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

I would like to comment on the click-less ring. I would like it for zooming better than one with click detents. I have a Canon SX-100 that I remotely control the focal length with. I am stuck with settings of 24, 28, 35, 50, 85, 100 and 120mm. If you look at the angular field coverage at each step, you find large gaps between some, and almost duplicates with others.

I would much rather have it infinitely variable.

==============

Also with all of these cameras, be aware when comparing the extremes in focal lengths, you take into effect the aspect ratio of the final work you expect to do. The sensor in my SX-100 is .75:1 (close to an 8x10 for instance). If you make prints close to this, and you use a camera with a 2:3 ratio, like the RX-100, what looks like a Wide Angle view of 28 mm becomes more like 30 mm. You wind up cropping quite a bit off of the ends of the image.

Is this review biased?

if you go to the Image Quality compared (Low Light) page of this review, there appears to be a lot of similar sized compact cameras that do much better than Sony DCS-RX-100 II, for example, select RAW 800 and compare it to Olympus Pen E-PL5 or Lumix DMC-GX7 or some of the Fujis of the same size and weight as Sony. The image quality and resolution of Sony seems to be inferior based on these shots. Is this an error or a biased review toward Sony?

I recently travelled with a borrowed RX100 for 10 days, along with my FZ200 superzoom. The RX did 90% of the work. The LCD is surprisingly great and didn't miss the EVF. Tilt would be useful, as on the II.

I will say I completely agree with the review on the user experience and "engagement". I actually don't like shooting with the RX100, and the II is the same menu and navigation. Too much fiddling and quirkiness. The clickless dials don't bother me. It's the menu diving and odd behavior of the flash by mode, or what changes when you shift PASM modes (and what doesn't).

I think the RX100's could be a great camera, but Gold it is not, if only for usability. My FZ200 completely blows it out of the water for usability and speed of use.

But, I'll probably buy a II since it will be with me and is the best small camera I've ever used..... Then I'll polish it up from Silver to Gold by figuring out what customization settings makes it work for me...

Well, there goes Sony again. I said this with the last model. Lens not good and EVF opion would be nice. Silver not Gold, well when the lens ends in F5 at Tele. You do not get gold. If Sony had made it end in even f4 Gold maybe, F3.5 Gold for sure, give the opional EVF and Sony may not be able to keep up with demand.
No camera will plase everyone, but Sony you are so close. Here is keep shoting your foot off and allmosting again.
Just think if the lens were F1.4-F2!, maybe you should use the Leica lens.

Makes one wonder; why can't Nikon, and Canon etc..., can't do better.

Here we have the greatest compact cam on earth and it just gets a silver award? I still don't get why Dpreview criticises the clickless front wheel. I would hate it, if it would have clicks. Focussing and zooming with clicks? Horrible! A click that could be deactivated would be nice though.
I have the older RX100 for more than a year now and I still must say that this is a phantastic camera.

We are so lucky to have so many camera options available to us.
I have the rx100 and was excited when the MK2 had the tilting LCD.
However just before I was about to make the purchase I got the chance to try the Ricoh GR. A totally different camera but I instantly loved it, even without a rotating LCD. It is has a rugged feel to it, has a fantastic button layout and great menu/user features and layout.
However the Sony RX100 series of cameras are superb as well.
Like cars, I think it is impossible to find just one camera that ticks all the boxes.
I have 2 cars and 6 cameras, but love my cameras more :-)

For me, a "satisfying photographic experience" is taking photos and then being satisfied with the results when i look and/or print them at home.

The images i get from my rx100 ii are satisfying, while those from my previous powershots/Lumix/ et al are not. I know of no other POCKETABLE camera that gives pictures which satisfy but for the rx 100.

DPR's objective tests back up my subjective views.

The "user experience" of the rx 100 does not match my x100s, or even my nex 6. Those cameras, however, don't fit in my pants pocket. Neither does my D3s. So what. Each camera size class fits a purpose.

The rx100 is, imho, a clear gold star.

It's a bold review by DPReview, but also aspects I've heard echoed numerous times with the RX100/II and something that's made me wary of purchasing it. The specs tell "Buy me now!", the photos as well, but in practice? "Hm, I recommend to try it out in a store first."

And when everything's said and done, almost the most important aspect of a camera is that you should truly enjoy using it.

Sorry DPR. Another boring, paint-by-numbers review. Regurgitated. The reviewer lacks even a modicum of enthusiasm, almost as though forced to perform the review as punishment. You really need to lose the hyper-defensive chip-on-the-shoulder attitude when the overwhelming majority of comments disagree with your findings.

This is really humorous, DP has become a Ken Rockwell, putting out absurd statements to drive clicks to their site (and Amazon).

Actually there is no defence here for the all you people shouting foul of the dpreview silver award.

Look at the RX1 - with ergonomics like that the RX100II would have been the highest scored compact EVER. FACT.

SONY failed to deliver the user experience which they so could have based on exisiting products.

Seems like DPReview would save themselves a lot of grief with a very slight redesign: clearly separate the scoring from the 'medal'.

Put the score chart BEFORE the 'final word'.
Then in 'final word', spell out in the last paragraph (as they *sometimes* do) exactly why they chose bronze, silver or gold. Indeed I would expand the final word to a longer subjective insight, and put it and the medal on a different page altogether, entirely distinct from the objective testing.

Constantly reiterating the methodology in reply to antagonistic comments - or relying on the comments of others to do so - must be the least efficient way to justify their thinking, while causing the most antagonism.

For me this is right on the money. Great camera and pix but not photographer centric. I sold my rx100 because I never enjoyed using it. It felt like a bar of soap, amongst other annoying traits.

Maybe if Sony silk screened Canon on the front of this little gem it would have garnered a gold rating. But the croissant eating crowd at dpr knows best, farce.

Gold award stands for being best in it's category.
RX100 II is NOT best in its category DPreview claims.

Silver award? It is ridiculous guys.

Sony improved their rx100 which was in the 50 best inventions of 2012 on Times magazine. Then a small online photo magazine (compared to) gave it a silver.

I find that a bad and funny decision.

It is true that the awards are unrelated to the scores.

Canon's G12 got a Gold from 73%, the G15 Gold from 76% and the G1X Silver from 76%. So the RX100 (and -II) getting a Silver from 78% and 79% respectively is indeed something you can't argue against.

That doesn't mean it doesn't feel odd, though.

I got sick reading this to be honest.
All the cons are there comparing this good machine with others which are not in same category.
In my understanding it is pointless to compare this with nex6 for the price ($750 of nex6. that must be body only, how about putting a Zeiss glass on for the reach ?) or nex7 (when rx100 II with EVF on will cost $1200)

I suggest the audience to ignore some of this comparison DP review comes up with.
For the sake of bloodYoranges and cutietangerines.

I feel lots of compassion to those folks who try to compare RX100 to one or another camera. But: to me the reason to compare only within the compact class comes from the class itself – it is a pocket gadget, period. When you do not walk around with a DSLR or another medium/large camera, but pretend to have a fair quality shot at ones – is this Sony a good choice, regarding the sharpness, responsiveness, manual or auto handling, dynamic range, ability to have a good crop afterwards or adjusting the RAW? And for what $? My experience with the RX100 answers me “yes”. Right from the beginning I was missing movable LCD, true. Hot shoe? – I was not. The final question: am I happy with the pictures, without arguing the comparisons with the canons or whatever? – YES. If I was selecting a pocket camera now, would I go for the ungraded RX100 – no doubts. Because I am getting great pictures from it.

$50 rebate in the Sony store on a RX100!
It's all about pocket-ability, Sony are to be congratulated for adding 'features' to an already 'great' camera, but keeping almost the same overall size, not an easy task!
RX100: 58.1 x 101.6 x 35.9
RX100 II: 58.1 x 101.6 x 38.3

Such an unbiased review! For example because of statements like the following: "Comparing the RX100 II's JPEGs to the Canon PowerShot G16's (a compact bearing a 1/1.7” CMOS sensor) is a little unfair since the Sony’s sensor is much larger,..." And then you compare the Sony`s sensor with much larger mft and aps-c size ones and consider it fair. The fact that you do not bond with the camera is written all over the review and prevented you from a fair and balanced test result. It`s simple, the Sony RSX100 (II) is in a class of its own and punches way above its weight class. It actually invites to skip mft with kit zooms. Smaller sensor competition feels camera phones breathing down its neck and eventually will become insignificant in terms of market share. Sony has achieved what all product manufacturers dream about: it has changed the rules of the game in a certain market segment. Not a small feast. Others will be followers and will try to copy it. A gold award winner.

For RX200 I need

11 MP 1" Sensor

3X zoom with fixed 1.8 aperture

ISO upto 51200

Sony enthusiasts are such emo boys. Not getting a Gold isn't the end of the world. :-)

"Our disappointment with the slightly unengaging control wheel and shooting experience has remained unchanged since we reviewed the RX100. We want a compact camera with a big sensor, we really do, but we want to not feel like we're shooting with a compact camera. We want the convenience of a camera that will, if we want, make some or all of our shooting decisions for us with reliability and fit easily into a bag or big pocket. But we still want to take control and feel a connection between ourselves and the pictures we're making. That's not asking too much, is it?"

You are grasping at straws and trying too hard to justify your very obviously wrong decision not to give a Gold Award to BY FAR the best compact camera out there. ;-) Clickless wheel, really? ;)

Indeed.

Somebody posts this useless "Indeed" reply on almost every thread so I have taken care of it for this thread.

I suggest Sony start design New RX 200
1. LENS Faster lens at Tele. and also wider lens start from 24mm, and also 5 or 7X zoom.
2. Better Design. Grip and also button need to be adjusted.
3. 12-16MP is enough.
4. Control wheel with Click.
5. in Camera RAW conversion
6. and others

Spot on conclusion. Brilliant pictures for a pocket sized camera that is nicely designed and has fairly mainstream interface and features. I agree that it's not a very "satisfying" photography experience. I've had mine for six months and have yet to use much more than aperture priority and panorama modes. Point and shoot. But really, really good point and shoot in a really small package. If I'm hiking or travelling, it's the best thing if I want good quality images in something I can pocket or wear on a belt ring. No intention of upgrading to version II. If the hotshoe viewfinder was $125, maybe.

So, Silver award... OK.

Controversy increases traffic but reduces credibility. Seems like the choice was made here already.

Next logical step is hiring Ken Rockwell as reviewer.

What's up with the abysmal resolution of the screen, though?

When I bought the RX-100, it was based on the excited reviews here and elsewhere. I had some good fortune selling some images so treated myself, thinking with my emotions - my head wouldn't have approved spending that much on a compact camera.

It's probably one of the best things my emotions have done for me photographically in awhile. The image quality is excellent - with a tiny amount of work the RAW files at 800 and 1600 process into very usable prints up to 12x18 sizes, and at 800 and below, upscale reasonably well for larger prints. (As with all digital cameras, some images upscale better than others.) I've sold many prints from images shot with this camera.

I've recommended the RX100 to many friends, and every single one has raved about the camera.

Cost is relative to quality, and the RX100 was definitely value for money. I have D800e kit for big work, m4/3 and XPro1 for personal work. The RX-100 holds up well as a "never be camera-less" carry camera.

I ordered the RX100M2 from a well-known online retailer named after a South American river, and sent it back the day it arrived. I had several reasons for this:

I didn't like the position of the video button. I don't have huge hands but my thumb kept knocking it so I'd end up recording a short sequence of video instead of taking a photo.

The lack of click-stops on the ring around the lens was unsatisfying, I also found the autofocus hunted a lot, especially when focussing close-up.

My biggest gripe, however, was how fragile the pop-up flash felt when extended.

The few test shots I took were nice, but not exceptional (IMHO) and I wasn't too impressed by the image stabilisation, so I'll be looking at other cameras instead.

So the news for this review doesn't start with "Just posted"?

Another thing:

I think whenever you mention a "tiltable LCD", you should make clear if it tilts just vertically tilting or sideways too - which is a big difference in use.

Reviews are coming down here: The new test scene is not where it should be.
I still have both cameras and tested for DR and noise. MKII is definitely better in DR (especially using ACR), here they found the opposite. ISO sensitivity is not accurate since RX100 ISO125 is as ISO160 on RX100II, so one must be wrong. Why are there no noise tests below ISO160? ISO100 is definitely better on the MKII than native ISO160, but I see only a whiny tiny bit of loss in DR, so I always use ISO100 as long as light allows that. The lens seems decentered from the test sample here. Ok, my first RX100 was decentered, too.
For me the MKII is about one stop better in the end, about half a stop in noise and half a stop in DR. So for me the MKII is an improvement. Lens could get somewhat better, but in the end for me the very best camera in that size and somewhat about, large headroom for PP. More than worth the price for me...

Roland.

My father started using this model with the WIFI and I tried it one day....I have to say for a camera of this size, the pictures are lovely....the 60p video of his grand-kids running around the house look great on TV....perhaps not for a professional photographer, but boy.. what fun for an enthusiast.