Sony DSC RX100 Hands-on Preview: Digital Photography Review

First Impressions

We've only been using the RX100 for a few days, but our initial impressions are mostly positive. We haven't been able to look at its Raw output yet, but JPEG image quality is certainly a step above what we'd expect from Sony's high-end small-sensor Cyber-shot compacts. The RX100 is very responsive, both in terms of autofocus speed and general picture-taking, and this combination of a genuinely compact form factor and enthusiast-level performance and customization is very attractive in everyday use.

Despite being a Cyber-shot, the RX100 takes many of its menus from the Alpha series. This means they're somewhat dense, multi-tabbed menu system, but there are plenty of options, including the ability to adjust the upper and lower limits used by Auto ISO (A feature previously reserved for the range-topping A77 and NEX-7). With this in mind, we're disappointed by the incongruously laggy zoom operation in playback mode (a frustration that many Sony users will be only too familiar with) and as we get used to effective touchscreen interfaces in other models we find ourselves wishing we could control AF point selection by touch. These, however, are minor niggles in the grand scheme of things.

Of slightly more concern in use is the slim, free-rotating Control Dial around the RX100's lens barrel. This control takes quite some getting used to. Although it works wonderfully for adjusting focus and lens zoom, the lack of detents means that changing functions like ISO or exposure compensation - which are set in discrete steps - feels distinctly odd at first, especially if you turn the artificial 'click' sound effect off. Accidental operation is a danger too, when working with any control which offers little or no haptic feedback. More than once during our shooting, with the control ring set to control exposure compensation, we've ended up with over or under-exposed images as a result of inadvertent ring rotation.

Overall though it's hard not to be impressed by the Tardis-like RX100. A list price of $650 will raise a few eyebrows (since we suspect that a lot of consumers will miss the significance of the large sensor and simply see a small, expensive camera) but this is inevitable. Ultimately, Sony has managed to pack a 1-inch sensor and a 28-100mm equiv. zoom lens into a body that fits comfortably into a shirt pocket without sacrificing usability or manual control, and that's no small feat. We can't wait to start running the RX100 through our full gamut of studio and real-world testing, but until then, feel free to examine and download our gallery of sample images and let us know what you think of the camera in the comments.

Preview video

Comments

Total comments: 540

Looking at the comparison table the column "Aperture range (equiv.)" is very interesting. It shows beside the possible most narrow DOF also the light gathering capability of lens-sensor-comibination.

At the short end of the zoom the Sony has the best value (4,9). So the Sony is more capable to take pictures at available light than all other cameras in the table, including the Nikon D3200 with the kit lens.

But at the long end of the zoom the RX100 shows a completly different behavior. The aperture value 13,4 (at 100 mm equiv.) is worse than the G1X, XZ-1 and X10 (at 112mm equiv.). You have to rise the ISO setting at available light, so the picture will probably be more noisy than the other cams, depending on the performance of the sensor.

This seems to be a drawback of the compact conctruction.

2 upvotes

Yes, that's how it's able to be smaller than the XZ-1, despite having a larger sensor - its lens doesn't remain bright across its range.

1 upvote

Just curious.. if someone wanted to build such a thing.. how much bigger really would this camera's lens have to be in order to offer eg. a constant f/2 thru the entire zoom range?

0 upvotes

Well the XZ-1 gives an idea of how large the lens has to be to offer F2.5 at 112mm equiv with a sensor half the size. It would require an effective aperture of 18.6mm, rather than its current 7.6mm, so it's fair to say it would have to be quite a lot larger.

It's certainly hard to imagine it would be anything like pocketable.

3 upvotes

18.6mm - 7.6mm = 11mm = ~.5" . In my book, a camera with a lens barrel 1/2" wider..? I'd be interested.

How does pocketable equate to lens barrel diameter, it retracts into the body anyway? It wouldn't add to the length, would it?

0 upvotes

What's really interesting about this table is that it's showing the limits of what's possible in terms of subject isolation on compact cameras.

At the wide end, they're all basically the same when it comes to DoF (lots).

At the long end, 112mm seems to be the sweet spot, but they hit the wall at around F11 (equiv.). It's just enough to give you subject isolation and the G1 X, X10, and XZ-1 are able to pull it off, while the others fall short.

Different design teams at different companies using different sensor sizes are all running up against the same limits of physics. Very interesting.

Comment edited 9 minutes after posting

3 upvotes

If you wanted a constant aperture F2, the Pentax Q would probably be a good candidate for it. The camera already exists. It's just a matter a building the lens -- simple, right. :-)

The sensor is small enough that you could make the smallest, lightest, least enspensive constant F2 zoom lens on the market.

Pentax has major potential with the Q among camera enthusiasts, if they they play their cards right.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting

1 upvote

You have misinterpreted the information supplied. The aperture equivalents are only for DOF comparison and not useful for determining lumen per unit area at the sensor. In other words the aperture equivalents can not be used to compare ISO requirements at any given focal length.

Comment edited 47 seconds after posting

0 upvotes

@jonikon

You have misinterpred my post. I talked about "lights gathering", which is measured in "lumen", but not "lumen per unit".

At any given equivalent (!) aperture the total light gathered and the lumen value are always identical, independent of the sensor size. On a large sensor this results to low "lumen per unit", on small sensors to high "lumen per unit". Compensating the different brightness on the sensor by adjusting the ISO setting leads to nearly the same noise in the image, depending on the performance of the sensor.

This is the reason, why the "equivalent aperture" always gives a strong approach to the low light capability of a whole system (lens + sensor).

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 11 minutes after posting

0 upvotes

this is what the market has been screaming out for, good to see sony is listening. i just wish i knew it was coming out before purchasing the fuji x10.... (great camera and no orbs yet)

0 upvotes

Seriously ?
Download the original DSC01194.
Look at the car grille, and the lights...
Nice "orbs" plus PF !
If this picture was from a X10, you would say it's a shame !

0 upvotes

He was talking about his own X10 not having any orb yet.. But yikes (!) the RX100's got the same orbs problem!! Good spotting!

0 upvotes

Can't wait to test this cam. If high iso in raw is good and depth of field is usable, then this will be my next little sister of my lovely D7000 ;-)

1 upvote

4.9 at the tele end ? Yawn.. May we go back to sleep ?...

0 upvotes

Calculate the physical aperture, compare it to every other camera in its size class, be amazed. (Or just look at the relative aperture values in the DPR comparison table).

1 upvote

I'd like to get one little clarification. When you assign the control ring around the lens to zoom-control, can you then assign the zoom button to another function?

That way one could have a true SLR-like handling: with fx zoom control around the lens, Av control on the front and Ev-compensation on the back.

0 upvotes

This is the third time I try to post a comment on this article... Strange... None has been published yet. I would have preferred a 12 MP sensor to a 20 MP sensor. This would mean better IQ. Else it looks like it might be a capable camera.

Comment edited 5 minutes after posting

0 upvotes

Lower MP does not mean "better IQ", it means worse IQ. If you really want 12MP pictures, shoot at max MP and use a good piece of software to reduce the photos to 12MP - and they will be much better than any modern 12MP camera with equal or smaller sensor size can produce.

Comment edited 55 seconds after posting

0 upvotes

I almost pre-ordered this but am having second thoughts about the slowness at the long end (f4.9) and only 100mm equivalent zoom. My X10 has a smaller sensor but it has a viewfinder, f2.8 at the long end of 112mm.

0 upvotes

I really do not like Sony - to many times they tried to force customers into their proprietary solutions.

But this camera is really surprising: Large sensor in a tiny box with zoom.

If the lens quality reaches "XZ-1 level", they have a top product!

0 upvotes

Thank you for sticking your necks out with regards to the f-number equivalents, Richard and Barnaby. No doubt you have made yourselves some angry forum enemies, which are certain the only equivalent that can be calculated is focal length.

Cross-format comparisons like these are very useful.

Just remember that it's not just for depth of field, but also general noise and image quality, since those two can not be separated, and are really just different results of the aperture size.

Next time you might consider doing a column on base ISO equivalent, to give an impression of the maximum image quality.

4 upvotes

Yeah, but with the CSC's you can change for a smaller and "faster" lens.
The comparison here is only on the std lens options with the CSC's, with Olympus and Panasonic that is.

0 upvotes

Yes, ofcourse, but it still helps you see that buying a D7000 for the low light image quality really isn't going to give you much over an RX100 if you stick a 16-85 on there. People have been going on about sensor sizes alone for so many years now, I can hardly believe the day has come when DPReview actually compares different formats by the only reasonable metric: equivalent ƒ-numbers. At the wide end, the difference between an RX100 and a 5D with the 24-105 is less than one stop.Think about that.

2 upvotes

looks like aki-asahi has some new work cut out for themselves...

0 upvotes

If I'm looking at this right, this thing should have about the best hand held low light capability at 28mm equivalent of you can get.

The EM-5 with the panny 14mm f/2.5 may just best it with it's (i'm guessing) superior IS, but it should be pretty close as the Sony sensor is probably more efficient.

Nex with the Sigma 20mm f/2.8 or an adapted f/2.8 lens is close,. The Nex would have the advantage when IS doesn't help, RX100 when it does.

A good APS-C with the Sigma 20mm F/1.8 attached or a 2.8 zoom with IS should best it, but those are big, heavy and expensive lenses.

Then of course a FF DSLR or the X-Pro1 would beat it but those are in a whole different category.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting

0 upvotes

The 30mm sigma F1.4 30mm is $400 and you can buy a low end Canon SLR cheaply...not 20MP though.

0 upvotes

judging by the photos RX100 is a long way to E-M5 quality, the image is quite soft at iso 1600 already, not counting loss of colour compare to Nikon 1

0 upvotes

Should have GPS !

0 upvotes

What is the d3200 doing in that listing, here the NEX-F3 was to be in the place, not a bulky DSLR, compared to the rest of the plot.

0 upvotes

I wish dpreview could produce a comparison (of portraits) of bokeh between the RX100 and its peers, at both wide and tele-end.

With sensor size of these premium compacts getting bigger and bigger, we are now able to get some subject isolation effect that is once reserved for DSLR.

0 upvotes

It's good timing, there have been a good amount of lens errror problems reported by Canon's S100 owners. I want a small reliable camera just like my old Fuji's F30 which still takes great pics. I tried out a GRD4 today and it was out of this world, but I don't think I could live with a 28mm fixed lens. RX100 is in my budget and ticks all the boxes,I look forward to trying it out.

0 upvotes

I almost thought this was my next camera, but a 3x zoom is not what I want. I'll take a bigger camera, even Canon XS-20 sized, if you can give me a 12x-15x zoom, tilt-swivel display, and the large sensor for very high IQ.

They talk of a hole in the sensor size market... well there's also a hole in the compact travel zoom that focuses on image quality over pixel count or zoom range or gps, etc. Like a HX9v that has a 10 or 12 MP sensor and really good glass over it that really provides good low light, no need for heavy noise reduction, and stellar image quality.

1 upvote

Anything more than 4x zoom is garbage for IQ.

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting

0 upvotes

It makes no sense to cripple a large sensor with a 15x zoom.

0 upvotes

With that number of MP you can almost always "zoom" with cropping aka "digital zoom" The long zoom gets less and less needed.

0 upvotes

If you want large size zoom look at Fuji ones, that the same size as DSLR with only 2/3" sensor

0 upvotes

In your face G1X!

0 upvotes

Just what I was looking for, great!
Pity the outdoor samples were taken on a hazy day, but they still look promising.
Can't wait for the full review.

0 upvotes

Wow. This is the camera Canon should have made instead of that incredibly overpriced, oversized G1X. It's not that I don't want the largest sensor possible but not in a camera that is as large and expensive as a micro 4/3 model. (Speaking of the G1X.)

THIS is more like it. It's still a little expensive but there's nothing else like it. And given the EXMOR sensors that have been showing up in other cameras, mainly Nikons, there is good reason to expect IQ to be exceptional. Wonder if there is a dedicated UW housing for this thing. My S95 should be feeling nervous right now...

0 upvotes

G1X is a different league. The pocket size is not a priority there. Although you might say there nothing bad about small form factor, there is: at least the amount of external controls and stability. I got an Olympus XZ1 after years of carrying my 5D Mk II with me and I tell you, sometimes I hold the camera like I've never held one before... :) Zero ergonomics, poor stability.

0 upvotes

The zoo range is not particularly useful, and the tele end is stupid slow. My S90 is not going anywhere...

0 upvotes

Sorry if I missed it somewhere, but what is the minimum focus distance for macro usage?

0 upvotes

5cm

0 upvotes

Olympus store now selling XZ-1 for $399.

1 upvote

The samples look great. The price is pretty high, but like all compacts, it will be selling for less within a few months. There's a lot of interesting innovation going on in high end small camera market these days.

0 upvotes

Excellent samples I'd say. Looking like a very nice compact.

0 upvotes

Looks like a great camera, a camera that could easily become a new definition of what a high end pocketable camera should be.

I'll be very interested to see the studio high iso testing, and the multi-shot noise reduction at ultra-high iso. At a quick glance the high iso performance looks very good for this sensor size, but it is somewhat hard to tell at this point.

0 upvotes

Fuji X10 already takes better pictures than these preview shots. X10 has a smaller sensor but it is very well engineered(now pls don't start the ORB discussion). The EXR mode/Low light/High ISO performance is very good. It also has a semi-functional VF. f2.0-2.8 lens is beautiful.

3 upvotes

X10 isn't a compact.

4 upvotes

True it won't fit in my jeans pocket :-) but I won't be comfortable with this in my pocket either... I am still glad that camera manufacturers are trying out large sensors in compact P&S.

0 upvotes

I too would prefer the X10 (sans orbs) to this Sony; the pixel pitch between the two is comparable and Fuji has a faster lens. The size difference isn't big enough to be a concern for me; I never carry cameras in my pocket (I always use a case) and I wouldn't mind carrying the X10 in a slightly larger case.

2 upvotes

But sadly I'm afraid of the orbs... and it's a hardware problem.

0 upvotes

Looking at the samples, I was kind of disappointed in this RX100, but as any astute X10 owner knows auto mode is the enemy. The X10 definitely holds its own better than it should in micro detail, colours and dynamic range for a half sized sensor. Likely it is the fault of Sony specified Zeiss; they are not very impressive these days, nor am I impressed with its ultrawide distortion.

0 upvotes

Very interested in this new camera! Packs alot into a compact. And sell off my S95, use the proceeds and the Sony becomes very affordable!

1 upvote

I don't find the images soft at all!!! Viewed on a 24" HD screen, the shots look really fantastic. I was fighting mentally for knowing if I should sell my 5D2 and take the new 5D3, but now I think i'll keep the old one and take this sony in the same pocket as my Nokia N8 and make nice pictures virtually undistinguishable from the Canon (at least at low ISO's) with the extra benefit of its low profile in crowded areas. I hope the Video quality is up to the game as well...

0 upvotes

This looks like a great camera but don't confuse it with a high end DSLR. Megapixels aside, the amount of image data in a 5D2 file dwarfs what I would expect to find in an RX100 RAW file. Of course, I'm speculating but I'm doing so based on my experience with RAW files from other compacts which just don't have the latitude that a DSLR file provides.

0 upvotes

This style of camera interests me a lot for something to carry around all the time. However, as a 2nd camera I don't think it needed to have 20MP, I would have much preferred a 12MP sensor with better high ISO performance.

0 upvotes

You realize that this is a dpr myth. Lower pixel count will not improve image quality at any given viewing size from any given semiconductor fabrication capability at any ISO. So if you had this sensor fab at 12mp and looked at an image at any size you choose, it won't look better at high iso with the 12mp. If you said you wanted to consume less storage, that would be true.

2 upvotes

Lower pixel count = larger pixels = more light gathering capability = less noise. Are you arguing that this isn't perceptible or that you can down sample the noise away?

0 upvotes

No. Pick a viewing size in real measurement and distance from the image. Pick a fab technology which basically determines how small you can make these features. You will not find that better IQ at high ISO would result from putting fewer pixels on the sensor. What people often do here is they look at an area measured in pixels and declare that there is higher noise. For a larger pixel sensor that is a smaller area of the image, and may or may not appear to show higher noise. Mostly though people here want to declare their superiority to what is perceived as camera marketing and so this has become a mythological element of dpr poster's creed.

2 upvotes

poor nikon 1.. You have a big problem now.. Same price, same sensor size, but less pixels, darker zoom lenses and bigger size, weight.. You need to redesign 2nd generation o nikon 1 (make them even smaller, lenses and bodies).

As for Sony RX100 it is a S100/95/90 in concept camera but in everything better (apart from price). It could be my next non slr camera.. Real cool little camera with also EXCELLENT video in such a small case..
As a canon S90 user I already love it.

2 upvotes

Is it me or are these images a bit on the soft side? There seems to be a lot of compression here.

0 upvotes

Go to the Nikon 1 forum and read.
The more honest guys tell ya what's up with these high priced toy cams.
On paper they promise you all ... but in real live they hardly deliver more than any above average P&S.

What a waste of money.

0 upvotes

And once again (yawn) multiple numpties clamber to complain that yet another new camera has no viewfinder or hotshoe bracket. FFS, had Sony had added these it wouldn't be the camera it is would it!!! If you must have these hen buy a DSLR ... This camera is all about maximum iq in a minimum sized body. Jesus!

(For all the non numpties, this Sony looks pretty hot and could be the model to replace my S95 and fit in between that and my NEX. Yeah, shame about the price but give it 6 months and it'll be down to a more reasonable level .... And if it's not, well, that makes everything look good for high resale prices at a later date!

0 upvotes

Pity you choose to insult people who have a different point of view from yourself. The whole point of a forum is discourse.

0 upvotes

Agree chad. I can understand your frustration when people miss the point of this camera completely. Its an S100 but better. Sure the price is high, but the features are also. It simply comes down to this: Do you want the best pocket size camera & don't mind paying a bit over the odds?

0 upvotes

Please stop saying Canon's G1 X sensor is near-APS-C size, it's not!
It's marginally bigger than four third. Look at your own numbers.

5 upvotes

think saying G1X is slightly larger than 4/3" will do more damage to 4/3".

1 upvote

The point is that it's nearer to APS-C (the de facto standard for interchangeable lens cameras) than any compact camera sensor size. More people will understand how big APS-C is than Four Thirds, so that's the obvious reference point to use.

If you try to explain the differences between every single format, you get the long awkward bit in the middle of this preview video where the diagram sits there and I keep talking.

3 upvotes

Hi Richard,

I don't agree at all.
People for who these sizes matter at all will know as much about about Four Thirds than APS-C. You don't have to go into much detail and saying that the G1 X sensor is near APS-C size is obviously misleading.

I made some math from the sizes you list in the different reviews and it's quite different as what you refer to in the text of the reviews;

G1 X is smaller than APS-C "standard" by 32% (not 20%)
G1 X is smaller than APS-C "Canon" by 25% (not 20%)
G1 X is bigger than Four Third by 13% (not 16%)

I think you just copied Canon's marketing speech here.

Keep up the good work anyway, I appreciate dpreview a lot!

1 upvote

I actually agree with mark. This camera only competes with compact system cameras. And for those 4/3 or APS-C are both as valid alternatives.

I also agree that you do a tremendous job. Keep it up!

But ... I wonder why I wrote this. Is it important?

0 upvotes

Your numbers are slightly in error, so far as I can tell.

The G1 X sensor is 78.9% of the size of a Canon APS-C chip, so calling it 20% (since we explain we're talking about comparing it to Canon DSLRs) is fair. The reason we used that comparison is partly because its pixel count is smaller than the Canon Rebel by around the same percentage as its size is - because the sensor design is related.

It's 27% smaller than standard APS-C (or, at least the D3200 - APS-C varies slightly, chip-to-chip). It's 16% larger than Four Thirds, based on the sizes each maker quotes.

I stand by the idea that, if we've only got room for one comparison, even if we ignore the point we were trying to make about the similarity of the G1 X's sensor to the ones in the Rebel models, the one it should be to is the size used in the overwhelming majority of DSLRs. Well over 70% of DSLRs sold over the past few years have APS-C chips - that makes it the 'large sensor' reference point.

1 upvote

The point is - sensor size matters to everyone, so I need to make it as clear as possible (and that means working in reference to a point that the most people will understand).

Those people who already understand the relative sizes of Four Thirds and APS-C are the people most likely to understand where it sits, especially as we rarely discuss this without including a diagram showing the relative sizes.

If I say: the G1 X is 20% smaller than the sensor in a Rebel, and many times larger than in any compact camera, it makes more sense to more people than saying it's 16% larger than in Four Thirds camera. And we do also say that. And include a diagram.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting

0 upvotes

Hi Richard,

I see your point better and I must be under-evaluating the number of Rebel users... ;)

Anyway, I hope you'll remember this conversation when Canon brings out their mirrorless system (that I'm sure will use the same sensor size as the GX 1) to will compete with Micro Four Third and APS-C systems - they still will be a lot closer to MFT than APS-C anyway you look at it.

And keep showing this diagram, it's worth a few hundred words!

Comment edited 5 minutes after posting

0 upvotes

I agree, and we'll try to make sure that's clear.

1 upvote

Almost perfect. If it had an EVF I would have sold my NEX7. I never understand why companies don't learn. All the people trading in their 5s and 5Ns for 7s are not just after a few more megapixels. It is the built-in viewfinder. A small fraction of an inch wider to accommodate one would not have made it less pocketable.

Thanks for another great preview.

1 upvote

While I agree that a viewfinder is a must for serious photography, I don't think it makes sense on this camera, that was designed to be as compact as possible. I'd love to have this as a backup to my SLR and am happy they didnt add the extra bulk of a viewfinder. It is also rather expensive for its class already...

0 upvotes

The RX100 would be "a small fraction of an inch wider" only if you want "a small fraction of an inch" EVF! People seem to forget that the size of the viewfinder has to be proportional to the amount of space it takes up. Or people seem to think that there's just a large cavity inside the RX100 that is nearly ready-made to accommodate a decent EVF that would only require "a small fraction of an inch" increase in body width. LOL.

Heck, even in the Sony NEX line, the *only* NEX to offer a built-in EVF is the NEX-7, which happens to be the largest of the NEX bodies. If it were so trivial to add EVFs, then all the NEX bodies (and plenty of compact cameras) would include EVFs. But obviously, the inclusion of an EVF has a size and price cost associated. It's not just a trivial matter of just adding "a small fraction of an inch wider" to the body.

win39 is just another idealistic, short-sighted consumer who thinks "Geez, why don't they just add EVF's to all these cameras!?! So easy!"

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 9 minutes after posting

0 upvotes

Well, its not new R1, but nevertheless it is interesting. Looking forward to full-review and most importantly RAW samples. I have hunch that RAW at base ISO developed in LR4 can be very good..

1 upvote

Thanks for an excellent review and sample images guys, very informative.

If I have to take issue with one thing it is your conclusion, "image quality is certainly a step above what we'd expect from Sony's high-end small-sensor Cyber-shot compacts".

"Step above"? Take Have another look at those ISO 2000 and ISO 2500 pictures..., I personally think the RX100's output is a quantum leap above anything offered by cybershot compacts and are overall very impressive indeed.

For me the RX100 is a game changer, the first really compact larger sensor camera on the market. I'll be first in the queue!

0 upvotes

A quantum leap is a step above. Quantized values are those that have to be taken in whole steps, not degrees between them.

Comment edited 37 seconds after posting

0 upvotes

Which also means that a quantum step is the smallest possible step which is quite the opposite to what people who use this term usually want to say :)

0 upvotes

But equally it can mean that it's not just a slight improvement, it's a whole step forwards to a different state, which is how it's understood by almost everyone. Yes, in theory it could mean something else, because there is that ambiguity about the size of step, but since one of those meanings is almost universally understood, it's fair to say that it does mean what its users intend.

Comment edited 34 seconds after posting

1 upvote

Funny, this camera does away with one myth--sensor size isn't important--while perpetuating another, more megapixels are necessary to get good quality.

Looks very nice and it's what Ricoh should have done.

0 upvotes

Both are important for image quality.

Sensor size is important.

More MP is important.

To get really sharp digital images from Bayer sensors you have to downscale the image to at least 70% or even better 50%. In the latter case the resulting image only has 1/4 of the original pixels. So - it is not entirely wrong to start with many pixels.

0 upvotes

How long must one wait after firing one shot before the camera is ready for another? How many seconds required to change modes or to switch to review mode and back? How long is it after one presses the video button before the camera actually starts to shoot video?

The HX series are sluggish by those measures. Polite euphemisms would be "speed impaired" or "Kodak Moment + 6 seconds."

The blackout period following use of burst or HDR mode is somewhat understandable, but also a reason to avoid them if one needs to cover any action subjects in close succession.

Will the $649 RX offer an improvement or respond on par with other models in that price range?

Sometimes the most important "gimmick" is a camera that functions quickly.

0 upvotes

Imaging resource already reviewed its performance. In terms of AF and cycle times I dare say it beats the Canon t3i. Canon t3i has a very shallow buffer for RAW actually that can only shoot up to 5-6 frames. At that point it takes 11 seconds to clear. This Sony shoots 16 RAW frames with 2 seconds to clear. It's shutter lag is on par if not better (prefocused time especially). Also remember Canon kit zooms are slow AF motors as well. Sony fails at C-AF but so does any other CDAF based camera.

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/T3I/T3IA6.HTM

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/sony-rx100/sony-rx100A6.HTM

FPS performance is significantly slower and is a reason for difference in buffer and continuous raw shot times, however but this is a P&S class camera, not a sports action DSLR + telephoto and it seems to deliver very respectable performance IMO.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 5 minutes after posting

0 upvotes

Sony means speed,
Canon means crawling.

0 upvotes

"avoid them if you need to cover any action subjects". This is a gross exaggeration. The attached were taken with an HX-100V. The bird plunges several hundred feet without warning inside one second. Shot at 810mm. Not easy with any camera, but having used the HX-100V a lot for this kind of shooting I'd say it is a very good value with very good handling.
http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/4179087231/albums/dive-of-northern-gannet

0 upvotes

No underwater mode(s) , no original underwater housing !!!

WHY SONY WHY !

0 upvotes

Because it's not a waterproof camera? Very few cameras actually are as there is not a huge demand for them.

0 upvotes

Yes, I would like to have a UW housing for it. It would be good alternative for Olympus XZ-1, with quite good macro capability (5cm) vs Olympus 1cm. I would buy it instead of Olympus if it would have the UW housing.

1 upvote

I am on your side supeyugin1 ! Housings and some more accesorry for this genre must not be a "luxury" They put those thing for loqer priced items (in W and T series) but most of those series buyers keeo the cam in their pocket and have it for 6-8 years ! But this, would be a perfect tool of divers and summer diving companies... Sad for Sony, hope they will fix it soon...

And as a XZ-1 user: XZ-1 has still got a lot of shots ;)

0 upvotes

That CZ lens makes this camera really hot!

0 upvotes

that fake lens? well, think a fake Carl Zeiss should at least perform better than genuine ones.

0 upvotes

Imaging ressource reportrs 3,8% distortion on the wide end (ok, corrected via software) and imho very, very unsharp corners at the wide end wide open.

Macro performance is also nothing to rave about.

They still call it a "good performance", so expectations on a good lens are different. Soft corners will not bother many people, but it bothers me who wants to take landscape shots with a camera like that.

0 upvotes

I was going to calculate the equivalent apertures of a few recent wide aperture compacts and compare them--cool that dpreview has already calculated the whole lot for me!

"*Effective aperture, in 135 film terms - this gives an idea of the depth of field control offered by the lenses when the sensor size is taken into account."

Pity they didn't go on to point out that given equivalent sensor technologies, having a larger (smaller number) effective aperture also gives you better low light performance no matter what the size of the sensor or the actual f-number on the lens is. So e.g. we can expect the RX100 to do better in low light than the G1X, Nikon 1 with f/3.5-5.6 lens or even m4/3rds and even 1.5 crop with kit f/3.5 lenses.

0 upvotes

e.g. given a scene that meters ISO1000 f/1.8 1/60s on the RX100,
we'd get (holding shutter speed constant at 1/60s, aperture at the max for each respective format's lens)
ISO2420 f/2.8 1/60s on the G1X with 2.25x larger sensor
ISO3780 f/3.5 1/60s on a Nikon 1 with same sized sensor
ISO3780 f/3.5 1/60s on a m4/3rds with 1.94x larger sensor
ISO3780 f/3.5 1/60s on a 1.5x crop Nikon with 3.05x larger sensor

In each case the sensor size advantage of the larger format is more than offset by the slower lens and the higher ISO that you have to crank to. It takes an f/2.4 lens on 4/3rds to equal the RX100 at the wide end, f/3.2 on 1.5x crop.

0 upvotes

@Joe0Bloggs,

10.4-37.1/1.8-4.9 is about 28-100/4.8-12.9 on 35mm format. this is calculated from the angle of view (diagonal) given in the spec (resulting a slightly larger sensor than Nikon CX).

because the aspect ratios are different, the focal-length and f-number factors are slightly different (by 2%), 2.69x and 2.64x respectively here.

0 upvotes

p.s.,

it's not just depth of field, it's everything controlled by aperture size, from image quality (as result of exposure) to DoF to diffraction to the design of the lens.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting

0 upvotes

@Joe0Bloggs : Not really sure you are right. I think that photographing a given scence at ISO1000 f/1.8 1/60s will result in equivalently exposed images irrespective of sensor size. Some reasoning can be found here :
http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence/light.htm

However f1.8 will mean a different DOF with smaller sensors having a higher DOF at identical aperture. There are articles on the web that state that even that is not true but that a another story ...

0 upvotes

on the other hand the RX100 falls behind cameras like the XZ-1 or X-10 on the longer end of the zoom range.

0 upvotes

Hm, look at the sample photo 12 (wine cellar). ISO 1600. Color noise is clearly visible on the wall even at screen resolution, yet noise reduction is also pretty strong (see the labels on the barrels). I hoped it could be better. :(
Nice, useful camera, I just would not shoot above 1/4th of the maximum resolution (5 mpix) with it. Which is plenty in almost all real-world usage anyway.

0 upvotes

How spoiled are we? This is a P&S sized camera shooting ISO 1600 at 20 mps and its a SOOC jpeg shot! DIGIC V for example is an extremely well polished jpeg engine and I don't think Sony's jpeg engine is quite there yet...but we already know its RAW performance is again class leading for its size (2 seconds to clear buffer even with 20mps RAW...thats amazing) and this opens up a lot of RAW potential here. Downsize the 20mp to 12 mps and work in RAW and that wine cellar shot shows *amazing* potential....

Comment edited 46 seconds after posting

1 upvote

Actually looks quite clean zoomed in to 100%... except for some low frequency chroma noise which didn't get cleaned up. The predominance of low frequency noise explains why you can see the noise at screen resolution. Hopefully this can be cleaned up in RAW or a firmware update. As the chroma noise pattern looks quite regular it may be a calibration problem in the readout.

0 upvotes

Shooting raw doesn't give less noise or more detail. when noise strike, detail are gones, and no magic trick can revive those detail, you can simply wash out them (look at the read leave in th IR sample, or the brush, the tick on the right scale). 20mpx is a cool marketing value, but IRL, who print A3 at 300dpi ;)
I guess a 8mpx 1inch sensor, with no noise and low frequency detail at 1600iso is possible nowday (like hair, grass, foliage, furr), but who buy a 8mpx camera in 2012 in this time of megapixel race ?

0 upvotes

Is it me (and my computer at work) ...or do all these photos look extremely "flat"

0 upvotes

They do seem just a bit too muted. But that's nothing you can't adjust real easy in post with basic software. Better muted than oversaturated.

0 upvotes

Welcome to dealing with unedited photos. You should not expect post-processing quality pictures to come right out of the camera itself, especially not a camera such as this.

1 upvote

Most of the outdoor samples were taken on an unavoidably hazy weekend in San Diego and in less than inspiring spring weather in Seattle. So some of the landscapes do indeed look rather flat - sorry, only so much we could do in the time available :)

4 upvotes

IR which already reviewed the camera believes the Sony to produce yellow hues that are pushed too far towards green. I believe this to be the #1 factor in producing subjectively flatter colors. I'd be interested to knowing if DPR can confirm or reproduce this finding! This is the #1 flaw I see with this camera in terms of IQ for its size, everything else looks great.

0 upvotes

Nokia’s N8 and PureView 808 also use Carl Zeiss lenses. Comparing with Sony’s Zeiss lenses cameras, Nokia seems has more elegant color interpretation and better dynamic range. It looks like Nokia has done more careful post processing than Sony does.

See this PureView sample,
http://www.flickr.com/photos/54786564@N04/7118154023/

From this image sample, I am impressed that at the relative dark area of the photo, the color still looks right and comfortable. This can not be found on the Sony camera images.

Now since Sony has the welcomed hardware improvement, it is the time to improve its post-processing algorithm to match the Nokia’s image quality.

Comment edited 5 minutes after posting

0 upvotes

or no? He compares a cell phone with a camera absurd
Bullshi*

1 upvote

A cell phone with 1/1.2" sensor, now the fact that it's a phone doesn't mean that the sensor have to perform worse than it would on a camera so comparing them isn't a bullsh** as you are claiming

0 upvotes

First mistake you're making is comparing a cellphone to a high-end point-and-shoot. Due to lack of hardware, cellphone cameras are almost always extremely software driven to make up for hardware flaws and inabilities.

Second mistake you are making is assuming that the camera should post-process for you. There are more photo editing programs and post-processors than I could possibly even count. There is a reason why they exist - they are more powerful and flexible than what any camera could possibly offer. So how about Sony offers you good image quality and good hardware rather than try and put in half-arsed post-processing effects?( Something you can just do at your much more powerful home computer)?

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 2 minutes after posting

1 upvote

In other words, it is time to improve Sony’s jpg engine. At least at the color and dynamic range area, it is even behind the Nokia cellphones…

0 upvotes

AdrianVB
In which area Nokia purview has less hardware (that could impact the IQ) than Sony?

0 upvotes

Lack of high-quality glass for one.

0 upvotes

it has fixed (one +) lenses and look at some samples at 100%, there isn't an evident objective lack as you are claiming,
PS I saw no software that created more fin detail than I saw in the raws of the same camera so if you have bad hardwear no software can make it look as good as Pureview samples are

0 upvotes

I'm not sure if it's my monitor, but those sample images look a bit blend. It could be due to constant nasty fog in Seattle :))

0 upvotes

Nice camera.
It also tells us the resolution of Nikon 1 J1 and V1 successors ...
;)

1 upvote

Very impressive packaging skill. A few touchups and this will be by far the best non-interchangeable lens camera normal people can use. I also wish some of the advanced technology such as WhiteMagic LCD and full res photo capture in movie mode made it to NEX.

2 upvotes

None GPS is a turnoff for me.

3 upvotes

1 upvote

There are other options - synch with phone gps, eye-fi cards and such for GPS - there are few options for a bad image...

The lens has a noticeably larger aperture that other compacts - and even SLR's base lenses. It should be a great travel camera. I would not mind a bit more telephoto power - 135 or so, but close enough.

I hope it is snappier than the other Sony's as they are dogs navigating and switching modes although their features and packaging are pretty good.

1 upvote

Lightroom 4 made it extremely easy to geotag your pictures with an external GPS device (which usually work a lot better anyway). Just load the .gpx track into Lightroom and autotag your photos.
No reason to drain your camera battery for GPS data.

1 upvote

When Nikon launched their 1 system I commented that its sensor size should be the new standard for compact cameras, and that not only Nikon but all the other makers should leave smaller sensors (2/3, 1/1.7 and 1/2.3") for phones or extremely compact models (like those ultrathin-built-in-zooms; at the likes of TX20/TX200V, for instance).

This sensor size showed me to be the minimum sizing perfect to whom expect the best compromise between quality and compactness, but still providing some sort of playable DOF and natural looking filming (close to 16 mm). Congrats Sony!

I missed more shots using 1.8 in this preview. Regarding the resolution, I myself will stop commenting on the nonsense of putting so many pixels unnecessarily (for this category) because they simply don't seem to listen to me (well, to US) at all. Great dinamic range.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting

1 upvote

Pocketable indeed! The larger sensor is a good idea, but I think 12MP would be more than sufficient whereas a 5x zoom in the 24-120 or 25-125 range would have really set it apart from the other enthusiast compacts in the crowd...

4 upvotes

Question: Does it do focus peaking during movies using manual focus like on NEX and the new SLTs? To me, this would be great for vacation movies with the bright lens and wider (relative to APS-C) DOF -- and the non-clicking focus wheel.

0 upvotes

Total comments: 540