We've been using a Sony DSC-RX100 for the last few days and have prepared a hands-on preview of the 20MP, 1" sensor compact. Its 13.2 x 8.8mm sensor is over twice the size of most of its peers and, despite this being the same size as Nikon's 1 system cameras, the RX100 is genuinely pocketable. We've used our time with the camera to prepare a detailed preview, looking at the camera's key features, and have also shot a gallery of real-world samples in a variety of shooting situations.
I think many people make the mistake of comparing 100% crops from cameras with different sensor resolutions - effectively zooming in more on the one with the higher resolution sensor - Of course it will look worse! You are looking closer!
If you look at equivalent crops, it's a different story.
Sony sensor tech is really good, I bet they could cram even more pixels in there without degrading lowlight performance...
Care to explain? I'm no expert and so don't mind showing my ignorance, but I was under the impression that given the same sensor tech, carving it up less would result in higher DR, higher SNR and (if relevant at the aperture) less diffraction. This of course would come at the cost of fine detail and ability to crop... so you take your choice. Have I missed something here?
Yes, I complained about the too many megapixels and no, I don't think it shows my ignorance. I don't want a workflow clog, and it's more stress on the lens to deliver. Plus everything else equal, yes, you do get more noise.
As more circuitry gets jammed in, the theoretical "buckets" to not scale the way a completely idealized scenario would suggest because you get the circuitry taking more and more space proportionately.
@ Raist3d, your comments make no sense at all. Lenses do not experience "more stress" with higher megapixels. The samples clearly show that the image quality from both the sensor and the lens are excellent. Plus, your claim that a higher resolution camera results in "the circuitry taking more and more space" falls flat on its face when you consider just how small this camera is! In fact, higher resolution is *not* causing cameras to get larger at all. Sounds like you're complaining for complaining's sake, with made up issues.
Rather than complaining about "stress on the lens" and "circuitry taking more and more space", why don't you judge the camera for what it is: a high resolution compact camera that appears to deliver excellent image quality and noise, while being so compact that it can esily slip inside your pocket?! It's not a camera bursting at the seams with "circuitry", nor is it delivering noisy images!
The question is, who really needs 20mpx ? I know this allow printing A3 size poster at 300dpi, but i guess is not very common. And jpeg seems heavily compress, with around 7Mo size (in comparison my EX1 10mpx are around 9Mo).
tesch, so you share the higher wisdom of the average buyer who ranks cameras by pixels / dollar? Or, unlike the ignorant masses, perhaps you blow up all your 20mp pictures to pixel size and rhapsodize over the micro details of NR. I suppose that is the apex of wisdom. Then get yourself a 36MP D800 or Miii and transcend into the cosmos.
Before you even use the camera and evaluate the shots for yourself, you pan the camera for being crappy because of the high MP, yes that is being ignorant.
Ignorant: 1. lacking in knowledge or education; unenlightened 2. lacking in awareness or knowledge (of): ignorant of the law 3. resulting from or showing lack of knowledge or awareness: an ignorant remark
You'd be correct... if your original post was about people "panning the camera for being crappy" and if the people complaining about the high MP count did "pan the camera for being crappy"... but they didn't (or at least most didn't - see Ponyman below for example) . In reality people just complained that the MP count was high. That's not an ignorant point, a lower MP count could've made this camera more suited to them, however good it is. I'm excited about this camera, just not as much as I could've been.
You seem to have ignored or not read what people have actually written, which is kinda... well you know.
Yeah really. When's the last time any of these people printed an image larger than 11x17 inches? A point & shoot is great for web resolution shots. Think Flickr and Facebook. A larger sensor gives smoother tones which can be seen in even web resolution shots. Why do you think so many images shot with a P20 back look so damned nice even at 2000 pixels wide?
Imagine what they might have achieved with pixels of twice the size in this sensor. Sony loves mega-pixels! Still seems to be perhaps, the best small camera out there at the moment, but I think it is a missed opportunity.
I just love eternal pessimists like ponyman who seem to be completely unable to appreciate anything. "Sure, it's the best small camera out there at the moment, but it's still a failure because it's not the *more bestest* small camera out there based on my fictional idea of how it could have been so much better!" LOL.
I prefer to declare it the best small camera that's ever been made, or ever will be based on nothing but specs and some jpegs. I just wanted pass judgment before I get to acutally use the camera.
from IR studio shots I conclude it's more than 2 stops better than HX200 at whole range of ISOs (same JPEG engine so it's fair comparison), Pentax Q using same size same tech Sony sensor than HX200 (12mp thought) achieved a score of 189 ISO at DxO for low light but with some smoothing for RAW so let's give to it a score of 140 for example, 2 steps from 140 is 560 ISO !!! that's is much better than J/V 1 and the same as low range 4/3 (assuming that DR, tonal range etc are also 2 step better) now that is some good news !!!!
Comment edited 3 times, last edit 5 minutes after posting
when i wrote this words last time " I was looking forward to see an f2.0 lens and 6x zoom in this class of camera .if canon can make it on s100 why not here ?" on the canon GX1, I get an anser that is not possible and now came sony and make smaller camera with an F1.8 lens .so it can be done . well done sony .
Canon should have been able to do better, size wise, but this Sony sensor is still considerably smaller than the one in the Canon G1X. However, I expect that the Sony will do very well in comparison.
you are right , to take such a small camera in your pocket t is so fun not like th GX1 . I would like to see more photo in low light like a cake with canddles or nightview .
People who are obsessed about pointing out "creativity-limitations" are merely imposing mental limitations on themselves. These people only see what you *can't* do rather than what you *can* do with any piece of equipment. For them, the glass is always half empty. "The problem is...You can't do this...you can't do that...blah, blah, blah." These people are sad.
Fortunately, there will be a lot of people who look at this camera and see the creative potential of having this camera. They will thus go out and capture lots of great, creative images with it, while people like tokajilover will sit around mulling over the "creativity-limitations".
I agree that a faster lens is more impressive on the long end of the zoom, but it's also a bigger design challenge.
the wide end is 10mm f1.8 which is a 5.5mm aperture. The long end is a 37mm f4.9, which is a 7.5mm aperture. So already the long end has a bigger aperture, just not in ratio. If the long end was also f1.8, you'd have a 37/1.8 = 20mm aperture. You can see how that would be limiting.
Let's see somebody nail focus at 85mm equivalent with F1.8 equivalent from a little tiny camera such as this with only contrast detect AF? The blur from holding the camera will cause the contrast detect system to fail at that kind of a depth of field.
say goodnight to smaller sensored advance compact cameras. This camera isn't perfect without a solid performing evf and articulating lcd. that said, when the price drops i might want one.
speaking of pricing, sure makes the ILCs of Sony (c-3, 5n etc) look like better values.
I agree with what you wrote here: " This camera isn't perfect without a solid performing evf and articulating lcd". Too bad that a company which was able to do just that on the NEX7 and keep it compact chose not to do it here.
The price is the same as a NEX with a kit lens. With the faster lens on the RX100, the overall performance is similar but it fits in YOUR POCKET!! If people can't understand what is amazing about that, then this isn't their camera.
I'm very curious to see the colour rendition of this "Zeiss" lens compared to the kit nex lens. If it's truly a Sonnar with T* coating it might have a leg up on a similarly priced Nex if you're not comparing resolution and ISO performance.
I like it. Very good spec for a real compact camera. It doesn´t compete with my Canon G1X, wich has a larger sensor and a fantastic image, but has a true compact it might be my first choice for a second camera
Sony's sensor technology is much more advanced than Canon's, plus the Sony has a faster lens. But I'm not surprised that you're of the opinion that the Canon is better, since you incurred the expense associated with procuring it :)
Not bad. Actually, quite good effort from SONY. Personally I would prefer less Mpixels and wider 24mm angle. And the design is not on the pretty side either. No grip at all. Hope Panasonic is on the way with LX5 replacement.
The problem with the wide end being wider, is that focal length at moderate focal lengths will be less. My favourite focal length is 35mm equivalent, but I'm okay with shooting at 28mm for the 1.8 aperture. 24mm would be nice, but not if it means my aperture gets reduced at 28 and 35mm.
The LX5 has a more useful 24mm wide, and the ability to go 4:3 3:2 16:9 and 1:1 with the quick flick of a switch. Plus it has a nice grip on it, size isn't everything, I find the LX5 about as small as I wish to go.
Sony made it after all!! Everything I hoped for a long time!!
I always used Sony cameras for its unbeatable colors and ultra smooth video, but no serious compact made me try some new brands. I was using a Canon S100, but was not completely satisfied, mainly beacuse of the 24fps video (terrible), the focus issues (half of the pictures out of focus) and the poor colors (although customizable).
I agree. Despite not having a mic port I found the video nicer from the little Nex-5N I owned for a while compared to my D800 which costs buttloads more.
I like what I see with the JPEGS so far. Although the camera appears to have a rather conservative color palette by default... that is not necessarily a bad thing. Some people will demerit the camera for no hotshoe, but honestly, do a lot of people use external flashes with enthusiast compacts. I also like its size. I think Sony has a winner on its hands.
This is just great. Finally, kudos to Sony who has been listening to the legions of soccer moms like me! We can finally replace our 5-year-old brick-sized dSLRs with something like the RX100, and actually gain IQ in ISO 800+ situations.
Which actually adds noise to the image. "Boosting" up or "Boosting" down amplifies the signal. your better off staying away from those "boosted" or "extended" Iso values.
It doesn't "amplify" anything. Closer would be: reduces voltage on sensor. Boosted low-ISO mean that you loose dynamic range for a price of lower ISO. If you shoot RAW - there's no point in using anything below base ISO. If you should JPG - it's a great tool. Either way MRNICK07 - you are wrong, it won't add noise. At least - that's the way Sony did it many times before in it's cameras, don't know how it's with Canon or other brands.
20MP photo means actual pixel density would be around 10-14MP and rest would be extrapolation. I have a 10MP Sony H20 and I always shoot at 5MP because this is what it actually can produce on 1-1 basis. Rest is all noise.
I've been using Canon film and digital cameras since the 1980s, but I have been consistently disappointed with Canon's recent compact offerings. I keep waiting for a mirrorless announcement from Canon, but, after seeing this, I think I'm through waiting for Canon to get its act together. This Sony looks absolutely fantastic. f/1.8. Wow, wow, wow!
Sony should be lauded for releasing cameras like this one. Other camera makers have dragged their feet on offering bigger sensors in compact digitals. This camera should help light a fire underneath their behinds.
I think some people are missing the point here, namely that the RX100 is offering a quality build camera with 1 inch sensor and Carl Zeiss zoom lens in a body not really much bigger or heavier than Canon's 1/1.7" sensor S100.
That's some achievement and for me that makes the RX100 a game changer.
Yes like others I would have preferred less MP (14-16 MP is more than enough), and would trade 30 mm at the long end of the zoom range for an extra 5 mm at the wide end (ie 24-75mm), but this camera still gets my vote as the most interesting compact camera of the year, so far!
Nope - it's 1". Rather more than double the area of the S100's sensor. I've never been much of a Sony fan, but this looks almost like 'the ideal compromise' for a carry around camera.
MisoL The fact is that it has much bigger sensor than Canon s100 You are doing some calculations to criticize Sony's acclamation about it's sensor size but you are not doing the same for Canon Some figures Canon S100 (7.44 x 5.58 mm) Sony RX100 (13.2 x 8.8 mm) now you can figure out what is the real size of claimed 1/1.7 sensor with your standards to me than it's the correlation of sensors size that is important and so we can have an idea of how much the sensor is bigger (and better)
Comment edited 6 times, last edit 14 minutes after posting
A small compact with such quality, I will buy it too! If Sony can can reduce the pixel count from 20MP to 10 or 12MP and increase the pixel size accordingly, then I think it makes more sense.... Anyway, it is a logical and nice camera.
It will have better image quality than the current crop of Nikon 1s, with their poor sensors and dark dark lenses. This camera will approach (if not beat) last-year old-12mp-sensor m43s with kit 14-42.
No good without a viewfinder. Even with IS you cant hold the thing still at arms' length, and you can't see properly outside without a viewfinder, duh. I look at guys doing this all the time because they failed to get a viewfinder to be able to see what they are doing, it amazes me. Then I look at all these guys around me holding out their cameras, even their iPads, to record how well their anti-shake works (if they have it), but please note that unlike the Nex 3 and 5 you cannot fit a viewfinder on these things anyhow (unlike Ricohs), so you do not have the option. As Sony provide viewfinders to fit in a hotshoe and now, unlike Olympus are REFUSING to do even that, one wonders who their TARGET is.
Are YOU the target for this lethally crippled bling?
I still treasure my R1, which is better in every way, but I suppose that as populations become more stupid, manufacturers will take advantage more and more of our jackdaw urge to acquire "cool" machinery. Will they do it in pink?
Why the obsession with viewfinders? Surely any half decent photographer can point a camera at something and guess well enough the outcome of the set focal length?
@Then4 the GX1 actually has a fixed LCD screen, swivelling LCDs and viewfinders are nice to haves but they don't prevent someone from using a camera and certainly aren't dealbreakers for me.
So you are going to be crippled because of no VF? Well, all the other compact camera users, smartphone users, etc, must all be taking better pictures than you, because they are not stuck in a deep dark well where photography is impossible without a VF.
I agree with your post. But could you provide me with more on the R-1 so i can look that up? thanks. your criticism is tough but your point is an important one for all of us to consider. je
Comparing the R1 with the RX100 is like comparing an american truck with a roadster, yes you can travel with both, but it's not the same size and usage ;) I'm using p&s and smartphone for years, and i never miss EVF/OVF. In city or even outside, it's easy to find wall, trunk, pole or any other support to stabilize yourself.
@munro harrap, time to join the 21st century. You may be surprised to know that people have been taking great pictures with viewfinderless digital cameras for some time now. Have you been living under a rock for the last decade?
Given that everyone who buys one has probably used cameras with and without viewfinders, it seems that they have the information at hand to make an informed choice as to whether they want a pocketable camera or a camera with a viewfinder. I curse my NEX-5 for not having the option of a VF (it doesn't, by the way - followon models do), but I have no problem carrying a p&s without a VF. And I've never shot a camera "at arms length".
It's all a numbers game. Of course, a viewfinder option is better but people have learned to do without and a whole generation doesn't know any better. I'm surprised how steady I am with my arms extended but a lot of expensve cameras are sold to older people who are not always that steady. I know, jokes, but try selling a camera to someone who has a bit of a tremor.
I wonder if Sony could use the high resolution of this camera in order to utilize pixel binning? If you look at the output formats this seems plausible. The native resolution is 5472 x 3648 and 2736 x 1824 is available.
That could mean very low noise 5 mpix shots from a 1" sensor.
Pixel binning is not easy foe Bayer cameras. Fuji had a solution for that with duplicate colored pixels near each other. Dont know if that is good. But I dont think Sony have tried that - so I assume - no binning.
Moreover - binning assumes there is a problem with readout noise. If the main noise is the actual sensor - then binning gives you nothing.
The guy(s) who made sample photos does have little knowledge of how to test cameras. There are ISOs: 125, 640(one single shot!), and then 1250 and higher. Hey, where are ISOs 200-1000?! Just ridiculous.
Nice choices. The Pentax 450/550/555 and Konica Minolta G500/G600 are excellent cameras. The last of the Sony P line, the P200, is also a good, quite compact camera.
It's important to have choice : bridge, fixed lense aps-c compact, like Sigma, Leica or Ricoch, or bigger like g1x. This camera is a 1inch, sensor, fast zoom pocketable one. Considering the size, it's rather impressive to pack so many features in it.
Not necessarily, still the Nikon 1 can put this Sony sensor in, and they're on the same field.
Nikon 1 can add support for external flash, but I haven't seen if the RX100 can act as a controller for remote flash. Nikon has a pancake, but not yet a foldable zoom.
@Knight Palm: Not a chance. Putting this sensor in won't make the Nikon system any smaller or faster or pocketable. This is a serious compact. As serious as they come. If you are going ILC like Nikon did then and only then does the bigger sensor make any sense.
Competition is great, improved phone cameras have spawned this! Why buy a compact when your phone is always with you and can take comparable pics? As someone mentioned this kind of thing should have been done 5 years ago!
Sony's going to struggle to produce enough of these babies! The image quality seems off the chart for such a high megapixel count. Then to top it off one can capture a 17Mp still whilst shooting video without interruption. I can just see version 2 (RX120) coming with a tiltable LCD.
Would love to have that one with a side-hinging touch monitor, even at the price of more bulk. But like the decision to omit completely any viewfinder.
I think I'm going to hold off on buying any new compact cameras for awhile. The RX100 appears to be a real game-changer! The other guys better start working on a response to this one, and fast!
IQ is good, but sample here at dpreview, or at tech radar shows evidence of NR, even at base iso, in low contrast area or shadows. But you need to look carefully at full size, in web HD size, images are good, DR seems good to, again with NR and less detail in shadow, but taht's only visible at 100%. Color are vibant, but not too much, especialy the red. High iso suffers too :(
I'm glad to see more manufacturers catching on to this idea...it's time is long overdue! Now Fuji, Canon, Nikon and Sony offer larger than compact sensors. Nice. I'm still not a fan of Sony design or their products at all, but I'm glad they are here...they have a big market and it will push others to progress!
Sample images here and on imaging resource is mind boggling good IMO! Just sold my t3i and I have to say looking at things like this come out...quite happy I did. Still happy with my 5D MK II, but I have to admit Sony are magicians in sensor technology.
Not bad? Look at imaging resource...I compared it to my previous Canon Rebel t3i. They put a 50mm f2.5 *macro* lens on the Canon...think about that for a moment. This is a P&S lens that retracts completely flat to fit in your shirt pocket with a tiny sensor with huge megapixels...all things that would have most instantly think its crap...but look at the samples...its clearly and absolutely phenomenal.
magicians, and under-appreciated perfectionists/artists in analog technology... I'm glad they are finally overcoming their inhibitions (of putting too many great technologies into one product) and putting out a great package.
Too bad the name sounds like a Samsung to me. 80% of Sony's efforts are appreciated by 20% of connoisseurs, while 80% of Samsung's efforts spent on superficial checklist features. That's why Samsung has lousy JPEG engines, because 80% of users can't tell it apart from a good one.
Seeing that Sony won't put in a swivel screen, I'd only hope Canon copies the RX100 as much as possible (esp. peaking focus), to create a successor to both the S100 AND G14... a swivel screen S1000, anyone?
Didn't see the IR samples, but when I look at the DPR samples for IQ, I don't think "mind bogglingly good". They are good, but the colors seems quite lifeless, not nearly as nice as the Nikon 1 or Fuji X10 for color fidelity and contrast. In fact, contrast is a bit low on most of these sample images. And perhaps RAW will be better, but high ISO images get quite soft.
I figure Nikon's jpeg engine still has more years of experience behind it compared to Sony so I do wonder about its RAW potential. But I agree about colors its the biggest drawback I see as stated from IR in that the yellows are pushed too far towards green...this is the #1 factor in producing flat looking pictures IMO...wonder if it is fixable or not.
Comments