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

771
I own it
106
I want it
77
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
SeeRoy
By SeeRoy (Nov 3, 2012)

Yet another consumer camera clone is "One of the 50 best inventions..." This plumbs the absolute depths of meaninglessness.

3 upvotes
Calvin Chann
By Calvin Chann (Nov 3, 2012)

What is it a clone of?

4 upvotes
bobbarber
By bobbarber (Nov 3, 2012)

I would not buy the RX-100 if I were in the market for a compact camera.

I just looked at raw and jpeg comparison with XZ-1 (I'm an Oly fanboy) and GH2 (different class, I know, but it's my current camera). The edges of the RX-100 lens suck, and not just a little bit. Look at the watch, the hair next to the watch, etc. The IQ of the RX-100 camera is HORRIBLE at the edges of the frame, and not just at the outermost edges, but quite a ways in!!

I will admit, there will be a high ISO advantage for the RX-100 over the XZ-1 (I didn't check), as well as shallow DOF, and that does help the RX-100's case.

Here's where I think the RX-100 failed. The RX-100 has a top-notch sensor and electronics, no doubt, but the lens is too small for sharpness edge-to-edge at the given apertures and focal lengths. So the quality of the lens in relation to sensor size will be much higher for cameras like the XZ-1, XZ-2, LX-7, etc.

3 upvotes
zodiacfml
By zodiacfml (Nov 3, 2012)

Totally agree. It's the reason why the LX7 or XZ1 is larger and heavier, due to larger lens and that's what most people didn't know about. Yet, this is an opportunity for panny and oly to upgrade their sensors versus the rx100. I would be happy with a sensor similar to Nikon 1.

2 upvotes
Burgerwhich
By Burgerwhich (Nov 4, 2012)

If you want to buy the XZ-1 and save $400 in difference, just do it. Stop justifying a purchase with you subjective BS. What? you trying to add some value to your purchase here?

2 upvotes
Steve FStop
By Steve FStop (Nov 3, 2012)

Give them just an inch and they will take a mile....well if not a mile, then at least a 'huge leap'?

1 upvote
Jim
By Jim (Nov 3, 2012)

This product is probably better placed in the "Top 50 Innovative Consumer Products of 2012" rather than the 50 best inventions.

Jim

15 upvotes
Roland Karlsson
By Roland Karlsson (Nov 3, 2012)

Yes, thats right.

The name of the price is made up by an illiterate. They do mean inventive product, when they say invention. They dont know better, or care.

0 upvotes
Zerg2905
By Zerg2905 (Nov 3, 2012)

Hmmm, now it's pretty clear (for me): Sony will indeed spend a colossal amount of money just to show that they "deserve" the first place, that they are THE photo (=imaging) company. It will not matter at all that they are unable to build lenses, printers, a comprehensive camera system etc. The consumers will help a lot, and I think they will succeed, rather sooner than later. They are so frustrated that once upon a time there was the Walkman and later there was an iPod but it was not theirs, so they think that maybe the photo ground will bring them the label for being THE innovative company back. Canon & Nikon (to a lesser extent) are just two boulders blocking the way... Cheers! :)

0 upvotes
Simon97
By Simon97 (Nov 3, 2012)

Sony missed the mark (but was quite close). 20mp is overkill. It is actually rather noisy at high ISOs. 16mp 4/3rds and Nikon 1 are much cleaner. Go to raw comparison tool, select ISO 1600 and see for yourself. I think the RX100 would have been better served with a sensor in the 15mp range.

Secondly the lens is disappointing off axis. Looking at the samples, even stopped down the softness of the images that starts about half way to the edges is a shame. This is what drives my crazy with Sony. They make all these great cameras, yet some of their lenses are disappointing.

If Sony could shave $100 of the price, they would own the enthusiast P&S market.

Comment edited 59 seconds after posting
2 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Nov 3, 2012)

While I agree that Sony should have used fewer MPs and that the Nikon 1 is usable at ISO 6400. I have RX100 raws shot at ISO 3200 and they're pretty darn good; that's impressive.

The corner blurring comes from putting that sensor in a small body and using computing power, not the good part of the lens, to do the corners So the lens isn't exactly the problem here.

0 upvotes
zoranT
By zoranT (Nov 3, 2012)

try stepping down aperture and use RAW - best compact there is – end of discussion

3 upvotes
YiannisPP
By YiannisPP (Nov 3, 2012)

I have scrutinized many a sample from the RX100 and while I am disappointed myself about the corner softness, I think it is unfair to say that "it starts about half way to the edges". It does not. As for the noise, always keep in mind that you need to downsize the RX100 samples in order to correctly compare the appearance of noise with the other lower-MP cameras.

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

I have compared the RX100 with the Nikon 1 and at comparable size the RX100 has less noise and better overall IQ.

4 upvotes
andrewparkoo
By andrewparkoo (Nov 3, 2012)

I had a try out of the rx100 - it may have a great sensor but like all Sony cameras I've tried it feels like more like a computer gadget than a photography tool.

2 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Nov 3, 2012)

How does it feel like a computer gadget?

No silly menus, the RX100 menus pretty much look like a Canon or a Panasonic advanced P&S. Unlike some of the Nex series.

1 upvote
cgarrard
By cgarrard (Nov 3, 2012)

First the NY Times, now Time Magazine. I guess it was time to court different outlets for praise of a Sony product.

RX100 is a good camera, but something doesn't sit right with either claim from the "times" above. I think a lot of people are thinking that right now.

C

7 upvotes
ET2
By ET2 (Nov 3, 2012)

" court different outlets for praise of a Sony product."

"court" ? Here comes the conspiracy nuts.

Comment edited 10 seconds after posting
4 upvotes
zxaar
By zxaar (Nov 3, 2012)

carl you are not as important as TIME is, you got to learn to deal with it.

3 upvotes
cgarrard
By cgarrard (Nov 3, 2012)

@ET2- Apparently you don't know the camera business very well. Even if you did, you wouldn't admit it based on your posting history.

0 upvotes
cgarrard
By cgarrard (Nov 3, 2012)

@Zxaar- What a twisted statement. Like I give a rat's ass how important Time magazine or myself for that matter- is. What the hell does that have to do with ANYTHING we are talking about?

Fact is, you and I don't know the motivation behind the award that was given by Time, no matter how much you presume to know.

Putting aside what we can't prove, common sense dictates its a camera, a good one, but an invention? Its not even an invention, let alone if it were- one of the best of 2012!

It's simply a preposterous award with a shock jock sort of implied effect oozing off it- designed to create attention for Time Magazine. See, we are all talking about it, I guess they got their prize.

C

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
ET2
By ET2 (Nov 4, 2012)

Well, I do know conspiracy nuts when I see then. You sound similar to nuts who claim DPR awards are biased in favor of companies that buy most adds.

Did you see the rest of the list in the Time magazine? Who paid them to include, say Nasa's Rover to be on the list?

You are a nut -- and you always have been a nut.

0 upvotes
cgarrard
By cgarrard (Nov 4, 2012)

A nut is someone that resorts to attempting an insult in order to make up for a bad or flawed argument or so it seems. Who am I to cast judgement?

-C

Comment edited 53 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
zxaar
By zxaar (Nov 4, 2012)

@Carl nobody cares if you give rats A or not, you are not that as important as TIME is. As I said, learn to deal with it. Frustration won't take you anywhere. People know TIME. Carl who??

0 upvotes
cgarrard
By cgarrard (Nov 7, 2012)

Learn to deal with what? Your fantasy that I care about time being more important than me? or vice versa?

How do you type in that straight jacket!??!

0 upvotes
peevee1
By peevee1 (Nov 3, 2012)

Time properly judged the greatness of the leap - a really compact pocketable P&S matching or beating most DSLRs and mirrorless cameras with their kit zooms (as most customers using them), not to mention beating all the direct compact pocketable competitors by 2 stops or more (which usually translates to 4 years or more of technological development). DPR did not quite get the point, giving the camera only Silver award, just like to the bottom-of-the-heap Rebel and the rest of them innovation-deprived junk.
Saying "we were very impressed" now will not save your face.

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting
12 upvotes
peppermill
By peppermill (Nov 3, 2012)

RE:
>>"matching or beating most dslr's and mirrorless cameras with their kit zooms"?????
>> "beating all the direct compact competitors by 2 stops or more"???

hardly... as a satisfied but realistic RX100 owner, I think you've been reading far too many press releases and semi-amateur reviews.... put down the kool-aid , sonny.
it's a nice cam, pretty tiny, takes generally decent pics,better than most typical point and shoots but it's so-so at best in macro, the lens is slow anywhere past it's widest setting, hopeless past ISO800 and regardless of all its features, its operation is still best suited for various automated program modes.

12 upvotes
TrojMacReady
By TrojMacReady (Nov 3, 2012)

Hopeless past ISO 800?

ISO 3200 concert:
http://g1.img-dpreview.com/8E24E4A145784006991D4FA4D21FB592.jpg

9 upvotes
Tee1up
By Tee1up (Nov 3, 2012)

Well, if Time Magazine thought it was a big deal then all of us that didn't snap one up should be hanging our heads in shame. I can't wait to see what that other bastion on critical thought, People Magazine, has to say about camera technology.

3 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Nov 3, 2012)

peppermill:

Using raw, and even extracting with the basic Song raw software, the RX100 is far from hopeless above ISO 800.

Though I certainly agree that it doesn't beat new dslrs with kit zooms.

0 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (Nov 3, 2012)

An RX100 doesn't come close to beating a DSLR or m43 camera even with the kit zoom caveat. The f4.9 negates the large sensor benefit. Macro performance is not good, and at f1.8 the lens is extremely soft. No VF, hot-shoe, slow-menus drag down the RX100 score. I do think the RX100 deserves more credit for it's awesome video performance.

But plenty of great cameras got "only" the Silver Award, see D7000 and Fuji XPro1. D7000 is about as good as it gets for an APS-C DSLR near the top at DxOMark, and the Fuji X sensor is an innovation rivaling or exceeding Sigma's Foveon.

As far as it being two stops better at high iSO than other compacts, have a look at DxOMark where the RX100 scores 390 ISO Low-Light and the Fuji X10 scores 245 ISO. That's not even one stop.

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

@Marike, yes it does. Take a brand new T4i and kitlens. Even at the long end of that kitlens, the difference in F stops is 2/3 EV in favour of the RX100. The Canon takes back a stop due to its larger sensor in low light, which leaves a mere 1/3 of a stop benefit. Back to the wider end the tables turn and the RX100 leads by 1 EV after taking both the above factors into consideration. It beats the T4i with DR and is close in terms of resolution.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 6 minutes after posting
3 upvotes
peevee1
By peevee1 (Nov 4, 2012)

At 1.8, RX100 sensor gets about the same amount of light as APS-C DSLR at f/3.5, and almost twice as much as m43 camera. Given that Sony sensor technology beats silly Canon tech in such cams as Rebel T4i, 60D, 7D, and Panasonic tech in GF5 and even G5, the result is obvious. And of course 28-100 equivalent zoom has better range than the pathetic 28-84 eq zooms, and 20 mpix allow great 2x digital zoom in good light.
Only 2 kits which decisively beat RX100 are Fuji X-E1+18-55 ($1400) and Sony A77+16-50/2.8 ($2000). Both not pocketable, X-E1 does not have as good video or features like swipe panorama... Yes, and 7 fps - try to get that with a Rebel. How is that for value?

Comment edited 46 seconds after posting
1 upvote
tbcass
By tbcass (Nov 5, 2012)

He probably should have said almost all other compacts. The X10 has a rather large 2/3" sensor which is larger than most other compacts except the RX100. In addition the X10 has significantly larger body than the RX100. I think the appeal of the RX100 and the reason for all the hype it gets are from it's size vs quality ratio.

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

Ken Rockwell hasn't said boo about it. So therefore nothing else matters!

14 upvotes
Eyeglass10101
By Eyeglass10101 (Nov 3, 2012)

Ha. That's the funniest thing I have read today. Rockwell, as we all know, is a tool. I doubt he even tries all the cameras he claims to have used. His terminology is horrible and his expertise is limited.

1 upvote
GaryJP
By GaryJP (Nov 4, 2012)

Irony, the thing that flies right over some people's heads.

1 upvote
mike kobal
By mike kobal (Nov 3, 2012)

the RX100 is definitely by far the best real compact I have ever used, in terms of image and especially video quality, it beats cameras costing much, much more.
http://www.mikekobal.com/blog/?p=5637
looking at Time's list there are quite a few items one would not necessarily call "invention" but rather "significant improvement" or whatever, imho, the RX100 definitely belongs on that list.

17 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (Nov 3, 2012)

Hey, Mike. The Sandy NYC video you made with the RX100 is superb, but then all of your work is absolutely first rate.

https://vimeo.com/52568721

0 upvotes
mike kobal
By mike kobal (Nov 3, 2012)

Hey Marike, thank you so much for your kind words. The last couple of days have been really tough here and I am lucky to live in an area where we only had a power outage until last nite-we have electricity again, a few blocks east large communities are still without clean water and that will take quite a bit longer to fix. The RX100 really was perfect to walk around and try to document my neighborhood, I can imagine future journalists working with something like a pro RX100/Nikon 1 type camera, two bodies, one with a 16-35mm equivalent, another with a 28-300 equivalent

0 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (Nov 3, 2012)

Yes, I'm in Westchester on the LI Sound, and we got hit, but not as bad as you in Manhattan. Were without power for 2 days, but were lucky compared to some. Hope all is OK. Great work. I always look for your latest work on Vimeo, and your YouTube reviews. The B&W of the Sandy NYC video look epic. Fantastic stuff. Be well.

0 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (Nov 3, 2012)

I'd put the Nokia PureView 808 ahead of the RX100 as "best invention". The PureView technology will revolutionize the mobile camera space potentially impacting far more people.

The "best invention" of the RX100 by Time is more of marketing stunt than reality. The RX100 is not the first large sensor in a small camera.

13 upvotes
ET2
By ET2 (Nov 3, 2012)

"The RX100 is not the first large sensor in a small camera."

Name a camera that has

(1) Large sensor
(2) Zoom lens
(3) Is a pocket camera

Yeah, I thought so. I hear silence. RX100 is the first

Comment edited 44 seconds after posting
4 upvotes
argieramos
By argieramos (Nov 3, 2012)

@marike
You don't know the purpose of the rx100 so I suggest you stop commenting in here.

5 upvotes
ET2
By ET2 (Nov 3, 2012)

Yes, marike6 is pretty clueless, it seems. He thinks Rx100 isn't the first compact camera with large sensor, but he doesn't know it also has a bright large zoom (28-100mm F1.8-4.9) and is a pocket camera.

Maybe someone can help him find another camera with all these attributes (large sensor, pocket, large zoom).

As for as I know, no such camera existed before RX100

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

ET2. He probably thinking the Nikon 1 is pocketable. Next thing you know he will be wearing a super-sized pants with the Nikon 1 half inserted inside the pocket and claim that it is also a pocketable. Even with that, the IQ is not even close to the RX100.

People just dont get the real purpose of the rx100 and compare it to other mirrorless with hotshoe and interchangble lens. Guess they didn't hear about the NEX series.

1 upvote
marike6
By marike6 (Nov 3, 2012)

People don't get your panties in a bunch. I never said it wasn't the first pocketable camera with a large sensor, I said small camera. The fact is Canon beat Sony to the punch with the G1X, and in truth, vendors like Panasonic put a large sensor in the GF1 long before Sony ever made the RX100.

I've owned a Sony RX100, and many other cameras. I know quite well what the RX100 is capable of, but pocketable is a relative term. Instead of being blinded by fanboy logic, read what I wrote and instead of attacking, make your case as to why the RX100 is more revolutionary than the Nokia PureView 808.

9 upvotes
ET2
By ET2 (Nov 3, 2012)

Canon didn't beat Sony to the punch with G1X. Sony made R1 back in 2005. That's 7 years before G1X

Once again, the difference is that RX100 is a pocket camera. G1X is not.

2 upvotes
zxaar
By zxaar (Nov 3, 2012)

still G1X is nowhere near R1. R1 is 24mm to 120mm G1x is 28mm to 112mm. No comparison.

0 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (Nov 3, 2012)

The R1? Seriously? The R1 weighed 2.2 lb (995 gr), hardly comparable to a small P&S. Fixed lens != P&S.

2 upvotes
zxaar
By zxaar (Nov 3, 2012)

then G1x is hardly comparable to RX100. Pick your criteria. Anyway G1x is 28mm so nowhere near R1. Not even close. First have a 24mm lens on G1x then we will talk.

0 upvotes
tbcass
By tbcass (Nov 3, 2012)

The Nokia PureView 808 has horrendous IQ.

0 upvotes
ET2
By ET2 (Nov 3, 2012)

Fumy marike6 is now concerned about 7-year old R1 size, when G1X is not a pocket camera either. Wasn't that my point too?

There is no camera like RX100. It's a pocket camera with large sensor and bright zoom lens. No other such camera exists.

0 upvotes
trunks28
By trunks28 (Nov 3, 2012)

Didn't dpr gave the 808 a gold award....

1 upvote
sanchil
By sanchil (Nov 4, 2012)

ur spot on marike ... in fact the new panasonic lx 7 and the oly xz2 probably match up the image quality of rx100 even in low light ... as per dpreview's own admission the f1.8 of rx100 is unusable in bright light. between these cameras lx7, xz2 and rx 100 ... i would prefer either lx7 or xz2 over rx 100...and in all likely hood the image qualities between these cams may not differ much. but if i have to buy ... i would luv to go for the nokia pureview 808. it is a far better innovation than the rx 100. it may be a bit short on high end part of the dynamic range ... but it is pocketable. its quite simply .. the best pocketable camera ever made. it has a 1.7 sensor inside which is the same as lx7 or xz2.

0 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (Nov 4, 2012)

@ET2

What do you work for Sony? Sure sounds like it the way you defend the RX100 as if someone insulted your best girl. lol.

2 upvotes
AnHund
By AnHund (Nov 3, 2012)

I would not call it an invention, but it sure is a great camera.

3 upvotes
TN Args
By TN Args (Nov 3, 2012)

Any camco could come up with the RX 100. But they didn't, mainly because I don't think that the lens range is acceptable.

0 upvotes
gadgets
By gadgets (Nov 3, 2012)

What a stupid mistake by TIME magazine. RX100 is obviously the BEST INVENTION EVER. Not just 2012. Even better than money, the wheel, fire, you name it.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 5 minutes after posting
11 upvotes
chillgreg
By chillgreg (Nov 3, 2012)

Lmao thank you for that - brilliant and hilarious! :)))

2 upvotes
zoranT
By zoranT (Nov 3, 2012)

too many edits to come over funny

1 upvote
gl2k
By gl2k (Nov 3, 2012)

Mystery ...
While the RX1 definitely deserves to be called very innovative I don't see anything thrilling about the RX100.

3 upvotes
Pedro Moreira
By Pedro Moreira (Nov 3, 2012)

How could they forgot Nokia 808? Much more innovative to me!

3 upvotes
zoranT
By zoranT (Nov 3, 2012)

so Nokia claims

1 upvote
Sonylover1
By Sonylover1 (Nov 3, 2012)

Yes DP.
I had some thoughts why you didnt give the RX100 your Gold Award...

This camera is a huge leap in the world of photography. You missed it.

Then in return, I am very impressed with the guts and balls with Sonys R&D. They deserve credit for their pushing the limit attitude!

4 upvotes
Kirppu
By Kirppu (Nov 3, 2012)

Like, big sensor in compact body. Can't see anything new or innovative here only something that should have been done couple of years earlier.

1 upvote
ET2
By ET2 (Nov 3, 2012)

"Like, big sensor in compact body"

Sony did that before anyone else back in 2005 with R1. The difference here is that RX100 is a truly pocket camera, with a large zoom and large sensor.

RX00 is very similar to Canon S90/S95/SS100/S110 series in size and features, but the sensor is 4 times larger.

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

@Kirppu, since you obviously seem to know EVERYTHING about the physics+engineering of camera sensors and lens design, perhaps you could explain to us why it couldn't happen 5 years ago, instead of just a couple of years ago as you've stated, to clarify on your hypothesis that everyone has just been sitting around doing nothing until Sony did it this year.

1 upvote
Kirppu
By Kirppu (Nov 3, 2012)

gadgets: Well I don't have exact info but I bet is that it would have just cost too much to be nothing more that a niche market object. Sensors manufacturing process would probably had been overly expensive. I don't see any reason why they could not have done same kind of lense five years ago. ps: I didn't meant to sound like a all knowing a** :) Just wanted to point out my opinion that it's technically not so wonderous.

0 upvotes
Zvonimir Tosic
By Zvonimir Tosic (Nov 3, 2012)

And when Nikon introduced V1, many spewed on it. Same sensor, same resolving power. Pity the resolving power of the brain of today journalism is at its all TIME low.

2 upvotes
Charrick
By Charrick (Nov 3, 2012)

First of all, it's not the same sensor. The RX100's sensor is better (as many reviewers have said). However, you're right if you mean only that they are the same size.

Here's the thing. The Micro Four Thirds system came along way before the V1, and those cameras take better pictures and have more lenses. Nikon was way late to the party on that one.

However, the RX100 is a COMPACT camera, with one great lens, though without interchangeable lenses. It can easily fit in your pocket with zoom lens attached (as its lens always is). The V1 cannot fit in your pocket with a zoom lens attached.

It's the same size sensor but two completely different outcomes. The sensor size was not the reason why the RX100 was a success. The fact that they put it into a compact camera IS the reason why it was a success.

(PS: I'm not saying that TIME magazine is particularly credible or that their opinion(s) should be taken seriously.)

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting
13 upvotes
ET2
By ET2 (Nov 3, 2012)

Have you seen the size difference between V1 and RX100? RX100 is the size of S100 while having a very large 28-100mm F1.8-4.9 zoom lens.

V1 is larger than Nex-5N -- which is APSC, by the way -- with the kit lens on both.

What have you been smoking?

11 upvotes
AnHund
By AnHund (Nov 3, 2012)

I own both the J1 and the RX100 and think both are very good.

I would not say the the RX100 sensor is better than the J1/V1 sensor. They are different and have their strengths and weaknesses. The RX100 is great because it is pocketable, but if you like to change lenses the J1/V1 is better.

In my opinion the high ISO output of the J1/V1 is also better because the RX100 smudges details while the J1/V1 is better at retaining details (maybe with a little more noise).

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 3 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
kucink132
By kucink132 (Nov 3, 2012)

go home nikon 1, you're drunk :D

3 upvotes
zodiacfml
By zodiacfml (Nov 3, 2012)

this is the reason why i have been complaining on 1 series, that the 1 inch sensor make more sense with a fixed lens to compete against the G series of Canon.

1 upvote
ozarktroutfisher
By ozarktroutfisher (Nov 3, 2012)

@kucink132 - I just read your comments history. You either work for Sony and have been asked to specifically target the Nikon 1 system, or you're 16. I had a long night and needed some humor this morning and this snip-it from one of your comments especially provided it.

"still, nikon 1 is unjustified huge for such tiny sensor.............. But RX100 is incredibly small for such relatively large sensor".

1 upvote
marike6
By marike6 (Nov 3, 2012)

@ET2 Not sure why people are giving you up votes because the Nikon J1 and RX100 are virtually the same size, and the V1 is just slightly taller because of the VF. All 3 cameras weigh approximately 220 grams, so I'm not sure how people get "huge" for the Nikon 1.

Nikon J1

4.2"W x 2.4"H x 1.2"D
(106mm x 61mm x 30mm)

Sony RX100

4.02"W x 2.32"H x 1.42"D
(102mm x 59mm x 36mm)

Nikon V1

4.42"W x 3"H x 1.7"D
(113mm x 76mm x 44mm)

The RX100 is only slightly smaller, has a slightly better sensor, and better video because of the 1080p60. The J1 has blazing fast AF and menus, great predictive tracking, large buffer and fast fps.

The V1 has everything the J1 has but adds a mechanical shutter (non-electronic with cheesy recorded shutter sound like both the J1 and RX100) and an EVF.

Nikon 1 is the first MILC to offer PDAF so unlike most mirrorless cameras with CAF only, it can be used for sports/action.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 6 minutes after posting
1 upvote
ET2
By ET2 (Nov 3, 2012)

marike6, are you this stupid? Your measurements doesn't include the lens. RX100 includes 28-100mm F1.8-F4.9 lens.

There is not even a lens like that for Nikon 1. Even the slow kit lens will make Nikon 1 a non-pocket camera

4 upvotes
kucink132
By kucink132 (Nov 4, 2012)

@ozarktroutfisher
yes, you could say i am nikon 1 hater. no, i am not working for anyone, i am long time fans of nikkor lenses, nikon color, nikkor legacy lenses and much(i use D400). for mirrorless i use sony nex, fuji x100, and oly pens. sony nex is good, but i dont like 'plastic' color and unbrilliant metering. for these two thing, x100 and oly are the best.

so sorry, your assumptions are all wrong, but i am happy finally somewhere, someone get that 'humor' ;)

0 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (Nov 4, 2012)

Sorry you're feeling butt-hurt because you are wrong, but you said the Nikon 1 was HUGE compared to the RX100. Clearly it is not as the measurements show. What do you always keep the RX100 lens retracted to show the world who small it is? No. When you extend the lens, it's as big as a J1. But the difference is I can mount lenses for 27-300 on the J1.

You are embarrassing yourself as Fanboy No 1 who can't even be civil because of your love for a camera. Sad really.

1 upvote
kucink132
By kucink132 (Nov 5, 2012)

if i want to mount lenses to my camera, i choose NEX. why? APS-C vs 1'' sensor size!

1'' sensor size is too damn tiny for interchangeable camera. imagine putting legacy lenses, dslr lenses, leica lenses on front of this sensor. the 2.7 crop factor while make these lenses seems like telephoto range lol.

With sony's APS-C sensor, i could emulate 2.7 crop factor by simply cropped resulted image myself. The thing you can't with 1'' sensor.

So no, tiny sensor should be built with fixed lens, it is more make senses

1 upvote
kucink132
By kucink132 (Nov 5, 2012)

oh, and why on earth i want to pocket my camera when it's fully retracted?

try to unrectract nikon v1/j1, and its still huge, sorry to say:)

1 upvote
kucink132
By kucink132 (Nov 5, 2012)

ups. i got confuse, fully retracted i mean fully unretracted=the maximum length possible, my bad lol

0 upvotes
GeorgeZ
By GeorgeZ (Nov 3, 2012)

I couldn't care less if it got a silver or gold award- I know how much this gem means to the industry.
What troubles me is that EVERY DSLR dpr tests (ok, not the Sigmas and the ones that got stuck in the preview stage) gets the Silver Award- meaning that the award is utterly meaningless if practically every camera in a certain class gets it. So in that respect the Silver Award is a joke for the RX-100. But this says more about dpr than about the camera. The awards have merely replaced the (highly) recommendeds of days past. Like a teacher who only hands out A or A+

1 upvote
Iskender
By Iskender (Nov 3, 2012)

But what if most DSLRs these days are good? What would you do if you had to review a lot of good cameras in a segment? Would you fabricate bad results for some cameras to make the scores somehow more balanced?

Not to mention you provide the counterpoint yourself - the Sigma SD1 received no award. Meaning it's on average not as good. An honest reviewer can do very little if 90% of the cameras in a segment are good or excellent - hence the awards, and the absense of awards for the 10%.

1 upvote
GeorgeZ
By GeorgeZ (Nov 3, 2012)

Excuse me? I don't know your definition of an award. In my book it means something that is better than average, that stands out. If every DSLR is good than they all deserve good marks but only the top maybe 20% should win an award.

1 upvote
roweraay
By roweraay (Nov 3, 2012)

I wish they had introduced 2 versions of the RX1 - one the 35/2 they introduced it with and the second version being one with a retractable zoom lens (maybe a 24-100 2.8-4.5) type zoom. I would buy the zoom version, sight unseen.

The RX100 is also a great camera and is on my radar.

3 upvotes
SirSeth
By SirSeth (Nov 3, 2012)

I also wish that were the case. An RX1 with FF sensor and 20-300mm collapsible telepathic quasi-optic linguimatic lens would be most desirable.

5 upvotes
mwstebbins
By mwstebbins (Nov 3, 2012)

I agree with roweraay. I too am looking for a replacement for my (still active) Sony R1. m2cw m

1 upvote
peppermill
By peppermill (Nov 3, 2012)

hmmm... i like my sony rx100 alright but why is it that i'll nearly always choose to slip the fuji x10 in my jacket pocket when i step out the door?

2 upvotes
roweraay
By roweraay (Nov 3, 2012)

I am totally foxed, to be quite honest !

0 upvotes
zxaar
By zxaar (Nov 3, 2012)

probably because you are low on IQ and can not make proper decisions. Just guessing.

6 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (Nov 3, 2012)

The X10 has more features for the enthusiast, a VF, a dedicated EV comp dial, much better macro mode, and a faster lens at full tele.

It's not difficult to figure out why someone would prefer the X10.

6 upvotes
zxaar
By zxaar (Nov 3, 2012)

i am sure marike6, with those extra white orbs, x10 is the only camera you prefer. RX100 does not have that orb factor, so i have to give you that. X10 wins here.

0 upvotes
Calvin Chann
By Calvin Chann (Nov 3, 2012)

Oh please. A viewfinder! One that gives you absolutely no information, like where you are focussing. That's totally useless. To me anyway.

And before you get on your high horse, I have an X10 as well as an RX100 (and many more), and conversely, when I head out the door, it's the RX100 that goes with me.

0 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (Nov 4, 2012)

The X10 VF is bright, clear, and provides an all important point of contact for with your face for a stable shooting position, unlike composing with an LCD and your arms stretched out. The P&S shooting stance is about the least stable way to shoot.

0 upvotes
Digital Suicide
By Digital Suicide (Nov 3, 2012)

RX100 is really good. And I'm not a biased to any maker or brand.
More I use it more I love it. Pictures are very detailed, video is amazing. It blows any other compact. Actually after RX100 - m43 makes no sense.
Before you critisize - you must use it, and respect the fact that it fits any your pocket.

6 upvotes
Artistico
By Artistico (Nov 3, 2012)

I agree it blows away any other camera in the pocketable segment, but I'd not say it replaces M43 - there are still those of us who require higher IQ and the possibilities that interchangable lenses offer without adding the bulk of a full frame dSLR, and so I'd say the combination of a RX100 and a m43 system is the perfect one: There simply are times when the limited dynamic range of the RX100 doesn't quite cut it, and the OM-D has to be brought out.
Is it one of the 50 best inventions of 2012, though? It's not a great invention by any proper definition of the term. It's capabilities are just slowly evolutionary, standing on the shoulders of all that has gone before and adding just that little bit more. I think the term "great invention" should be reserved for something revolutionary.

2 upvotes
peevee1
By peevee1 (Nov 3, 2012)

m43, just as other mirrorless and DSLRs still make sense, just not with their kit lenses (Fuji X-E1+18-55/2.8-4 and Sony A77+16-50/2.8 kits excepted).

0 upvotes
OneGuy
By OneGuy (Nov 3, 2012)

Humbug. This article belongs to Contact where people can become teary eyed about the receding influence of mass media.

1 upvote
tarnumf
By tarnumf (Nov 3, 2012)

TIME: 1-in. (2.5 cm) sensor

Sorry, but people who don't realize that 1" sensor is not equal to 2.5 cm in ANY dimension have no say about cameras at all!

4 upvotes
zodiacfml
By zodiacfml (Nov 3, 2012)

that should send a message to their competitors. i don't like the lx7 and xz-2 right now.

4 upvotes
Midnighter
By Midnighter (Nov 3, 2012)

Its an amazing camera but... an invention? Kind of a lose definition I think and I have to wonder how it made it in.

3 upvotes
alexzn
By alexzn (Nov 3, 2012)

Does DPR want to revise its Silver award rating? I think it was a intake. RX100 is a game-changer in the compact camera category, (even given its flaws). Time is right.

18 upvotes
beavertown
By beavertown (Nov 3, 2012)

No, DPR will not eat its humble pie.

5 upvotes
highwave
By highwave (Nov 3, 2012)

More like DPreview will never succumb to fanboy wet dreams. They'd rather be professional in their work which is why they're more regarded than others.

I can only imagine what DPreview would look like if fanboys had their way.

4 upvotes
fox-orian
By fox-orian (Nov 11, 2012)

@Everyone: To be honest I don't see what the problem is. 78% with a silver award is a a perfectly respectable, solid score for a camera. Especially when you consider just about all of the most high-end cream-of-of-the-crop cameras on this site never score higher than 84%!

1 upvote
henryhscheng
By henryhscheng (Nov 3, 2012)

...wait till they see RX1...

1 upvote
peevee1
By peevee1 (Nov 3, 2012)

RX! is much less relevant for most consumers.

0 upvotes
Tape5
By Tape5 (Nov 3, 2012)

RX100 is a matchstick size sniper rifle. If you prefer to arrive in a tank, that is fine too.

But there are many situations where size matters more than all camera attributes combined, plus some.

Not to mention the incredible photographs the RX100 produces.

I agree with the Time.

6 upvotes
onlooker
By onlooker (Nov 3, 2012)

Sniper rifle with shotgun sights.

3 upvotes
Nightwings
By Nightwings (Nov 3, 2012)

When the day comes that I think that rag of a magazine has even an ounce of credibility... I'll read what they have to say about cameras. Until then, it stays at the bottom of my birdcage where it belongs.

Comment edited 27 seconds after posting
10 upvotes
littlebitstrouds
By littlebitstrouds (Nov 3, 2012)

double

Comment edited 10 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
jon404
By jon404 (Nov 3, 2012)

They're still printing Time?

7 upvotes
WilliamJ
By WilliamJ (Nov 3, 2012)

It's just a walking dead. Hence, this news is just a Halloween joke !

0 upvotes
beavertown
By beavertown (Nov 3, 2012)

How embarrassing that DPR didn't give RX100 a gold award and a better mark.

Super slow AF and way overly priced Canon G1X got better score?

11 upvotes
GaryJP
By GaryJP (Nov 3, 2012)

I suggest you read Time for your camera reviews instead. Owning both, I agree the G1 X is the better camera.

9 upvotes
WilliamJ
By WilliamJ (Nov 3, 2012)

Right GaryHP ! Claiming without knowing is just speaking without thinking.

2 upvotes
littlebitstrouds
By littlebitstrouds (Nov 3, 2012)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q2aFtnLe7ms
Shot on an RX100 and edited in 5 min. Now that I can play with the RAW files, I've edited some amazing shots on it too. I absolutely love this camera, and I work with 20k camera rigs on a daily basis, but this thing really does fit in my pocket, and I take it everywhere with me. The best camera is the one you have with you, and this is always on me.

4 upvotes
lmtfa
By lmtfa (Nov 3, 2012)

Sure. Just like the Printing Press was the most important invention in the history. Not.

BTW, when someone comes up to you and asks if that's a camera in your pocket or are you just glad to see him, what do you say?

0 upvotes
littlebitstrouds
By littlebitstrouds (Nov 3, 2012)

I guess you're assuming I wear skinny jeans?

This site really has trolls on it? Sad.

4 upvotes
lmtfa
By lmtfa (Nov 3, 2012)

Lets see. You joined August 2012, I joined 2006. I guess working with 20k equipment makes you a authority.

0 upvotes
Tepi
By Tepi (Nov 3, 2012)

I would say it's a new camera in my pocket, but where's your SLR dude? For me it has worked out exactly like that. Traded my dslr gear for the RX100 so that I would carry the camera everywhere. Surely it does not replace the biggie in all respects. It's a matter of one's photographic needs, period.

3 upvotes
littlebitstrouds
By littlebitstrouds (Nov 3, 2012)

"BTW, when someone comes up to you and asks if that's a camera in your pocket or are you just glad to see him, what do you say?"
Fairly certain that's homophobic and drenched in machismo. I thought this was an forum for people who are a little more my speed, I'll move along.

0 upvotes
gsum
By gsum (Nov 3, 2012)

Littlebitstrouds: You need to avoid the temptation to find fault when there is none, stop trying to demonstrate your PC credentials and have a little more respect for other people on this forum. Oh and please try to stay on topic or move along somewhere else.

1 upvote
Leiduowen
By Leiduowen (Nov 3, 2012)

@ littlebitstrouds: A fine job, man! You could also make camera commercials since after watching this, I will take a serious look at the RX100 :)

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

OMG, when you joined DPR now has bragging rights?

0 upvotes
lmtfa
By lmtfa (Nov 4, 2012)

I hate to have to reply when someone stupid pulls the homophobic or race card, in your case I do. I'll stay at your speed, low and slow. First, why did you need to state you work with 20k equipment? Do you really think that makes what you say more credible. Facts or photo,s do. Concerning the the pocket and glad, well, I guess you don't see the humor in it. You see it as a slur to get others to dis me. Have you caught up yet. Now put the RX100 in your pocket and go out and shoot, then up load to your gallery for us to see real world snaps.

Thank you and goodby.

0 upvotes
Aleo Veuliah
By Aleo Veuliah (Nov 3, 2012)

Good camera like other similar ones from other good brands, I think there is to much marketing around Sony. Canon and Sony are the winners when we talk about marketing.

I like the camera but many others deserve the same statement.

4 upvotes
peevee1
By peevee1 (Nov 3, 2012)

_Unlike_ similar ones. Fuji XF1 trails it by 1 whole stop, Canon S110 trails it by 2 at least. Both actually released later than RX100.
G1X, G15, P7700, XZ-2, LX7, X10 etc are not pocketable (i.e. in different category) and still significantly worse than RX100.

Comment edited 19 seconds after posting
1 upvote
Josh152
By Josh152 (Nov 3, 2012)

I have no trouble fitting G1X or G15 in a my front pants pocket. What do you people do, wear skin tight clothes?

0 upvotes
Robert Garcia NYC
By Robert Garcia NYC (Nov 3, 2012)

Yes, RX100 is a great camera not for everyone but nevertheless great. Fits in your pocket, bounce flash, fast and sexy what isn't there to like? Those hate it haven't had the chance to try it out obviously. Where is my popcorn? lol.

4 upvotes
highwave
By highwave (Nov 3, 2012)

Here comes the floodgates of fanboy crybabies who still couldn't get over the fact that the RX100 is a silver award camera at best when reviewed by real professionals like DPreview who know what they're doing.

I'm grabbing my popcorn and preparing for the funny crybaby fanboy comments

8 upvotes
steelhead3
By steelhead3 (Nov 3, 2012)

I am sure DP agrees with you.

0 upvotes
Michael She
By Michael She (Nov 3, 2012)

RX100 is a good camera, but with no hotshoe ... I'm actually leaning towards the LX7. Also, doesn't the LX7 have a faster lens?

4 upvotes
peevee1
By peevee1 (Nov 3, 2012)

Slightly faster - and 4 times smaller image circle. And not pocketable.

Comment edited 55 seconds after posting
2 upvotes
roweraay
By roweraay (Nov 3, 2012)

The lack of a hotshoe was the killer for me.....everything else about this camera (including the decision to have a slower aperture at the long-end to make the overall camera compact) was just PERFECT ! Would not have minded a 16MP camera however.

Wonder if the camera has the ability to wirelessly control external flashes and if so, I am okay with the lack of a hotshoe, since I will just carry the external flash and place it wherever I want and fire it wirelessly......I don't intend to put anything else in the hotshoe than a flash.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
2 upvotes
audiobomber
By audiobomber (Nov 3, 2012)

I expect the RX100 would have easily earned a Gold award if it had fewer pixels, a hot shoe and a faster lens at the long end.

Comment edited 8 minutes after posting
5 upvotes
steelhead3
By steelhead3 (Nov 3, 2012)

The rx100 like all cameras are a compromise; hot shoe and faster lens means bigger (ala Nikon 1,mft, or Canon g1x). With a limited zoom, 20 mpix allowed cropping and keeping quality up.

8 upvotes
audiobomber
By audiobomber (Nov 3, 2012)

Too many megapixels compromises SNR. I expect resolution is compromised at about f/2.8 on this overstuffed sensor. Note that in the review, it did not outresolve 1/1.7" competitors. A hot shoe doesn't add much bulk, but turns it into a much more versatile camera. A faster lens is worthwhile, because the slow lens loses the advantage of the larger sensor.

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (Nov 3, 2012)

Exactly. The RX100 has great IQ, and video quality. As an "enthusiast compact" or one a pro would enjoy using the RX100 isn't one that comes to mind. An X10, LX7 or XZ1 would be a lot closer to checking all the boxes for a photographer's compact.

And the slow max aperture at the long end and fairly average macro mode are killers, at least they were for me.

I'm not sure I agree with audiobomber about megapixels and SNR, as the RX100 scored 390 ISO on DxoMark and the 10-megapixel J1 scored 372 ISO. Cameras like the 36 mp D800 score close to 3000 ISO, only slightly less than the 12 mp D3s. So more MP doesn't necessarily mean worse SNR.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 12 minutes after posting
7 upvotes
SHELL999
By SHELL999 (Nov 3, 2012)

SO does anyone recommend this camera over the Nikon V1.?? I really want a camera with a viewfinder ...guess you can't have everything....:)

1 upvote
TrojMacReady
By TrojMacReady (Nov 3, 2012)

The old misconception again. SNR is not compromised by the "extra" pixels in practise, proven by the fact that it's no worse than the Nikon 1 series sensor carrying half as many pixels. In fact, it has considerably less read noise at low ISO to boot and in terms of efficiency per area practically ties with the best DSLR sensors availble. Despite having pixels up to a factor 10 (or more in the case of the D3S) smaller.

Comment edited 50 seconds after posting
9 upvotes
audiobomber
By audiobomber (Nov 3, 2012)

TrojMacReady, none of what you said refutes the fact that it would have been cleaner at high ISO with fewer pixels. Taking the pixel wars to this extreme is typical Sony. Marketing is king, not optimizing performance.

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

Actually, with the resolution power with such a small Zeiss lens in a small package. I can't find any opps against a Gold Award for RX100. In fact, most of the small DCs are having significant aperature drops at tele end given to their "folding lens" design to avoid distortions. Man! Take a look at the bulky XZ-1 even with 1/1.7" sensor!

3 upvotes
TrojMacReady
By TrojMacReady (Nov 3, 2012)

Actually it does refute that claim in practise. Because if your theory was right, the latest high end sensors with pixels a factor 5 to 10 larger should show much much better performance per unit area yet. They don't. All just over 50% efficiency, which leaves less than a stop to the theoretical maximum. Which they won't touch anyway.
If this was marketing over quality, what on earth went wrong with those D4, D3S, D800 and 1DX sensors? ;-)

6 upvotes
audiobomber
By audiobomber (Nov 3, 2012)

Sensor technology is advancing, which is why the pixel war isn't sending SNR completely backwards. Here's a quote from the DXOMark review of the RX100: "Low-light sensitivity: here is a field in which physics retains its logic, even while stressing the excellent design of Sony’s 1-inch sensor. The more generous size of the Nikon’s photosites allows it to tie with the Sony."

The Sony sensor has better sensitivity than the Nikon's Aptina. But too many megapixels compromise what the Sony could have been.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
1 upvote
Another Try
By Another Try (Nov 3, 2012)

Hey Troj, notice how you are the only one who voted a "like" on your comment?

Comment edited 25 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
ET2
By ET2 (Nov 3, 2012)

Another Try is MaxISO

3 upvotes
TrojMacReady
By TrojMacReady (Nov 3, 2012)

That's more of a DXOmark assumption. If you scale the RX100 to FF, you have about 150 MP and a low light score around 3000.
What would you have suggested in terms of MP and how much improvement based on that? If a factor 10 makes no difference worth mentioning, be prepared to go extreme. Say less than 1 MP? ;-)

2 upvotes
audiobomber
By audiobomber (Nov 3, 2012)

10mp is plenty for a 1" sensor. The RX100 can't resolve 20mp anyway (again. look at DPR review where it does not outresolve 1/1.7" 12mp competition).
Or keep the 20mp for the marketing dept and add pixel binning, like Fuji EXR and Aptina DR-pix for added DR or SNR when needed.

0 upvotes
TrojMacReady
By TrojMacReady (Nov 3, 2012)

It easily outresolves the Nikon 1 series, as anyone can see. And it also outresolves both the LX7 and XZ1 as seen in the review: 2600 vs 2000 LPH and FAR less moire than either.

Pixelbinning serves little to no purpose when read noise is extremely liw as seen from this Exmor sensor. Adding it would in fact be a marketing ploy.

3 upvotes
G Sciorio
By G Sciorio (Nov 3, 2012)

I'd take this seriously if it were not Time. What a shame how Time slipped down the poop chute. Still though good camera but not camera of the year.

8 upvotes
the reason
By the reason (Nov 3, 2012)

Is this a joke? Out of the hundreds of inventions a camera that brings absolutely NOTHING new to the table makes the list?

4 upvotes
kucink132
By kucink132 (Nov 3, 2012)

well, if i remember how ugly nikon 1 system is, rx100 deserve some awards

7 upvotes
radissimo
By radissimo (Nov 3, 2012)

Rx100 made a new category- the largest sensor (for compact) and still pocketable!
So comparing it with cameras which you CAN'T fit in your trousers pocket is apples to oranges.
The most used word in a reviews and with people ,who actually used it (unlike you) is GAME CHANGER.
Try to use it for a week and see ;)

3 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (Nov 3, 2012)

Invention? Hardly. As for the posters getting getting bent out of shape that DPR didn't love the RX100, what does it matter? If you like it, that's all that matters. Personally, I think it has very good IQ for it's size, but as a camera, it's far from perfect.

Perhaps DPR thinks that cameras that are worthy of Gold Awards have both great IQ and great interfaces.

7 upvotes
limlh
By limlh (Nov 3, 2012)

A game changer that symbolizes the development of digital photography. While other companies are pandering to conservatism and imitating old film cameras, Sony is not afraid to thread new ground and make full use of available technology. That is why RX100 represents the invention that is digital photography, and not Sigma that tried to squeeze a big sensor into an outdated body. Nor Fujifilm although it is also very innovative with sensor tech.

7 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (Nov 3, 2012)

Let's not get carried away. Canon slapped a large sensor in a compact first with the G1X. Nobody was talking game changer. And Nikon put the exact same size 1" sensor in the V1, but also loaded the camera with huge performance and processing previously unseen in such a camera, and nobody said anything about game changer.

6 upvotes
TrojMacReady
By TrojMacReady (Nov 3, 2012)

Marike, neither the Nikon, nor the Canon would fit any jeans pocket. The Nikon has speed in good light but trails most cameras in not so good light and lacks a fast aperture zoomlens (at the wide end at least). The Canon is seriously compromised in speed in almost every way.
The RX100 could be considered the first real digital pocket rocket.

In terms of DOF control, low light capabilities, DR, resolution and buffer clearing it's similar to a decent APS-C DSLR plus kitlens. Add good video qualities at1080P60 to that. All in a package the size of a Canon S100.....

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 14 minutes after posting
14 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (Nov 3, 2012)

@TrojMacReady

Nikon 1 trailing in low light? The Nikon J1 virtually identical Low-Light score as the RX100 on DxOMark:

RX100 390 ISO
J1 372 ISO

But the J1 has much better AF speed, AF tracking, faster FPS, larger buffer, telephoto lens options, etc and it's only slightly larger.

And the Nikon 1 has an 18.5 1.8, your classic 50 1.8 lens, something the RX100 wil never have.

For the record, the Canon G1X scores 644 ISO (Low-light score) . I'm guessing your exaggerating it's AF performance to compensate for the fact that it has better IQ than a RX100.

The RX100 is smaller than an APS-C DSLR, but nowhere near as performant. A DSLR like the D7000 scores 1367 ISO Low-Light score with 14 EV DR vs 390 ISO with 12 EV Low-Light score on DxOMark. A great score for a P&S. Noting more.

DOF is no contest as you can use whatever lens you want on a DSLR, while on the RX100 you're stuck, and f4.9 at 100mm is a killer.

28 1.8 on the RX100 is soft, with tons of halation glow.

3 upvotes
radissimo
By radissimo (Nov 3, 2012)

OK and now look at the other scores and OVERALL sensor score....

2 upvotes
argieramos
By argieramos (Nov 3, 2012)

-marike6; "G1X has better IQ than a RX100"

Stop lying to yourself.

5 upvotes
kucink132
By kucink132 (Nov 3, 2012)

still, nikon 1 is unjustified huge for such tiny sensor. what the point of fast AF if depth-of-field is wide(because of tiny sensor) that everything seems on focus :D

RX100 is nowhere near APS-C sized sensor in term of IQ, so do nikon 1. But RX100 is incredibly small for such relatively large sensor. Nikon 1? what are their excuse?? :D

2 upvotes
peevee1
By peevee1 (Nov 3, 2012)

" Canon slapped a large sensor in a compact first with the G1X. "

Except it is not a compact.

2 upvotes
TrojMacReady
By TrojMacReady (Nov 3, 2012)

@Marike, my comment about low light speed of the Nikon was specifically about AF speed. That's where the Nikon is slower than even most recent CDAF systems, including the RX100. Only the Canon M seems to take exception to that comment.

And where I did mention the low light and DOF capabilities of the RX100, I compared it to APS-C DSLR cameras and their slow kitlenses. Which means that the stop or so you lose due to sensor size, is mostly made up for through lens speed. Sure there are exceptions but it even has more DR than the best Canon FF you can buy.

And I clearly talked about zoomlenses (specifically the standard kitlens range), so that rules out a single Nikon prime. Easy to take my comments out of their context and turn it into something I didn't claim. My context focused on what the majority of DSLR users shoots with.

And the obvious fact remains that all other cameras you and I mentioned are in a fully different size class. That's what seals the deal really.

Comment edited 8 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Mark B.
By Mark B. (Nov 3, 2012)

"...full use of available technology..." So please explain, however innovative their use of existing tech, is this an 'invention'? There was nothing new created. Innovation, sure but not an invention by any stretch of the imagination.

0 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (Nov 4, 2012)

G1X is nearly one full stop better than the RX100 in low-light, while the RX100 has slightly better DR. Do a comparison in DxOMark before talking about lies.

3 upvotes
henhen
By henhen (Nov 3, 2012)

I dont get it....in the dp review of this camera they say "The only comparable camera to offer a sensor larger is the Canon G1 X.." and they show a pic with different camera sensor sizes and the micro 4/3s sensor is the next larger one (almost the same as the 1.5 inch g1X).

which comes to another thing i dont get...it seems like Time forgot about the m4/3 cameras completely as in filling in the gap between ps and dslrs.

0 upvotes
howardroark
By howardroark (Nov 3, 2012)

Point and shoot. The only point and shoot with a larger sensor. Not sure of the context, but that's what they meant. There are many, many larger sensors that are much, much larger even than full frame 35mm.

1 upvote
Mark B.
By Mark B. (Nov 3, 2012)

Invention?? So digital cameras didn't exist before the RX100? I think it's time for Time to stop giving out awards.

9 upvotes
atamola
By atamola (Nov 3, 2012)

the rx-100 is ... an invention?
kudos to Sony's marketing department.

8 upvotes
EmmanuelStarchild
By EmmanuelStarchild (Nov 3, 2012)

I like Sony products, but they're overpriced. Yes, their technology can compete with Canon and Nikon, but I don't want to pay out the wazoo for it.

1 upvote
Shamael
By Shamael (Nov 3, 2012)

well, then compare a NEX-5N and a Nikon V or RX100. In some way pricing policy made by companies is not honest and protective. The prices are well calculated to protect all models. Imagine Nikon coming with a mirrorless APSC, at a price tag of 650 with a kit lens. Who will then buy a D3200 for example, or get a D600 at 1700$, what is the real price value to my eyes, who will then buy a D7000 or lower. If you compare Sony RX1 and A99, RX1 is overpriced. If you compare the details of what you get, RX1 is cheap. Compare A99 to A77, get an A99, the price difference is worth it. One can criticize all this policies, all that remains is the choice to pay it or not. All discussions beyond that are waste of time. Stick to the facts, choice is yes or no anyway. For me the RX100 is a 400$ Item, but, who cares about me, others buy it for 650$. That's life.

Comment edited 55 seconds after posting
1 upvote
GaryJP
By GaryJP (Nov 3, 2012)

It's a nice little pocket camera. The rest is hype. And yes, I do have one.

17 upvotes
Total comments: 578
1234