Cephalotus

Timmbits: To me, this is an XZ-1.1 - not xz-2, here's why:

It has welcome improvements in the looks department. Love the handle, love the moving away from the s95-like anonymity - very nice over all design. Love that Olympus continues to set the pace with beautiful retro-like designs.

But the lens is similar. Very similar: nice, bright, reasonable zoom range.

And despite the sensor being a BSI, it is slightly smaller (1/1,7" versus 1/1,6") and with a higher pixel count - so the pixels are either the same size (at best) or may even be slightly smaller than on the previous model... which leads to the obvious question: are the images better? Or have things stayed much the same?

Definitely, it's a welcome rejuvenation as an XZ-1.1, getting an update in the marketing-hype department (12MP bsi), but...
...I can't wait to see the REAL XZ-2 (whatever they are going to call a "real" successor to the XZ-1/2).

Fotogeneticist: Until an EVF has the same refresh rate and dynamic range that matches my eye, it will never replace OVFs for me. What does an EVF give me except for battery drain and shadows you can't see into? And to the poster that said an EVF needs 2MP to out-resolve an OVF, if you out resolve what your eye can see anyways, what good would that do?

Joe0Bloggs: I was going to calculate the equivalent apertures of a few recent wide aperture compacts and compare them--cool that dpreview has already calculated the whole lot for me!

"*Effective aperture, in 135 film terms - this gives an idea of the depth of field control offered by the lenses when the sensor size is taken into account."

Pity they didn't go on to point out that given equivalent sensor technologies, having a larger (smaller number) effective aperture also gives you better low light performance no matter what the size of the sensor or the actual f-number on the lens is. So e.g. we can expect the RX100 to do better in low light than the G1X, Nikon 1 with f/3.5-5.6 lens or even m4/3rds and even 1.5 crop with kit f/3.5 lenses.

techmine: That CZ lens makes this camera really hot!

jonikon: This Sony RX100 is a BIG improvement over all the other truly pocketable cameras and should be well received by many. Cameras like this should have been made years ago, as the demand has been there for some time now. Although the RX100 is definitely a Canon G1X killer, it is not perfect however. I would like to see Sony add:
1. an EVF
2. Phase detection auto focus for acceptable continuous AF of moving subjects.
3. Less megapixels. 10MP is enough, but 20MP is unnecessary and results some IQ issues (like color accuracy and diffraction limiting, noise reduction smearing), that could have been avoided with a 10 or 12 MP sensor.
4. A way to remove the lens for sensor cleaning.
5. Lower price.

That said, I think the RX100 is good enough to take away a lot of sales from their NEX line of cameras that are definitely NOT pocketable with a zoom lens attached, and offer little more than lens interchangeability over the RX100.

AnHund: Even the best EVF will never be as good as an OVF as they are implemented in the current FF DSLRs. Period.

panman55: How about a range of ultra-fast Fujinon lenses please? like f1.2, 1.4 20mm tilt/shift and f2 300mm lenses?
No-one else seems interested, and the quality of Fuji was always excellent.

Also, could we please have a 'basic' high-end digital camera with NO silly 'scene' settings, just aperture and shutter-speed controls along with high-speed autofocus? Don't need all the other expensive techno stuff, just high-quality basics - most pro photographers could cope with that couldn't they?

I'd really like a stripped-down basic camera with TOP-end quality chip, and top-end lenses please, and leave out the retro styling too, we don't need to look backwards any more - go on, you know you can!