IQ of the RX100 I personally concluded the same things I did about it when I looked at the IQ on the Imaging Resource Website. Namely:
Lens isn't sharp at the edges and not terribly impressive anywhere else either
Surprisingly noisy images at low ISO
Surprisingly low noise images at high ISO
Overall noise signature of this sensor is very beautiful
Colors get washed out very quickly as ISO rises
The sensor does not outperform the old 12MP m43 sensor. It doesn't even out perform the Nikon 1 sensor. At least not in color retention in high ISO. You can forget about competing against more modern m43 sensors or even APS-C sensors.
More than happy to hear other thoughts on this (except people claiming the RX100 has a 3 full stop noise advantage over the 12MP m43 sensor. Yeah you know who you are)
I looked at both 100% crops and computer screen resize. Either way my IQ observations hold. As a matter of fact, noise and color washing out are even more obvious when you don't look at 100% crops
Sure the camera is small but the point is how much are you willing to compromise on IQ for Pocketability? You can slip a PEN with a prime in your pockets. Bulky but at least you'll get good IQ. That's the whole point of paying $$$ after all. Not pocketability.
Yes, this is what I expect from such a small sensor (i.e. rivals Nikon 1). Unfortunately the vast majority of RX100 seem to think it rivals Full Frame Nikon D800. Just have a look at the majority of posts here.
Marcin Moscicki: Wow, compared with NEX-7 and the difference in detail/noise is not huge!
I wouldn't say the difference between the NEX7 and the RX100 isn't huge. I would say it is. As a matter of fact I would say it's very huge considering that the NEX is a system camera not a fixed lens camera like the RX100.
Even at ISO200 and not pixel peeping at all the image from the NEX7 shows its class against the RX100. Pump up the ISO to 3200 and even the lines are hardly defined on the RX100. Let alone competing with the NEX7 in detail retention at that ISO.
Add to all this, you can stick a razor sharp lens on the NEX7 which you can't do with the RX100 (you're stuck with that OK lens) and then comparing the two is really pointless.
The gap between the NEX7 and RX100 is at the very least as large as that between a FF sensor and the NEX7. And this is not considering the factor of using high quality lenses.
Now this is my opinion and what I see. If you don't see that then you're making the right choice in choosing this camera over cameras like the NEX7.
I can see what kind of an audience this camera appeals to
After having a look at the IQ of the RX100 I personally concluded the same things I did about it when I looked at the IQ on the Imaging Resource Website. Namely:
Way to go Dpreview!
now that's more like it
Amazing work, posting the RX100 review relativity so quick
I must say I like how Dpreview is shaping up these days. Reviewing hot cameras faster.
goblin: Not that I don't know where this comes from, but - Sources, DPR ?
"Press release" sounds quite official. Link to the quite official source ? Pretty please ?
Like a Boss Barney
TheChefs: I've noticed few posts saying that it's better than Pentax Q and my opinion differs.
First of all, no M, A or S modes on mode dial.Q has nifty dial at the front for selecting post processing modes etc...According to DXO Mark, the Q has half the ISO performance compared to Nikon J1, but it's prime and zoom are twice as fast. Which makes the ISO performance on par.So the performance of the cams + lens is pretty much the same. Q is smaller + Lighter + Smaller lenses.
Saying all that I'm getting Q for my woman, since she wants easy to access artsy modes and only prints 4x6 or 3x5 (most common photo size in Japan) photos.
And it's small enough that it fits in her handbag. I'm not exactly sure what kind of market Nikon was aiming at with j1/2.
What sales charts? Link please?
100X seems like an amazing claim
I thought this phone would run the RX100 very close
sadly from what I've seen in the photo comparison with it and the Nikon V1, it seems there is a very sizable gap between it and the 1 inch sensor cameras out there.
It seems even the Canon S100 is better (can't be too sure with the Canon strong noise reduction)
phone cameras have a long long way to go before they kill off P&S like the RX100
eyeshutter: I just saw a video demonstrating the focus speed. SLOW AS MOLASSES.
I'm not buying into that video
The autofocus just seems way to slow for a PDAF system. Maybe it was turned off by the reviewers and they were using CDAF of Canon (which sucks like nothing else on the market).
I really think the real PDAF of Canon will be very fast.
As always I love your work and very much appreciated
But I sure wish you included side by side shots with competitors and even SLRs like you usually do.
Thanks overall though.
Kwick1: Lame, lame, lame. They decided on the "small body with huge lenses" approach like NEX. Total fail. They're so afraid of losing their DSLR base that they couldn't do something truly innovative. And then to launch with the dumbed-down entry-level version first - another fail.
Imagine if they had launched a truly pocketable system that used an APS-C sensor and tiny, jewel-like lenses (think affordable Leica), what a stir that would have caused? Or how many bodies they would have sold if they had joined m 4/3?
Total fail, Canon.
Not true at all
m43 at least has very small lenses. I can carry my lenses in my pockets whereas my friends with their FF cameras carry huge backpacks for their gear.
It does make a big difference. For the most part you don't even need a dedicated camera bag. You could use your school bag or work briefcase to carry all your system. Good luck doing that with an SLR.
I'm not familiar with the NEX system.
WASBA: Not good another big company's movement. If there is same mount as EF-S, this will be much better but EF-M and Adapter system? They are thinking people will buy this camera to use their many EF lenses with adapter. My personal concern is...1. New Mount EF-M, 22mm f2 and 18-55 bundle are only supported lenses for this body without adapter. I know adapter system has lots of issue so far.2. Point and shoot looking mirrorless camera? Love om-d or nex7.3. Overall, There is no reason to change current my micro 3/4 or nex ones.
In the US:
OM-D with 14-42mm: 1100$
NEX& with 18-55mm: 1350$
EOS-M with 22mm: 800$
neither of them cost double over here
peevee1: The second not-_totally_-junk bridge after X-S1. Still junk, just not _totally_. :)
Strange thing that the weight is listed at 588g, just as FZ60. Must be an error, the lens in FZ200 should be significantly heavier.
Not everyone can afford higher end or system cameras peevee1
Some people want to cover a wide zoom range for travel photography yet need to keep it in a good budget. System cameras with lenses can get very expensive very fast.
I was among the people who took the superzoom route to cut down on expense. They're OK and you get very beautiful results out of them. Just check out the Panasonic Forum and see all the beautiful birding pictures they get out of these camera.
For the money you pay, I wouldn't really call them junk.
Finally, a successor to the FZ20 after 8 years!
And how convenient, the name just adds a zero to the right
marike6: Superb IQ. What's incredible is that at ISO 6400, the X-Pro1 is beating all of the other 3 cameras, including the 5D III. An amazing achievement for an APS-C sized sensor. In a way, I think it deserves Gold just beating the FFs in low-light raw performance.
It's about time we gave kudos to Fuji for innovating on the IQ front, and for making a photographers camera, with a compelling lens roadmap.
It looks like it had noise reduction applied to the RAW files
The RAW file noise of the Fuji stuck out against all other cameras you compare it except some point and shoots with RAW capability which also seem to apply noise reduction to RAW files. The noise pattern is so much softer than all other cameras. A lot like the pattern you see in cameras that apply noise reduction to RAWs.
Sorry, I'd rather believe my eyes and realistic expectations than to say the Fuji APS-C sensor beats Full Frame sensors.
photo nuts: I'm going to give Fujifilm and m43 some serious considerations. Great lens line-up and fantastic cameras. Almost every manufacturer is capable of producing small sensors with impressive low-ISO dynamic range... all but Canon. Poor Canon...
You're heavily underestimating how big the Canon G1X is and how small some m43 systems are.
I handeled the Canon G1X and it's a giant compared to the Canon S95.
Also for m43 you don't have to carry all your lenses with you. You can just choose one small lens out of a large variaty and just take that for the day. In most cases it's no less pocketable than the G1X.
I guess this is something Fujitsu understands too as they also introduce smaller lenses.
And it's not a small difference in weight between SLRs and m43 as you suggest nor is there a compromise in image quality now that models like the O-MD are here. Not unless you're talking about Full Frame cameras which are just huge.
highwave: Nokia has this small Phone with a 41 MP camera
So just some calculation for fun:
To achieve 50 Gigapixels using pureview Nokia phones you would need about 1220 of them.
that would be about 73 meters (240 feet) wide and 146 meters (480 feet) high of Nokia Phones duct taped together.
That's about as wide as the empire state building and about one third as high.
I don't think I would want to take up the job of wiring them up for remote shutter release and then go grab the shots from each phone.
Oh for those still waiting for me to type down the relevance of the OP to the thread, I couldn't figure anything out.
did an awful mistake in my calculations
Falconeyes calculations are the correct ones
please ignore my original post
Nokia has this small Phone with a 41 MP camera
highwave: I really don't like SLRs
But if I were ever to buy an SLR today, the D800E would be the only one to sway me.
If you're going to burden yourself might as well go all the way.
Not that I'm saying the only worthy replacement is the D800, I'm just saying the only worthy replacement for me is the D800.
I just don't like Optical View Finders. They're not for me.