Previous news story    Next news story

Just Posted: Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 review

By dpreview staff on Aug 28, 2012 at 20:04 GMT
Buy on GearShop$548.00

Just Posted: Our review of the Sony RX100 large-sensor compact camera. The RX100 may look a lot like its 1/1.7" sensor peers but it boasts a sensor 2.7 times larger, which should directly translate into better image quality. It also packs class-leading video features into its tiny metal body. It's already being heralded in some quarters as the best compact ever so, after extensive use in a variety of conditions, can it possibly live up to the hype? Read our review to find out.

775
I own it
107
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: 373
123
Rnash
By Rnash (Aug 29, 2012)

If the RX-100 is a SILVER camera, which camera in this class deserves GOLD?

6 upvotes
Jens_G
By Jens_G (Aug 29, 2012)

I wish Sony would make one with a fixed, 35mm (even 40mm) equivalent fov lens, with even larger physical aperture. Imagine the IQ!

0 upvotes
D Cox
By D Cox (Aug 29, 2012)

That would be practically the Sigma DP2M.

2 upvotes
smallcams
By smallcams (Aug 29, 2012)

Yes, me too. I rarely use zoom on RX100 or any P&S. 35mm is a good compromise as far as focal length goes, like on Fuji's X100. Optimize the fast 35mm FL/glass for the Sony 1" sensor and keep the camera footprint the same and they get my money again.

0 upvotes
Digital Suicide
By Digital Suicide (Aug 29, 2012)

Well, I agree with DPR on SILVER award. It really lacks a bit of hallmark to get pure GOLD award. And there are my personal CONS that makes it SILVER, not GOLD (Some of them were mentioned in DP review):

1. Full time focus (some would call it tracking focus or pre-focus) can't be turned OFF. Sometimes it does interfere for me. And I believe it doesn't extends battery life either.
2. Max shutter speed is only 1/2000s. Without built in ND filter and no filter threads 1/4000s is A MUST.
3. Annoying zoom in the stills preview mode. It goes too deep in to the picture instantly. And creates lagg, of course.
4. Separate folders for stills, MP4 and AVCHD.
5. No 720p video.
6. No pause during recording a video.

Some of them are annoying, but livable with.

And I disagree with DP about clickless front ring. Its perfect for video adjutments or MF.

In the other hand RX100 is an absolute joy to use. It now is my everyday companion. Highly recomended!

4 upvotes
Andrys
By Andrys (Sep 2, 2012)

Odd. I use the sngle auto focus for a one time half-press on shutter and it sticks. I use autofocus *continuous* for constant tracking (good even for MY movement if shooting someething too close and movement hurts focus).

0 upvotes
pentaxination
By pentaxination (Aug 29, 2012)

I own a camera that received the coveted DPR Gold Award. That is the singular criterion I use to get a camera.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Stephen_C
By Stephen_C (Aug 29, 2012)

I was expecting a gold award as well, but the RX100 did outscore the S100 by 78% to 72%. The RX100 is clearly a game changing camera that will drive the next set of compacts.

4 upvotes
Carl bcn
By Carl bcn (Aug 29, 2012)

Nice and thorough review, though I find it odd it is just awarded a silver medal after they've said it's (probably) the best in its class. It's cameras like this one that make the digital photography advance, and that should be reason enough to award this product with a higher overall score. I would have seen a gold medal not as much, or not only, as an award to the rx100, but as some kind of "way to go" to manufacturers venturing successfully into new technology niches.
I guess they thought the "cons" were too bad: clickless wheel and unpredictable flash metering. Go figure.
Anyway, these considerations aside, I enjoyed reading the review, thanks a lot for your quality work.

1 upvote
travelshots_dpr
By travelshots_dpr (Aug 29, 2012)

I don't agree with Dpreview's complaints about the clickless front wheel. This is perfect for focus and zoom operation. If you assign other functions to the front wheel, you still have the display to control the values. If you want to have clicks, simply use the back wheel. I am very satisfied (in practice) with Sony's design decision and would hate if Sony would have built the camera the way Dpreview obviously likes.

According display in sunlight: Did you turn the display to sunny mode (not automatic)? In sunny mode the display is much brighter and I haven't encountered any situation when I could not use the display (in opposite to previous compacts I have had).

By the way: If there is any Sony camera (including DSLRs and SLTs) that deservs a gold medal, it is RX100.

9 upvotes
ManuH
By ManuH (Aug 29, 2012)

Yes, if you read the RX100 designers interview, the lack of clicks was done on purpose to facilitate manual focusing. I like it that way too but I think the UI is a bit sluggish in the sense that you have to move the ring a bit too much. The sensitivity of this ring should have been customization. But it's minor nitpick IMHO.

I also agree with the LCD, it's the only LCD screen I can see somewhat in sunlight. All the others I used (920k screens, Amoled, etc) have not been this good.

3 upvotes
Ryan_Valiente
By Ryan_Valiente (Aug 30, 2012)

"By the way: If there is any Sony camera (including DSLRs and SLTs) that deservs a gold medal, it is RX100."

There are many Sony cameras that already got a gold award btw.

0 upvotes
ManuH
By ManuH (Aug 29, 2012)

Nice review but the decision to give it only a silver award is a bit weird IMHO. The fact that this is an unique camera in many ways with an unmatched feature set for its size didn't seem to have weighted a lot in the reviewer final decision. I can understand that there are some glitches or some annoyances here and there but the RX100 is truly a game changer IMHO. It's a milestone that is pushing the boundaries of what a compact camera is supposed able to do. It's a benchmark for future high end compact cameras. And unfortunately Dpreview missed the opportunity to celebrate this...

11 upvotes
GMart
By GMart (Aug 29, 2012)

Nice little camera but I still prefer the larger sensor in the Fuji x100 personally.
Still, if I was looking for a zoom cam in the same bracket, this would fit the bill!
Shame there is no OV however - guess size makes that an issue.

4 upvotes
SDF
By SDF (Aug 29, 2012)

I have both RX100 and X100. My X100 is all pimped out and always pampered at home. :)

0 upvotes
Justin Francis
By Justin Francis (Aug 29, 2012)

An Olympus Pen with a 14mm pancake lens and 45mm 1.8 walks all over this cam. The slow tele on the RX kills it. It's not that small as well. Don't understand the hoo-haa.

3 upvotes
JesperMP
By JesperMP (Aug 29, 2012)

"Not that small" ??
It is the size as a Canon S100.
When you turn the power off, how does your Pen camera plus two lenses compare against RX100.

8 upvotes
robonrome
By robonrome (Aug 29, 2012)

. Have you even held the camera? Hard to believe with a comment like that...I have a lumix G3 and the image quality of the RX100 rivals it.... This is a truly small camera that can actually fit comfortably in a Pocket of a pair of well fitted jeans. It is frankly a technical marvel. comparing it to a PeN with a fixed pancake is a pointless comparison .

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
9 upvotes
Andy Crowe
By Andy Crowe (Aug 29, 2012)

Except you have to switch lenses to go between wide and tele, something you don't need to do on the RX

3 upvotes
photo perzon
By photo perzon (Aug 29, 2012)

Oly + 14 = twice the weight and twice the volume.

8 upvotes
c_henry
By c_henry (Aug 29, 2012)

Avid m43 user here. Don't really think you can compare the size of the two. I've an E-PM1 which even when using the 14mm Panny is going to be bigger than this.

I really like the Sony, it's moved the P&S cameras forward and Sony should be applauded for this. I'll probably get one once it drops in price as its current price is right where other more interesting (for me) products sit (Oly 12mm f2.0 for one).

Colin

2 upvotes
Lbr0805
By Lbr0805 (Aug 29, 2012)

Apparently I am a class of user that those who comment and the dPreview editors don't consider - a business traveler who needs to take some photos for work and likes to take photos for relaxation. I want my camera to fit in my very small camera bag with my very small but powerful laptop or go everywhere with me on a bag on my belt. I have carried a Canon S90 for years under these conditions and not broken it. My next camera is definitely an RX100.

1 upvote
Craig Atkinson
By Craig Atkinson (Aug 29, 2012)

why do people get so excited? It's a camera, a good one, not a perfect one. I think a percentage rating is fine as long as it's read in context. I see it as being relevant today. Of course in six months it wont be the same, better cameras of the same type will be out. Today though the RX100 is best / second best [ricoh grd4] in its class. It might be the only camera of it's class, seems so.

Dpreview could develop two sliding scale systems. One which is the rating of the camera at the time of release and another which slides with time, so most likely will slide down as new tech is developed and released. 78% I think is fair. It's too small, it has no snap function or way of measuring distance. It has no real grip. It has no lens thread...A great camera but far from perfect. As far as the GRD4, they are both great cameras.

3 upvotes
JesperMP
By JesperMP (Aug 29, 2012)

"I think a percentage rating is fine as long as it's read in context."
The problem is that a "gold award" or "no gold award" is not read in context. The double system and sliding rating is way too complicated. It will confuse more than enlighten.

The way Dxomark gives points is the way to go. You can easily compare dissimilar cameras, even with many years between them. And it is easy to understand.

0 upvotes
Andy Crowe
By Andy Crowe (Aug 29, 2012)

> One which is the rating of the camera at the time of release and another which slides with time, so most likely will slide down as new tech is developed and released

Would you like to volunteer to sit down every 6 months and go through every single review updating all the scores based on whatever the latest camera releases are?

1 upvote
ManuH
By ManuH (Aug 29, 2012)

IMHO the percentage ratings are completely useless, I never even glance at them. These scales are too subjective. Even PopPhoto have better scales where you can actually compare things.

Fortunately the review is otherwise detailed enough that you can gather real information.

2 upvotes
c_henry
By c_henry (Aug 29, 2012)

I'm with ManuH on this. I rarely even look at the scores. If I've read the review and I've not made up my own mind by the end of it, the score is not going to influence me at all.

1 upvote
Esa Tuunanen
By Esa Tuunanen (Aug 29, 2012)

Jesper, DxO's simplified out of context scores are rather bad way to tell information.
Already precisely because it doesn't do any difference between cameras of clearly different classes!

Just like that local weather forecast with daily temperature number and some image of cloud, rain or sun is the least accurate possible weather forecast.
Should be telling that meteorologists call it as "bingo line/row". (which sounds better, english isn't my native language)

1 upvote
mediman30
By mediman30 (Aug 29, 2012)

Imagine it's Christmas morning...

You rushed downstairs to look what Santa has given you for being such a good boy/girl this year...

You opened all the presents and you were very happy...

Then you noticed that there is something else for you in the Christmas stocking hanging on the mantelpiece...

Slowly, very slowly...you put your right hand to see what's inside it.

An RX100!

Wooooohooooo!!!!

1 upvote
Jokica
By Jokica (Aug 29, 2012)

@R Butler:
"Best in class doesn't guarantee a Gold - it has to be a standout camera."
1. OK, I can understand this.
2. Looks odd for Best-in-class camera not to get highest award.
Maybe DPR should reconsider the rating system to cover these situations.
Maybe there should be something like "Editor Choice", "Platinum", etc (you will came up with something more appropriate), or to give the camera more than one mark. Sorry, but seems, hmm... (I dont know the right word) for best in class not to be awarded with Gold. RX100 deserves to be somehow (beside %) distinguished from others, silver, not the best in class cameras. MHO. Regards.

Comment edited 5 minutes after posting
3 upvotes
CabSav
By CabSav (Aug 29, 2012)

There will be no gold award because it is made by sony. Dpreview bias in perspective is known for ages. Nikon/Canon/Panasonic are in the centre fallowed by oly. Regardless of given product qualities companies like ricoh, samsung and sony are marginalised. Maybe it is attachment to tradition and photographic history? They have every right to be biased. There is no such a thing like objectivity, anyway.

The question is: does it really matters? I do not think so.

1 upvote
Andy Crowe
By Andy Crowe (Aug 29, 2012)

@CabSav The NEX-7 and SLT-A65 got gold awards, how does that fit into your little conspiracy theory?

10 upvotes
ManuH
By ManuH (Aug 29, 2012)

Please define "standout" for me. English is not my native language but if the RX100 is not a standout I wonder what is.

4 upvotes
zxaar
By zxaar (Aug 29, 2012)

@ManuH that would be omd by dpr standards that has unique SLR look that no camera in history had. That takes pictures like no digital camera has done so far.If i tried to mention rest of "stand out" points with it then i might need 100 pages of this web page. OMD is that stand out. It rightly got gold from DPR for being stand out.

0 upvotes
CabSav
By CabSav (Aug 30, 2012)

@ Andy Crowe
I have used word "bias" it has nothing to do with conspiracy or any other theories. You can recognise some achievement and still undervalue most of it. Bias does not mean complete snub. Your two examples prove nothing. Please, pay more attention to the wording.

0 upvotes
Andy Crowe
By Andy Crowe (Aug 30, 2012)

@CabSav I did pay attention to your words:

> There will be no gold award because it is made by sony

In fact in the last year Sony cameras have received more Gold awards than any other manufacturer (3 for Sony v 2 for Nikon and 1 for Canon, Olympus and Nokia), yeah that's some Bias against Sony there!

1 upvote
CabSav
By CabSav (Aug 31, 2012)

@ Andy Crowe
OK, I am impressed by numbers you have provided, I have no intention to check it out or put it in perspective. This discussion can go forever. I have just expressed my SUBJECTIVE opinion, please let me be.
I have looked into comments you are making and I must admit that I am impressed by the number of arguments you are creating… no… no more comments from my side…

0 upvotes
JesperMP
By JesperMP (Aug 29, 2012)

The rating system that tries to put cameras into "classes" is broken.
There are many problems with having a percantage rating that can go to max 100%. Will there be an ultimate camera that will get 100% ? If that camera arrives someday, and another camera that is a little bit better comes, then what ?
The tresholds that gives cameras bronze, silver and gold awards are truly idiotic. It puts far too much attention to if a camera gets gold or not.

If we accept DPRs way of rating in classes, then I think DPR made a mistake here by not acknowledging that RX100 is a landmark camera in the class of really pocketable enthusiast cameras.

A suggestion to DPR: Ditch the 0-100% rating system. If you must give ratings by a value, then adopt a reference camera that gets 100 points, and new reviewed cameras gets points higher than 100 if it they are better than the reference.
It would also be good if viewers could generate their own ratings based on their personal preferences.

6 upvotes
kadardr
By kadardr (Aug 29, 2012)

The weights for the individual ratings were never revealed. I do not understand. DPR guys must know the answer (even if it is not public)

0 upvotes
kadardr
By kadardr (Aug 29, 2012)

well

Comment edited 31 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Esa Tuunanen
By Esa Tuunanen (Aug 29, 2012)

And rating cameras without any classes would be even more broken.
For example any entry level DSLR has better ergonomics than best compact.

And what criteria/factors would you put into that configurable rating system?
Amount of buttons regardless if half of them are ergonomically bad?
Who has biggest bullet-point list of BS in release announcement?
Blind size/weight comparison?

1 upvote
Jurka
By Jurka (Aug 29, 2012)

I own a rx100 for a couple of months, and it is really super camera!
I shoot video, mostly, and need a ND filter, but rx100 lens is not threaded.
So i made my diy thread http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uo6wZ6UA9vI

100% Gold award for Sony!!!

6 upvotes
photo nuts
By photo nuts (Aug 29, 2012)

Is this the highest rating ever given for a compact camera? Kudos to Sony for a remarkable job: they have cleverly found some middle ground between the Canon G1X and S100. IMHO, this is a a HIGHLY recommended camera... actually, it's the ONLY compact camera I will recommend to my friends. :)

4 upvotes
peevee1
By peevee1 (Aug 29, 2012)

Well, if your friends need a camera for a vacation on a beach, shooting in the surf or under water, I would still recommend a water-and-dust protected camera. ;)

1 upvote
Jens_G
By Jens_G (Aug 29, 2012)

DPR are just giving the camera a controversial rating to boost page hits.

The results speak for themselves.
Sony really have outdone themselves ito upping their game over the last 5 years...

This will be my next p&s.

7 upvotes
Charlie Jin
By Charlie Jin (Aug 29, 2012)

It's been about a couple of weeks since I had Sony RX-100. Wow~! I just cannot believe how they can do this. It's so compact that I am bringing RX100 all the time, like my iPhone. I have been using Canon 7D and it's collecting dust since then. The image quality of RX 100 is so good that I wonder whether I really need 7D. With Eye-Fi, I save pics directly to my iPhone/iPad, and edit it there with various picture editing apps. Great !

What is really impressive is that the manual control is better than 7D. With 7D, 70% of the time, I used manual mode, and I was wondering whether any compact camera will give such DSLR like manual control. My Panasonic LX-3 was probably my worst buy. Expensive, so and so image quality and control was aweful. With Sony RX100, manual control was really delightful. I love it better than my 7D.

BTW, it is very strange that DP Review didn't give it a Gold Award though. No, I'm not a Sony fan. I have not bought a Sony product for quite a long time.

Comment edited 4 times, last edit 3 minutes after posting
8 upvotes
Samuel Dilworth
By Samuel Dilworth (Aug 29, 2012)

How do you find the manual control lacking on the LX3? Don't like the joystick?

1 upvote
GaryJP
By GaryJP (Aug 29, 2012)

Takes all sorts. They are not even comparable in IQ. So if IQ means nothing to you the RX100 is fine. It's this kind of bs hype that has created some backlash against the Sony.

Comment edited 11 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
ManuH
By ManuH (Aug 29, 2012)

They are certainly comparable. At base ISO there's not that much that will distinguish it from a DSLR even with a good lens. Of course at high ISO the DSLR is better and they can use better lenses. But what this pocket camera achieves is already marvelous.

Now maybe the RX100 is better than 7D for manual controls but honestly it doesn't hold a candle to my Pentax K-5 (or any other Pentax DSLR I used in the past). But then Pentax is better than most cameras when you consider handling and ease of use. HyperManual and HyperProgram rule!

1 upvote
Samuel Dilworth
By Samuel Dilworth (Aug 29, 2012)

ManuH: does the Pentax offer a hyperbolic mode, by any chance?

2 upvotes
peevee1
By peevee1 (Aug 29, 2012)

"They are not even comparable in IQ"

Depends on a lens you are using with 7D. With EF-S 18-55/3.5-5.6, you will be shooting at 2 stops (at WA) lower ISO on RX100 for the same DoF, and IQ will be quite comparable, if not better on the RX100.

0 upvotes
GaryJP
By GaryJP (Aug 29, 2012)

Ha ha ha.

0 upvotes
Craig Atkinson
By Craig Atkinson (Aug 29, 2012)

Mine's coming today. For years I've used Ricoh - nothing else like them [even though they never really seem to show up on this site]. Is there anyone here with Ricoh GRD*? Does the XR100 have any kind of snap function / zone / hyper focus option? Or is the AF really that fast that you don't ned it? The ability to focus at say 3m - ∞ would surely be a great thing to have.

0 upvotes
Noksukau
By Noksukau (Aug 29, 2012)

I don't know if it can do snap or hyperfocal focussing in the same way that Ricoh does but I would have thought it would be very difficult with such a large sensor. You would need to stop down a lot to get the same DoF and consequently increase ISO in a shutter speed limited situation. This is one of the difficulties with the GXR APS-C modules and why I don't wish for a GRD with a larger sensor until sensor collecting angles mean there is no increase in overall size. I like the compromises Ricoh have chosen as the RX100 isn't my idea of a pocket camera.

0 upvotes
Jens_G
By Jens_G (Aug 29, 2012)

I'm assuming you can prefocus while in MF mode, and then shoot at an aperture that'll give you sufficient DOF. The sensor is relatively small compared to APS, should work nicely.

1 upvote
BMWX5
By BMWX5 (Aug 29, 2012)

IMO, these amazing photos taken using RX100 are worth more than a Silver Award. I truly believe RX100 is one amazing camera in its class. http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1009&thread=42351761

Comment edited 9 minutes after posting
3 upvotes
Digital Suicide
By Digital Suicide (Aug 29, 2012)

I've bought this camera couple of week ago, And I'm not disappointed.
There are some areas to be improved though. Most of these flaws I've noticed are in the software and I believe can be corrected by update.
I hope SONY will do that.
In the shooting camera is amazing with it's speed and result quality. Clickless ring is absolutely FINE for me.
I really don't feel like I've overpaid for this little beast, and I could strongly recommend it to a friend.

4 upvotes
mark moe
By mark moe (Aug 29, 2012)

Well, the reivew was so late that it added little to what one already found out on the net. The bottom line of this being the best POCKETABLE camera is supported. I gues that it depends on your pocket (or purse) size. I live in California so a jacket is a 2 month of year thing at best, unless I go skiing or traveling--so I want the best camera that fits in a shirt or regular pants pocket. This camera hit a home run--WAY bette than the S90 it replaced.

Responsive, great output and features second to none.It's a fun camera to me--the memory funstions make it freindly. It allows my camera system to be kept in the closet 90% of the time-mostly for sports use.

Wish DPR would have an option to normalize image sizes in the comparision tools. E.G. We'll really know if a 20MP 1" sensor is better than a another sensor size with its MP if the images are the same size--at least as an option.

BTW: if you haven't used in camera HDR and sweep panorama then you are missing out on fun features.

4 upvotes
Vitruvius
By Vitruvius (Aug 29, 2012)

In the video (25s mark) you claim that it has "a sensor over two times larger then most of it's rivals" and you point to the four other cameras on the table, which happens to include the Canon G1X. The sensor on the Sony is half the size of the Canon. Where did you take math class? At Sony PR University?

1 upvote
Barney Britton
By Barney Britton (Aug 29, 2012)

"most of it's rivals" i.e., not "all".

Where did you take English?

20 upvotes
Xiaomao
By Xiaomao (Aug 29, 2012)

"most of its rivals"

3 upvotes
cgarrard
By cgarrard (Aug 29, 2012)

Lol go Barney. The answer was in his complaint. Face palm.

0 upvotes
peevee1
By peevee1 (Aug 29, 2012)

Canon G1X is in totally different size-and-weight class. Like comparing MB C230 to a Ford F150. What are you smoking?!

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
zodiacfml
By zodiacfml (Aug 29, 2012)

I wasn't impressed after reading through the review....but I was definitely wrong after looking at the sample images which I suggest you should.
Their design to focus on more highlight range in DR and then combine that with the tendency to overexpose a bit produces more interesting jpeg photos. Other cameras focus on the shadows for less noise but at the use of conservative metering to avoid highlight clipping.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
amblepath
By amblepath (Aug 29, 2012)

No Hotshoe? No viewfinder? I have the XZ1 and would never consider this Sony as an option. I use the excellent viewfinder for the XZ-1 most of the time. Or for fun I'll attach the XZ-1 to my full size flash (not the other way around) and get great bounce flash portraits. The lens on this sony is also very slow at the long end. I'm sure the image quality is good but I would find this camera too limiting. Of course Sony may have a better equipped model in the works.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
5 upvotes
cxsparc
By cxsparc (Aug 29, 2012)

You would find this camera to be too limiting?

I used to own the XZ1 and found THAT camera to be too limiting: Visible shadow noise even during bright sunlight, noise everywhere, heavy JPG smearing OOC in fine detail sections, impossible to recreate the color rendering from raw files, heavy contrast pictures.....
The lens is fast at the wide end and allows plaing with lower DOF. But - this just got me started redicsovering my love for photography and I then switched to Nex with legacy and SEL50F18 lens.

4 upvotes
ogl
By ogl (Aug 29, 2012)

I don't see praised IQ of RX100 - nor JPEG, neither RAW. It seems to me G1X is better and high-end P&S cameras like XZ-1 is not worse.

3 upvotes
peevee1
By peevee1 (Aug 29, 2012)

Are you comparing correctly? Because when RX100 shoots at f/1.8 ISO200, G1X will have f/2.8 and ISO500 or so. Not to mention 240g and pocketable and 550g and brick-big-and-heavy. Different size classes. Most mirrorless cams with kit lenses are lighter than G1X (even APS-C like Sony NEX-C3).

0 upvotes
mogando668
By mogando668 (Aug 29, 2012)

just took my RX100 to a j-lo concert ... beat the pants out of my Oly PL2 (m43) camera in terms of compactness for the same image quality

2 upvotes
SammyToronto
By SammyToronto (Aug 29, 2012)

It'll be interesting what dpreview will think of the Panny LX7. Both that camera and the RX100 are very close in terms of features and image quality (per reviews I've read), but the LX7 is substantially cheaper (and I prefer its size/control layout). As for low light ability; dcresource test results indicate that the RX100 is just one stop better than the LX7 (max ISO recommended in low light is ISO 800 for the former and 400 for the latter. In good light it's ISO 3200 and 1600, respectively). This is not a huge difference and is more than made up for by the much faster LX7 lens. I'm leaning towards the LX7, but I'm waiting for more reviews of those two cameras, especially on dpreview. So one is done and one to go; come on dpreview and light a fire under that LX7 review :)

5 upvotes
Bruce Edwards
By Bruce Edwards (Aug 29, 2012)

I can't believe LX5 or 7 was not even mentioned in the review, as a comparable model to the Sony! Not sure there is a more direct competitor in the space?

0 upvotes
peevee1
By peevee1 (Aug 29, 2012)

Canon S100 is the direct competitor. LX7 is significantly bigger and heavier, and more in the size class of Samsung EX2F and Oly XZ-1 (if not Fuji X10, although this one is closer to Canon G12 and Nikon P7100).

0 upvotes
SammyToronto
By SammyToronto (Aug 29, 2012)

@peevee1, for me, all the models you mentioned are direct competitors to the RX100. If you're looking for a pocketable camera (which you'll actually keep in your pocket), then, you're right, the S100 is the only direct competition. However, I suspect the majority of the RX100 (and S100, LX7, X10, etc.) owners will keep it in a small case (I know I would; it's a pricey toy!) and the slightly larger case than an LX7, for example, would need doesn't make it less portable than the RX100. I'm currently looking for a camera in that category, and I'm cross-shopping all those cameras, as I suspect many potential buyers do.

0 upvotes
pentaxination
By pentaxination (Aug 29, 2012)

RX100 is a great little camera that is fairly capable despite all the ass aches and niggles it accounts for.

0 upvotes
ZoranC
By ZoranC (Aug 29, 2012)

No mention of lens misalignment issues some people are reporting? No mention of color shift some people are reporting?

5 upvotes
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (Aug 29, 2012)

Since we've not seen either of these problems with either of the two cameras we've been using, no.

Comment edited 12 minutes after posting
5 upvotes
ZoranC
By ZoranC (Aug 29, 2012)

@R Butler: Have you looked for them (you tested for them and you haven't seen them) or you just haven't noticed any in shots taken so far without actually testing and looking for them? Asking because color shift can be very hard to notice.

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
tbcass
By tbcass (Aug 29, 2012)

ZoranC, you seem to be on a crusade about this lens misalignment issue. The fact is very few people, myself included, do NOT have a lens misalignment problem. Why do you think because you and a few others have a problem that it must be prevalent? Every lens ever made has had some bad samples. It doesn't mean all or even a large majority do.

2 upvotes
TJGKG
By TJGKG (Aug 29, 2012)

I have had the camera since it was first released and have not experienced either of these issues. It is idiotic to bring up issues which are not encountered or include gossip.

2 upvotes
ZoranC
By ZoranC (Aug 29, 2012)

@tbcass: ... and you, ffor some reason, seem to be on crusade to dismiss and downplay anything that is not in fanboi drumbeat, even if it is reported by number of people much more competent and knowledgable and open minded than you, including Imaging Resource in their extremely thorough review (definitely much more thorough one than DPR posted here).

Have you even checked for color shift? Do you even know how to recognize it or test for it?

Like I said to you before, you are doing disservice to community and possible future owners through your attitude in posts on this subject.

0 upvotes
ZoranC
By ZoranC (Aug 29, 2012)

@TJGKG: "I have had the camera since it was first released and have not experienced either of these issues. It is idiotic to bring up issues which are not encountered or include gossip."

Educate yourself before speaking. Read review by Imaging Resource and read posts on Luminous Landscape, Fred Miranda, GetDPI, etc. All done by competent and reputable people (I don't know do you even know how to test your camera beside turning it on but I sure do know that Imaging Resource reviewer knows his stuff).

Then you will realize those issues have been encountered, thus are not gossip, and only one that ended up idiotic here is you by speaking out of your ...

0 upvotes
KieranGee
By KieranGee (Aug 29, 2012)

Props to dpreview for providing a link for "TARDIS" (and for the correct capitalisation of the word too). I think every review from here on in should include some sort of reference to British science-fiction television :P

Comment edited 34 seconds after posting
2 upvotes
KieranGee
By KieranGee (Aug 29, 2012)

And I say "dpreview" I do of course mean Richard Butler

0 upvotes
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (Aug 29, 2012)

Actually Barney put it in the preview and I couldn't resist finding a home for it in the review. Especially with the new series starting on BBC America this Saturday.

Comment edited 12 seconds after posting
2 upvotes
KieranGee
By KieranGee (Aug 29, 2012)

Then well done to the pair of you. Now get cracking on getting a Quartermass Experiment reference in the K-30 review.

0 upvotes
tbcass
By tbcass (Aug 29, 2012)

R Butler, thanks for the heads up on the new season of Dr Who. I've been waiting for it. I've been a Dr Who fan since the 70s. Time to program my DVR.

0 upvotes
PaulRivers
By PaulRivers (Aug 29, 2012)

Just wanted to say that I **LOVE* to see the aperture range chart, that shows the aperture at all focal lengths. And I hope dpreview will produce one of these charts for every non-interchangeable lens camera that they produce in the future.

2 upvotes
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (Aug 29, 2012)

We've been trying to remember to include them.

9 upvotes
MarkInSF
By MarkInSF (Aug 29, 2012)

In comparisons, it would be nice to have the info for all cameras on a graph. Even the chart is very useful.

1 upvote
nosnoop
By nosnoop (Aug 29, 2012)

Richard Butler:

Could it be that the reason that you did not fall in love with RX100 is because you have no need for a *pocketable* camera in the first place?

I don't think enough credits has been given to RX100 as a break-through camera, and a very impressive technological piece. If you want a pocketable camera, then very few other cameras can touch the RX100.

But if you don't see the need for a pocketable camera, then obviously, there are a lot more choices out there; and little reason to like this camera.

Or maybe you should rename the Gold award to "I Love it" reward, and Silver reward to "I like it but I don't love it" reward; then there would be much less arguments.... :)

3 upvotes
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (Aug 29, 2012)

No. I'm a cyclist - I really appreciate the idea of a camera with good image quality that I can fit in my jersey or Camelback. I also tried to give Sony a lot of credit for doing something brave and difficult.

I think it's also fair to say that it's probably the best in class, but not to an outstanding degree. We've not tested the LX7 yet, or seen a Samsung EX2F yet and I wouldn't bet on neither of them making a case for themselves against the RX100.

6 upvotes
Camediadude
By Camediadude (Aug 29, 2012)

Here is to an LX7 and EX2F review, yay! Bring it, DPREVIEW, and we will lap it up, lol. (Hey, even if it is a group review, I will be quite happy! (in some ways the reviews can even be better, but yes, different strengths and weaknesses abound when comparing cameras in a group))

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 14 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
G Davidson
By G Davidson (Aug 29, 2012)

From what I've seen of it, it may well have the best IQ in the class, but that doesn't make it neccessarily the best camera for everyone when you bring manual controls, ergonomics and software into the equation.

I'm thinking here of something like NEX 'vs' M4/3, where Sony leads in image quality and offers great features, but not neccessarily a camera that everyone wants to shoot with with.

1 upvote
splugnut2000
By splugnut2000 (Aug 29, 2012)

"I think it's also fair to say that it's probably the best in class" - Ok, so why silver, doesn't logic suggest that the top award should go to those cameras at the top of their class at time of review regardless of how narrow the margin may be?

1 upvote
vapentaxuser
By vapentaxuser (Aug 29, 2012)

It would be interesting if one were tp take a group of hobbyists/enthusiasts, give them a week to shoot with the Canon S100 and then a week with the RX100 and then asked them which camera, overall, provided a better shooting experience. Because I think it would be a rather tough call.

There is no doubt that the Sony would outperform the S100 in image quality and it has faster AF. But there is a certain "attention to detail" aspect to the S100 that the Sony lacks in some respects. The rougher texture and the grip up front, the lens ring's decisive clicks when you go to adjust a setting, the fast firmware, the faster lens operation when zooming in and out. Each of these things may seem like nickel and dime aspects on their but they add up.

To be fair, this is Sony's first gen enthusiast compact. But for charging $650, it's a shame that Sony did not pay more attention to the ergonomics and operational aspects of the camera.

That said, I think dpreview is right on the money

0 upvotes
Bruce Edwards
By Bruce Edwards (Aug 29, 2012)

Nope, Sony's first gen enthusiast compact was the venerable (but awesome) Sony V3. I should know, I owned two! (one was stolen, and even well after it was discontinued, I liked it so much I bought a used one off eBay to replace it)

1 upvote
vapentaxuser
By vapentaxuser (Aug 29, 2012)

I stand corrected on that. That looked like quite a camera for its time.

0 upvotes
johnsaxon
By johnsaxon (Aug 28, 2012)

Here I go again. Is anyone listening? This camera will not focus close up except at the widest focal length of 28mm. When you zoom to 35mm or 50mm ALL CLOSE UP FOCUSING IS GONE. The minimum focus distance at 50mm is 15.5" whereas my Canon S95 will focus down to about 3.5 inches at 50mm. The Sony will only focus down to 19.5 inches at 100mm, the Canon S95 focuses to 9 inches at 105mm.
I bought a Sony RX100 and had to return it when I discovered that it had virtually no close focusing ability. I use this type of close focusing every day with my Canon and cannot live without it.
OK, everyone enjoy your new RX100! just don't try to focus on anything too close to the camera. And remember that nobody else but you is having this problem, even people who paid about $75 for their little point and shoot.

10 upvotes
nawknai
By nawknai (Aug 29, 2012)

The close-focusing ability of most point and shoots (actually, all the ones that I know of) have their closest focusing range at the widest/shortest focal length.

This is also true of the zoom lenses I owned for my Nikon D300 (when I still owned it).

I don't know if you can blame Sony for this.

6 upvotes
Gesture
By Gesture (Aug 29, 2012)

Thanks for pointing out. Deal-breaker for many. Some P&Ss do limit close focus at widest focal length, but not all. Macro focus is one of the distinguishers among such cameras, especially how well the flash will throttle down. Nikon Coolpix 995 might still be world leader in that respect.

1 upvote
johnsaxon
By johnsaxon (Aug 29, 2012)

Yes, of course the closest focusing distance is always at the widest focal length, but I'm talking about a huge jump from closeup to totally not closeup with the slightest zooming of the lens. Very bizarre if you ask me, and makes the camera completely unusable for me. Maybe I'm just spoiled by the excellence of the Canon S95, but for $650 I certainly expected the RX100 to at least match the focusing performance of much less expensive cameras.

1 upvote
Jens_G
By Jens_G (Aug 29, 2012)

The increase in minimum focusing distance is proportional to the increase in sensor size, over the Canon, you'll find.

If a shorter minimum focussing distance is more important to you than a larger sensor, then the Canon would be a better choice for you.

2 upvotes
johnsaxon
By johnsaxon (Aug 29, 2012)

Jens_G- I don't think that's right about the sensor size. The RX100 will focus to under 2" at 28mm. If the sensor size were the problem it wouldn't be able to do that. My objection is that it ONLY focuses close at the 28mm setting. When you zoom to 35mm the close focus distance jumps way up. This seems more like a lens design problem.
Also note that the RX100 only focuses to 15.5" at 50mm. That's almost 5 times farther away than the S95 which focuses to 3" or so. The Sony sensor is not 5 times larger than the Canon's.

Comment edited 6 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Andrew Elliott
By Andrew Elliott (Aug 28, 2012)

I have been in and around cameras for nigh on 30 years now. My career in film & TV has resulted directly from my interest photographic pictures and the majesty of the engineering involved in the cameras & lenses and artists that capture them. I've been lucky enough to use pretty much every sort of camera going, from point-and-shoot to full-frame models from Canon, Nikon & Leica & beyond - and for differing requirements. But when all is said and done and despite its flaws, as an all-rounder, I have to say that in terms of cost, quality, weight, size, speed and the fact that the thing is there with you in the first place to take the damn picture... and most especially and simply in the quality of the output, as in what a given picture looks like when you look it on a given screen,  after having simply pressed the shutter release in say, programme mode, then as far as I'm concerned, the Sony RX100 is the best camera currently made, bar none. Just my ha'penth worth.

14 upvotes
caterpillar
By caterpillar (Aug 29, 2012)

I couldn't have said it better.

thanks.

2 upvotes
Gesture
By Gesture (Aug 29, 2012)

Most interesting, up to about 100 reviews on Amazon US, which I consider a lot.

1 upvote
Francis Carver
By Francis Carver (Aug 29, 2012)

@ Andrew Elliot, I have been "around cameras" since the late 1950s, but I must say, I have no clue whatsoever what you are talking about.

0 upvotes
Jay Jervey
By Jay Jervey (Aug 29, 2012)

Thank you for summing up with crystal clarity what a lot of us feel.

0 upvotes
Andrew Elliott
By Andrew Elliott (Aug 29, 2012)

@ Francis Carver
As in a mechanic is around vehicles, as in a chemist is around medicine, as in a doctor is around patients, as in a pilot is around planes... and so on. Hope this helps!

1 upvote
Professor MC
By Professor MC (Aug 28, 2012)

I would like to hear how it works when shooting 8 fps and see some samples of action. If it shoots well at that fps I'm quite interested in it.

2 upvotes
Camediadude
By Camediadude (Aug 28, 2012)

Wow, I just checked here now and the Sony RX100 preview has over 640 comments! Holy smokes... Sony is certainly doing somthing right! I predict that this review will gain over 700 comments within a month, what say you guys :P ?

3 upvotes
AbrasiveReducer
By AbrasiveReducer (Aug 29, 2012)

Supposing it had 64,000,000 comments. Would this mean anything at all? It's a very nice little camera and for now, there's nothing exactly like it. Sony deserves credit for giving people what they asked for. But in a world of ever-changing electronic toys it's just the latest thing. At least until Photokina.

1 upvote
Peter Gaunt
By Peter Gaunt (Aug 28, 2012)

Interesting looking camera. Why though does this site, and some others, persist in giving sensor sizes in rather bizarre fractions of an inch such as 1/1.7 (there's even mention of 1/1.63 somewhere in the article). It's so difficult to visualise. What's wrong with simply saying 15mm or 0.6".

9 upvotes
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (Aug 28, 2012)

Because they're industry-standard names for sizes (they're not actual measurements of any useful property of the sensor).

They're not helpful, but trying to introduce sensor diagonal measurements in mm would only confuse things (since people would inevitably try to convert 1/X.X"-type numbers into measurements).

That's why we've included the table and diagram showing what they actually mean.

8 upvotes
Tee1up
By Tee1up (Aug 29, 2012)

I totally agree. These fractional sensor sizes are meaningless to anyone. Everyone can grasp 13.2 x 8.8mm. That being said, I too would like to thank DP for adding the aperture range chart. For me it is the most useful spec when assessing these cameras.

6 upvotes
G Davidson
By G Davidson (Aug 29, 2012)

I'd agree, Peter, though for now it would need to be beside the manufacturer's presentations. Just giving the total area in mm would make it easier to compare, at least putting it in brackets. Then we could have shorthand, like a 1 or 2 size sensor, as with paper sizes. Once people get used to it it could be all we need.

As consumers, I think we suffer from the tendency of manufacturers to exadurate their product's abilities rather than tell it how it is. Clear sensor sizes, with the larger ones of course needing larger lenses for the same viewpoint, would help us make a choice. As it is, people trying to make a choice are simply baffled by all the tech-talk and can't always see through it to get what's best for them.

1 upvote
Peter Gaunt
By Peter Gaunt (Aug 29, 2012)

Yet when I went to Nikon's site to check (couldn't find the info on Sony's) their '1' series the info is in mm. Not desperately important in the grand scheme of things. As G Davidson says, area would be best.

1 upvote
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Aug 28, 2012)

Surprisingly good from raw at ISO 3200, better than other samples I'd see elsewhere, extracted with Sony's software.

Now just lacking an EVF.

3 upvotes
trale
By trale (Aug 28, 2012)

Thanks for the quick edit about 3rd party filter adapters, Richard. I thought that was odd that Richard's grip was mentioned, but not other accessories that negates some "cons" of the camera.

In the same vein, the USB charging "con" is effectively eliminated by accessories like this external charger kit:
http://www.amazon.com/Cyber-shot-DSC-RX100-Replacement-Protectors-MicroFiber/dp/B008OJ6ZYY/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1346196424&sr=8-1&keywords=rx100+battery+kit

2 upvotes
Absolutic
By Absolutic (Aug 28, 2012)

I don't understand the 78 score, dpreview. I own this camera, and it is clearly, and by far, the best pocketcam on the market. You state on your site that scores are relevant only to other cameras in the same class. Since it is the best pocket digitam on a market, why is it not a above 80 GOLD Score?

Ok I guess you state in one of your comments that gold awards are subjective and for standout products. Don't agree with you guys there. I am a former owner of D800 and present owner of Canon 5D Mark III and Sony NEX-7, both gold award winners. Both 5D Mark 3 and NEX-7 are amazing cameras; but RX100 is a phenomenal and standout product, I shoot it in bright light and I shoot it in very low light at ISO3200 and get absolutely phenomenal shots that I could have never gotten with previous compacts. This camera is something special. I do agree with Richard re: 1/2000 a limiting factor. I was shooting in bright sun today and had to stay at F/2.8 because 1/2000 is too slow.

Comment edited 10 minutes after posting
8 upvotes
foxyterrier
By foxyterrier (Aug 28, 2012)

I agree with you -- it really is something special and one of a kind

4 upvotes
caterpillar
By caterpillar (Aug 29, 2012)

Although I agree with you, I would not lose sleep over it. I respect the DPR staff, but I couldn't care less if they give it a 10%. If you know how good something is, it does not matter if it gets a Gold, Silver, or even tin cup award.

Eventually, the market decides. And companies would rather be judged by that. Awards are just good in paper but they won't necessarily generate income.

As for the shutter speed limitations, they could still maintain that 1/2000 but maybe in the future, have a built-in NDF, that would help. That would be helpful for video too.

1 upvote
AbrasiveReducer
By AbrasiveReducer (Aug 29, 2012)

Why not enjoy your camera and not worry about some perceived "unfairness" in a review. If you need to convince yourself its the greatest pocket camera in history, there's David Pogue's review. He says it's so fantastic you'll never be able to get your hands on one.

0 upvotes
peevee1
By peevee1 (Aug 29, 2012)

"Although I agree with you, I would not lose sleep over it. I respect the DPR staff, but I couldn't care less if they give it a 10%. If you know how good something is, it does not matter if it gets a Gold, Silver, or even tin cup award.

Eventually, the market decides."

Except DPR is one of the most influential sites in the photo market, and their ratings can screw a lot of people (not willing or having time to investigate for themselves) out of their hard earned money.

0 upvotes
Dan1964
By Dan1964 (Aug 29, 2012)

Do you sell camera's? who cares

0 upvotes
Roger Knight
By Roger Knight (Aug 28, 2012)

Without a viewfinder it cannot be classified as a serious camera but it is obviously a terrific; point-aim-(to some degree)-and-shoot, image taker. It’s just not quite enough of what is required for taking valuable travel photos.
Any camera without a serious viewfinder capable of shot framing is definitely unsuitable for travel photos. Period!
Just the sheer volume of photos that one takes means that the great majority of shots taken with a viewfinder-less camera that need post processing is quite seriously appreciable if one is as picky as me and I have better things to do when travelling than spend all night fixing not quite right photos.
After all; exploring the night life in all of it or their vagaries’ is a large part of just why we do travel, unless of course one is totally ‘photography obsessed’ rather than being a normal, curious, experience seeking person.
That was a seriously good review. Thank you.

3 upvotes
Camediadude
By Camediadude (Aug 28, 2012)

Good comments, I agree with you sir. I am a big supporter of having viewfinders in compact cameras again! (So what if we gain a few milimeters!)

4 upvotes
nosnoop
By nosnoop (Aug 28, 2012)

Why would you apply your standard to everyone else?
I don't care one bit about a viewfinder, and I much prefer the current RX100 size to making it bigger to accommodate a viewfinder. So that makes me a non-serious photographer?
I am very comfortable in using the LCD to frame my shots, thank you.

Comment edited 22 seconds after posting
18 upvotes
micahmedia
By micahmedia (Aug 29, 2012)

...on the contrary, if you don't like a viewfinder that is there, you don't have to use it. If we banished them from every camera, we've lost an option. The standard of having it there is fairer to all involved. And it need not appreciably increase the camera size--see the SD780is. It is incredibly tiny, yet has a peep finder, which though tiny, is quite useful. And cost is a non-issue as well. Witness the price of point and shoot film cameras with peep finders--they were quite cheap at the bottom rung.

3 upvotes
Camediadude
By Camediadude (Aug 29, 2012)

Well put, micahmedia. I so lament the loss of viewfinders... There are so many otherwise interesting cameras that I have passed up becasue of this area of lacking. But, I will perhaps make a rare exception and get a 'finderless model,' but only once in a blue moon! (It would have to be a pretty good deal for one thing, and indeed, an exception (like weather sealed perhaps)).

2 upvotes
hawk1500
By hawk1500 (Aug 29, 2012)

the Canon G1x has a pretty bad viewfinder...but it's way bigger than the RX100...I am guessing Canon would've made the camera smaller if they could've, so the RX100 might have to be around that size (and then it wouldn't be pocketable anymore).

1 upvote
tbcass
By tbcass (Aug 29, 2012)

Roger Knight, I agree that a Good eye level viewfinder is a real plus and I use the ones on my A55 and 65 95% of the time but the peep holes on all the small cameras I've seen are horrendous and IMO unusable. When using such cameras I always prefer the LCD, have no trouble at all and have absolutely none of the problems composing that you do.

1 upvote
BMWX5
By BMWX5 (Aug 28, 2012)

To Richard Butler, all the reviews I read about this camera were pretty good. Yours is pretty good too but why "the Silver Award" despite describing the camera "Best in its class"?

11 upvotes
unknown member
By (unknown member) (Aug 28, 2012)

Yeah, that's weird.

5 upvotes
GeorgeZ
By GeorgeZ (Aug 28, 2012)

Maybe because that's what they all get.
Out of the last 7 camera reviews DPR did (discounting the P&S reviews by Jeff Keller and the Nokia 808) all 7 got a silver award.
The RX100 is number 8.
Oh the good old days of either recommended or highly so are back ;-)

3 upvotes
Absolutic
By Absolutic (Aug 28, 2012)

I dont understand the logic either, if it is the best camera in its class, it should be scored accordingly, as dpreview states that all scores are relative to other cameras in that class. What other camera in that class deserve over 80 score and a gold award?

3 upvotes
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (Aug 28, 2012)

To get 80% the camera has to be excellent in nearly every respect - the RX100 scored well for most of the image quality parameters but things like noise at low ISO stopped it excelling. It did excel in most speed and usability scores, but the IQ measurements are given more prominence in the final score, which is why it just fell short of 80%.

I've already explained why it didn't get a Gold. Several times.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
10 upvotes
TrojMacReady
By TrojMacReady (Aug 29, 2012)

But "noise at low ISO" is meaningless without a frame of reference. It still has *less* noise than any other camera in its class at low ISO for a given output size. In fact, it has less noise (especially in shadows) at low ISO than the V1 and J1 (more lattitude in RAW). So with those references, I don't see how it can affect the final score much in a *negative* way.

Comment edited 8 minutes after posting
3 upvotes
onlooker
By onlooker (Aug 29, 2012)

Maybe because best in class is not good enough if the class is mediocre.

5 upvotes
TrojMacReady
By TrojMacReady (Aug 29, 2012)

Even if that were true, I did add in a camera from a higher class (ILC) for comparison purposes. I could have added some of the lower end µ4/3 cameras as well to subscribe my point.
And it also begs the question what the reference *should* be for a *shirt pocket sized* camera.

3 upvotes
moimoi
By moimoi (Aug 29, 2012)

Richard, you never answered me regarding the gold awards for the 5DIII and D800! Those cameras are certainly not flawless, and though both receive gold awards. What's your rationale?

2 upvotes
AmateurSnaps
By AmateurSnaps (Aug 28, 2012)

Okay i think its overpriced and the lack of a viewfinder just so they can get it to fit in your pocket, to me, was a missed opportunity.

BUT its a great achievment for Sony to get that sensor and 20 (useful) MP's in a compact. Loving the advances - can only be a good thing :)

1 upvote
T3
By T3 (Aug 28, 2012)

They can't win. If they had added a viewfinder, resulting in a camera just large enough so that it wouldn't fit in your pocket, people would complain, "What a missed opportunity! If only they made it small enough to fit in your pocket!"

27 upvotes
unknown member
By (unknown member) (Aug 28, 2012)

T3, exactly!

4 upvotes
sadwitch
By sadwitch (Aug 28, 2012)

Instead of a VF i'll rather they have flip twist screen which is far more applicable for this kind of camera. changing settings with tiny buttons while camera is pressed against your face isn't the most ergonomic especially more so if you're left master-eyed

5 upvotes
slncezgsi
By slncezgsi (Aug 29, 2012)

On top what T3 sai - an EVF would have added additional ~ $150 and the total price would be 'outrageous' for many ...

1 upvote
SDF
By SDF (Aug 28, 2012)

A fair and honest review. Good job DPR team. Silver is actually fits the RX100 and means the Sony engineers need to work harder and fix some minor issues on the replacement model.

9 upvotes
HBowman
By HBowman (Aug 28, 2012)

Yea ... this is just a 20 Mp point and shoot, no more.

5 upvotes
Jens_G
By Jens_G (Aug 29, 2012)

6/10 average troll.

2 upvotes
armandbogdan
By armandbogdan (Aug 28, 2012)

I thought your medals are relative to cameras in its class. You call RX100: "The RX100 is probably the most capable compact camera on the market today". Wouldn't this warrant a gold medal?

PS. otherwise pretty good review

6 upvotes
Doug Pardee
By Doug Pardee (Aug 28, 2012)

Awards are determined separately from ratings, and they're totally subjective. See the official explanation here: http://www.dpreview.com/articles/0455455093/scores-and-ratings

1 upvote
cgarrard
By cgarrard (Aug 28, 2012)

Scroll down, Richard answered that same question below. And I agree with him as well.

2 upvotes
AbrasiveReducer
By AbrasiveReducer (Aug 29, 2012)

They're not real medals, are they? I mean, then I could understand the angst over not bringing home the gold.

0 upvotes
Doug Pardee
By Doug Pardee (Aug 28, 2012)

Not mentioned in the discussion on the Raw files is that at least at some focal lengths, the Raw files evidence a large amount of distortion, enough that there's no way it can be ignored. This distortion is corrected in some Raw converters, but not in all. Raw Therapee is one that doesn't handle the distortion correction.

This will somewhat limit the range of Raw converters that can be used with the RX100. Obviously, Adobe is handling it okay, so the zillions of Adobe users won't care. This probably isn't a big deal, but it's probably worth mentioning.

0 upvotes
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (Aug 28, 2012)

Automatic distortion correction is now commonplace (whether that be in many mirrorless cameras or essentially any compact camera with a wide-angle lens) which meant I neglected to mention it. Software correction is part of the lens design.

If a Raw converter doesn't support these settings, then it doesn't fully support the camera. But I agree, I should probably mention it.

7 upvotes
_sem_
By _sem_ (Aug 29, 2012)

But the stretching required to fix the distortion could be mentioned. Artifacts are sometimes visible in the busy corners. I believe this is a deliberate quality compromise allows for the small lens dimensions.
In a local promo event I've accidentally stumbled upon, the Sony folks were "humiliating" the Nikon1 kit lens due to much less max aperture, but they failed to mention that it has much less distortion.

0 upvotes
wchutt
By wchutt (Aug 28, 2012)

Unlike small micro 4/3 cameras, at least you don't have to put enormous zoom lenses on this thing to ge decent zoom performance.

0 upvotes
Camediadude
By Camediadude (Aug 28, 2012)

Sigh ...

5 upvotes
T3
By T3 (Aug 28, 2012)

Have you ever held one of these "enormous zoom lenses" in your hand? They are definitely not "enormous". My Oly 40-150 zoom lens is *smaller* than a Canon 18-55 kit lens! And of course, the standard Oly kit zoom is even smaller than that, at half the size of the 40-150 lens.

4 upvotes
ybizzle
By ybizzle (Aug 28, 2012)

T3 can you fit that in your pocket though? ;)

2 upvotes
slncezgsi
By slncezgsi (Aug 28, 2012)

I have quickly browsed through the review and can generally agree with the conclusions. I have used the camera briefly (to shoot a wedding of my friend) and it really performed well - even in under-lit chapel I got results that are perfectly usable. Low ISO shots have very good detail.

I used only JPG as these are very good and I did not have the means to process the RAW data at the time. Yes - the red channel can go a bit over 'top', but it is not bad - slight desaturation in post processing about about 10% fixes it (faces, red roses, cloth).

Auto white balance seems very robust - I could divide all the photos taken in 2 categories (inside the chapel and outdoor) and process all photos in once category the same way (color-wise). Auto exposure seems to try to save highlights and in general the exposure is spot on even without compensation.

...

Comment edited 21 seconds after posting
2 upvotes
slncezgsi
By slncezgsi (Aug 28, 2012)

...

Video is really great, but I used it little.

IQ better than Nikon V1 (or so it seems to me) Lens delivers sharp images through out the range, the distortion is well corrected in JPGs . Nearly no collor fringing. I did use flash for a few photos and after setting some -1 compensation it worked well as fill-in.

Surely - the lens could be a hair faster on the long end, but given the size I have no complains there. The feel in hand is solid, but not as secure as e.g. RIcoh GRDIII. Also - there is rather little space for the controls as the LCD is rather large. Some 3rd party grip certainly makes sense.

In total - really great camera for travel or vacation if one wants small size while keeping the IQ up. I would surely find more downsides with time, I always do, but I think Sony got this one pretty right. Price? Everybody must decide, cheap it is not ;)

Comment edited 22 seconds after posting
5 upvotes
Total comments: 373
123