Previous news story    Next news story

Just Posted: Sony DSC-RX100 preview with sample images

By dpreview staff on Jun 6, 2012 at 04:03 GMT

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.  

Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 preview video

Comments

Total comments: 645
1234
Jens_G
By Jens_G (Jun 6, 2012)

Dear Sony: Please make a version with the same body, but with a 35mm prime (still retractable) and an even larger sensor.

I will love you forever.

3 upvotes
ARTASHES
By ARTASHES (Jun 6, 2012)

nex 5n with pancake ?

2 upvotes
Jens_G
By Jens_G (Jun 6, 2012)

I have a Nex 5, It's still quite big compared to this.

0 upvotes
Andy Crowe
By Andy Crowe (Jun 6, 2012)

So, like a Fuji X100 or Leica X2? :)

0 upvotes
Xellz
By Xellz (Jun 6, 2012)

m4/3 small body with 20mm pancake is about what you're asking. Like gf-3, gf-5 for example. Really few people would buy p/s without zoom.

2 upvotes
smallcams
By smallcams (Jun 6, 2012)

I'm a sucker for small cameras and I'll still buy this, but YES, couldn't agree more. My X100 is just too BIG for all occasions! What about f/1.4 with that fixed 35mm? Sounds like a winner that would keep me happy for a year or two.

2 upvotes
peevee1
By peevee1 (Jun 6, 2012)

NEX-C3 is not big, weighs approximately the same.

0 upvotes
T3
By T3 (Jun 6, 2012)

Dear Sony: also give it an mp3 player, wifi and 4G so I can beam my images straight to online storage, give it a web browser, and add a bottle opener. I will love you forever.

0 upvotes
tesch
By tesch (Jun 6, 2012)

I love to see people complain about too many mega pixels.....shows their ignorance.

6 upvotes
Jens_G
By Jens_G (Jun 6, 2012)

+20 000 000

5 upvotes
Jens_G
By Jens_G (Jun 6, 2012)

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...

5 upvotes
mhike
By mhike (Jun 6, 2012)

Their sensor tech is good, but they show over and over again that competitors do much better with their sensors than sony can.

1 upvote
Lanski
By Lanski (Jun 6, 2012)

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?

5 upvotes
Raist3d
By Raist3d (Jun 6, 2012)

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.

6 upvotes
T3
By T3 (Jun 6, 2012)

@ 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!

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
spidermoon
By spidermoon (Jun 6, 2012)

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).

1 upvote
Cy Cheze
By Cy Cheze (Jun 6, 2012)

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.

0 upvotes
tesch
By tesch (Jun 6, 2012)

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

0 upvotes
Lanski
By Lanski (Jun 6, 2012)

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.

1 upvote
sesopenko
By sesopenko (Jun 6, 2012)

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?

0 upvotes
MichaelEchos
By MichaelEchos (Jun 7, 2012)

BSI, micro lenses?

0 upvotes
ponyman
By ponyman (Jun 6, 2012)

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.

1 upvote
ARTASHES
By ARTASHES (Jun 6, 2012)

They would achieve the same as with 20mp

1 upvote
JMartinP
By JMartinP (Jun 6, 2012)

Yes but with half the resolution, imagine that!

1 upvote
ARTASHES
By ARTASHES (Jun 6, 2012)

Just resize 20mp to 10mp (it would have 10 mp for JPEG I think) or do nothing just print it, or zoom just up to 75% and will have your dream camera

0 upvotes
T3
By T3 (Jun 6, 2012)

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.

0 upvotes
AbrasiveReducer
By AbrasiveReducer (Jun 6, 2012)

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.

0 upvotes
ARTASHES
By ARTASHES (Jun 6, 2012)

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
2 upvotes
zeev a
By zeev a (Jun 6, 2012)

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 .

2 upvotes
SamTruax
By SamTruax (Jun 6, 2012)

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.

1 upvote
zeev a
By zeev a (Jun 6, 2012)

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 .

1 upvote
tokajilover
By tokajilover (Jun 6, 2012)

The problem is,
that no one needs more than f3.5 at 24mm but it would be great to have f1.8 at 85mm or f2.0 at 100mm :-)

this is certain better than my actual compact S100 - but the creativity-limitations are still there.

2 upvotes
LukeDuciel
By LukeDuciel (Jun 6, 2012)

f number on small sensor like that has nothing to do with bokeh. It just indicates the light flux you will get through the lens.

and in that sense, 1.8 anywhere for me pls.

5 upvotes
T3
By T3 (Jun 6, 2012)

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".

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
tkbslc
By tkbslc (Jun 6, 2012)

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.

0 upvotes
sesopenko
By sesopenko (Jun 6, 2012)

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.

0 upvotes
keeponkeepingon
By keeponkeepingon (Jun 6, 2012)

Bravo sony!

An S95 with a larger sensor and faster AF? What's not to like?

8 upvotes
mhike
By mhike (Jun 6, 2012)

The insane number of MP?

4 upvotes
MRNICK07
By MRNICK07 (Jun 6, 2012)

Yeah, I think that's a little ridiculous. So much for any low-light performance.. G1X all day long.

0 upvotes
john Clinch
By john Clinch (Jun 6, 2012)

Oh dear how very 2010. More pixels improves low light performance........

1 upvote
Jens_G
By Jens_G (Jun 6, 2012)

PEOPLE. PLEASE. More pixels does NOT necessarily mean worse low light performance, not in 2012! Go look at the damned samples on IR.

8 upvotes
spidermoon
By spidermoon (Jun 6, 2012)

The samples at IR show no noise at 1600 iso, and also no detail in the low frequency area, like the red leaf, render at almost plain red.

1 upvote
MichaelEchos
By MichaelEchos (Jun 7, 2012)

I wouldn't be surprised if this tiny Sony sensor can almost beat G1X.

0 upvotes
Retro Joe
By Retro Joe (Jun 6, 2012)

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.

2 upvotes
zodiacfml
By zodiacfml (Jun 6, 2012)

+1 on the evf and want a hotshoe for an external flash.

0 upvotes
Valentinian
By Valentinian (Jun 6, 2012)

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.

0 upvotes
tkbslc
By tkbslc (Jun 6, 2012)

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.

2 upvotes
WD
By WD (Jun 6, 2012)

+1 on the EVF. Add hotshoe with available small flash for daylight fill-light. No more cameras for me without EVF. Sorry, Sony.

0 upvotes
sesopenko
By sesopenko (Jun 6, 2012)

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.

0 upvotes
justmeMN
By justmeMN (Jun 6, 2012)

Considering the size of the sensor, the camera is wonderfully small. Very interesting...

9 upvotes
Carlos AF Costa
By Carlos AF Costa (Jun 6, 2012)

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

1 upvote
Andy Crowe
By Andy Crowe (Jun 6, 2012)

Of course the faster lens (1.8 vs 2.8) may somewhat offset the Canon's larger sensor advantage.

3 upvotes
Retro Joe
By Retro Joe (Jun 6, 2012)

I look forward to a side by side image comparison between these two. The G1X is Edsel-like and won't be around too long.

1 upvote
ozturert
By ozturert (Jun 6, 2012)

Andy, f1.8 does not always offset a bigger sensor. I don't always take photos at f1.8.

0 upvotes
misha
By misha (Jun 6, 2012)

1.8 with a 1" sensor should have about the same DOF as 2.8 on 1GX, if not deeper though.

0 upvotes
Jens_G
By Jens_G (Jun 6, 2012)

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 :)

7 upvotes
Digital Suicide
By Digital Suicide (Jun 6, 2012)

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.

7 upvotes
zodiacfml
By zodiacfml (Jun 6, 2012)

An LX5 with a similar sensor would make me crazy over one.

3 upvotes
tkbslc
By tkbslc (Jun 6, 2012)

The LX5 is already bigger than this camera with a sensor that is less than half the size.

1 upvote
Jan Kritzinger
By Jan Kritzinger (Jun 6, 2012)

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.

1 upvote
LordGriNz
By LordGriNz (Jun 6, 2012)

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.

Comment edited 37 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
bzanchet
By bzanchet (Jun 6, 2012)

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).

Sony has a winner, thank you Sony!!!

5 upvotes
sesopenko
By sesopenko (Jun 6, 2012)

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.

2 upvotes
vapentaxuser
By vapentaxuser (Jun 6, 2012)

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.

3 upvotes
sesopenko
By sesopenko (Jun 6, 2012)

Your flash will be bigger than the camera. Hell! A pocket wizard is almost bigger than the camera!

0 upvotes
fastlass
By fastlass (Jun 6, 2012)

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.

3 upvotes
mediman30
By mediman30 (Jun 6, 2012)

Clap, clap, clap to Sony!

3 upvotes
bobbidog
By bobbidog (Jun 6, 2012)

Anybody knows what base ISO the RX100 has?
dpreview shows ISO 100, imaging resource shows ISO 80.
Thank you.

0 upvotes
jacketgiang
By jacketgiang (Jun 6, 2012)

Base ISO is 125, but it can be boost to ISO 100 and ISO 80 indeed.

1 upvote
MRNICK07
By MRNICK07 (Jun 6, 2012)

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.

1 upvote
Plastek
By Plastek (Jun 6, 2012)

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.

Comment edited 36 seconds after posting
2 upvotes
penfriend
By penfriend (Jun 6, 2012)

Someone in Sony has vision.
And the courage to make it happen.

True to the spirit of Masaru Ibuka and Akio Morita

19 upvotes
Juraj Lacko
By Juraj Lacko (Jun 6, 2012)

I almost bought OLY xz-1 but i am glad I didnt will buy this sony instead. Bless sony

3 upvotes
ZAnton
By ZAnton (Jun 6, 2012)

Finally they did it! Compact with middle size sensor and good lens.
Dear Sony, make it with 10-12MP and I will buy 3 cameras.

5 upvotes
BlackZero
By BlackZero (Jun 6, 2012)

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.

Comment edited 29 seconds after posting
1 upvote
ZAnton
By ZAnton (Jun 6, 2012)

agree. I had same experience with sharp 6MP vs. blurred 14 MP.

0 upvotes
ARTASHES
By ARTASHES (Jun 6, 2012)

BlackZero
Pixel density?
maybe you mean real resolution ?

1 upvote
BlackZero
By BlackZero (Jun 6, 2012)

Sample images are great for this camera. Price tag is albeit too high.

0 upvotes
Jens_G
By Jens_G (Jun 6, 2012)

No price is too high for the best. I was about to buy an S100, pre-ordering this in stead.

2 upvotes
nicolaiecostel
By nicolaiecostel (Jun 6, 2012)

The pictures look superb for such a camera, quite frankly.

5 upvotes
wopwops
By wopwops (Jun 6, 2012)

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!

5 upvotes
ZAnton
By ZAnton (Jun 6, 2012)

but it is f/4.9 at the long end. f/2.8 or 3.5 would be much better.

0 upvotes
iudex
By iudex (Jun 6, 2012)

G1x has f5,8 at the long end, S100 has f5,9. I agree some 3,5 would be better but f1,8-4,9 is still nice.

6 upvotes
Anastigmat
By Anastigmat (Jun 6, 2012)

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.

3 upvotes
simon65
By simon65 (Jun 6, 2012)

It looks like a winner!

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!

25 upvotes
dpryenn
By dpryenn (Jun 6, 2012)

Amen

0 upvotes
MisoL
By MisoL (Jun 6, 2012)

13.2x8.8mm is 1/1.6", that's not that much bigger, than 1/1.7" sensor in Canon S100.

25.4/sqrt(13.2^2+8.8^2)=1.601

0 upvotes
Chris2210
By Chris2210 (Jun 6, 2012)

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.

0 upvotes
ARTASHES
By ARTASHES (Jun 6, 2012)

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
6 upvotes
MisoL
By MisoL (Jun 6, 2012)

Oh, sorry. Even I got fooled by the specs. Seems, like every small sensor camera maker is trying to lie about sensor size.

1 upvote
BlackZero
By BlackZero (Jun 6, 2012)

1inch is the diagonal size I guess.

0 upvotes
BlackZero
By BlackZero (Jun 6, 2012)

Oh No..
25.4 / sqrt((13.2 * 13.2) + (8.8 * 8.8)) = 1.6
This is a 1/1.6" size sensor 'diagonally'

1 upvote
ARTASHES
By ARTASHES (Jun 6, 2012)

http://www.dpreview.com/news/2002/10/7/sensorsizes

6 upvotes
Richt2000
By Richt2000 (Jun 6, 2012)

Quality of Nikon 1 / GX1 in the size of a S100 with a f1.8 lens.
Will be awesome travel, and 20mp at base ISO will be great for landscapes.

I might finally sell my G10 if the lens is as good as the Blue Zeiss badge indicates...

First NEX7 and now this, Sony - well done!

9 upvotes
Edmond Leung
By Edmond Leung (Jun 6, 2012)

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.

1 upvote
peevee1
By peevee1 (Jun 6, 2012)

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.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
1 upvote
munro harrap
By munro harrap (Jun 6, 2012)

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?

0 upvotes
Andy Crowe
By Andy Crowe (Jun 6, 2012)

Weird, I've never had any problem using my GX1 without a viewfinder in bright sunlight, maybe it's just you :)

4 upvotes
Then4
By Then4 (Jun 6, 2012)

GX1 is easy to use is sunlight because of the swivelling LCD allot harder with a fixed LCD.

0 upvotes
Hugo808
By Hugo808 (Jun 6, 2012)

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?

2 upvotes
Andy Crowe
By Andy Crowe (Jun 6, 2012)

@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.

2 upvotes
Rashkae
By Rashkae (Jun 6, 2012)

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.

9 upvotes
jerry  eisner
By jerry eisner (Jun 6, 2012)

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

0 upvotes
In hydraulis
By In hydraulis (Jun 6, 2012)

Always roll my eyes at these "can't hold the thing still at arms' length" whinges.

You're doing it wrong.

Or, you lack elbows.

0 upvotes
spidermoon
By spidermoon (Jun 6, 2012)

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.

0 upvotes
Then4
By Then4 (Jun 6, 2012)

G 1X and GX1 still make me confused even if i own one. I mean G1X :P

0 upvotes
T3
By T3 (Jun 6, 2012)

@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?

0 upvotes
jumbocat
By jumbocat (Jun 6, 2012)

"as populations become more stupid" - well, it seems you are in a good position to know about that one.

0 upvotes
Dennis
By Dennis (Jun 6, 2012)

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".

0 upvotes
AbrasiveReducer
By AbrasiveReducer (Jun 6, 2012)

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.

0 upvotes
In hydraulis
By In hydraulis (Jun 7, 2012)

AbrasiveReducer, that's a fair point. But I don't see how a viewfinder is the solution to a budding photographer's tremor.

A tripod would go a long way further.

0 upvotes
D R C
By D R C (Jun 6, 2012)

The big question for me is how good is the WhiteMagic screen outdoors in sunlight?

0 upvotes
Rashkae
By Rashkae (Jun 6, 2012)

Judging by the Sony Xperia P smartphone which uses WhiteMagic... Very very good.

3 upvotes
Jens_G
By Jens_G (Jun 6, 2012)

I would've preferred a fixed 35mm(equivalent) f/1.4 lens, but I'll take this!

1 upvote
cadet stimpy
By cadet stimpy (Jun 6, 2012)

Oooh that would be nice!

0 upvotes
Andy Crowe
By Andy Crowe (Jun 6, 2012)

The Fuji X100 is pretty much what you're asking for (comparing an f2 APS lens to f1.4 for a 1" sensor)

1 upvote
Jens_G
By Jens_G (Jun 6, 2012)

except of course for the size, and I prefer Sony's AF.

1 upvote
ARTASHES
By ARTASHES (Jun 6, 2012)

It has BSI sensor so the technology became effective even for much bigger pixels or it's just marketing ?

0 upvotes
ET2
By ET2 (Jun 6, 2012)

The specs on DPR claim BSI-CMOS, but imaging-resource review specifically states the sensor is not BSI.

It's probably not BSI. I think DPR has the error.

1 upvote
Kristian Harley
By Kristian Harley (Jun 6, 2012)

Looks very interesting.

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.

1 upvote
inFocus
By inFocus (Jun 6, 2012)

Pixel binning does not mean more light to the sensor. Just set the resolution to 5 mpix and your're ready to go.

0 upvotes
Roland Karlsson
By Roland Karlsson (Jun 6, 2012)

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.

1 upvote
zodiacfml
By zodiacfml (Jun 6, 2012)

True. This is probably the reason why the MP count keeps getting higher as the limitation is readout noise.
Yet, this needs built-in ND filters.

0 upvotes
spidermoon
By spidermoon (Jun 6, 2012)

Sony use multi frame to get NR. At 5mpx, you simply have a resize image.

0 upvotes
theswede
By theswede (Jun 6, 2012)

Shoot at as high MP as you can and let good denoising software do its job and binning looks like the stone age methodology it is by comparison.

2 upvotes
DaddyBit
By DaddyBit (Jun 6, 2012)

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.

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
penfriend
By penfriend (Jun 6, 2012)

Finally a worthwhile replacement to those classics Canon A610, Fuji f810, Kodak DC4800, Nikon 995, Olympus C5050, Panasonic LC5, Pentax 450, Ricoh GX100, Sony S70.

Just right complement to M4/3, Aps-c & FF.

Tilt screen would been useful, still is a humdinger.

4 upvotes
zodiacfml
By zodiacfml (Jun 6, 2012)

Based on the sensor, this design makes more sense than the Nikon 1 series. This is the type I wished Nikon had with the 1 inch sensor.

2 upvotes
Gesture
By Gesture (Jun 6, 2012)

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.

0 upvotes
Felipe Rodríguez
By Felipe Rodríguez (Jun 6, 2012)

Interesting camera. But the sensor is still too small for my taste. APS-C is the minimum for me.

1 upvote
Knight Palm
By Knight Palm (Jun 6, 2012)

Sour were the grapes, said the man with pockets to small to host the big camera.

17 upvotes
theswede
By theswede (Jun 6, 2012)

Ok, go buy the same size camera only with APS-C sensor from that other manufacturer which makes those. I forgot the name, please remind me again?

9 upvotes
spidermoon
By spidermoon (Jun 6, 2012)

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.

0 upvotes
CameraLabTester
By CameraLabTester (Jun 6, 2012)

Well done market research and ergonomic design by Sony.

This was how the Nikon 1 should have been, but they blew it.

.

20 upvotes
Knight Palm
By Knight Palm (Jun 6, 2012)

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.

Actually, time will tell, which one sells most.

0 upvotes
JelleNL
By JelleNL (Jun 6, 2012)

Both the Nikon 10-30mm and 30-110mm are foldable. Not quite as small as this Sony though, but foldable.

0 upvotes
duartix
By duartix (Jun 6, 2012)

@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.

6 upvotes
peevee1
By peevee1 (Jun 6, 2012)

Nikon could put this sensor in this year 1-series cameras if it had PDAF built-in. I don't think their lenses are CDAF-optimized.

0 upvotes
AN TRAN
By AN TRAN (Jun 6, 2012)

I want it NOW !!!

5 upvotes
K_Photo_Teach
By K_Photo_Teach (Jun 6, 2012)

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!

Great times to be a photographer!

Comment edited 36 seconds after posting
7 upvotes
zstan
By zstan (Jun 6, 2012)

But the lag to turn on the camera on your phone is still way behind a this.

0 upvotes
Rashkae
By Rashkae (Jun 6, 2012)

Zstan: 1.5 seconds on my phone, then it's already focused and taking the shot.

Sony Xperia S. ;)

4 upvotes
Gao Gao
By Gao Gao (Jun 6, 2012)

Wait... why did I get E-M5 with 12-50 again?

3 upvotes
kevin_r
By kevin_r (Jun 6, 2012)

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.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
4 upvotes
h2k
By h2k (Jun 6, 2012)

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.

Comment edited 19 seconds after posting
2 upvotes
davids8560
By davids8560 (Jun 6, 2012)

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!

1 upvote
ianimal
By ianimal (Jun 6, 2012)

Oh, that was a little baby. True pocket size this is.

0 upvotes
ijustloveshooting
By ijustloveshooting (Jun 6, 2012)

high iso shots are awesome, i Fell in love at first sight....despite 20mp sensor, IQ looks GREEEEAAAATTTTT.....i must buy this one!!!!

0 upvotes
spidermoon
By spidermoon (Jun 6, 2012)

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 :(

0 upvotes
IcyVeins
By IcyVeins (Jun 6, 2012)

EPIC SUIT!!!

0 upvotes
stradivari
By stradivari (Jun 6, 2012)

Where's the Fuji X10 review?

1 upvote
Bokeh_freak
By Bokeh_freak (Jun 6, 2012)

Canon G1X = $800.
Sony RX100 = $650.

3 upvotes
tkbslc
By tkbslc (Jun 6, 2012)

As long as we are ignoring sensor size differences:

Canon S100: $400
Panasonic LX5: $375

1 upvote
ET2
By ET2 (Jun 6, 2012)

And tkbslc, you are ignoring that built-in lens is a stop brighter than Canon G1X ... and the camera is tiny compared to Canon too.

8 upvotes
JelleNL
By JelleNL (Jun 6, 2012)

.

Comment edited 27 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
peevee1
By peevee1 (Jun 6, 2012)

Canon is not going to sell many G1X at $800 now... Price cuts here we come. Competition is good!

1 upvote
kwa_photo
By kwa_photo (Jun 6, 2012)

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!

14 upvotes
Torode
By Torode (Jun 6, 2012)

Refreshing to see such an honest and even-handed comment.

1 upvote
Jens_G
By Jens_G (Jun 6, 2012)

I've been a fan of Sony design since I bought my first DSLR, an A200.

After that I upgraded to a 5D and canon lenses, but I've been missing Sony design the whole time. Got a Nex 5 and absolutely LOVE it.

The RX100 will be my next camera purchase.

4 upvotes
Realfi
By Realfi (Jun 6, 2012)

Please, please, please can we have the Fuji X10 review.

0 upvotes
tkbslc
By tkbslc (Jun 6, 2012)

You haven't figured out if it is a good camera yet?

2 upvotes
Jan Kritzinger
By Jan Kritzinger (Jun 6, 2012)

Why on earth would you want a Fuji X10 review, if you could have a Sony RX100 review?

0 upvotes
cadet stimpy
By cadet stimpy (Jun 6, 2012)

sold!

1 upvote
Timbukto
By Timbukto (Jun 6, 2012)

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.

13 upvotes
Edmond Leung
By Edmond Leung (Jun 6, 2012)

The sample images are not bad from this small camera.
For me, I would classify it as "must buy" camera.

I've been waiting for such camera for a long time.

0 upvotes
Timbukto
By Timbukto (Jun 6, 2012)

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.

11 upvotes
Jack
By Jack (Jun 6, 2012)

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?

Comment edited 5 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
Jens_G
By Jens_G (Jun 6, 2012)

@Jack, Sony are surging ahead of the pack in terms of sensor performance. I doubt canon can beat them at this game.

3 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (Jun 6, 2012)

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.

2 upvotes
Timbukto
By Timbukto (Jun 6, 2012)

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.

0 upvotes
Edmond Leung
By Edmond Leung (Jun 6, 2012)

Lovely design plus CZ lens and 1" sensor - a prefect camera for day-to-day use.
If the IQ is ok.... then a must buy camera.

1 upvote
Total comments: 645
1234