Previous news story    Next news story

Sony RX100 one of 50 'best inventions' of 2012 says TIME Magazine

By dpreview staff on Nov 2, 2012 at 23:36 GMT
Buy on GearShop$548.00

TIME Magazine has included the Sony Cyber-shot RX100 in its list of the 50 'best inventions' of 2012. TIME's Techland's blog called the RX100 a 'huge leap' in the trend towards smaller and more capable digital cameras, thanks to its 'innovative design and 1-in sensor'. The list of 50 inventions is organized by cost, from 'priceless' up to '2.5 billion' and also includes self-inflating tires, the Curiosity Mars rover, and LiquiGlide, a microscopic non-slip coating.  

Time Magazine has included the Sony Cyber-shot RX100 in its list of the 50 best inventions of 2012, due to its 'innovative design' and CX-format 1in sensor. Picture: Dan Forbes for TIME

TIME Magazine's full description, as posted on its Techlands blog is as follows:

'Digital cameras have been getting smaller and more capable every year, but that trend took a huge leap forward in 2012 with the Sony RX100, which bridges the gap between point-and-shoots and pro-quality digital SLRs. Sony’s innovative design and 1-in. (2.5 cm) sensor allow the camera to take flawless photos even though it’s 20% slimmer than your average digital SLR—small enough to fit in your pocket.'

When we reviewed the RX100, earlier this year, we were very impressed. What do you think of the RX100's inclusion in Time's list? Let us know in the comments. 

via PetaPixel

769
I own it
107
I want it
74
I had it
Discuss in the forums
Our favorite products. Free 2 day shipping.
Support this site, buy from dpreview GearShop.
Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100

Comments

Total comments: 578
1234
ManuelVilardeMacedo
By ManuelVilardeMacedo (Nov 3, 2012)

How come? This is not an invention! There have been compact cameras for a while now, and even if we'd admit putting a large sensor in a small camera is an invention (it isn't), Sigma did that before.
An innovation, perhaps; never an invention.

3 upvotes
steelhead3
By steelhead3 (Nov 3, 2012)

Dpr didn't put its "A" team on the rx100 review obviously.

2 upvotes
Barney Britton
By Barney Britton (Nov 3, 2012)

It was 'A' review - and a thorough and balanced one.

11 upvotes
GaryJP
By GaryJP (Nov 3, 2012)

I think it was a fair review. But fanboys never will. No matter what the brand.

6 upvotes
Gunnlaugur Gudmundsson
By Gunnlaugur Gudmundsson (Nov 3, 2012)

So, Barney, you give the Sony RX-100 a silver award... based on a thorough an balanced review. The rest of the world - see e.g. Olympus compact forum (the XZ-2 talk is dominated by RX-100 comments) - talks about the RX-100 as a ground-braking camera... the first compact camera with a sensor this size.. etc.. what you may be missing is that if you 'go to the bunkers' against the rest of the world - DPreview will lose the respect it has had... until now...

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
4 upvotes
steelhead3
By steelhead3 (Nov 3, 2012)

I can't wait for the rx1 review, it will be compared to MF cameras and will be found wanting. I don't own or plan to own these cameras, but when sony defines a new category DP should acknowledge it with kudos.

1 upvote
Barney Britton
By Barney Britton (Nov 3, 2012)

@ Gunnlaugur Gudmundsson - we've clearly annoyed you. A lot, it seems. And for that I can only apologize but we've made our position, and our methodology very clear.

14 upvotes
Gunnlaugur Gudmundsson
By Gunnlaugur Gudmundsson (Nov 3, 2012)

Thank you for taking the time to answer. I honestly don't understand how you arrive at your conclusions. To quote DP: "Scoring is relative only to the other cameras in the same category." Does this mean that no compact camera today deserves a Gold award?

1 upvote
Revenant
By Revenant (Nov 3, 2012)

Scoring is relative to other cameras in the same category, the awards aren't. As DPR has explained, awards are subjective and highly personal opinions with no logical or intrinsic connection to the scores or to the objective test results.

0 upvotes
Undah
By Undah (Nov 3, 2012)

Best invention? Maybe, but more appropriately best innovation.

This is the camera many of us had been wishing for for many years.

13 upvotes
M Lammerse
By M Lammerse (Nov 3, 2012)

This article says actually more about Time Magazine itself than about the camera ...it seems that news media magazines are not doing so well lately.

8 upvotes
tornwald
By tornwald (Nov 3, 2012)

Camera wise, for me it's the Sigma DP2M this year. It's a limited camera and not an alrounder such as the RX100. But what it does.. boy does it do it!

1 upvote
Shamael
By Shamael (Nov 3, 2012)

One can, in you view, then take all cameras and catalog the reviews by detail. Gold award for the IQ, Silver award for a pop-up flash, bronze award for the hot-shoe, and so on.

In some way it would be nice to have a simple list of cameras classified by their IQ, like best in 100 ISO, best from 100 to 800 Iso and so on. Now, imagine that you need days to find one that fits you.But on the end IQ is determining factor, and here, in this format, RX100 has not yet any equal.

I have seen pictures shot with kit lens, with IL of different sizes, with hybrid lenses on the new Pentax Q10, man, I was impressed what this little thing can do.

Barney, got it, get us a review of Q10 as soon as possible, since DPR has turned to play with gadgets of all forms and sizes now, this is a real one. I know you don't like Pentax, but give your heart a kick.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Nov 3, 2012)

Quote: "which bridges the gap between point-and-shoots and pro-quality digital SLRs."

So Time has never heard of mirrorless APSC systems or m43 systems--no wonder I don't read Time for camera news.

Wait people read Time?

The RX100 is very nice for a pocket camera, and getting a bigger sensor in there is a neat trick for which Sony should be proud; it's still not exactly an invention.

4 upvotes
Gunnlaugur Gudmundsson
By Gunnlaugur Gudmundsson (Nov 2, 2012)

in your review DPreviw, - conclusion - why do you say

"..probably the most capable compact camera... " and yet you only give it silver.. so what is gold? A compact camera that does not exist?

and in the negatives you talk about low light compared to... much more expensive cameras... why?

11 upvotes
Gunnlaugur Gudmundsson
By Gunnlaugur Gudmundsson (Nov 2, 2012)

especially since you say that your scores are relative to other similar cameras in the same class?

1 upvote
Barney Britton
By Barney Britton (Nov 3, 2012)

And we also say (again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again) that a camera's score and its award (if any) are not intrinsically linked.

6 upvotes
BrightEyesOnFire
By BrightEyesOnFire (Nov 3, 2012)

Barney you are missing his point, which is that it makes no sense to call a camera best in its class and then not give it the highest level of award. At the very least it makes the awards seem utterly meaningless. The point of reviews is supposed to be to help someone decide how different cameras compare to each other, and you are sending conflicting messages by giving only a silver to a camera that by your own admission beats all of its competition.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
16 upvotes
Gunnlaugur Gudmundsson
By Gunnlaugur Gudmundsson (Nov 3, 2012)

Exactly

1 upvote
EmmanuelStarchild
By EmmanuelStarchild (Nov 3, 2012)

What do you say again, Barney?

Comment edited 13 seconds after posting
1 upvote
Barney Britton
By Barney Britton (Nov 3, 2012)

OK - so. You'd be right if there were an intrinsic connection between score and award. There isn't. So it's perfectly sensible for us to withhold a gold award from the RX100, despite its excellent performance. It's the difference between being impressed by and having respect for someone's abilities, and loving them.

Gold/Silver awards are subjective. We've said it a million times.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 1 minute after posting
2 upvotes
Altruisto
By Altruisto (Nov 3, 2012)

I'm sorry, but I tried Sony RX100, and though it's image quality is terrific, I didn't like its ergonomics. Too cumbersome, fiddly ergonomics. I came to buy RX100 and I left with Nikon P7700. Fun factor is too important in photography.

4 upvotes
Robert Eckerlin
By Robert Eckerlin (Nov 3, 2012)

In defense of the dpreview review: Some of the reasons why in my opinion the camera does not deserve the Gold award are: "Sreen hard to see in direct sunshine" (especially, if there is no viewfinder), "clickless control dial", "Reds can overexpose and clip", "USB-only charging".

But of course, it is nevertheless an excellent camera and dpreview has clearly expressed its sympathy for that camera

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
sleeepyhead
By sleeepyhead (Nov 3, 2012)

The awards are whether the reviewer likes the camera or not. The actual specs and abilities are comparable in the overall score and those bar charts at the end of the review. For example, a 2012 camaro will beat a 1969 camaro in every way, its faster, has better handling and more creature comforts. It would win in the overall score vs the 1969, but the older car would be more likely to get a gold award because it makes the reviewer happier when he tests it.

0 upvotes
sbansban
By sbansban (Nov 3, 2012)

Even I still can't figure out exactly how the RX100 missed DPReview's Gold award. I am NOT a fanboy, and just like many posters here have pointed out, I don't think it deserves to be included at all in any list of the year's best "inventions". I also found an issue with smudged detail, especially in human hair when taking pictures indoors even in very well-illuminated hallways at ISO 200, but putting such a large sensor in a pocketable camera certainly is a huge feat and the camera's IQ is way way better than any other current pocket camera - so why do SD4000 and G12 get the Gold award and not RX100? Since so many folks seem to have the same question, maybe it would be nice if DPR could stoop to give us mere mortals some details?

1 upvote
Shamael
By Shamael (Nov 3, 2012)

Here, Gunnlaugur is right, never compare any camera to any other one that is different in sensor size and built. Do not compare a ML to a DSLR or a 1 1/7th to an APSC, unless there is a reason to do and comparing RX100 pictures to some dslr's on the market makes sense, when it concerns IQ, same as comparing Samsung 20 mpix or Sony 16 and 24 mpix NEX chips to D600 or even D800. Here it makes sense, but only for IQ, that a FF has a stop better DR is known. In it's class and sensor size, nothing yet can match the RX100 IQ, and that is a Gold award anyway. It can not be beaten, nor can it be compared since it is unique. Only Nikon One has same sensor size and those perform hella good too, but with half the pixel amount. So, Barney, what's the point for this silver award then, compared to what is it due in comparing it to what. Gunnlaugur will stick to his point and you can't get him overheated, it are minus 25 C at the moment in Iceland and Icelanders are brick - headed, hahaha.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 6 minutes after posting
1 upvote
Shamael
By Shamael (Nov 3, 2012)

@ Robert Eckerlin, you statement is not valuable. it is a P&S and they have no viewfinders, and then, all of them have the same troubles with not seeing a clue on the screen in bright sun. This is not a reason to down value it and say just that, like all other similar cameras it has the same issue with sun mirroring in the screen and so on. We do not compare the RX100 to the NEX or V1 or V2 with EVF. The slow USB charging can be a factor to avoid this item, but not to give it a lesser note. What makes a camera is IQ and the lens that helps to make this, what gives it a better note is the comfort and equipment it has, and RX100 offers all, and in some fields, much more, than other P&S in it's size, not in it's class, since there is nothing in that class yet, except a MLILS system from Nikon.

1 upvote
Robert Eckerlin
By Robert Eckerlin (Nov 3, 2012)

Shamael, for me a dpreview Gold Award for that camera would have been misleading and would have misled me (for the reasons that I mentioned in my previous Post) and I appreciate that dpreview has not misled me.

What were the fundamental inhibitors preventing:
- to have a screen that is ***less*** hard to see in direct sunlight?
- to better avoid red-clipping?
- to avoid USB-only charging?

For me, these are important issues. In my view, as long as Sony does not resolve these issues for that camera (or for a follow-on), that camera (or its follow ons) does not deserve to get a Gold Award, even if for others it will be an excellent camera and if in the view of others it deserves to get the Gold award.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
Revenant
By Revenant (Nov 3, 2012)

I don't get why so many have trouble understanding the subjective nature of the awards. They aren't supposed to be valid for each and every person; they are an expression of the individual reviewers' personal opinion about the camera. Even if camera A is technically more capable than camera B, maybe even "best in its class", it's still possible to be more sympathetic towards B than A, perhaps because you like how it feels or simply have more fun using it. So you shouldn't try to find a logical connection between the objective testing of a camera, and the reviewer's subjective, personal opinion about it, because there isn't one.

0 upvotes
aerorail
By aerorail (Nov 2, 2012)

i already knew it was one of the best and it proved itself on vacation. HDR feature makes some amazing photos that would otherwise be blown out and it is SMALL and perfect for your pocket

dpr didn't do it justice same as they do with most compacts

7 upvotes
Photomonkey
By Photomonkey (Nov 2, 2012)

Nice camera but hardly an "invention".

1 upvote
MGJA
By MGJA (Nov 2, 2012)

I'm devastated to hear it's just 20% slimmer than "your average digital SLR". Here I thought it was a small camera.

Oh well, it's Time.

1 upvote
rhlpetrus
By rhlpetrus (Nov 2, 2012)

Sony need all help they can get from imaging, the whole company is in trouble. Supposedly Nikon has taken the second place for compacts behind Canon, and has a 24% market share all cameras (Thom). Panny is in even bigger trouble. Canon is also doing relatively well, even if down from last year. Of all imaging companies, Nikon is doing best.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 2 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Nov 3, 2012)

Nikon compact? Ugh: there are many better choices unless you count the 1 series as compact.

3 upvotes
Altruisto
By Altruisto (Nov 3, 2012)

Try P7700 than you can tell!

0 upvotes
kucink132
By kucink132 (Nov 3, 2012)

"nikon has taken the second place.." nah, nikon 1 is just bulky and ugly for the same tiny sensor. M4/3 and NEX are the real deal

3 upvotes
Shamael
By Shamael (Nov 3, 2012)

It might be because they are in trouble, that they bought a bigger part of Oly recently. Sony has lost money in the last years like all the world's industry due to the crisis and bad marketing strategies in the past. But, in trouble, that is taken from far away. I doubt much that a company like Sony will get in trouble that fast, they are world leaders in TV technology, cameras for pro market, recording, and screens for individuals.
There cameras are excellent and innovative in technology, far in front of many others. If they had kept the Minolta Brand, they would possibly perform better in sales rates, possibly!

2 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Nov 3, 2012)

Altruisto:

The fact that Nikon many finally have made a single decent advanced P&S, doesn't mean that Nikon leads in compact cameras. And it still took Nikon years too long to get there.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Nov 3, 2012)

Shamael:

No Sony is no longer a world leader in TVs. That would the two big Korean companies, ironically because of 30 year old Kodak technology which Sony had a chance to develop.

0 upvotes
Revenant
By Revenant (Nov 3, 2012)

Some of you are missing the point. It's a fact that Nikon has taken over the second place in compact cameras from Sony. We're talking about market share and sales figures here, which doesn't necessarily have much to do with the quality of the products. I agree that most Nikon compacts are mediocre, but people still buy them, and apparently Nikon now sells more compacts than Sony.

1 upvote
morepix
By morepix (Nov 2, 2012)

Nice, but overblown.

0 upvotes
Benarm
By Benarm (Nov 2, 2012)

Time is right, too bad RX100 didn't get a gold award on DPR.

8 upvotes
ianp5a
By ianp5a (Nov 3, 2012)

That camera is nice but nothing special. Why does DPReview give space to people amazed by what we've known for years? Unless there is money to be made. DPR you should be ashamed.

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Peter McNeill
By Peter McNeill (Nov 3, 2012)

All I see is the griping of children that are PO'd the camera of the year doesn't have Nikon or Canon on the label. If the RX100 had been a Nikon or Canon, it couldn't get praised enough from the peanut gallery. Is it the best, maybe not, but the other big two have nothing that's better to take the award.

3 upvotes
Rich K
By Rich K (Nov 3, 2012)

Let's see ... RX100 @ $650 or EPL-5 @$699? Not much to argue about - it's clear that the Oly is the new invention of the year!

0 upvotes
Shamael
By Shamael (Nov 3, 2012)

Yep, then buy all the lenses you need to cover the raneg of RX100 lens and you are done for 1300$. Despite that, the Oly is still the better choice. But when the pocket size of the RX100 is the reason you buy it for, that is is not given with the Oly. One needs to know what one wants, and despite all this RX100 is 200$ overpriced anyway.

Comment edited 48 seconds after posting
4 upvotes
areopoli
By areopoli (Nov 5, 2012)

Take a NEX with a Sigma 30mm-lens and you´ll have a wonderful pocketable camera with a much bigger sensor.

0 upvotes
Total comments: 578
1234