Just Posted: Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 review: Digital Photography Review

@R Butler

I've seen some reviews comment on a lag changing a value using the front dial around the lens. (You turn the dial but have to wait for the change to register.) Is that something you came across, or is it merely that the lack of discrete clicks makes it difficult to judge how much to turn the dial?

2 upvotes

I'd say the latter - I haven't noticed a lag.

3 upvotes

Thanks, quick reply!

2 upvotes

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)

7 upvotes

Don't look at 100% crops.
Remember how big the camera(and thus lens) is.
Remember how big the sensor is.

When you take the above into account, all your observations are to be expected.

2 upvotes

@ Jen_G

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.

0 upvotes

Stopped down the lens to f/6.3 for the test shots?? That's not very smart. You are well into diffraction area (35mm equiv of f/17) at 20MP. Not only that, but you front-focused the heck out of it. If you want to extract every possible detail from the sensor, you have to keep it below f/5 and focus properly. You shot the frickin J1 at f/4.5...why did you hamstring the RX100??

C'mon. Reshoot it at a reasonable aperture, please.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 3 minutes after posting

9 upvotes

Let me see if I can follow you here, AngyCorgi. The lens on this amazingly overpriced point and shooter is only an F4.9 when you have it at the 100mm "tele" setting, correct?

So, when you shoot with it at F6.3, you are only closing down the iris a little bit. What was your problem with that?

Also, you cannot shoot at F4.5 when the lens only opens up to F4.9 in its 'tele" setting, I should think.

0 upvotes

Just want to add that adding the same USM settings to each camera's developed RAW files is not the best procedure for revealing absolute image quality because the optimal amount will vary from camera to camera based on the strength of the AA filter.

1 upvote

Either you've not read the comments further down the page, or you're rude as well as angry.

We spent several days shooting and re-shooting and re-shooting the sample shots. That combination of aperture, focal length and focus point is the best compromise to achieve the best even results across the frame.

At close focus distances the field of focus is dramatically curved we had to stop down and choose a focus point that rendered most of the scene acceptably sharp, at the expense of absolute sharpness at the centre. The alternative would be a shot with terrible sharpness at the default 'medal' crop, which would have caused more cries of foul-play.

We're not stupid. We didn't rush this. This is the most consistent result we could get and we stressed in the description that it isn't fully representative of most real-world performance. That's all we can reasonably do.

24 upvotes

To Old Digiman - if you read the text on the Raw comparison page (and in the settings details at the bottom of the crop window), we didn't use our standard USM on these images for exactly that reason.

11 upvotes

Wow, compared with NEX-7 and the difference in detail/noise is not huge!

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 13 minutes after posting

1 upvote

I can see what kind of an audience this camera appeals to

0 upvotes

I guess it depends what did you expect. The difference between rx100 and m43 or nex is not much greater then differences between competing dslrs from various makers a couple years ago. If you don't upgrade every year or so, they are almost negligible. I guess my two-year old GF1 has worse high-iso than this.

0 upvotes

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.

0 upvotes

"Even at ISO200 and not pixel peeping at all the image from the NEX7 shows its class against the RX100."

The problem is, that when RX100 with f/1.8 lens is at ISO200, NEX7 with it's kit zoom f/3.5 is at ISO800 (comparing wide to wide, like shooting a company of your friends around a table or a dark church interior, without flash). Now go ahead and compare those.

0 upvotes

@peevee1

Oh no,

Another RX100 kit zoom Nazi

Why are RX100 users so inclined to force system camera users to their kit zooms? has it ever occurred to you that a lot of system camera users don't use nor even have a kit zoom? (I'm one of them).

Your point is the other way around. I can use an f0.95 lens on my NEX7 against your fixed no choice but f1.8 RX100. And then it's the NEX7 ISO200 Vs. RX100 ISO800.

And don't bring the price tag argument up. Canon S100, and Olympus XZ-1 users can bring that argument up and win against the RX100.

Comment edited 16 seconds after posting

0 upvotes

I have to say that their high iso is RAW shots are very clean compared to the J1/v1 (which have lots of color blotches), nevertheless i still like my J1 with possibility to use all kinds of nikon lenses on it (with ft1 adapter).

But still, kudos to sony for making such color free high iso raw files (even if the noise is there).

0 upvotes

Perhaps a great $500 camera. Perhaps worth $100 more than an LX7. But, for $650, it is a fair target for every qualm or quibble. That's a lot for a camera that within 12 months is apt to get buggy with pocket lint, have its lens turret squished, falll to the floor, or have its pop-up flash twisted awry. Owner euphoria is also a hazard. Tears for the soul that left it atop a car, from which it slid onto a highway and got pummeled by trucks.

A weather-sealed, drop resistant, hot-cold tolerant 1" sensor model might make sense. Test number one would be the ability to survive use as a budgeon on the head of the buyer after the spouse sees the CC bill.

6 upvotes

Why this point ans shooter with its truly sub-par lens has actually developed a "hype," and a "hype" bearing an associated US$650 street price, is well past the understanding of us, mere mortal little people.

0 upvotes

Seeing as it's being a best seller at that price, they're apparently not asking too much for what people expect.

3 upvotes

It is fairly drop-resistant. I took a tumble with mine on holiday, taking skin of a finger of the hand holding it and scratching the front of the lens housing. Still works fine.
I think, a propos of nothing in particular, that DPR (and others like Luminous Landscape) have completely nailed what this camera is about: it is about being able to take a small camera with you without feeling that you're going to be missing out because you didn't take your DSLR. I have taken my RX100 on two short holidays and left my 1Ds III at home and have had better holidays for it, without feeling that I have missed out on THAT shot. My LX3 never did that for me (and is bigger!).

2 upvotes

The best camera in its "compact" category should have had Gold Award. DPR, really? You give Silver Award to the worst modern camera in it's category (Canon Rebel T4i), and the same Silver Award to the by far the best???

8 upvotes

Well maybe best for you, others will beg to differ.

Comment edited 8 seconds after posting

1 upvote

A) Best in class doesn't guarantee a Gold - it has to be a standout camera. (A subjective decision, after shooting with the camera for a long period of time)

B) Your characterisation of the Rebel T4i is simplistic, which doesn't help your argument.

14 upvotes

A) how do you explain the gold award for the D800 and 5D3?
D800: left AF issue (many people are complaining about this)
5D3: banding in shadow cast area (when shadows are lifted)

Some significant issues > no standout cameras

B) Canon does not have Bronze award, only Silver or Gold even if they don't deserve it.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting

4 upvotes

how can it be "best in class" if it doesn't stand out? An oxymoron perhaps?

3 upvotes

ybizzle, R Butler, what are you talking about? If ever was the definition of standout camera, this is it. Among its light/compact peers, it is not just the best, it is the best by A LOT. It bests the previous leader, Canon S100, BY WHOLE 2 STOPS in image quality, and 4 times in shooting speed!
While the brand-new Canon T4i has significantly worse image quality than 2-years old (definitely not a current camera) Nikon D5100 selling for almost half the price of T4i now, has no AF illumination, less WB control etc.
Sheesh, Canon must be the most important advertiser here.

1 upvote

Up ISO 1600, I don't see it having much of an advantage over the X10. It does however have better detail retention ISO 3200 and above but who would really wants to shoot these cams at those ISOs anyways? I will say that for video, this compact cam is king!

I will stick with the X10 for the faster lens, build quality, OVF, and retro appeal! ;)

Comment edited 51 seconds after posting

0 upvotes

YOU may not care to shoot at ISO 3200 and above, but others who spend this much on ANY camera in 2012 or beyond would definitely like to be able to use those higher ISO ratings. Especially, when a much higher ISO is being trumpeted by the manufacturer.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting

2 upvotes

Sure you could use those in EMERGENCY situations, but for anything serious, it's best left untouched.

1 upvote

Yes, but what constitutes "serious" ? Is it paid work? Me, I am an amateur, and an eternal noob, but I do take my photography fairly seriously :P !

1 upvote

Serious as in people who shoot with anything but the cameras on your gear list. ;) Haha...Sorry, just buggin.

Serious as in if I took a shot at night time at ISO 3200, I wouldn't blow it up and put it on my wall or submit it to any photo contests, paid work, etc.

0 upvotes

Lol, I see. (And yes, I am looking to soon obtain my first digicam that can shoot at higher than ISO 400 levels, hehe. Go me!)

2 upvotes

I was only kidding haha. But yea, I tend to shoot at max 1600 ISO with the X10. With my X100 or 60D, I have no issues shooting up to 3200 or even 4000 because of their larger sensors!

Well this RX100 could just be your ticket if you're in the market!

PS.

I know we've had our disagreements in the past and I may have been harsh on my comments so my bad if I ticked you off! No harm meant. ;)

1 upvote

DPreview Stop complaining about not being able to use Filters, there are a lot of interest in this camera and 3rd party adapters are coming up all the time, not much longer and you will have a external battery charger as well.
Check out this filter adapter.

http://cgi.ebay.fr/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=300770433338&ru=http%3A%2F%2Fshop.ebay.fr%2Fitems%2F%3F_nkw%3D300770433338%26_sacat%3D%26_ex_kw%3D%26_mPrRngCbx%3D1%26_udlo%3D%26_udhi%3D%26_sop%3D12%26clk_rvr_id%3D380888597750%26_fvi%3D1%26bkBtn%3D%26_rdc%3D1

4 upvotes

I wasn't aware of those. I'd be a little concerned about adding weight to such a high-precision part of the camera, but I've added a modifier to the relevant 'Con' so that people are aware.

With regards the USB-charging, there are pluses and minuses to that approach - hence it being a 'Pro' and a 'Con.' Ultimately, if you have to go out and buy and accessory charger for your $650 camera, it's reasonable for us to list it as a 'Con.'

As with every aspect of our reviews, if it doesn't bother you, you're welcome to discount it. Our job is to bring such issues to people's attention so they can make an informed decision.

14 upvotes

I actually broke two lenses already by adding a 72mm C-PL filter to the front of a 58mm lens. Not recomended for a reason.

3 upvotes

I have to agree with you R Butler Thanks for adding that you can get a ghetto fantastic glue on filter adapter that could damage the lens.

1 upvote

Haha, Boerseuntjie, I would like to nominate you for funniest post of the day.

Seriously, I too would be wary of such attachments. I wonder if the warranty would even cover such things?

2 upvotes

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.

4 upvotes

Yeah, a week less than 3 month after announcement! So "quick". ;)

0 upvotes

This is a good camera with a larger than typical P&S sensor. Much cleaner images than the 1/1.7" sensor compacts. I think a lot of people would be happy with it. I do have some nitpicks however...

Even at low ISO with the lens zoomed, noise does show. I applaud Sony for not trying to smear it away. The lens is a bit soft off axis. Sony should have used a 15 or 16mp sensor. This way the noise and lens would not be so challenging.

Lastly, an important thing to me, is that dynamically compressed audio manufacturers use on digicams. It makes background sounds thundering loud and live music impossible to record with any quality. At least have the ability to turn it off for natural sound quality.

1 upvote

I don't see what benefit a lower MP sensor would have given. It already equals the Nikon 1 series sensor in terms of overall noise for a given output size, despite having twice as many pixels. And in terms of shadow (read) noise, the Sony sensor performs even much better. You'd only be sacrificing detail (anywhere but the edges) and the speed is already there. So you wouldn't gain anything but more pictures per GB storage space. And now that storage has become cheap, that's not really a compelling argument in my book.

Comment edited 46 seconds after posting

5 upvotes

Simple, lower noise at higher ISO's. Doesn't seem all that difficult to understand for me.

0 upvotes

"Simple, lower noise at higher ISO's. Doesn't seem all that difficult to understand for me."

The Nikon 1 CX sized sensor has the same efficiency as the best sensors to date (D3S, D4). The RX100 does no worse in terms noise and better in terms of DR. And you expect a visible improvement had it been 15 to 16MP? Better efficiency than a D3S, D4?

Apparently it *is* too difficult for some to understand.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 2 minutes after posting

6 upvotes

Had Sony made the sensor with less pixels and same tech and processing yes, the sensor would show less noise. Larger pixels gather more light, but its only fair to compare if you are using the same processing/processor, substrate, electronics, etc etc only with larger pixels vs smaller ones.

So had that been the case, the sensor would perform even better in this regard.

Theoretically.

C

0 upvotes

Still making assumptions not backed by reality.

You're assuming it would be *visibly* the most efficient sensor, with pixels still several times smaller than the current benchmark, the D3S and D4.
Back to reality: not going to happen.

If a mere 20 to 25% drop in pixel count would already visibly improve noise over the current 2.4 micron pixels, going to 6 microns and larger would easily yield more than the theoretical limit of 100% of all photons passing that entrance pupil, according to the same flawed theories.

Fact is, cameras with 2.4, 3.4, 7.2 and 8.4 micron pixels are all hitting the same limit as we speak. And they all show similar noise levels per unit area.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting

4 upvotes

Of course, you're always right.

0 upvotes

he is, you're talking about different things though. he's talking per unit area, you're talking per photosite, ultimately it adds up to the same effect at any given reproduction size less than 1:1 of the lower pixel count sensor as the multiple samples per unit area of the higher res sensor get "averaged" in downsizing, thus losing most of the per-pixel noise. Simples!

3 upvotes

Amateurish sample galleries. The RX100 is the best of its kind, it is gold award. Period!

2 upvotes

Clearly biased - the sample images would IMHO show it is not that special against the Fuji, Panasonics and Canons. All cameras are a compromise of features and functions, DPReview are more objective in their assessment than you. Have another look at the gallery without the rose tint specs. As a camera, it will meet a demand, I'd buy it if it were not let down by some of its weaker areas that matter to me.

6 upvotes

No. If this camera was released as a Canikon product, dpreview would have been on their knees, and praised that little object as revolutionary. The sample gallery does not give any credit to the camera. For what it is, i.e. an enhanced point and shot cameras, it does thing very well based on multiple reviews I have read a while ago now. Check the web, and get some samples taken with the RX100. In its category, it is the best you can get. This camera will be sold as hot cakes.

PS: The same dpreview put gold awards for 5DIII and Nikon D800, and those cameras are far to be flawless.

2 upvotes

I mean, for $650, you can actually get a fairly decent digital camera and lens. Why go with this one instead?

0 upvotes

Yes, I think the price tag is probably one of the most significant drawback. Its ideal price would be 500 USD I think!

0 upvotes

"I mean, for $650, you can actually get a fairly decent digital camera and lens. Why go with this one instead?"

Because it is by far and away the best camera that fits in a jeans or shirt pocket. And in fact gives some cameras that are much larger in more than one way a run for their money.

6 upvotes

Best for what? A bit broad speaking, and speaking for all at the same time too, don't you think?

C

0 upvotes

For a jeans/shirt pocket sized, best at:
- resolution
- low light capabilities
- dynamic range
- shot to shot times in both jpeg and RAW
- focusing
- features (multishot HDR, multishot NR best panorama mode, easiest MF, etc.)
- battery life
- screen brightness in sunny mode for outdoor visibility
- movie quality and features (full HD 60P, low noise, DR etc.).

And everything that I didn't mention but was covered in a plethora of reviews around the net reaching the conclusion I just stated above.

Now it's your turn to find that one thing that shirt pocket camera X does better. A subjective one will do. Go ahead, make my day and fail to realize that my reply did exactly that, point out why many people go for this camera (a mix of the facts above and subjective preferences). Which of course is followed by why it's best for them, not necessarily you.

Comment edited 4 times, last edit 6 minutes after posting

3 upvotes

Nothing on the RED ORBS (lens flare pattern into the sun) :)

0 upvotes

I've noticed that the so-called red orbs are only really all that apparent in photos using a high DRO setting (ie, Lvl 4 or 5) in direct sunlight. Otherwise they haven't been much of an issue.

0 upvotes

Well, nowhere as bad as the X10's white orb syndrome, doesn't look bothersome with night cityscapes or even stage reflectors. But likely a problem with the sun in the frame. A flare warning would be in place in the review. Naturally, DRO emphasizes this.
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1009&message=42344095

0 upvotes

It appears this stems from diffraction-interference of an intense beam reflected back from the sensor and again by a nearby rear element. And that it also happens with some other cameras (E-PL2, XZ-1, DP2, maybe others not tested).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x1pdjLrXAXo (SGS2 phone)
You can check your cameras easily by shining a LED flashlight beam into the camera (DSLR: live view, not OVF) - but don't overdo it as you may fry the sensor.

0 upvotes

Isn't the "performance" page missing from the review?

2 upvotes

Yes, I'm curious to know the RX100's delay times for shot-to-shot or when changing modes, or engaging the video. Is there any improvement over the relative sluggishness of the 2010-2011 HX models?

1 upvote

We'll add some more detail about timings (though not a full performance page), probably tomorrow.

Shot-to-shot times are very quick, as is focus. I'll have a look at switching modes, since this isn't something we've traditionally tested.

2 upvotes

Is it just me or are all of the images for the RX100 blurry in the comparison tool? I know this has a larger sensor so it could have shallower depth of field. However, I couldn't find the true focus point anywhere in the image.

Everything else looks incredible about this camera. I can't wait to see it compared with the Panasonic LX-7. Those are two tremendous little cameras.

3 upvotes

At the limits of its close focusing, the field of focus isn't flat, so images towards the edge of the frame will be blurry - we spent a great deal of time finding the optimal focal length and focus point to make sure the shots were as close to real-world performance as possible. That's why the descriptions all start with a caveat.

7 upvotes

I understand that. Thanks for the clarification. Was the point of focus closer to the camera for the RX100? It looks to even be in front of Pluto for these images.

2 upvotes

Having shot the scene many, many times, that is the best balance of sharpness across the frame. If you get the centre perfectly sharp then the edges are much, much worse, so you have to choose a balance.

We are working on a solution to this problem for future reviews.

8 upvotes

Why does this sound like you're looking for a solution to something that should be a big Con? ie.. you can't get a sharp image across the frame.

0 upvotes

The image quality is noticably better than similar sized cameras (except for clipped highlights which are bad with all small cameras except the X10) and I liked the ring and Sony's interface. But I'll wait for the new Fujis and whatever Canon has at Photokina.

In the end, I returned the RX100 but not because of the image quality. I'm not hard on cameras but that plastic lens barrel just seemed too fragile. The plastic baseplate was a little surprising at this price, too.

Seeing the RX100's very good picture quality led me to the G1X, which was better but too clunky and slower than a bellows camera. But Photokina is just around the corner. If there's nothing nicer, I might just get another RX100.

Comment edited 39 seconds after posting

0 upvotes

People who buy and then quickly return things on the slightest whims serve to drive up prices for the rest of us.

13 upvotes

Not at all

0 upvotes

Even at just 200 ISO, the smearing is amazing! Nice impressionistic painting tool. Not very impressed, to say the least.

1 upvote

Yeah, only looking at 100% crops from a 20MP P&S isn't very smart, to say the least.

0 upvotes

Silver?

Grab some popcorn, sit back and enjoy the unfolding apocalypse...

14 upvotes

DPR is in the business of selling page views.
Giving a camera like this a Silver Award guarantees lots of comments, and therefore lots of pageviews.

That said, if you ignore the award and the rating, it's a very good review.

2 upvotes

Great can't wait to compare it to the A57 review.

Oooops, I forgot, you never published a review of the A57.

1 upvote

I doubt they even plan to review A57 anymore. What would be the point this late anyway? It's probably up for replacement in 5 months.

2 upvotes

There's an A57 review on its way.

7 upvotes

Sometimes things are worth waiting for. Patience is a virtue.

C

2 upvotes

Anyone else seeing that the miniature side-by-side views (comparing high ISO noise between 4 different cameras) is not loading the RX100 pics? I've tried two different browsers:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sony-cybershot-dsc-rx100/13

0 upvotes

Try clearing your cache - the files took longer to upload than expected.

2 upvotes

Perfect, thanks!

1 upvote

fair and balanced review

2 upvotes

Yes.......! At last! :-)

0 upvotes


DPReview Recommends: Top Five Zoom Compact Cameras Nov 23, 2012	Sony RX100 one of 50 'best inventions' of 2012 says TIME Magazine Nov 2, 2012	Sony announces Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 large sensor enthusiast compact Jun 6, 2012	Just Posted: Olympus E-PM2 Review May 21, 2013

	Olympus PEN E-P5 May 10, 2013
	Samsung NX2000 May 1, 2013
	Sony Cyber-shot DSC-HX50V Apr 24, 2013
	Panasonic Lumix DMC-G6 Apr 24, 2013
	Panasonic Lumix DMC-LF1 Apr 24, 2013
	Ricoh GR Apr 17, 2013
	Samsung NX1100 Apr 11, 2013
	Panasonic Lumix DMC-GF6 Apr 9, 2013
	Fujifilm FinePix S8400W Mar 22, 2013
	Fujifilm FinePix XP200 Mar 22, 2013

I would like to discuss the aesthetics of ...	89
can you tell the IQ/ISO difference game: ...	62
Is Apple getting people by their brain-balls?	56
Panasonic G6. It really has an old, bad sensor?	50
Photographer = Loner?	47
Would you take your D800E and lenses on a trip ...	45
What's the status of the RED problem with ...	44
* This Week Through YOUR m4/3 2013.05.25 *	40
More artistic and less photorealistic	33
Smallest case/bag for X-E1	33
80-400VR/D800e does Florida Birds	33
Advice needed - Computer for Photo Editing	32
IBIS vs Tripod?	32
“Photo of the Week” – #4 (May 24 – May 30, 2013)	31
What companies should Sigma buy in coming years?	30
Flower Closeup Shots	30
Is there a SIMPLE flash for Canon DSLR's?	29
Ricoh GR lens performance test images	29
Cannot get sharp focus when tracking playing ...	27
Take a Ride down "Historic Rt 66"	26

Your email address:
Your name:

Just Posted: Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 review

Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100

Comments