To boldly go - questions and answers
Sony DSC-RX100 versus Olympus XZ-2 iHS
The Weight incl batteries: DSC-RX100 - 240 g, XZ-2 iHS - 346 g
The Dimensions: DSC-RX100 - 102 x 59 x 36 mm, XZ-2 iHS - 113 x 65 x 48 mm
The Sensor: DSC-RX100 1 inch, 20.2 mp, XZ-2iHS 1/1.7" 12 mp
The price: DSC-RX100 $648, XZ-2iHS $600
The Question: What are Olympus on?
The Answer: Planet Zarg
Beam me up Scotty....
What the market really needs is a high end, compact, well built, lightweight, DSLR with a large optical viewfinder!
Currently, no one, absolutely no one, offers such a machine.
And its not even as if its technologically impossible because it was all done years ago. Take this baby, a full frame camera with a large, ok very large optical viewfinder, an alloy body and weighing in at just 520 g and with the diminutive dimensions of just 136 x 83 x 50 mm...
Yep the year was 1979 and the camera was the OM2N.Why is it that 33 years later the industry considers putting a FF sensor in such a camera is impossible. Clearly it is not.
lemon_juice: How wonderful it would be if Apple gadgets didn't take up space at dpreview and instead we could read more about real photographic equipment...
Please tell me which aspect of news about 'real photographic equipment' you feel you're missing here at dpreview?
Your resentment and that of some readers of this site against all photographic devices containing a mobile phone is irrational. Attend any open air event and you'll rapidly realize that the majority of people there are relying on a mobile phone as their sole photographic tool.
And many more people (like me) who do have several 'real photographic' cameras, still end up relying on their iPhone for a number of impromptu photographic opportunities.
As such I find dpreview's coverage of the new iPhone both appropriate and welcome.
photoholiko: What does it do that the NEX-5N can't for $700 less?
Better all round build quality, a more thoughtful design, a faster kit zoom lens, and of course a more logical user interface.
If Nikon release a $1,500 FF DSLR then Canon's existing business model, product line up and pricing model is toast.
Canon have just released the 5D Mk III at $3,500 body only (!#!), and its near starter DSLR, the 650D at $950.
As someone who has always felt Canon are one of the more cynical manufacturers our there I can't but help feeling a touch of schadenfreude as I witness the increasingly tightening stranglehold Nikon and Sony have got them in. That even as I see the value of my Canon kit falling by the day on Ebay.
I'm selling and moving on, Canon have been offering too little for too much, for too long.
IcyVeins: This lens costs $600. Therefore, the D600 will cost $2000 and the D600 + 24-85mm kit will cost $2500.
The inside rumours have the D600 body costing around $1,500, which makes more sense. Take the D600 to close to the D800 in price and it loses its point.
Thanks for an excellent review and sample images guys, very informative.
If I have to take issue with one thing it is your conclusion, "image quality is certainly a step above what we'd expect from Sony's high-end small-sensor Cyber-shot compacts".
"Step above"? Take Have another look at those ISO 2000 and ISO 2500 pictures..., I personally think the RX100's output is a quantum leap above anything offered by cybershot compacts and are overall very impressive indeed.
For me the RX100 is a game changer, the first really compact larger sensor camera on the market. I'll be first in the queue!
It looks like a winner!
I think some people are missing the point here, namely that the RX100 is offering a quality build camera with 1 inch sensor and Carl Zeiss zoom lens in a body not really much bigger or heavier than Canon's 1/1.7" sensor S100.
That's some achievement and for me that makes the RX100 a game changer.
Yes like others I would have preferred less MP (14-16 MP is more than enough), and would trade 30 mm at the long end of the zoom range for an extra 5 mm at the wide end (ie 24-75mm), but this camera still gets my vote as the most interesting compact camera of the year, so far!
simon65: Surely it would be far better if Fujifilm, rather than faithfully replicating all Leica's bad mistakes were to think for themselves, and produce a zoom lens version of the X100.
That would be an APS-C compact camera with a 28-70 equivalent zoom, not the two thirds X10, or the brick sized X1-Pro.
@topstuff and @slncezgsi
I'm not at all sure that a zoom for the X100 would have to be large. Ok I know it wouldn't have to be.
For years I listened to people saying that it would be impossible to produce a small camera with a large sensor. Then of course Olympus did just that, and now we have APS-C cameras the size and weight of the tiny Sony NEX-C3.
Then I had, and still have (!) people telling me that any zoom lens for a large sensor camera must invariably - due to the laws of physics etc etc - "be huge". Everyone who claims this must I presume, be totally unaware of Panasonic's diminutive and high performing pancake 28-84 equivalent power zoom.
So I'm sorry but I no longer believe a word of these "it would have to be huge" posts.
And I ask Fujifilm again to please get on and produce an APS-C compact camera with a pancake zoom. Thanks.
Surely it would be far better if Fujifilm, rather than faithfully replicating all Leica's bad mistakes were to think for themselves, and produce a zoom lens version of the X100.
Hmm, a black and white only camera costing 8,000 usd.
This isn't about "authenticity" its about photography snobbery, and parting those with more cash than brains from their money.
For everyone else you'll find a black and white option in your camera's menu.
I look forward to Leica launching a gold plated diamond studded Leica, only for the Russian, Chinese and Middle Eastern markets. Doubtless that too will be luanched in the name of "authenticity", as in "authentically rich".
Fixed non zoom lens = no sale.
When will Leica wake up?
I hear what DPR are saying about most users sticking with the kit lens, most probably will, but a significant number would also opt for the 16-80 mm or other upgraded lens. And many would also have a 50 mm in their bag.
The problem with this review sample is that apart from the high ISO shots its only really showing us how good Nikon's kit 18-55 lens is, for which the answer is of course not really that good, and definitely not up to doing justice to a 24 mp sensor.
I think weaving in some 50 mm or 85 mm shots would have been a good idea, and of course we all know by now that you have copies in the DPR lens cupboard! Other than that thanks for the swift samples.
Does anyone know if this is the same 24 mp sensor Sony is using in the NEX-7?
Yes but the problem is the NEX-7 is here now, and there isn't a decent zoom to pair with it now. How did a company of Sony's size end up making such a huge cock-up as that?
The proposed price is higher than Sony's NEX-7, which I'm afraid makes no sense at all.
Even Nikon's new D800 is less than double the price of this camera, athough that requires a lens to be attached.
Olympus OM-D E-M5 UK: £1,150 with lensSony Alpha NEX-7 UK £1,100 with lens
Panasonic LUMIX DMC-G3 meanwhile which uses the same 16 MP sensor as the Olympus can be bought with lens for under £450.
My guess is Olympus are going to have to cut the price of the OM-D pretty quickly to avoid embarrassment. It looks like a good camera but the price is right up there in cloud cuckoo land, and unless your names Leica people are only prepared to pay so much of a premium for the novelty of a "classic design".
"I can remember when a good quality film camera cost $2400"
Wow really? Please name that camera?
I recall the very high quality Nikon FM 2 selling for years at around £250 in the UK (around USD 500 at the time).
"You numb skulls will never except that quality craftsmanship has a price"
Come on, its going to mass produced in Japan/Thailand not carefully assembled by an artisan in a workshop somewhere in the Swiss Alps.
Ultimately the market will decide, but I'll wager that in these straightened times Fuji have got it wrong and pitched too high. There're fools. I would have gone in at a lower price to build market momentum, and establish share.
The camera market is in a state of flux and is up for grabs. There's absolutely no reason why Fuji can't be a major player, but not with pricing like this. They're being greedy and shortsighted.
Ultimately the comparison with film cameras is false. Time, and different materials (the FM 2 was built of Titanium even if it was a dark box), and improved productivity make it so.
What's important is the range of cameras on offer today. Fuji are fixated on Leica, and in being so are missing a wider opportunity. Some people will pay anything for "classic" looks. Its a shame if Fuji can't see beyond that kind of marketing wheeze. The cameras innards look good. They should be aiming higher.
I think Fuji could become a major player, but not if they're going to price themselves in as a upmarket niche Leica only rival. That's my point.
"The new PENTAX K-01 is another bold effort from the manufacturer that is known for pushing camera size, color, durability, and now, design, to the limit"
You have got to be kidding me Pentax! It's enormous, and weighs more than many DSLRs! What is the point?
Canon EOS 1100D 495 gNikon D3100 505 g Canon 550D 530 g Nikon D5100 560 gPentax K-01 561 g
Here's the new strap line for it:
"The K-01. All the size and weight of a DSLR without the benefit of a proper viewfinder"
simon65: Incredible, a 1/2.3" sensor, so Nikon still don't have a rival to Canon's S90/95/100 series.
These days if you want a compact sub 200g camera to be taken at all seriously it has to have at least a 1/1.7" sensor. Denial is going to make that fact go away Nikon.
Just as if you want your new sub 400 g compact camera to be taken seriously, it has to have an APS-C sized or at least four thirds sized sensor. But heh lets not go there.
@ Francis Carver
Yes size and weight are the first things I look at. And I think you'll find both play a major part in everyones choice of camera, otherwise we'd all be walking around with Nikon D4s. No?
So yes, please hand me that APS-C sub 400 g camera to have a look at, and leave the 1.4 kg one on the shelf. Thanks.