Previous news story    Next news story

Sony Cyber-shot RX10 Real-world Samples

By dpreview staff on Oct 30, 2013 at 17:31 GMT
Buy on GearShop$1,298.00

The Sony RX10 is a 20MP zoom compact camera with a 1"-type sensor and a 24-200mm (equivalent) constant-aperture F2.8 lens. We were impressed by its features and handling when we used it recently, and this week we've been using a production-quality sample, in an effort to get a feel for what it can do. Click the links below for a gallery of real-world samples shot on the RX10 in a range of different environments and lighting conditions. 

Sony Cyber-shot RX10 Real-world Samples

Sony Cyber-shot RX10 Samples - Published October 30, 2013
176
I own it
298
I want it
40
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-RX10

Comments

Total comments: 161
Francis Carver
By Francis Carver (5 months ago)

I handled the camera and also checked out the other video test footage shot with this new Sony -- all of which look like very bad low-end AVCHD video, which is what they in fact are. Could have been shot with a $250 digital camera just as easily.

The zoom lens on the Sony RX10 handles awfully bad, when you try to zoom it jerks and skips and there is simply no way to do impressive smooth zooms with it, none., there is no dynamic range, colors are substandard, and the whole thing is typical Sony-flat without any depth of field. The built-in microphone is low quality and unusable even in a little bit of wind.

All in all, I would not give a red cent over $450 for this Sony DSC-RX10, let alone the truly absurd price of $1,300. It may take good still pix, but its video capability is totally unacceptable. I can't believe what gets released these days and for how much.

0 upvotes
cchen2
By cchen2 (5 months ago)

Nice pics on Flickr from Camera labs:

http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=rx10

I'm impressed, can't wait to see a real review.

1 upvote
noncho
By noncho (5 months ago)

I had a great expectations for RX10 and I was on a Sony presentation to touch it few days ago. Now I'm not so exited about it - it's uncomfortable for my hand, manual zoom with motor is very annoying, the pictures taken at 1600 ISO were with bad details(the sensor is between 1/1.7 and APS-C, but for me the details were closer 1/1.7(G15)), the focus could be faster.

I'll wait for new lens for my EOS-M when I want a compact camera.

Comment edited 17 seconds after posting
2 upvotes
FreedomLover
By FreedomLover (5 months ago)

"manual zoom with motor is very annoying"
That's the reason dpReview cited for not giving the RX100 a gold award. Precise zoom and manual focus is made difficult, or in the case of video impossible, because the manual action is annoyingly loosely translated by a motor. Pity Sony is not interested in learning from its customers. They will miss gold and sales again.

Thank you for the concise report, noncho.

1 upvote
orion1983
By orion1983 (5 months ago)

@ HowAboutRaw:
we all know that RAW will give us better pix. however, there DOES EXIST an i would say majority of people that has neither the programms, nor the time, nor the skill, nor the WILL to spend much time for raw processing. and although you might say "these people are no real photographers, they should buy a pocket cam instead, they have not earned it to possess a raw-monster like the rx10", these people exist and they just WILL NOT use raw, whatever you say. and they are also targeted by sony...otherwise sony was very stupid.... thus, just be tolerant that people just want a camera that gives them a JPEG IQ WITHOUT RAW-POSTPROCESSING that is worth the 1300 bucks and that is therefore better than that of a pocket cam or super-zomm but not as good as a DSLR IQ. i also respect that you will do it your way, but please respect also people that want it their way...

4 upvotes
FreedomLover
By FreedomLover (5 months ago)

"please respect".

Well said, orion1983 :-)

1 upvote
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (5 months ago)

orion1983:

You need to respect that I did NOT say "'"these people are no[t] real photographers, they should buy a pocket cam instead, they have not earned it to possess a raw-monster like the rx10'".

That's you putting words into my text to distract from my basic point which remains: Stop critiquing the IQ of raw shooting cameras based out of camera jpegs.

You're reading something into my posts that isn't there, I don't care if people shoot jpeg. and there are certainly good jpeg cameras, most of which are bigger than a "pocket camera"--so if people want high image quality at a real range of ISOs while shooting jpeg, then they should get on of those cameras--like Fuji XE1.

Repeating myself, I know: It's the incessant "the IQ sucks" on this Sony that gets tiresome to read when we only have jpegs to go by.

To the best of my knowledge very few here complaining about the jpegs (which look fine on a decent monitor) are saying: "I don't like the jpegs", they're saying: the IQ sucks.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (5 months ago)

orion1983:

I just spent some time looking at more of the jpegs, and the thing that strikes me is how big the variance in the file size is. These full res jpegs vary in size from about 5MB to almost 10MB.

This seems odd, usually at the highest quality settings jpegs don't vary that much, they're usually consistently about a quarter the size of an 8 bit tiff from a raw of the same shot. And good Fuji, Nikon, Olymp jpegs are a greater fraction.

I only raise this point to suggest that perhaps something else is going on here.

1 upvote
FreedomLover
By FreedomLover (5 months ago)

These jpgs look fine for a small sensor camera, which limits IQ. And good observation about the changing settings, like with the A7r samples yesterday. dpReview should explain what they did.

For many, if the jpgs don't look good, the IQ and the camera are not good.

"I don’t dispute for a second that there are people who would buy a good raw capable camera and then shoot only jpeg. But they’re not particularly interested in image quality then."
For HowaboutRaw, people like me just don't exist.

You would gain so much from coming off the high horse, HowaboutRaw. Everybody can be wrong at times and admitting it makes you bigger, not smaller. Your knowledge about Raw is precious.

Comment edited 8 minutes after posting
1 upvote
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (5 months ago)

FL:

Quoting you, quoting me, where you think I’m wrong about something doesn’t help your case when I made no reference to jpeg image quality, which is not the same as camera IQ:

"’I don’t dispute for a second that there are people who would buy a good raw capable camera and then shoot only jpeg. But they’re not particularly interested in image quality then.’

For HowaboutRaw, people like me just don't exist.”

You see I never claimed that you don’t care about jpeg image quality, but that you don’t care about the IQ of a raw capable camera. Once a camera shoots raw, IQ claims about jpegs from the camera don’t have anyplace in claims about the general IQ of that camera.

If jpegs alone are important to you, then by all means make comments about jpegs based on jpegs from the camera. But don’t put words into my text.

That I wouldn’t shoot jpeg with a raw camera does NOT mean that I think there are those who’d never use jpeg mode on a raw capable camera.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (5 months ago)

Yet again, if jpeg IQ is important to you and you can spend this kind of money, buy the Fuji XE1. And that is nearly an absolute statement. In other words, skip cameras with all but excellent jpeg engines, if you care about out of camera jpegs.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 8 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
FreedomLover
By FreedomLover (5 months ago)

"Once a camera shoots raw, IQ claims about jpegs from the camera don’t have anyplace in claims about the general IQ of that camera."
Again you tell us we have no place to judge a (raw capable) camera by the quality of its jpgs.

How would you feel if someone told you that you have no place to judge a camera's general IQ by the quality of its raw files?

"But don’t put words into my text."
I apologise if I did that. Where did I do that?

HowaboutRaw, when are you going to admit you were wrong to pretend Raw is more important and the only way to judge a camera's IQ, so we can start talking about the advantages of Raw? :-)

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (5 months ago)

No you can't judge anything but the jpeg IQ. And I've never objected to people commenting on the jpeg engine in whatever raw camera.

Raw is the only way to judge a raw capable camera's image quality. (Claims about jpegs are about jpeg engines, not the general camera. This is why my point remains completely valid.)

Where you put words into my text: Claiming that I've condemned those who choose to only shoot jpeg with a raw capable camera. It wouldn't be my choice, but it's a choice that means those using jpeg aren't interested in getting the most out of whatever camera. That's not condemnation, that's just an obvious observation (with the caveat that those picking jpeg under those conditions needs know about raw as an option.)

Right I condemn those who make general claims about IQ based on jpegs from this camera. And there are a lot of those claims here.

Raw sure helps one get the "freedom" to shoot without perfect WB, at higher ISOs, with more exposure change range. Jpeg not so.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
FreedomLover
By FreedomLover (5 months ago)

"No you can't judge anything by the jpeg IQ. Raw is the only way to judge a raw capable camera's image quality."

"Claims about jpegs are about jpeg engines, not the general camera. This is why my point remains completely valid."
There is no "general camera".
Some use it for Raw, some use it for jpg. For some access to Raw files is irrelevant, for some jpg is irrelevant, others value both. Simple as that. Both can judge the camera IQ according to their needs. Judging a camera IQ based on jpgs is valuable for many. Both informations have equal importance. Pretending otherwise is arrogant.

1 upvote
FreedomLover
By FreedomLover (5 months ago)

"Where you put words into my text: Claiming that I've condemned those who choose to only shoot jpeg with a raw capable camera."
I never even mentioned "condemned". As usual you are endlessly playing with words to make it look like you are right, because you would never admit to making a mistake. But these games are transparent for many and harm your crusade for Raw.

"Right I condemn those who make general claims about IQ based on jpegs from this camera. And there are a lot of those claims here."
Most of these debates are triggered by you stubborn arrogance. You are indirectly creating the comments you fight.

"Raw sure helps one get the "freedom" to shoot without perfect WB, at higher ISOs, with more exposure change range. Jpeg not so."
Yes, Raw is better for those who like to spend time on the computer and for those wanting and having time to achieve the best possible IQ. If you gave up your crusade, I would be interested in learning more about the possibilities.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (5 months ago)

FL:

In fact when I am wrong, I usually acknowledge that. I’m unusual in that way. I’ve acknowledged being wrong in some comments here–not in this particular thread about the RX10.

Yet again, I’m not playing with words, I just don’t think that comments on jpegs summarize the image quality of cameras which can shoot raw. If accurate those comments can only summarize the image quality of jpegs.

Think about it from the computer audio playback point of view: When a file sounds like crap on a good system usually it’s because the file is an MP3 or AAC file and not too much can be done. But the same piece of music, same recording, will sound better if played from a WAV file. In the case of music playback there’s the odd factor of playback software degrading sound quality–something iTunes suffered from until the release of version 11. So it’s not an exact analogy to shooting raw, but more data usually equals higher quality audio experiences.

0 upvotes
FreedomLover
By FreedomLover (5 months ago)

"when I am wrong, I usually acknowledge that."
You were wrong to say that I put words into your text.
Can you admit that?

"I’m not playing with words, I just don’t think that comments on jpegs summarize the image quality of cameras which can shoot raw."
Obviously you are playing with words in a bait and switch style. You just wrote "I condemn", now it's "I just think".

"If accurate those comments can only summarize the image quality of jpegs."
It's exactly the same with Raw: those comments can only summarize the image quality of Raw and thus say nothing about the image quality of the camera for jpg users. If you are honest you will admit that judging Raw IQ is not more important because for many it is irrelevant.

Your audio analogy is interesting because you can't playback Raw like you can jpgs.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (5 months ago)

FL:

You keep inserting “jpg image quality”, and then claim that’s what I was commenting on.

What you’ve claimed are examples of me playing with words are just examples of me using differing terms to avoid bad writing repetition.

Yeah, you did put words into my text. Asserting inaccurately that I effectively that no one buys a raw shooting camera and then only shoot jpegs. So no I’m not going to admit that I’m wrong to say you put words into what I wrote.

Now a different example, from comments I’ve made in the past, you’ll find that I’m a big supporter/defender of the image quality from my Samsung NX100 bodies. Several of the lenses are optically excellent, and one of the lenses equals good Zeiss and Leica lenses. However, though I defend the IQ of this Samsung body, the Samsung jpeg engine (at least for this body) is really pretty poor. So this is where raw comes up, when shooting with a raw capable camera and judging IQ: It remains imperative to shoot raw.

0 upvotes
FreedomLover
By FreedomLover (5 months ago)

"You keep inserting “jpg image quality”, and then claim that’s what I was commenting on."
I never wrote "jpg image quality".
You are simply not honest, HowaboutRaw.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (5 months ago)

FL:

No you need to be honest and admit that from the start I acknowledged that there are those who only shoot jpegs. And that to them, yes of course jpeg IQ is important. But that's not the IQ of this camera.

You clearly did write "jpg IQ" or something similar in a number of instances. And I've been real careful to note when I'm commenting on jpegs, it's that others haven't.

I see you ignored my Samsung NX100 example. And still treat raw as this outlier.
I think it time that you get a copy of some decent raw extraction software and some raws to try.

Comment edited 8 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Robert Garcia NYC
By Robert Garcia NYC (5 months ago)

colors look good though.

0 upvotes
peevee1
By peevee1 (6 months ago)

All pictures look too flat. Maybe Sony tries to show off the dynamic range of the sensor which is higher than what you can from P&S and phones, but they've gone too far (just like Auto picture mode on Oly m43 cameras with Sony sensor - yeah, good DR, but just not contrasty enough - Normal looks great though).
I am sure contrast is right there in the settings - I am not so sure many buyers will bother to find it, and will just choose Canon with high contrast by default.

1 upvote
FreedomLover
By FreedomLover (6 months ago)

Can you show us examples please, peevee1?

0 upvotes
iamphil
By iamphil (5 months ago)

Oh please! It's a $1300 super zoom camera when the small sensor super zooms are $300 at Walmart and Amazon.

The people who would even think of dropping $1300 on this thing aren't going to be morons too stupid to figure out how to change contrast settings and "just choose Canon" because of some default setting.

Comment edited 7 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Francis Carver
By Francis Carver (5 months ago)

Video particularly looks unsavory and unusable out of the Sony-- flat, no contrast, barely 2 dimensional. Sure, if you have plenty of time to massage your shot footage back to life on your NLE, go ahead and get this one. Otherwise, best stay away.

I don't know about $300 cameras at Wal Mart, but the $250 digital P&S I also happen to use shoots about the same quality video than this $1,300 Sony DMC-RX10 can deliver. But for some folks, the extra $1,050 will worth it for the Sony name, maybe.

0 upvotes
HB 101
By HB 101 (6 months ago)

Very bad samples: I hope is just bad settings.

I mean, a camera like that must have a good jpeg engine - I don't think you can ask the users to shoot RAW.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (6 months ago)

I think it’s that people buying this camera will in many cases insist on shooting raw. It’s not the manufacturer that insists on raw (well yes, one can argue that’s the case with Sigma Foveon cameras.)

Then I downloaded three of these jpegs. First I looked at them on a new MacBook retina, 2 of the 3 seemed fine, and the one that was exposed in peculiar manor I understood the reasoning. Then I looked at the jpegs the on even better monitor on my laptop. No change in my conclusions–though I will say they’re not my taste.

So all of this complaining about the jpeg quality may have an answer: use a better monitor.

0 upvotes
cgarrard
By cgarrard (6 months ago)

Its not the monitor.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (6 months ago)

cgarrad:

Not sure about that. Though I will say they're not the sharpest. But unimportant unless printing a poster.

0 upvotes
FreedomLover
By FreedomLover (6 months ago)

"I’m not sure that “upper limit” is the best term for what raw can do, to me that implies something exclusively about exposure–or perhaps ISO. Raw is good bit more than those two things."
HowaboutRaw, if I want high quality pictures, is that possible without manipulating them after shooting?

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (6 months ago)

The simple answer is use a better monitor. The 4 total that I’ve looked on a good monitor are just fine.

The more complex answer would ask the question first: How are you displaying these, and at what resolution, what paper, what printer?

Then back in the film era, with prints run at a one hour place there was manipulation, so this idea of “can I simply print it right out of the camera” is misleading.

Note too that this camera has manual controls–PASM, etc.

0 upvotes
FreedomLover
By FreedomLover (6 months ago)

I just want to show them on good consumer grade HDTV displays.

HowaboutRaw, in general, not specific to this camera, if I want high quality pictures, is that possible without manipulating them after shooting?

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 10 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (6 months ago)

FreedomLover:

In general, it depends on how well you do the metering I guess, and it assumes one is using a camera with a good jpeg engine--so not many cameras. And then you have limit your ISO settings more than when shooting raw.

Who knows it's been more than ten years since I just said to a photoplace "print this jpeg that came out of the camera". The photo's amazing, still on my wall.

Comment edited 6 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
FreedomLover
By FreedomLover (6 months ago)

Great, HowaboutRaw, thanks.

So you understand that there are people looking for high quality pictures that are ready the moment the shutter has been pressed and that for them the IQ of a camera is measured by looking at OOC jpgs?

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (5 months ago)

FL:

Right, then those who judge cameras that way will seek out a Fuji XE1.

0 upvotes
FreedomLover
By FreedomLover (5 months ago)

You'll need to back up that assertion ;-)

No really, I am glad that you understand that for many people looking for quality, Raw is irrelevant.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (5 months ago)

FreedomLov:

No, I don't need to back up the assertion that the Fuji XE1 does amazing jpegs, that's well established. And it's something one can easily check.

However assertions about the fraction of those shooting jpegs on raw capable cameras, who also know about raw need backing up.

0 upvotes
chillgreg
By chillgreg (6 months ago)

@howaboutRAW

80% of buyers shoot jpegs. Now go away.

2 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (6 months ago)

First back up your assertion with a real survey that I can check. And this survey would have to exclude those who primarily use a cellphone camera. And would also have to narrow itself to those who know of the existence of raw, know how to extract files, but still choose to shoot jpeg.

Second, you forgot "only".

Third, no I won't go away. And I'll make this point again, when I see comments about jpegs on a raw capable camera.

Fourth, if you don't care about image quality, that's your loss.

I've no problem with comments about the jpeg engine, but that's not the same as camera image quality when the camera shoots raw. And many who'd seek out this camera would understand at least the existence of raw, even if they choose to shoot jpeg.

Go with a Fuji X if you want good jpegs out of the camera.

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
peevee1
By peevee1 (6 months ago)

More like 99%+ of pictures are shot in jpeg.

3 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (6 months ago)

peevee1:

You'll need to back up that assertion.

Then of course the question isn't the percentage of digital photos taken as jpegs, the question is the percentage of jpegs out of total shots taken with raw capable cameras.

You also ignored the question about knowledge of raw, but still shooting jpeg. (This is the only fraction that matters in this debate.)

Try again, and try not to simply assert.

0 upvotes
orion1983
By orion1983 (6 months ago)

a bit better pix here.... http://www.fotopolis.pl/index.php?n=17822&p=1

3 upvotes
cchen2
By cchen2 (6 months ago)

Very decent, I like those portrait type pics. Tempting!

0 upvotes
FreedomLover
By FreedomLover (6 months ago)

Very nice, orion1983, well done, thank you. Includes progression of ISO with same subject and several Raw files to download as well, all presented on the same page for easy access.

1 upvote
ric63
By ric63 (6 months ago)

I have seen better rendered images of horses, horse hair & feathers in a colouring book done with crayons!

1 upvote
orion1983
By orion1983 (6 months ago)

:D :D

0 upvotes
moizes 2
By moizes 2 (6 months ago)

These images are terrible, most of them... Almost all of them are overexposed, and some of them are overexposed of 1.5-2 steps! Nobody can made his/her decision based on images shown! Overexposed image is soft, always, with very poor color/contrast ratio. Sorry to say, but Sony must think twice before giving absolutely new nice product to incompetent people, to test it! Ignorant will ruin your reputation and future of your brand new camera/lens, Sony! You, guys, just spent dozens and dozens of millions $$$$$$$ to make that RX 10, and these poor images just stopping people!

6 upvotes
Everlast66
By Everlast66 (6 months ago)

Dpreview are definitely not incompetent, but I am staring to doubt their impartiality. It seems There are more requirements to Sony products to get Gold/silver and they are showing preference to some brands.

Most notable was the Silver medal to RX100, despite their admission that it does not have any real competitors.

4 upvotes
papa natas
By papa natas (6 months ago)

Sign of the times, my dear man: Stupid, non educated people get nice toys in their hands. Think of all those stupid car commercials... Car designers go the extra mile to show style & performance and they trust their sales promotions to crass advertising agencies and low end TV performers.

0 upvotes
moizes 2
By moizes 2 (6 months ago)

To Everlast - you are more diplomat, I am not, too straight. And I meant not DPR, but author of that garbage, to be exact.

0 upvotes
moizes 2
By moizes 2 (6 months ago)

Let me add something - just looked at A7 images, by the same author. NOT EVEN ONE IMAGE IS SHARP. Looks like you are correct - there is some very strange requirements to Sony products, if not direct try to show how low quality products Sony making. Yes, DPR is competent on very strange way, I would say.

0 upvotes
FreedomLover
By FreedomLover (6 months ago)

"just looked at A7 images" "NOT EVEN ONE IMAGE IS SHARP."
That is obviously not true.

0 upvotes
moizes 2
By moizes 2 (6 months ago)

To FreedomLover - so would you be so kind to tell us which one is sharp? All of horses images are unsharp, or wrongly focused, or trivially blur. The rest is the same, most, again, absolutely wrongfully focused. So if you want to advocate, be sure you have the proof. Everybody may open to original size these pics, no problem.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (6 months ago)

.

Comment edited 53 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
FreedomLover
By FreedomLover (6 months ago)

So this is about the A7 samples:
I like the following portrait. His right eye, his ear, lips, chin stubble and shirt have all parts that are sharp:
http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/reviewsamples/photos/2737805/dsc00273?inalbum=sony-alpha-7-samples-gallery

0 upvotes
moizes 2
By moizes 2 (6 months ago)

OK. I agree. 70+ images for A7R + 60+images for A7. One is sharp, out of questions. From 130+ . Nice math, don't you think so?

0 upvotes
FreedomLover
By FreedomLover (5 months ago)

Why do you think the excellent series of pictures taken in front of the Bridgestone Arena entrance at night showing high ISO capability and using a tripod are not sharp. Did you look at the corners? Stunning.

This is still about the A7 here.

Comment edited 5 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
owenleve
By owenleve (6 months ago)

Yeah, that was being kind. These photos could have been taken with a phone... Why the rush to get real world samples out to the public that are terrible. They are terrible....

It doesn't do the camera justice. I wouldn't buy this camera based on these examples. I AM very interested in this camera, has potential. I'm sure it can do better than what is displayed. Seriously, the images are really bad, but on the upside-there are lot of them. DPR staff should invest more time in creating a nice image that shows what the camera can do. It's a camera... How much of a learning curve is there? Shutter, aperture, ISO and focus. If they can't get to that then fail on the user and/or camera maker for making those essential controls not accessible. This is not the first 'real world' section showing terrible work. Just the first I've finally commented on.

6 upvotes
moizes 2
By moizes 2 (6 months ago)

Too late to do anything. The great damage to Sony is already done. Just wonder why billions $$ company is unable to hair top pro person to make so important introductory pics! Sorry to say but looks like someone who is in charge in Sony is incompetent or simply idiot!

1 upvote
papa natas
By papa natas (6 months ago)

At least Panasonic has the elegance to ask Charlie White, to make the promotion video for their new LUMIX models.

1 upvote
moizes 2
By moizes 2 (6 months ago)

To papa natas - INDEED!

1 upvote
peevee1
By peevee1 (6 months ago)

"Just wonder why billions $$ company is unable to hair top pro person to make so important introductory pics!"

DPR did their own pictures, they are not made by Sony but by Shawn Barnett. And it would be strange from a review site to publish what a company just gives them - no value in that at all. They might be heavily edited and not OOC at all (as most users will get them).

2 upvotes
moizes 2
By moizes 2 (6 months ago)

Not an argument. The site is seen by dozens of thousand viewers. Mr. Barnett with all due respect has no rights to post garbage to compromise Sony, or Nikon, or Canon, doesn't matter. By editing such the site, to be respectful, he and his people must act NEUTRAL and top PROFESSIONALLY. So far, its seen to everybody, he is not.

1 upvote
Ocolon
By Ocolon (6 months ago)

I think it’s not a good idea to invite many journalists for a longer time to the same place for the introduction of a camera. Some might be flattered, some might write more positive reviews because of it. But to me as a potential customer seeing almost the same photographs on many different websites is neither very informative nor exciting.

Really, a picture from a different setting is worth a thousand words here. Give photographers from different parts of the world the chance to use the camera for a few days in their chosen environment, leave more room for their personal style and some of their results will definitely spark more enthusiasm in me.

3 upvotes
Eleson
By Eleson (6 months ago)

Believe me, I've seen what happens when someone doesn't get invited to such events.
Not camera related though.

0 upvotes
CM WORKS
By CM WORKS (6 months ago)

I'm waiting for Steve Huff's pics of the Rx10 tomorrow hopefully. This guy always bring out the best real world test images.

11 upvotes
EinsteinsGhost
By EinsteinsGhost (6 months ago)

I agree.

0 upvotes
dgmessenger
By dgmessenger (6 months ago)

I'm waiting also. He indicated pretty soon.

0 upvotes
ET2
By ET2 (6 months ago)

He edits his photos. Crops them. Resizes them. You can do the same to DPR images and make them look more creative and "nice".

That's not a camera test.

I myself prefer studio shots. Those tell me everything I need to know about the image quality compared to other cameras.

6 upvotes
CM WORKS
By CM WORKS (6 months ago)

Give him more credit than that. He test macro, people and Dof.

3 upvotes
attomole
By attomole (6 months ago)

I Like his photgraphy. Particuarly his enviromental portrature, slight obsession with OOF backgrounds and spashes of natural light, colour and his use of monochrome. For me this lends alot of credibility as a reviewer. Not to denigrate DPR there in depth anaysis is best i have found on the internet, perversly this seems to attract more acusations of bias than Steves more personalised, opionated non technical approach.

2 upvotes
zoranT
By zoranT (6 months ago)

Why does it help to wait how Steve Huff photographs with it? That surely does not mean that you can do it as good as him. So, the above images are a good average example of the average consumer.
And alternately - if you are better than Steve Huff, then surely you won't need anybody's opinion in order to buy a camera.

1 upvote
Northgrove
By Northgrove (6 months ago)

I agree. The weather seemed to have sucked, and there's no effort in getting some good lighting going, which is essential in photography for good photos. I must thank DPReview for early real-world samples though. Optically, it unfortunately reminds me a bit too much of my DSLR superzoom, and sure... I guess that's to expect. I'll wait for Steve Huff and others too before a final judgment though. The official Fujifilm samples were very different compared to these, even those who only used natural light.

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting
1 upvote
marike6
By marike6 (6 months ago)

Having already seen some RX10 JPEGs on another website, I knew what to expect. These samples won't please all pixel peepers, but viewed normally they generally look fine.

I'm having a hard time understanding why someone would prefer this camera over a DSLR or MILC considering it doesn't seem to provide a lot of chances for subject isolation, and at over 800 g, the weight of most DSLRs, it doesn't seem to offer portability that some favor. But everybody has different needs I suppose.

4 upvotes
ET2
By ET2 (6 months ago)

As sensor is the same as RX100 II, the image quality should be better than any other p&s camera with large zoom.

We know that already.

It offers constant F2.8, weather sealing, large zoom, and supposedly better video quality than DSLRs.

3 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (6 months ago)

I understand the RX100, you can slip it in your pocket. This camera, the combination of high price, large size/weight, and a fixed zoom that doesn't go past 200mm (kind of short) I don't know why anyone would prefer this camera to a prosumer DSLR or MILC.

For video enthusiasts, a Black Magic Pocket camera with money left over for a nice lens would likely be a better choice.

The A3000 I sort of understood, great IQ with a super low price and access to E-mount. But a bridge camera with a price tag of really fine DSLR or MILC, I'm not so sure it will exactly fly off the shelves. But who knows? Everybody has different needs.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
1 upvote
doctorxring
By doctorxring (6 months ago)

Go to a review on the FZ200 and look at the jpg's from 200mm in on that camera and then compare them to jpg's from the RX10. That's why some people want this camera. These two cameras are both fixed f2.8 and similar in size. The 1 inch sensor is the largest sensor you can put in a camera of this size and fixed f2.8 24-200mm. For most shooters, or I should say for most shooting, focal length over 200mm is non-plus.

Comment edited 52 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
JapanAntoine
By JapanAntoine (6 months ago)

Well, first of all it's more compact than almost all DSLR, except maybe the EOS 100D (but not with the same lens).
Secondly, find me a 28-200 equivalent, f2.8 flat at that price.
Thirdly for P&S upgraders like me, it offers both simplicity and capacity to learn more, both on photo and video side.

Now, I am sure a lot of readers on this site will be much more serious about photography and will find it too limited for their needs. Feel free to buy something else :-)

1 upvote
ET2
By ET2 (6 months ago)

Black Magic Pocket camera costs $1000. The sensor on it slightly smaller than RX10. No lens is included in that $1000. Once you add a good lens to it, it will cost more than RX10 but offer less

How much M4/3 zoom lens with constant F2.8 cost so yo can use it with Black Magic Pocket camera?

What will be the size of Black Magic Pocket camera with F2.8 zoom lens?

Black Magic Pocket won't take still photos -- just videos.

What about weather sealing? Black Magic pocket is not weather sealed.

EVF? Doesn't have it.

Titltable LCD? Doesn't have it.

Thanks for posting Black Magic Pocket as an example as it helps to make my point.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 5 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
NowHearThis
By NowHearThis (6 months ago)

@marike6

The least expensive DSLR/DSLT option is in a Sony/Sigma setup:
Sony A58/A65
Sony 16-50/2.8
Sigma 70-200/2.8
but this setup costs over $2500 and weighs 92oz - that's almost 4x heavier than the RX10.
The smallest and M43 option is:
Pany GM1
Pany 12-35/2.8
Pany 35-100/2.8
This set up in only a few oz heavier than the RX10, BUT it costs OVER $3500 - and you can't even mount a flash on this setup.

The RX10 is a steal at $1300 for a24-20/ 2.8

0 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (6 months ago)

@NowHereThis

But those APS-C and m43 setups are not really comparable as the smaller sensor on the RX10 means its f/2.8 lens doesn't have quite the same meaning as it does on the larger sensor DSLR and m43.

RX-10 lens offers pretty deep DOF more like a 24-200 f/7.6, which could be OK but is not similar to using the above lenses on APS-C.

0 upvotes
NowHearThis
By NowHearThis (6 months ago)

*sigh*, come on you've been around a while, you should know BOTH things a F2.8 lens does for you. Shallower DOF is only one of them.

RX10 set at 24mm (equiv), F2.8, ISO 200, 1/500
M43 set at 12mm, F2.8, ISO 200, 1/500
APS-C set at 16mm, F2.8, ISO 200, 1/500
FF set at 24mm, F2.8, ISO 200, 1/500

All of these will produce exposures with the same brightness. That is why my comparison is VALID, yes, it will not produce the same DOF. But it will produce the same shutter speed for a given brightness of the scene.

I often find shooting video with my A65 and 18-135 challenging, not because the camera isn't capable, or the lens isn't the right focal length... It's the F5.6 at 135mm that limits me. My Auto ISO in video only goes to ISO 1600. If I had an RX10 I could shoot at F2.8, possibly with 1 stop lower ISO even & have the correct brightness and shutter speed when shooting videos.
Bottom line: The RX10 is a cheaper, lighter alternative for those who need speed over smallest DOF!

0 upvotes
mosc
By mosc (5 months ago)

NowHearThis, why would you lock ISO at 200 on all 4 cameras? That makes no sense it can be easily adjusted. If everyone had to shoot the same ISO, we'd all be using cell phone sensors. F0.8 in front of a cell phone is still slow as hell because at ISO100 it's a piece of crap. If you buy a FF and shoot it at ISO200 only, you wasted your money.

0 upvotes
Northgrove
By Northgrove (6 months ago)

Looked at some photos. Not sure what I expected...

0 upvotes
onlooker
By onlooker (6 months ago)

First of all, I disagree that diffused light is to blame. Diffused light can produce some of the most beautiful photographs. Alas, these images lack smoothness and richness I was hoping to see. I hope it's just lousy built-in jpeg processing, but even with that, I am not impressed by the lens.

That's a pity because I was really intrigued by RX10, and outside of the price, I thought it was a very desirable camera. Let's wait for raws.

1 upvote
dgmessenger
By dgmessenger (6 months ago)

Strange. My RX100 jpegs are much richer than these. Ooh we, what up with that?

1 upvote
Carbon111
By Carbon111 (6 months ago)

Everyone sounds like this to me: "OMG, these are the worst thing I've ever seen! Now I'll have to rip out my eyes, it's so awful...right after I post in the forums. My word! What could have possessed DPreview to force such visual abominations upon my retinas! I think I just threw up in my own brain a little! Sony's jpeg engine eats dead babies! etc..."

6 upvotes
inframan
By inframan (6 months ago)

Feel better now?
Frankly I agree that these pics are no great shakes but you're the only one I see getting hysterical about it.

2 upvotes
Carbon111
By Carbon111 (6 months ago)

I just got through reading the comments on the A7/A7r and the negativity was heavy and pervasive - then I came here, started reading...and started laughing. I understand the shots were done quickly during the Sony-operated PR outing and I'm hopeful there will be more, considered, images when the actual review is tendered. I just thought the overwhelming response was disproportionate...and kind of humorous, so I replied in-kind. ;)
I just wonder if people can "hear" themselves sometimes...

Comment edited 56 seconds after posting
5 upvotes
ric63
By ric63 (6 months ago)

Awesome, love it :-)

1 upvote
doctorxring
By doctorxring (6 months ago)

These look exactly like I would think they would look taken on an overcast day. Muted colors. "Fuzzy" light. Bland contrast. The lens has good resolution and corners look good. I see nothing that makes me change my mind on my pre-order.

2 upvotes
Jeff Greenberg
By Jeff Greenberg (6 months ago)

You bunch of flat-light-whiners.
Lots can be learned despite.
Would you rather have NO early samples??

What I found most interesting of all:
amongst all the whining, NOBODY
commented negatively on IQ, nobody
pointed out softness, artefacts, poor IQ, etc.
Lack of negativity, even amongst super whiners
doesn't replace a stellar DxO rating, but still...

3 upvotes
FreedomLover
By FreedomLover (6 months ago)

Whining about whiners. Classic.

"No image stablization.
Why? Shame."

1 upvote
Thoughts
By Thoughts (6 months ago)

Perhaps, it would be easy for DPR to present sample shots in groups, each of which demonstrates certain quality of the camera/lens. For example: High ISO (to see noise), Landscape (to see corner performance), Bokeh effects, dynamic range etc. DPR of course need to make it clear, otherwise a series of snapshots (seemingly) without any descriptions seem a little inadequate.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
2 upvotes
aarif
By aarif (6 months ago)

Sony has a problem with jpegs

2 upvotes
audijam
By audijam (6 months ago)

@HowaboutRAW

1. Sony owns the world and it kicks ass.
2. Although people makes $ out of photography shoot RAW, however there are people don't shoot RAW and JPEG IQ is an index for them. don't judget people don't use RAW.

2 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (6 months ago)

audijam:

You can make any comment you want about the jpeg engine (or out of camera jpeg IQ), but you commented on the general IQ of the camera.

It’s a false claim to say that only those who make money with photography shoot raw. That’s like saying the only people who had darkrooms did photography for money.

If Sony kicked ass, then Samsung and LG wouldn’t be destroying Sony’s flat screen TV business.

Right, Sony makes some good image sensors and good pro-video cameras, and some good still cameras.

Your defense of Sony is a bit ironic, given that clearly Sony isn’t using the greatest jpeg engine for this camera–you’ll need a Fuji XPro1, XE1 or XE2 for that. (Not like the Nikon D4 does bad jpegs either–but unlike Fuji not using a Sony sensor.)

I see no particular reason to shoot anything but raw, unless you know that you’ll be immediately uploading the file to Facebook.

0 upvotes
audijam
By audijam (5 months ago)

since when you see i said "ONLY" people that are making $ shoot RAW? lol

and i am not even defending Sony...You were....

good luck

1 upvote
Allen Yang
By Allen Yang (6 months ago)

Having seen these pics, I think I feel confident to say cell phones with good built in cameras will replace those P&S cameras with a sensor size smaller than 1''.

And cell phones are much more portable!

Comment edited 23 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (6 months ago)

There are only two cellphones which shoot raw--so new samples aren't yet available.

No cellphone has a 1inch sensor, though I get that you could be saying that a 1 inch sensor will be necessary to best future cellphone cameras.

Only one cellphone camera has optical zoom. And it wasn't reviewed well at PhotographyBlog.

It's easy to use this Sony camera at ISO 3200, cellphones not so much.

Also why are you commenting on jpegs?

Comment edited 41 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
EinsteinsGhost
By EinsteinsGhost (6 months ago)

To DPR,

Can we please start using few images covering most conditions rather than a series of snap shots without a feel for why a particular setting/scene was chosen?

Somehow DPR makes every camera look like every other.

2 upvotes
Jeff Keller
By Jeff Keller (6 months ago)

As I said in the other gallery story, these photos were taken by one of our writers at a Sony event in Nashville. Sony is taking people around and presenting the photo subjects, so we have to take what we can get. We'll have a greater variety of samples when the cameras are in our office.

2 upvotes
skiphunt13
By skiphunt13 (6 months ago)

Am a bit surprised actually. I'm betting this will be a dynamite video camera for travel in particular, but for $1300US I'd want better than average stills.

Have been seriously eyeing this one, but am now glad I didn't pre-order.

2 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (6 months ago)

Wait for raws. And good extraction software.

Comment edited 19 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
skiphunt13
By skiphunt13 (6 months ago)

I personally don't think the images are bad, but they aren't exhibiting exceptional quality with regard to color rendition or resolution compared to the RX100s with the same sensor. Frankly, I could and have made more technically impressive images from a little Olympus XZ1.

For $1300 I'd want to be wowed a good deal more. I'm still looking at this camera because I'm betting the video will be quite impressive... it's just for me personally, I'll need stellar stills performance too to justify the high cost.

Not dismissing the camera, just glad I haven't pre-ordered until the whole picture is revealed. Could go either way with this camera, either a magnificent journalistic/indie film tool or bloated, over-priced failure. Still hopeful for the former.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (5 months ago)

skiphunk13:

Check out the size variation in full resolution jpegs--5MB to almost 10MB.

Right, many high end Olympus cams have a good reputation for jpegs out of the camera.

0 upvotes
Tidewater
By Tidewater (6 months ago)

I always wonder how to get the 100% crop on DP. Is it by clicking on the picture 2X or is it by clicking on the "original" link and then clicking on the + sign.
Most of these are quite poor but, I wish they would take some shots in normal sun-light. These are dreary and flat and have no punch whatsoever.
I usually don't bother in these conditions.

0 upvotes
FreedomLover
By FreedomLover (6 months ago)

Original, plus, yes :-)

Or save it and watch in XnView or an editor.

0 upvotes
Simon Joinson
By Simon Joinson (6 months ago)

you do realize we can't control the weather, right?

2 upvotes
Tidewater
By Tidewater (6 months ago)

of course I do, I just said "I Wish" I know you are in one of the cloudiest parts of the world-again. Perhaps you have become too acclimatized to flat light, right?

0 upvotes
1drey
By 1drey (6 months ago)

Not impressed.
Or, being precise - impressed, but in negative way.

2 upvotes
dartmoorman
By dartmoorman (6 months ago)

I have been shooting with a Canon G1X which I like for trekking. I was very much looking forward to finding something that extended the range, was good at macro and was wider. The RX10 seemed to fit the bill. But £1049 for what we are being shown. I think not. These photos have revived my interest in the Fuji X-E1. I shall reserve final judgment until the serious reviews and user experiences appear. I was an early adopter with the G1X and never regretted it, but if these photos are it I wont be with the RX10.

Comment edited 5 minutes after posting
1 upvote
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (6 months ago)

Constant aperture, faster AF.

Though much bigger than that Canon.

Why make a judgement based on jpegs? Do you shoot jpeg with the G1X?

0 upvotes
deep7
By deep7 (6 months ago)

I have to agree about the G1X. The RX10 appeals for longer reach but the lens is poor at the long end and the sensor isn't even close to the G1X so it's no real gain. Plus the camera is bigger and heavier.

Great concept, though. I do admire what Sony is doing these days. Maybe they'll redo this with a better sensor (fewer and/or better pixels).

1 upvote
dartmoorman
By dartmoorman (6 months ago)

No, I always shoot RAW and I do take your point about the impressive specs which is why I really wanted the Sony to shine, with jpegs of the quality of the Fuji X-E1, for example as a baseline for its excellence in RAW. This was a production quality RX10 and perhaps it is the dullness of the subjects that is the problem with me. There is no zing, hopefully better example shots will immerge in due course to prove my initial impressions were misplaced.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (6 months ago)

deep7:

The RX10 has a constant aperture, the Canon doesn't.

The Canon doesn't use a BSI sensor.

This is much more modern sensor, done by Sony which is known for very good sensors.

There are barely any RX10 raws out to see. ACR doesn't extract them yet.

So reasons to wait.

0 upvotes
Hachu21
By Hachu21 (6 months ago)

@HowaboutRAW
"The Canon doesn't use a BSI sensor. " well, personally, I don't care about the spec sheet if it doesn't bring me better result.
Here, the G1X sensor is not BSI, and what? the results are sill ahead the RX100II by a good margin. The RX10 just cannot reach the sensitivity of this nearly APS-c sensor, even after 2 years.
Don't let maketing BS fool you.

The point to care about : is the RX10 lens brighter enough to match (or beat) the g1x when zoomed in? There is a 2 stop advantage for the Sony (f/2.8 vs f/5.6). We'll see.

Comment edited 5 minutes after posting
1 upvote
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (6 months ago)

Hachu21:

You have lots of raws from the Sony RX100II?

I never claimed the Canon GX1's sensor is bad. What I said is that the Sony is newer and BSI and also Sony not a Canon sensor.

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
deep7
By deep7 (5 months ago)

Newer, but much smaller with tiny pixels. I've taken thousands of photos with my G1X and it still amazes me with the sheer quality of the RAW files that come out of that camera. The RX10 would have to do something miraculous in RAW to come close, which is highly unlikely when you look at the jpeg files.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (5 months ago)

deep7:

I think you have a point that Sony engages in too much pixel cramming.

You can get some raws from this camera at Imaging Resource, though ACR 8.2 wont extract them. Also the RX100II uses the same sensor, and ACR 8.2 does extract those raws. So if you can find raws from the RX100II that should give you some idea of what this sensor can do. The raws from the RX100II that I've extracted look excellent through ISO3200--and I didn't find anything shot higher.

I wouldn't go by jpegs posted here. Wait for raws and raw extraction software from one of the serious suppliers: DXO, PhotoNinja, C1, Adobe--I don't think Aftershot has kept up. (Skip Sony's IDC4, which will extract these RX10 raws today, Nov 3rd 2013.)

0 upvotes
piratejabez
By piratejabez (6 months ago)

Blown highlights, so-co color, but overall sharp, smooth, and fairly impressive.

0 upvotes
SamTruax
By SamTruax (6 months ago)

This is not a good start. I don't see anything promising in these samples. Hopefully we will see something in better light soon. The Stylus 1 samples looked great in comparison and I am a big Sony fan.

1 upvote
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (6 months ago)

They're jpegs. Who cares unless you only shoot jpeg? And it's a preproduction camera.

0 upvotes
Red5TX
By Red5TX (6 months ago)

Then why bother posting samples?

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (6 months ago)

Red5TX:

Because that's DPReview's policy; jpegs until they have a production camera and the beta ACR extracts the raws.

Imaging-Resource posted some raws for download. And you can use the free IDC from Sony to extract them. Find Image Data Converter with a Google search, don't try to find it on the Sony website.

0 upvotes
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (6 months ago)

It's not a pre-production camera.

5 upvotes
audijam
By audijam (6 months ago)

Look who is speaking on behalf of DPreview....LOL! BUSTED!!!

regardless...i think RX10 performs just alright

1 upvote
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (6 months ago)

R Butler:

Oh thought I read that somewhere 20 minutes ago. Guess not.

Updated: This link clearly says "preproduction", so I guess y'all have more than one camera/example:

http://www.dpreview.com/previews/sony-cybershot-dsc-rx10/?utm_campaign=internal-link&utm_source=mainmenu&utm_medium=text&ref=mainmenu

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (6 months ago)

The preview was based on a pre-production camera, but the shots are from an event that's currently going on - our first access to a production-spec camera.

I'll make that clear on the samples page.

Comment edited 12 seconds after posting
1 upvote
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (6 months ago)

R B:

Got it, that's what I thought you meant, after I read the correction and checked the preview and confirmed "preproduction".

Just saying where my confusion came from.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (6 months ago)

audijam:

How can you make that claim based only on jpegs, with a camera that shoots raw?

All you can say is that you don't like these particular jpegs.

Comment edited 51 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
audijam
By audijam (6 months ago)

Think harder then you would know...now get back and think again.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (6 months ago)

audijam:

It doesn’t take particularly hard thinking to realize that shooting raw is the way to judge the image quality of this camera.

0 upvotes
FreedomLover
By FreedomLover (6 months ago)

"shooting raw is the way to judge the image quality of this camera".
That will only show you the upper limit. There are many who are not interested in Raw. For them the jpg quality is decisive and shooting raw is not "the way".

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (6 months ago)

FreedomLover:

What you’ve described is how to judge the jpeg engine. So jpeg is a way to shoot photos. Raw remains the way to judge this camera.

I don’t dispute for a second that there are people who would buy a good raw capable camera and then shoot only jpeg. But they’re not particularly interested in image quality then.

I’m not sure that “upper limit” is the best term for what raw can do, to me that implies something exclusively about exposure–or perhaps ISO. Raw is good bit more than those two things.

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
vapentaxuser
By vapentaxuser (6 months ago)

Low ISO shots are superb. ISO3200 looks alright but it appears Sony is applying quite a bit of noise reduction at that sensitivity to keep the JPEGS clean. Probably better to shoot RAW and apply noise reduction on your own if you want to shoot that high up the ISO scale. But of course if you don't pixel peep routinely you may never notice.

0 upvotes
EinsteinsGhost
By EinsteinsGhost (6 months ago)

I too liked the ISO 3200 shots. However, I would be curious as to the amount of NR used in the settings. NR= Weak is always a good start and I suspect that was not the case.

0 upvotes
Tidewater
By Tidewater (6 months ago)

Sony touts advanced area specific noise reduction and diffraction reducing technology. I assume RAW would leave that out?
Actually I would use this camera in jpeg and on one of our 300 sunny days

0 upvotes
Optimal Prime
By Optimal Prime (6 months ago)

Er... Thar's it?

2 upvotes
Marcelobtp
By Marcelobtp (6 months ago)

Very good resolution from the Zeiss, very processed photos from the sony sensor, hopping the better news from raws...
Very bad photos btw.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (6 months ago)

Imaging-Resource posted raws for download, and one can extract them with Sony's Image Data Converter released in late 2012. That software can be found via a Google search.

Sony's website is next to useless for finding IDC. It's not the greatest extraction software but it gives you an idea of what the sensor and lens can do.

0 upvotes
gil
By gil (6 months ago)

I am not a pixel peeper and the pics looks ok in my office monitor. Details were there at the size of my monitor and while colors were not outstanding, not bland or muted either. Overall ok but I agree that these kind of pics could be taken as well from a cheaper NEX 3 series or from a mid-end P&S around $500-$600.

1 upvote
peterwr
By peterwr (6 months ago)

"Overall ok but I agree that these kind of pics could be taken as well from a cheaper NEX 3 series or from a mid-end P&S around $500-$600."
Well, the RX10 has that Zeiss constant-aperture lens, and a bigger sensor than a P&S, plus it's weather sealed, which neither the NEX nor most P&Ss are. It's aimed at a different kind of shooter. And I'm sure if you did pixel-peep, you'd see the difference clearly, especially in the corners.

0 upvotes
Red5TX
By Red5TX (6 months ago)

Sorry, but these tell us nothing about the camera unless we want to know whether it can match the quality of a $150 p&s with a set of bland, poorly lighted vacation snaps.

5 upvotes
FreedomLover
By FreedomLover (6 months ago)

You are right, it has a small sensor too, and it shows. Better you see it now than after you buy it, so thanks again, Shawn :-)

The bright whitish sky is not attractive, Sony chose the wrong days :-)

0 upvotes
Red5TX
By Red5TX (6 months ago)

Yeah, the lighting does the camera no favors at all. I can see why Olympus did part of their E-M1 launch indoors with models and pro lighting.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (6 months ago)

Red5TX:

It vastly surpasses the IQ of some $150 jpeg only camera.

0 upvotes
Red5TX
By Red5TX (6 months ago)

HowaboutRAW: I can't agree with you there. I've got a Canon Powershot Elph 300 that could have taken any of these shots.

3 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (6 months ago)

Red5TX:

Does that Elph 300 shoot raw, have a BSI sensor, and what's the sensor's dims in that Canon?

I'm not commenting on whatever jpegs DPReview posted here. I'm commenting of the already known significant image quality through ISO 3200 of this sensor. This is the sensor from the RX100II.

Jpegs from a raw able camera are only to be used for judging the jpeg engine.

And the raws Imaging Resource posted look fine to me.

Comment edited 40 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Red5TX
By Red5TX (6 months ago)

Go back and re-read my post. I haven't actually said a single negative thing about the RX10. Indeed, it might surprise you to learn that I've had one on pre-order since the first day it became available. What I said is that these samples are rubbish, and that's still true. I plan to shoot raw and I agree with you that that, based on the RX100II, the sensor will be excellent. The only remaining variable is the lens. Jury's still out, but I'm hopeful.

0 upvotes
Joseph Mama
By Joseph Mama (6 months ago)

Most small sensor cameras do use BSI sensors, because you gain more out of it and it is easier to produce. I believe that the RX100 mk2 sensor is the first 1 inch BSI produced.
Anyway the point being that the ELPHs DO all have BSI, which is nothing particularly special or high-end.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_Digital_IXUS

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (6 months ago)

Red:

Original comment just says "these tell", so not exactly clear about the samples versus real raws and ACR.

it's a trend here if you read through the comments, people say this that and the other thing based on jpegs, sorry if I jumped to the conclusion that you were making a general IQ claim, not sample claim.

I've barely looked at these samples; there are raws at IR for download.

0 upvotes
Red5TX
By Red5TX (6 months ago)

I can see the ambiguity now that you mention it. Cheers.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (6 months ago)

Joesph:

BSI is of relatively recent introduction, so only the most recent small sensor cameras us it.

If that Canon Elph came out in say 2010/11 then maybe, in not unlikely. Also generally Canon has not adopted BSI as quickly as say Sony or Samsung.

Checked Wikipedia: The Elph 300 appears to have come out in 2001, so would also use a CCD instead of a CMOS sensor. BSI is something Sony first introduced in 2009 I believe--Sony called it something else.

Yes this is the first "1inch" BSI sensor.

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 5 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Gesture
By Gesture (6 months ago)

Thanks for posting. Olympus and Panasonic have umpteen M43 models. They could try a similar concept with micro 43 sensor.

1 upvote
Jogger
By Jogger (6 months ago)

Panalympus put all of their eggs into the m43 basket.. they are very limited in what other products that they can release. This includes fixed lens compacts using the m43 sensor. They are really gonna feel it down the line, as 1-inch and ASPC compacts become the norm. .. they can't do 1-inch and cant do larger than m43.

Sony, in contrast, isnt married to any one format.. so, they can do crasy things like the RX1r, A7r and RX10... not to mention their NEX, VG, FS and SLT line.. and the a3000 for $400.

1 upvote
Gianluca Grossi
By Gianluca Grossi (6 months ago)

Jogger....yes and OMD best camera of 2012....;)

Comment edited 23 seconds after posting
1 upvote
Lab D
By Lab D (6 months ago)

With Sony almost nothing is 100% comaptible and who knows how long it will be around and they keep going in every direction.
With M43 everything is compatible and it is more of system that is supported by multiple manufacturers.

4 upvotes
Hachu21
By Hachu21 (6 months ago)

" they can't do 1-inch and cant do larger than m43. " Maybe they don't need to?
rx100 => answered by GM1
aps-c dslr? => answered by omd's
ok, for full frame, it's another history. But the µ43 mount can receive a full frame sensor. So maybe they'll make some bodies...

0 upvotes
jim stirling
By jim stirling (6 months ago)

How would a FF sensor fit { it has almost four times the area of an mFT sensor} inside a mFT mount

http://camerasize.com/compare/#459,377

The OMD cameras do not match the image quality of the best APs sensors .It doesn't even match the best of the last gen APS cameras wonder how it will fare against the next gen.

http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare-Camera-Sensors/Compare-cameras-side-by-side/%28appareil1%29/909|0/%28brand%29/Olympus/%28appareil2%29/865|0/%28brand2%29/Nikon/%28appareil3%29/676|0/%28brand3%29/Pentax

0 upvotes
rpm40
By rpm40 (6 months ago)

Why would they want to do 1", and want to do aps-c, when m4/3 sits right about in the middle, giving them really the best balance between size and quality?

Its finally starting to look like the tech is catching up to the original concept of m4/3. It's a very good balance for most users.

0 upvotes
Total comments: 161