More of a good thing: Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 II review posted: Digital Photography Review

More of a good thing: Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 II review posted

Sep 23, 2013 at 22:51:46 GMT

We've just posted our full review of the Sony Cyber-shot RX100 II. Following on the success of the RX100 is no easy feat, but just the same the RX100 II does so with a new BSI CMOS sensor. Also new to this model is an accessory port/hotshoe, Wi-Fi connectivity with NFC, and a tiltable display. Outside of that, the RX100 II is a near clone of its predecessor, still bearing a Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T* f/1.8-4.9 zoom lens.

The big story, of course, is what's behind that lens: a 1"-type, 20.2 megapixel sensor, the largest BSI CMOS chip we've yet seen. It's concealed in an otherwise unassuming compact camera body that's small enough to fit into a jacket pocket. We gave the RX100 a silver award when we reviewed it last year - see how the latest edition stacks up.

GearShop

Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 II Compact Camera●

$748.00

Buy on GearShop

Sony DSC-RX100M II Cyber-shot Digital Still Camera 20.2MP, Black	$679.99
Sony DSC-RX100M II Cyber-shot Digital Still Camera 20.2MP, Black	$679.99
Focus Camera Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100M2/B RX100M2 RX100M II RX100MII 20.2MP Wi-Fi Digital Camera with F1.8 Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T Lens and Full HD 1080p Video at 60fps + Sony 64GB SDHC Class 10 Memory Card + Wasabi NP-BX1 Battery Pack + Sony Camera Case + Micro HDMI Cable + Focus Multi Memory Card Wallet	$748.00
Sony DSC-RX100M II DSC-RX100M2 DSC-RX100MII RX100M2 RX100MII DSC-RX100M II Cyber-shot Digital Still Camera 20.2MP, Black Bundle with 64GB Class 10 High Speed Card, Spare Battery, Micro HDMI Cable SD Card Reader, Mini Tripod + More!	$759.00
Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100M2/B RX100M2 RX100M II RX100MII 20.2MP Wi-Fi Digital Camera Bundle with Sony 64GB Memory Card + Wasabi Power Replacement Battery for Sony DSC-RX1 + Sony Black Carrying Case + Wrist Grip Strap + Camera Accessories	$788.00
Sony DSC-RX100/B 20.2 MP Exmor CMOS Sensor Digital Camera with 3.6x Zoom	$598.00
Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100M2/B RX100M2 RX100M II RX100MII 20.2MP Wi-Fi Digital Camera Bundle with Sony 32GB Memory Card + Wasabi Power Replacement Battery for Sony DSC-RX1 + Sony Black Carrying Case + Wrist Grip Strap + Camera Accessories	$768.00
Sony Cyber-Shot DSC-RX100mII DSC-RX100m II DSC-RX100M2/B RX100 II + LoweProCase (Sage) + Battery + Charger + Giotto's Blower + Lens Pen Cleaning System + 64GB Kit	$748.00
Sony Cyber-Shot DSC-RX100mII DSC-RX100m II DSC-RX100M2/B RX100 II + LoweProCase (Red) + Battery + Charger + Giotto's Blower + Lens Cleaning System + 64GB Kit	$748.00
Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 Digital Camera (Black) 32GB Package 3	$598.00
Sony DSC-RX100 II Cyber-shot Digital Still Camera DSC-RX100 MARK II	$734.99

Show all listings (11) ...

Get more prices from Amazon

Comments

Total comments: 412

I really wish DPR had just stuck with the old test scene. You've totally nuked the comparative database of years of other cameras (even if it wasn't perfect). The new scene has a lot of wasted space and lacks detailed skin tones, faces, specular objects, etc. in the center. Why relegate all the useful subjects to the outer thirds of the scene, where many lenses lose sharpness? Almost all you have in the center are black and white patterns.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting

10 upvotes

"Why relegate all the useful subjects to the outer thirds of the scene, where many lenses lose sharpness?"
I think you just answered your own question.

I, for one, like the new studio scene. I especially like the fact that right near the center of the scene is a box of fine text that lets me see how well the camera handles loss of fine detail with higher ISOs.

1 upvote

The old studio scene was bad. It was too small that required the shots to be taken from close distance. This introduced several problems

(1) Forcing DPR to shoot at F8 when most 50mm lenses are sharpest at F5.6. Even that didn't resolve the focus and DOF issues and several cameras looked worse due to focus shift /lens issues (look at all older Sony shots taken with 50mm F1.4 before they switched to SAM lens, and all are focused back at queen of hearts).

(2) Most compact and cellphones lenses are not optimized for close focusing performance. That made some compact cameras (including RX100) looks far worse than they would perform in real life. That meant the studio shots were not representative of real world shooting experience.

That old studio scene needed to go, and I am surprised DPR took THIS long

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 4 minutes after posting

5 upvotes

"Our disappointment with the slightly unengaging control wheel and shooting experience has remained unchanged since we reviewed the RX100."

So, no Gold...

6 upvotes

Well, you have to admit that a slightly unengaging control wheel is just a big nono on a large sensor sensor compact camera with flipout screen, Wifi and a hotshoe, that fits into a jacket pocket. A big nono.

2 upvotes

Another niche model from Sony that is too expensive to generate strong sales and will contribute to Sony's financial problems. They have too many niche products.

Comment edited 31 seconds after posting

0 upvotes

Except that it seems to sell well, which isn't too surprising after the success of the predecessor.

It's compact cameras like these that can really set themselves apart from cellphone cameras and therefore will be able to dodge the fall of compact camera sales in general, much longer too.

13 upvotes

If Sony offered only the RX100 II, one NEX model, and maybe the A77, and exited the P&S market, it might make money. Instead, it makes redundant models that exceed the (inelastic) demand for "Sony" brand. But executives are graded by the count of products, plants, and people they control, the same way Navy admirals are ranked by deadweight tonnage and obsolete measures of firepower, rather than diesel consumption or vessels' survival in real combat. So the company will follow the same course as the doomed Yamato.

2 upvotes

Yes, because one camera per mount really builds a system that people would faithfully "invest" in. ;-)

Comment edited 30 seconds after posting

5 upvotes

Oh yeah, too niche. Wonder though why it's rocketed to the top of the P&S camera list on Flickr while everything else collapses? http://www.flickr.com/cameras

8 upvotes

It may outsell other P&S cameras according to a user-based top sellers list on a photo sharing website, but I doubt it outsells other P&S cameras in general. You just proved my point.

0 upvotes

Lol, this is one of the sony's best selling cameras of all times.

3 upvotes

Sorry, Sony, but I need an electronic or optical view finder! The option you offer is far too expensive and compromises the camera's compact size.

8 upvotes

I agree,tried the RX100 when it came out,went out of the shop on a sunny day could not see a thing. Hardly photography if you wave the thing in front of you.press the shutter and hope! I am sure the add on view finder is wonderful but its the nearly the price of the new Nikon expert compact with a built in viewfinder. Am pleased that a manufacturer has at last seen the light(excuse the pun) and put a decent viewfinder in an "enthusiast" compact. Not every photographer is under fifty with perfect vision or only takes photographs in the gloom.

0 upvotes

At almost $450, the FDA-EVM1K is definitely expensive. Also, there really are no other options. Compare that to the Olympus VF4, which has the same resolution but cost only $280. On top of that, there even cheaper options: VF2 and VF3.
Anyway, the RX100II is nice and all but if one needs an EVF, might as well go for a NEX6 or GX7, which are also wifi capable.

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting

0 upvotes

I've shot the RX100M2 on bright sunny days in Disneyland, and the LCD is bright enough to see even without shading with my hand. PedroMZ probably just didn't have the brightness turned up (the auto brightness sets it a little low, and I don't think it's that responsive).

6 upvotes

Good for you, but I'm seriously thinking of selling my G1X for the same reason -- I can't see enough detail on the screen in bright daylight to frame photos to my satisfaction. That defect reduces the camera to a true "point and hope."

0 upvotes

I don't understand the complaints about the battery charger. It is WAY easier to charge using any ole random mini-USB cable, rather than drag around a specific battery charger. It makes for a more elegant charging table.
For a whopping 18 dollars, you can buy TWO backup batteries and an external charger from @mazawn. This is what I did with my RX100 and the backups have worked excellent.

11 upvotes

Same here, painless to order the charger with battery & car charger included <$15 w/free ship on ebay - search sony rx100 charger. It's not a Sony battery but works as good as the Sony OEM. One for the car, one for the cave. (Only painful thing was going to the post office to pick it up.)

4 upvotes

same here. i charge my RX100II through my phone's charge (if you're not an iDiot, you can do it too.) a lot more convenient than making sure you're not forgetting your outside charger.

it's a Pro, not a Con!

4 upvotes

oh, and if you're not an iDiot, you'll love the NFC!

0 upvotes

DPR:

The charging in the camera is a silly method, best to be avoided unless desperate.

The guy running Luminous Landscape makes the same point about camera makers being dumb to not include separate chargers.

0 upvotes

People are just used to charging their small personal electronic devices by plugging it in... e.g. phones, tablets, watches, ipods, etc.

Do you hear people complaining that they need to charge their iPhone by plugging it in??? Of course not.. this is the norm for these types of devices.

4 upvotes

Besides, you can charge it on the run or even shoot using an external USB battery pack, either a rechargeable one or one with standard alkaline batteries -- just carry a couple of dozen AA batteries along on a long trek.

1 upvote

Also, you would need a separate charger only when you are buying an extra battery. You can buy the charger when/if you are buying the battery.

2 upvotes

ET2,

Well then you have to plug the camera into the charger, instead of simply leaving a charger ready.

Look I used my Canon G2 to charge its batteries for years; it's dumb and convoluted. Even if you only own one battery--which is unlikely.

0 upvotes

Or you can plug the camera to a computer and charge it while transferring files. Or you can plug the camera in a car with car charger while driving.

The pros far outweigh the cons.

This is simply stupid con that DPR has invented out of thin air.

3 upvotes

...aaaaaand same here. Even before I bought my NEX-6 (same thing qua charging) I bought for 17 GBP a spare battery plus charger off of a well-known auction site rhyming with freeway.

At least for those who don't need the external charger this keeps cost down. And as has been said, if you only have 1 battery there is actually no point to an external charger.

3 upvotes

ET2,

Many people don't tether their camera to a computer when transferring files to the computer.

Just like charging the battery in the camera, transferring files with a cable is not impossible, but it's a silly approach most of the time.

0 upvotes

I think dpreview is being a troll on it's own review just to create controversy. Giving the RX100 the Silver award for being the best in its class makes a mockery of their rating system.

29 upvotes

This is exactly how it looks to me too. I'm beginning to wonder how many more reviews are questionable too.

Normally I take DPReview reviews as a credible indicator of a camera's worth, but I am quite familiar with this camera and don't see how they could arrive at that conclusion, short of just trying to generate a bit of discussion. Not good.

12 upvotes

Well, they are factoring in the high cost. Sure, its better than a LX7 G16 and P7800 but it also costs quite a bit more. Its price is at the top of its class, along with its quality.

4 upvotes

Best image quality is not even half the story. I'd pick a beautiful designed interface over that any day.

0 upvotes

Yup, it is more than a bit incongruous....

3 upvotes

i suppose Daniel is being sarcastic here...

BTW, I love the UI! If you customize your Fn button, you can put everything on there that you need quick access to.

2 upvotes

Priced a bit lower, it would merit a "gold." Price does matter, especially considering the short functional an economic life of any pocket camera that actually gets heavy use.

1 upvote

You are right about price; dp would have to give a bronze to the 1dx and d4, that is why they aren't reviewed.

2 upvotes

DP Review had a bit too much of the Canon and Nikon Cool-Aid and when it comes to phones iPhone and Samsung Cool-Aid.

1 upvote

It is another great pocket camera. For many more usable/portable than the mirrorless cameras.

6 upvotes

Very, very impressive! Is there any third party battery charger available?

2 upvotes

Yes. If you search on Amazon for an "RX100 battery", you'll find several packages that come with spare batteries and an external charger.

0 upvotes

It does indeed look very capable in low light. Probably far less so in bright light - a base ISO of 160 and only 1/2000th on offer will potentially be quite limiting. Something like an LX7, with ISO80, 1/4000th and built in ND filter certainly trumps it easily there.

0 upvotes

If you don't use an external ND or even polarizer filter that is...

Comment edited 29 seconds after posting

0 upvotes

Does the RX100 II allow for filters? The old model did not and there was a market for things you had to glue on it. Even sony sells a "filter adapter" for the camera.

0 upvotes

First, there were several (non OEM) solutions for the old model that did not involve glue and yes, Sony offers its own solution for the II now (again without the need for glue).

1 upvote

I would consider lack of threads to be a huge limitation. The Magfilter works extremely well. It glues a metal ring to the camera but it is only like half a millimeter thick and weights nothing. It is completely undetectable. The filter assembly itself works fine.
I agree it would have been nice to have a built in ND filter but you can still get decent background separation even with F2.8 zoomed in slightly. My CPL has been sufficient to take 1.8 aperature shots in direct sun. You only need 1.5 stops or so.

0 upvotes

Not gue, but tape (worse)...
" bought and carefully installed the Sony 49mm filter adapter with the hope of leaving it permanently on the camera. WARNING TO ALL: the adhesive ring doesn't stick well. "
Sony Team at Amazon says: "The VFA-49R1 is composed of two parts - a compact mount ring which attaches to the front structure of the lens with an adhesive (glue)"

Comment edited 6 minutes after posting

0 upvotes

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uyPUYIM4MaE

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 2 minutes after posting

0 upvotes

I feel like this camera received a silver award because so many people have been complaining about how many gold awards are being thrown out.

Top camera and "virtually untouchable" in it's class? SILVER AWARD!

26 upvotes

Yes a bizarre conclusion after the build up. No doubt a camera deserving of a Gold Award. The attempted justification for the Silver (downgrade) seemed a bit vague too. Maybe too many cameras to review? Bedtime perhaps?

I can't help thinking if the reviewer had a cup of coffee in his hand, that would have been a Gold Award.

7 upvotes

Reason: too expensive. Priced at $500, it would be a "gold."

1 upvote

At $500, it would still be too expensive for some. Same with $300.

I think it is priced appropriately for the current market and the camera's capabilities, so price shouldn't score it down (even if I would love to get it for just $500 like everyone else).

4 upvotes

@jkoch2 Maybe that's why they've never reviewed the Leica. The award would have to be made from mud.

1 upvote

The RX100 I and II are unique. They accomplish much in a small package. I hope that future editions remain small. There will be crying for viewfinders and 200 zoom etc. Please Sony...DON'T ruin this camera series by making it any bigger.

22 upvotes

The review states that the RX100 II is "peerless". This is wrong. There is the cheaper RX100.

What s the point of this review, if the camera is not compared to the IQ of the RX100?

0 upvotes

My wife and I have both the Canon G15 and the RX100. We both prefer the ergonomics of the Canon but that is all. The Sony is a better camera and the image quality is better.

I am speculating that the G15 received a DPR Gold Award because the price was factored in with the faster lens. I get it BUT if you go strictly by image quality the RX100 wins handily.

8 upvotes

There could be a bit of politics thrown into this review. We don't know.

Anyway, Gold or Silver, the RX100 II is an extremely impressive camera - easily the best compact I have used (and other experienced reviewers seem to agree with that)

5 upvotes

if there was 'a bit of politics' thrown into this review then everything we've worked for over the last 14 years would be meaningless. Just accept that the reviewer felt it didn't quite deserve a gold award.

1 upvote

I agree, it would! You can expect reviews that draw conclusions at odds with user's real-world experiences, not to mention the overwhelming opinion of professional equipment testers, to come under scrutiny and be the subject of debate.

Of course, finishing first can be Silver and second Gold for all most people will care after a while.

To single out a telling command in your reply to me "Just accept".

2 upvotes

Sony, please start M3 or better if RX 200.
With many suggestion and review, I believe you can make better products

0 upvotes

If you ignore the whole Gold/Silver award thing this was actually a pretty good review.

4 upvotes

The way this is playing out, its sort of like an Apple "fan" reviewing an Android phone.. on technical merits, the Android is going to do fine.. but, when it comes to the "verdict" (or in this case DPR award).. the Android phone never had a chance of Gold because the person reviewing it is an Apple "fan".

11 upvotes

And unless you root the OS, Android phones are loaded with crapware, which slow the systems down.

With Android 4.1 there was a way to limit background processes, though you had to do that every time you turned the machine on from fully off. But now with Android 4.2, Google got rid of that feature.

I like the fact that many Samsung Android phones have removable batteries+plus take SD cards, but the new Blackberries do the same.

3 upvotes

Then get a Nexus or Google Play edition phone. No crapware.

And you can still disable built-in apps in 4.2.2

1 upvote

locke42--

The batteries are removable and there's a card slot?

0 upvotes

I believe the Google Play edition of the Galaxy S4 has a user-replaceable battery and a microSD card slot. All of Samsung's previous phones (including my GNex) did.

But personally, I rely on an Anker external battery. Much more convenient to just plug my phone into it and leave it in my bag than to turn it off, swap out the battery, then turn it back on.

0 upvotes

locke42:

A Google search does NOT tell me what a "Google Play Phone" is. I know what Google Play is. So I'm guessing such a phone is not readily available in the USA. (I'm clear on what a Nexus is.)

Right, one can use an external charger, but for phones with built-in batteries that doesn't solve the problem that batteries can only take a certain number of charges and discharges.

So we're back to rooting with Cyanomodgen something like the Samsung Gal. S4.

1 upvote

The only two cameras in this category “Large Sensor Compact” that got Gold awards are the Ricoh GR and the Fuji X100S. Both of those are not only fixed lens cameras but they are also Fixed Focal Length.

I still can’t fathom why anyone would want a fixed focal length lens over a zoom lens if the zoom has a faster focal ratio than the fixed focal length lens?

7 upvotes

Because fixed focal length lenses are usually optically better.

This Sony's lens is only particularly fast when widest.

1 upvote

And the Fuji and Ricoh lenses are not very sharp at telephoto distances since they are fixed focal length.

8 upvotes

I would agree that they are in a different category.

1 upvote

mpgxs:

Get an Olympus XZ10, the lens zooms, it's optically better than the Sony's lens, the lens is much faster than the Sony's when zoomed, and the sensor can easily shoot ISO2000. Cheaper than the Sony too.

Not good at video.

0 upvotes

XZ10, seriously? It has a 1/2.3 inch sensor! They didn't even spring for the typical 1/1.7 enthusiast. Not in the same class at all.

6 upvotes

Jo--

The X20 sensor is not as good as I thought, but it's pretty darn good. Then there's the lens.

0 upvotes

Jo--

Oops, thought you were talking about the Fuji X20, also good but not like the Olympus.

Right the Olympus' lens is better optically and faster than the Sony's and the Olympus shoots raw at ISO2000 easily.

So for a still camera, not video, the cheaper Olympus is a better camera unless you need all those pixels and video.

0 upvotes

Just wondering which compact camera DPR would recommend in place of the RX100/2 .. serious question. DPR reviews are increasingly irrelevant.

9 upvotes

Set the compare feature to ISO6400, RAW, and then try the Fuji X20.

1 upvote

Should we compare resolution or noise? The Fuji lacks both because of the in camera noise reduction even for RAW files.

5 upvotes

You mean just like Nikon? And everyone somehow are OK with de-noising in Nikon RAWs.

0 upvotes

@ HowaboutRAW:

First, there is no RAW ISO 6400 for the X20 in the database, so you're comparing ISO 6400 vs ISO 3200.

Second, scaled to the same output size, the RX100 II is both quite a bit cleaner and has a lot more resolution left, despite the stop difference. As expected of course.

Comment edited 26 seconds after posting

5 upvotes

Tro:

Okay, I concede the Fuji ISO 3200 point, but it's still a worthy challenger. And most certainly worth looking into given the better lens reputation.

Don't care about scaling tricks, unless you be printing beyond 300ppi.

0 upvotes

It's hard to take people seriously who call anything that involves scaling "tricks".

Because practically every picture you have ever taken, was subject to scaling/resampling at one point before ending up as a physical print or a picture displayed on your monitor. Even without your consent.

Comment edited 8 minutes after posting

5 upvotes

DPR reviews are kind of political these days. So, its best to read them as part of a larger balanced diet of independent reviews.

2 upvotes

Tro:

How's that? I don't resample the tiffs I print. (If you mean zooming on a computer screen, then say so.)

I guess you have a point about my film pictures.

So in short, I don't pay attention to scaling tricks--except if printing beyond 300ppi.

0 upvotes

What do you think happens when you print at a given (standard) size with 300 DPI? Resampling/remapping done by the print software on your computer or the printer itself. The chances of hitting exactly 300 DPI or say 150 DPI at the print size chosen with the resolution used are usually close to zero.

Same with displaying on your monitor, because I have yet to see a consumer use a monitor exactly matching the resolution of his/her modern camera. No zooming required. In fact, only if you always display your pictures by zooming to 100%, you'd bypass resampling/scaling, but in that case, you'd always end up with a tiny portion of the original scene being displayed. Not plausible.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 4 minutes after posting

3 upvotes

Tro--

I ruled out the monitor thing in my comment--zooming.

Then to clarify: I think you mean ppi not dpi. And no I don't print at 300ppi much any more.

That's because I rarely send files out to be printed anymore. My Epson and Pictorico gloss white film do a better job, and print at a higher resolution than most who print the file on to real colour photo paper.

So, no I don't do resampling to print--unless I'm trying to print beyond 720ppi, which is something the printer doesn' t allow.

So you've mistaken your method of printing with how everybody prints digital photofiles.

Comment edited 6 minutes after posting

0 upvotes

You don't seem to understand what I just said. Only if you zoom to 100%, you can bypass scaling. Showing the full (scene of the) picture on a monitor, involves automatic scaling. So in my first mention of scaling, of course I didn't refer to zooming, because who in their right mind takes pictures to only look at 100% crops rather than the full scene. You don't either, so my comment about scaling for monitor purposes still applies.

2 upvotes

And as for printing, any modern DSLR at 16 MP or above would require resampling to display an uncropped scene on your printer at a regular 4x6 print.
Very few people use a variable PPI anyway (a slight crop would change it), most stick to certain predetermined values to achieve a desired quality and resample themselves or have the printing/printer software do that for them automatically.

Comment edited 46 seconds after posting

2 upvotes

Tro:

Duh about zooming on a monitor, you keep missing where I acknowledged this point. Quoting myself from above: " (If you mean zooming on a computer screen, then say so.)"

I use variable ppi all the time. That you don't is a different story.

Then more to the point, I don't print at 4"x6", and I crop.

You continually make the assumption that your way of doing things is absolutely the only approach+method, that's not a good way to approach life. And it leads to really limited thinking about the world.

0 upvotes

The awards Dpreview gives out are just a joke now. I don't even look at them anymore. However, their reviews are thorough and very detailed so that is what I look at.

Keep up the great work Dpreview but ditch the Silver and Gold awards. I don't think you have ever given a Bronze award so these awards really aren’t telling the readers much. My opinion is that the awards cause more controversy than they are worth.

Oh wait a minute…. Now I get it. Controversy = Clicks and Comments. I guess that makes sense. Most people would have overlooked this review because it was just an evolutionary and not revolutionary version of the previous camera.

Slap a Silver award on it and suddenly it has hundreds of comments overnight. Pretty smart thinking there. Clicks = $

22 upvotes

we don't have a bronze award.. and do you really think a website with a billion plus page views a year needs to lie to its readers for the sake of a few dozen extra comments/clicks? Really?

1 upvote

Well, at least he gave you some credit...

0 upvotes

It is bad enough the first version of this camera did not get a gold award when it clearly deserved one. But now the MkII version, which is supposedly better than the original, also gets a silver award you really have to question the ratings. Granted these are high marks but as someone who owns the first version of the camera, I can tell you it is extraordinary. Not only are the pictures fantastic, but the movies are incredible. In fact, the movies are far superior to movies on my other gear: the Nikon D7000 and the newly acquired Ricoh GR. The in camera charging is a nuisance but I bought an external charger for my spare battery so that issue is negated. I took this camera on vacation and it was just a pleasure to use with fantastic picutres.

8 upvotes

Perhaps gold will be awarded with version III, the one with a built-in EVF, like the Nex 7 or the even the Panasonic LF1, and most importantly a better lens. That Ricoh GR has a nice lens, enjoy it.

With a better lens, a lower pixel count could possibly help this hypothetical version III.

0 upvotes

Than it wouldn't be so small breaking a whole point of this camera. A reason why it does deserve gold is because of how tiny it is comparing to the features and IQ offered. With EVF it wouldn't be nearly as good as it is now.

2 upvotes

Why are you comparing this camera to the GR, Nex 7, etc. They are two completely different classes of cameras. The RX100 is a truly pocketable compact. It's tiny. You can fit it into your jeans pocket. The GR, Nex cameras, Fuji X100, etc. fit in a large jacket pocket at best, and most of them have huge bulky interchangeable lenses.

5 upvotes

Plastek:

Try the EVF on the Panasonic LF1, a camera I mentioned.

0 upvotes

I would have liked to see the original RX100 in the drop-down comparison options, especially in low light, where the RX100 II is supposed to have a noticeable advantage.

6 upvotes

It should be added soon.

1 upvote

Please add olympus XZ20 and Pentax MX1 too

0 upvotes

I have a RX100 MK1 and I find it over exposes at Times and find Greens to be Poorly Rendered and Auto White Balance is a bit off at times.
overall it is better that my Canon Powershot s95 but I find that the Powershot s95 had more accurate and Relistic Colour compaired to the RX100.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 2 minutes after posting

0 upvotes

Hey, you forgot about Carl Zeiss lens. That one resolve a lot of detail in it. Normal lens on compact digital camera won't resolve detail well. That Sony is always ahead with Sensor quality and having Carl Zeiss on resolve even better more detail than that. Canon didn't really make the cut of it unfortunately. It is a regular Canon lens, nothing special. But to keep price down of course. Compact digital camera with Carl Zeiss will cost more than regular lens itself. Carl Zeiss is the best I have ever seen. I am getting Carl Zeiss for my Sony Nex 7 and it will just blow regular Sony lens away in a single puff.

1 upvote

Also Sony RX100 II has a lot better less noise than Canon G16, you should check out high ISO.

0 upvotes

naththo--

Don't be fooled by the name, this isn't the greatest Zeiss lens.

That 24mm Zeiss for the Nex system is excellent though.

So just not the same animal.

Yes, there are compacts with optically extraordinary lenses, but not this one--particularly when zoomed.

No, I'm not saying this is some bad lens, just not what you're shooting on the Nex.

0 upvotes

There's Zeiss and there's Zeiss...the RX100II Zeiss doesn't seem that impressive to me in the corners. Have a look on the Studio Scene Image Comparison. Out of all the cameras provided for comparison I couldn't find any that were less sharp than the RX100II in the corners. I'm surprised tbh as everyone seems to love this cameras sharpness. The G16 is sharper in the corners.

0 upvotes

NEX Zeiss isn't great either. Try A-mount Zeiss before posting any opinion. And than try some of high-end M-mount Zeiss.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting

0 upvotes

I have seen review of Sony 16-70mm with Carl Zeiss on and I see its very good review so far even corner is a little soft but nothing major so far and the corner is much better than my exist 18-55mm Sony kit lens. Although I rather stick to E lens compatible only since A mount converter is too awkward. The reason I bought Nex 7 is because the detail is much better than A77 overall. I hope the newer future Alpha with 24mp might see some improvement. But its a long way to go. Hopefully Sony will work hard and try make a lot of improvement. Before I was going to get Pentax but I was stopped after found out that red swatch is problem in JPG in high iso that detail is getting lost, and RAW came out fine compare to JPEG. Once again Pentax is still behind in competition and I have no way buying Pentax. Unless Pentax and Ricoh better hurry up, catch up and make a LOT of improvement. There are lots of Pentax fan waiting for you to improve, so please do so. Nathan.

0 upvotes

Plastek:

The 24mm Zeiss for the Nex system has a plenty good reputation, you're thinking of the Touit's which are different and newer.

Right the A mount lenses are better, who cares?

Try good Leica M lenses if you want to better Zeiss.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting

0 upvotes

Once again, I am still waiting for SLR Gear to review that 16-70mm lens officially. The other review I saw was by some general photography showing their side of their story, review and their opinion and some sample images including edge, corner and centre of images. But I rather wait till SLR Gear comes up with more detail with graphs to show. DxO Mark may be very slow to review so its taking time. SLR Gear will come quickly though.

Btw, my dad's camera is Sony RX1 and has Carl Zeiss lens, no issue problem so far. Sharp on edge and corner and centre all up. This review here I saw has a bad luck with bad copy of lens where DPReview borrows it from Sony. Sorry Dpreview you had a bad copy. My dad's copy is perfectly fine. His camera kills all over my camera.

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting

0 upvotes

To Nathlo:
Zeiss lens for nex are surely better vs regular Sony lens with one exception:50mm f/1.8 ...I doubt zeiss can make such an excellent quality in similar price

1 upvote

If anyone want to experience and enjoy the real quality of Zeiss lenses should try the Zeiss prime lenses in Canon and Nikon mounts or those made for the Leica M mount.

Zeiss do not make zoom lenses with auto-focus on their own. These lenses are only made under the Sony brand under license. Now, Fuji is trying to do the same. Somehow, the quality is not the same.

Try the Zeiss prime lenses and you will know the difference. The built quality and price are different too.

0 upvotes

Yeah but remember, not all lens are equal, like 100 of same lens will have slight marginal error in manufacturer, that is what to expect to look out for. Quality control is hard there. They have to make hundreds of it same day they have to have quality control in rapid speed to keep it up to speed. That review of RX1 had a marginal error in that lens that had soft corner, my dad's RX1 had no problem with corners so far. If your lens has problem that is more than marginal error, it probably for best send it back for refund or replace for another lens, its the store problem to send it back to factory under warranty and get lens replacement return to store.. But again thats what you get for what you pay for, for the quality of lens anyway. I really need zoom. I don't want inconvenience lens that constantly swapping exposing Sony sensor to dust, that Nex part.

0 upvotes

Hey I went to another website who done review on that same camera, it seems that sharpness is a slight issue problem in new RX100II apparently and I did compare to Nikon A, Nikon A comes out sharper than RX100II. Both same 1" size sensor. While here RX100II looks sharper than other website review.

Perhaps, I would like to see sample of JPG without any noise reduction, no sharpening applies to it, and nothing applies to RAW image for comparison that would be a lot more helpful to compare. It got me thinking maybe another website who review did not have sharpening on while here did have it on?

0 upvotes

The lack of an external charger is annoying but if you can afford $750 for a camera you can afford to go to ebay and get a charger and a few spare batteries for next to nothing. That's what i did with my RX100.

2 upvotes

Well, the logic is weird and only applies to people who paid the 750$ out of their pocket change money.

If you barely scratched together the 750$ (like many enthusiast people who do not earn money through photography would), there's nothing left.

1 upvote

A charger would run you like $10... I agree it's a bit offensive to omit it at this price point, BUT I'd rather they do that than not feature the ability to charge in-camera... It may not seem useful for some but it's a great addition for many as it allows you to charge off regular car chargers and USB battery packs.

0 upvotes

Oh, good lord.

Just use a phone charger. No need to buy anything extra. The little cube chargers that come with iPhones and Android phones and whatnot can all charge the RX100M2. You just need a micro-USB cable.

1 upvote

i own this camera since 4weeks,
before, i had the canon s90 and s100..... the IQ ist superbe!
the pocketability is perfect, at the last photo-job i did the most pictures with the rx100 and not with the canon 7d or 5dmk2..... the lens at 1,8 is very sharp, and in low light, the rx100 rocks.....

BUT: i am very unhappy with the playmemory app, because it is not possible to change programs, setting the focus-point, choosing iso and so on..... i do urgently hope, that sony will do a much more professional app for remote-controling the rx100II, maybe they will do, because of the new wifi-sensor-lens-camera for smartphones which has the same sensor and lense like the rx100II .....
and: i am not shure, if ACR (latest version) renders the raw-files properly, in higlight or shadows, the values behave a little bit strange, compared to other raw files for example eos 7d or 5dmk2.....

2 upvotes

Too bad the lens sucks in the corners. Otherwise this would be a great, not just good, camera.

1 upvote

in my case, raw files and ACR lenscorrection are doing a perfect job....

2 upvotes

I couldn't believe it when I saw the lens poor corner performance. I'm disappointed to see that TBH, but I guess everything's built to a price.

0 upvotes

I also own the RX100 and have been very pleased with the pictures. The number of pixels and general RAW quality allows for easy cropping and just very good pictures. If I wished for anything it would be a slightly lighter weight body but there may be too many compromises to lighten it any more.

1 upvote

A valiant attempt by Sony to match the G1X but spoilt as usual in true Sony compact fashion by too many pixels when the light dims. The razor sharp image of the Queen's head if you select the G1X on the noise page, as the Sony descends into mush when you raise the ISO is pretty compelling. Especially as the ISO performance of the enormous sensor in the RX100 is supposed to offset the slow fully zoomed lens.

0 upvotes

It's one of the most efficient sensors out there, regardless of the amount of pixels.

The G1X sensor is well over 2 times larger still, so you'd expect it to be over a stop cleaner... if the sensor were to be as efficient, which it is not. Add the faster lens of the RX100 II and you have a tool that should at least be similarly capable in low light within its range of FL's.

4 upvotes

I won't judge detail from noise page, as G1X looks sharper than full-frame D4 -- so does D4 have too many pixels too?

We don't have G1X images with the new studio scene. It was already known that RX100 images in the old studio scene are not representative of real world usage, as the old studio scene was too small, requiring the shots to be taken with very close distance. Not all lenses (especially not RX100 lens) are optimized for close focusing performance.

Let DPR shoot the new studio scene with G1X and I bet RX100 will outresolve it, at base ISO.

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 12 minutes after posting

0 upvotes

best in class... silver.... 79%.... interesting....

I own the RX100, hands down an amazing camera pocketableness asside. My only quibble about using it for my everyday 'keepers' was no tilting display (for waist level shooting) and no EVF. Both of these objections have (sort of) been handled with the MK2. I do wish the EVF was part of the body, but I am still amazed at how they managed to fit in what they did. Can't have it all.

Seriously though, this camera should be graded for what it is intended for and for its target audience. To complain that it has too many options/filtering and no in-camera raw conversion is just a joke.

9 upvotes

The review complaining about the tilting screen's limited use, makes no sense. It's *quite* useful and if one doesn't think so, their shooting skill is limited. There are many shots you simply cannot physically get because you can't see the screen from a 90 deg. angle! Sony likely opted for simple tilt (no swivel) because it has almost no impact on size - the main advantage of this camera.

Anyway I don't really like this site, alas. Such a long-winded review (as usual) that leaves out some things, repeats others like twelve times and then rounds it out by saying really stupid things too.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 4 minutes after posting

4 upvotes

If you have a camera and like it what is the importance of a review? The RX100 is a strange camera in that its users just seem to need so much acceptance from other people and to prove their camera choice is superior to others. There is no camera user base so given to gushing hyperbole on other brand user forums about their cameras as RX100 users.
I suppose the RX100 is the camera of choice for the user who views photography as some sort of competitive sport in equipment buying prowess.

1 upvote

DPR, I know your staff is busy but if the samples don't include basic scenes from a variety of genres, what good is the rest of the review? For natural landscapes, you need to find a location that provides a grand vista. If the lens has a WA equivalent, and the location is high enough, the scene will produce infinity in every corner of the image creating a flat wall effect. Scenes like this tell us a lot about the lens used (in the case of compacts - should be ultra important) as well as the IQ of the camera. It should be a standard for samples like your studio test thingie is. I have a location in my home town that produces an inifinity landscape/cityscape all in one fell swoop. I have posted it many times in the Canon & Nikon forums for a variety of camera and lens comparisons.

Link to a sample of my special location:

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7429/9386295692_a459c1813f_z.jpg

You are in Seattle so finding a place that is even better than the one I have should be a breeze.

5 upvotes

Fujifilm X-M1 seems sooo much better in all comparaison shots with the RX100 II (RAW, JPEG, Low-light, Day-light, all ASA settings)...

So either I made a mistake, or it is truely so and not "tolerable" that this is not pointed out allready directly in the review.

Because I beleve the Fujifilm X series are not even full frame, and have (excellent) interchangable lenses...
Where am I wrong ?

0 upvotes

The X-M1 has a sensor that is over 3 times larger and even without a lens the Fuji is larger and heavier and by no means a pants pocket sized camera.

In other words, you're comparing completely different cameras. If you were to equip the Fuji with a lens covering a similar range, you'd also be shooting up to 2 stops higher ISO's in low light due to the slower lens at the wider and medium FL's.

7 upvotes

You are wrong because you are comparing apples vs oranges. RX100 II is a pocket camera with smaller 1" sensor and built in zoom lens. Try fitting X-M1 in pocket with the kit (zoom) lens attached to the camera.

Second, images of X-M1 were taken with the $600 35mm F1.4 lens. That (camera + lens) is a $1500 combo, twice the cost of RX100 II

Third, with the kit lens that comes with X-M1, I won't be surprised that RX100 takes better mages even in low light, at wide angle. RX100 lens at wide angle is F1.8, more than 1 stop faster than X-M1's kit lens that is F3.5 That would mean you would need something like ISO 4000 on X-M1 when ISO 1600 would work on RX100

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting

5 upvotes

Thank You ! That all indeed explains verry well I was mistaken - ( I thought the RX100II was full frame) !

2 upvotes

So what will be the best choice for underwater shooting?
RX100 or RX100 M2 and why

Thanks

0 upvotes

It won't make much of a difference. All of the RX100M2's improvements (hotshoe, tilting screen, etc.) are negated underwater. The BSI sensor on the M2 might make it slightly better than the M1, but that's the only difference.

0 upvotes

So not sure that the price difference will be a good point for RX100M2 vs RX100 !!!

Comment edited 25 seconds after posting

0 upvotes

Best compact by miles. Until of course RX10 will be out soon.

3 upvotes

If it is APS-C and has zoom, it is not going to be compact.

0 upvotes

Hello DPreview,

can you please make your sample gallery Retina display-aware? The pictures in the Flash-powered slideshow are all lowres (¼ the resolution of my screen).

1 upvote

From the introduction "The RX100 II has a list price of $750 - $100 more than that of the original RX100"

From the review "Sony promised better low light performance, and it has indeed been delivered. Is it $150 better?"

That, DPR, is a cheap shot and well below the belt. You of all people should know not to compare introduction prices with current market prices. You can make any camera look good or bad by comparing it to cherry-picked current prices of any other model.

That is even before considering the fact that the "$150" does not only go towards better low light quality, which the reviewer also conveniently ignores there.

This sounds like the reviewer was looking for something to justify the pre-concluded Silver Award. Very unprofessional.

4 upvotes

They were comparing RX100 original list price (650$) to RX100 II original list price (750$), not street prices.

0 upvotes

@ tokugawa :
But that's a $100 difference, not $150....

2 upvotes

tokugawa, in the conclusion they mention $150 number. That was comparing street prices of old camera vs retail prices of a new camera.

0 upvotes

From a mathematical perspective, 150 or 100 doesnt really make that much of a difference, it's the same order of magnitude. Debating about that is really nitpicking.

1 upvote

What does it mean they shouldn't compare current street prices with introductory prices?

If I want to buy a camera RIGHT NOW, the difference is $150.

It's been $150 for a while now and it'll remain $150 for a lot longer.

Your complaint is absolutely silly.

Comment edited 31 seconds after posting

3 upvotes

Marvol has a valid point. Previously simon joinson himself commented that comparing MSRP of new camera to street prices of old camera would make all new cameras look overpriced.

1 upvote

I prefer phone-going QX model over those hotshue + nonshue models... way more practical less space. Its screen will improve in your next cell phone for free ;)

0 upvotes

Now we just need to wait for the marginally-upgraded (but US$50 more expensive compared to its predecessor) latest Canon G camera to pick up their customary Gold award, based on, well, the fact that the G12 got a Gold, and the G15 got a Gold...

At least DPR is consistent.

18 upvotes

I've had it for over a week now and am blown away by its usability, compactness and build quality. I wanted a true compact that would really be a pocketable carry everywhere solution without much compromise on features and IQ – since I found myself not even carrying my relatively diminutive mirrorless – and it's absolutely been that. I've left the house without it exactly once since I've had it.

The only ergonomic touches that would have been nice is a clicked aperture ring and I prefer a rear thumb dial on the top right, rather than a scroll wheel. Also, quicker aperture change would be nice (though that might be something I can increase in the menu, haven't checked).

All the minor tweaks added to its value to me over the RX100. Foremost among these is the WiFi feature, and while iPhone integration is not as seamless as we've come to expect these days, it works pretty damn well, considering it's a relatively new feature, and the iPhone doesn't have NFC.

Comment edited 9 minutes after posting

4 upvotes

I don't know why anybody would buy another compact, given the substantially smaller sensors. Still, I'm sure I'll continue to see idiots with the G series cameras and S1xx in all auto telling me "it takes great pictures."

Sensor is huge compared to same-sized competition. Lens is fast and tack sharp. This is heads and shoulders above the competition, IMHO, and it's the camera I've waited a long time for. Kudos to Sony for innovating in a crowded but uninspired field.

3 upvotes

Right, I was a longtime Canon G-series user (it started with the G2). The G1X was my last. While it takes great pictures, the autofocus s*** big time.

Really liked the RX100, now happily using the RX100 II for most of my pictures.

3 upvotes

nathanleebush: People will still buy other compacts for one very simple reason: $$$

$750 is EXPENSIVE. Unless you are actually shelling it out yourself, I don't think you realize how much the high price makes it a lot easier to justify the slightly less capable but much less expensive S110.

P.S.
I preordered one, and I don't regret it, but I was on the fence about the original RX100 for a long time for precisely this reason. I'm glad I waited, though. :)

0 upvotes

The RX100 II is a camera designed for use by people who understand photography, in a category often referred to as 'high end', 'enthusiast' or 'premium' for example.

Why is it referred to in the review and in some comments below as a 'point and shoot' camera?

Surely 'point and shoot' refers to shooting in Programmed or Automatic modes, those modes being available on Compact System Cameras and DSLRs too.

9 upvotes

As a compact, It IS nearly perfect. Silver award is a bit like missing the point imo.

29 upvotes

Full ack.

1 upvote

The reviewer argues that it has an "unengaging control wheel" and wants a camera that doesn't feel like a compact camera?

Hello, it IS a compact camera and is the best in it's class. Still it's given just a silver award for the above reason?

What a joke of a review conclusion...

20 upvotes

Owner of the RX100M2 here.

I have to concur with the reviewer. The clickless control wheel feels very.... ehh... loose. You have to rely on a visual aid on the LCD to know what you're setting it to. A clicking control wheel like the S100, or even the RX100M2's own rear control dial, is far superior and makes a huge difference in ergonomics, because I can adjust zoom, aperture, shutter, or exposure control by touch instead of looking down at the screen all the time.

1 upvote

I give it gold (then again I compare it with the LX-7 XZ-2 MX-1).

and Overabundance of filter and low-light shooting modes? Who cares? Don't use them.

11 upvotes

These are exactly the reasons i wont be buying the RX100.

Ergonomics are extremely important if you want to use the camera for any length of time.

Sensor tech and size is just not enough for me to part with cash and I'm sticking with G11 until the right model for me comes along.

A Canon G series with flip screen, X20 lens assembly, sony sensor, RAW. Thats how a compact should be made.

2 upvotes

…and the superslow G1X autofocus.

Sorry, I *used* both cameras for quite some time and the Sony has clearly the better shooting experience. Don't compare charts, *use* cameras.

2 upvotes

who mentioned G1x? I wouldnt have spent money on a G1x lol!
Use cameras? I've used enough cameras to know that the Sony ergos wont be good for me.
DPreview boys know what they are talking about.
You should link to your work if you want to be taken seriously Garp, otherwise i might assume you are just a gadget freak :)

0 upvotes

"I've used enough cameras to know that the Sony ergos wont be good for me" - oh boy, if something like brand-racism would exist - you'd be a prime example of that.

4 upvotes

brand racism? I've owned canon, fuji, ricoh, panasonic, sony compacts, that qualifies me to make the statement of opinion. I like dials and direct function buttons to make a device useable. Obviously you are already used to menu driven interface so you are good with it. You are Sony fanboy with no images to show, another complete gadget freak!

0 upvotes

Dpreview on Sony reflex like Alpha700, no lcd on top, was a cons...

Dpreview on Alpha 77, lcd on top too, was a cons TOO and useless, because there is a resr too.

For Sony, Dpreview invent cons that on others brands are plus or simply not cons.

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting

13 upvotes

:D So true

1 upvote

wow if that's the best you can do to prove an institutional anti-Sony bias.... two reviews 4 years apart of two wildly different cameras, both of which got high scores and (in the case of the 700) our highest award. Oh and you're simply wrong about the A77 not having a top LCD being listed as a con. So maybe 'So false' would be a better reply.

2 upvotes

Disappointed at the lack of mention of the step zoom in the review. (Or maybe I just missed it.)

The step zoom makes the clickless function ring a LOT more forgivable and engaging, because then you're just nudging it one way or the other. I just wish the step zoom function could be assigned to the zoom toggle, so that the function ring can be assigned to something else.

2 upvotes

Good review, but did you test the image stabilization for still shots?

I have an RX100, and the IS is only about 1 stop, which is by far the worst I've seen in high end compacts. It appears that Sony did not improve this. If they did, I'd like to know.

If they didn't improve IS, this would absolutely be at the top of the list under "What We Didn't Like." And this is the reason I would only recommend these cameras to extremely steady shooters who don't shoot much in low light.

This is a SERIOUS drawback, which often means not getting the shot that most other serious compacts would get.

Why isn't this addressed in your reviews?

2 upvotes

This camera deserve Gold Award status. Its one of a kind and best pocket camera in the world, isn't that enough??

19 upvotes

And if you need a viewfinder (if?) that'll be another $450 Sir.
"Never give a sucker an even break"
W.C. Fields

3 upvotes

Yes, indeed. That will be another $450.

Sony never expect customers at this level to buy a EVF anyway. So, if you want one that will be the price. Oh yes, make sure you order it in advance. They may not have stock on the shelf.

Well, that's Sony.

0 upvotes

If you want, you CAN have an evf, and one of the best evf, same of A99.
Competitors NO evf at all or BAD evf.

2 upvotes

Remember also the fact that it's an accessory EVF - you can reuse it with pretty much every other Sony camera you will buy in future.

0 upvotes

You're able to guarantee that!?
And even if it's true, in a couple of years you'll be turning up your nose at the abysmal resolution. Yes, today it's a great viewfinder but tomorrow marketing bit-rot will have turned it into a POS.

0 upvotes

"Competitors NO evf at all or BAD evf."

Well, for XZ-2 Oly provides average VF-3 for as low as $99, very good VF-2 for $200 or so and an excellent, as good as this Sony or better VF-4 for $279. Or even 35mm-eq OVF for just $83.

1 upvote

again... sony being second place in their own category... as a 5n user its been a long time since I can shoot 10 fps of high quality raws and use a tilt touchscreen to focus... but I still haven't got used to rotate the kit lens the other way to zoom in/out. or forgive for HDR mode that can't be delayed or remotely triggered... sony are always two steps ahead with their technology. if they were just less original with human interface, they could have been the ultimate choice in many categories.

0 upvotes

Fantastic Review and well balanced

0 upvotes

Jan. 2012 DPR review of Nikon 1 J1:
"[...]we can't help feeling that with the J1 and V1 Nikon has missed an opportunity to offer a product that fulfills that other great un-met point-and-shoot need: a small automatic camera that works well in a wide range of lighting conditions, from bright exterior to dim interior.
[...] Also, although we try not to be influenced by a retail price when writing our reviews, it's impossible to ignore the fact that at street prices of around $600 and $800, respectively (with 10-30mm lens kit), the J1 and V1 are entry-level mirrorless cameras that cost significantly more than several higher-end alternatives. Got a 67% overall score.

Informative, perhaps. But how can one understand the above, more so when the 1 System (same sensor size, first to use it) has an extra advantage: interchangeable lenses? Nothing against Sony, which is a great product. I'd just like to understand the meaning of 'unbiased'.

0 upvotes

What a weird comment. So what you are basically saying is that since RX100 with 1" sensor received 79 score, Nikon 1 with 1" sensor should receive similar score too. If we follow that logic then every APSC camera ever made must have the same score, every FF camera must have the same score as all other FF cameras made in history, and all cellphones must have the same score as all other cellphones made in history as long as the sensor is same size.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting

6 upvotes

Total comments: 412


Nikon Coolpix P7800 real-world samples Oct 2, 2013	Canon PowerShot G16 First Impressions Review Sep 26, 2013	Editorial: 5 Reasons why I haven't used my DSLR for months Jul 31, 2013	Head-to-Head: Canon PowerShot G15 vs Nikon Coolpix P7700 May 29, 2013

	Nikon 1 AW1 Sep 19, 2013
	Fujifilm X-A1 Sep 17, 2013
	Olympus OM-D E-M1 Sep 10, 2013
	Leica C (Typ112) Sep 8, 2013
	Nikon Coolpix P7800 Sep 5, 2013
	Nikon Coolpix S02 Sep 5, 2013
	Sony Cyber-shot DSC-QX10 Sep 4, 2013
	Sony Cyber-shot DSC-QX100 Sep 4, 2013
	Sony Alpha A3000 Aug 27, 2013
	Sony Alpha NEX-5T Aug 27, 2013

##### WHAT HAVE YOU DONE IN M43 THIS WEEK? #####	150
Okay Fuji, so now that the experiment is over....	107
>>> Street Photography eXchange #65 <<<	85
How many shots do you take to get a shot?	79
While everyone ooohs and aaaahs over the ...	78
D610 to be announced within 48 hours (as of 10/5)	76
More leaks about K3 specifications	72
Anyone for Sunday Scapes (2013-10-06) ?	66
E-M1 Trouble focusing on moving objects	53
X-E1 vs X-A1 raws with 14/2.8	50
7D inconsistent focusing	48
After 3 weeks & thousands of shots: NEX-6 + ...	45
The Sunday BIRD Volume 9, Issue 15 October 6, 2013	42
Counterfeit lens caps from Amazon	42
GX7: Extended ISO125 Image Degradation?	38
Help deciding between Sony NEX-6 or Olympus ...	36
E-M1 as E-5 successor - first week experience	35
Weekend Catch : 5-6 October 2013	34
I'm going broke buying E-M5 Eyecups!	32
X-pro1 vs x-a1 (or is it X-A1 vs X-pro1) using ...	31

Your email address:
Your name: