Sony DSC RX100 Hands-on Preview: Digital Photography Review


Sony Cyber-shot RX100 preview samples gallery - Posted 6th June 2012

Did anyone buy a book for this instead of just reading the online manual? If so, which book did you buy? Also, did anyone buy an extra 3rd party battery or a Sony OEM one? Thanks.

0 upvotes

I purchased this camera recently and have been using it extensively over the past few weeks. I have noticed a few things which i feel worth sharing to any fellow enthusiasts: firstly, this is not a fast camera in any sense of the word - i have found myself having to bump up the iso to 800/1600 once too often in order to get a correct exposure at a moderate shutter speed of around 1/200 - 250 with apertures of 3.2 and wider....in lowish light of course but we are talking a dull day in the shadow of a building here, not a candle lit bar room. Also, when i needed exposure compensation i found i could only use it on aperture priority which was useless to me as the given shutter speed was too low for hand held shots; there seemed to be no exposure comp' in M mode.I would not say it is a particularly bad camera but if you are paying this amount for it then i feel it should be better. I use to own a Lx3 and find myself now wishing i had purchased the Lx7 which has a far superior lens.

0 upvotes

I have had this camera for about 6 months now and there is a lot good about it. Video is really pretty good for a camera this size. HD color is good. AVCHD 2 codec is not too difficult to edit in, better than v1.0. Controls are fairly easy to learn.

Still quality I liked a lot. 1" sensor is great quality for a camera this size. In good light once I got use to it, it took fantastic pictures. Size is very large, so have to do a lot of resizing if you are going to take still into editing program like I do.

Also tried expensive Sony SD card, whatever they call it and it was not worth the money. SanDisk Extreme produced same results.

One thing I did not realize when I bought this was that the battery can only be charged when it is in the camera. There is NO EXTERNAL BATTERY CHARGER. What is up with this. You must have two batteries at a minimum. This is just so typical Sony, i.e. good products, but lousy support.

0 upvotes

Being able to charge the battery in-camera is an advantage for me, because I consider the RX100 to be a compact travel camera. The charger for my last compact camera was the same size as the camera itself. Frankly, I'd rather save the space and weight and just carry the one unit (camera body) and charging cable.

0 upvotes

I want to transfer pictures from the sd card of my rx100 strait to my iPad withe the connector kit but the iPad didn't recognize the mass storage device.
What should I do ?

0 upvotes

Hi there.
I got this camera a few months ago and am a new user. I'd like to use the 3fps and 10fps burst shot mode but have no idea how to get there! Please can you help me with this?
Thanks(:

0 upvotes

At two months old, my new XR100 flash doesn't pop up.
Sent to the sevice people where I bought from , and after few weeks, they tell me that I have droped the camera and is not under Warantie ($115 cost)
I never drop it, I drove a 4wheel drive trought the bush (in Australia) is that enought to trip the flash? the camera otherwise works well and I love it.
Any suggestions?
Pardini.

0 upvotes

I'm looking to replace my beloved Canon G9 (great little camera!) and I'm tossing up between the G1X, G15, S110 and the RX100.

I accept that I'm not comparing like with like. The G15 would obviously be the natural replacement. Since I own both a 1Ds Mklll and a Hasselblad, large files are not a problem if I need them. Portability and image quality are my main concern. Everything I shoot is low ISO/RAW.

Reading the reviews of the RX100, I note that the Sony RX100 is USB charging. Does this mean that I CANNOT buy a second battery and have it charging while I'm shooting with the other one? Also, can the battery be charged by an AC charger? Or must it be charged in-camera? If so, it would be a deal breaker for me.

Thanks.

D.

0 upvotes

You can buy a second battery and an external charger both available from Amz.

0 upvotes

The Sony RX100 on movie mod is a poor relation to the earlier DSC HX9V which had a function called (ACT ) for extra good steady shots in movie mod. It worked so well nearly all movement from the camera operator ( when walking ) was hidden- or eliminated, which when compared to the newer and much more expense RX100 which does not have this feature and is terrible in comparison. Please Sony if it is possible correct this --rather than some of the silly features included in the RX100

0 upvotes

Can someone clarify this for me please. This camera does not seem to have RAW+JPEG as mentioned in the preview (Sony's own website only mentions RAW and JPEG but not RAW+JPEG). This has some serious problem: The creative funtions and scene modes etc can only be shot in JPEG and not in RAW. Hence if you're using RAW setting, you have to go through options to select JPEG to be able to use these other modes. And if you want to use the creative/Scene options then RAW has to be turned off. In Sony's SLTs RAW+JPEG option automatically saves the pictures in JPEG only when these scene modes are used. Anyone throwing light on this please? Thanks.

0 upvotes

RX100 has a RAW+JPEG setting, but to shoot in these modes, you have to switch to JPEG only mode.

0 upvotes

Thanks JKinsey. Isn't it cumbersome to every time switch to JPEG only mode (if you normally shoot in RAW) for these shots and then switch back to RAW again when done? If you have this camera can you tell how easy it is in the menu system to quicky switch between RAW and JPEG while taking shots. Thanks.

0 upvotes

FULL REVIEW of the Sony RX100 now posted...

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sony-cybershot-dsc-rx100/

0 upvotes

Quick question
All the specs say 1" and then state 13mm ish sensor
1" = about 25mm making this sensor about the same (a little bigger) than my 60d.

All the reviews seem to indicate that this has a smaller sensor than a G1X or aps-c dslr.

Am I missing something about the measurements of this sensor?

0 upvotes

I believe the 1" figure is a diagonal measurement. Of course it's smaller than APS-C--by a lot. Point is, it's a far larger sensor than any other "true" compact. Roughly halfway between 4/3 and the sensors in other "enthusiast" compacts like the Canon S series, Oly XZ-1, and Panny LX series.

0 upvotes

1" is a 'standard' size and refers to the tube diameter, not the actual sensor. Sensors of this size are usually about 13x9.5mm (16mm ish diagonal).

Comment edited 51 seconds after posting

0 upvotes

Hglen can you give ore detail? and are all sensor measurements "exaggerated" in the same way ie "full frame" etc

Comment edited 1 minute after posting

0 upvotes

Test this camera if it will MACRO focus (5cm) on the whole zoom range, not only at the widest angle.

What's the ANSWER?

I will leave that to you: DPR to answer... or any user who jumped and bought this.

.

1 upvote

Problems with Large Sensor Compact camera is that it costs almost same or even more then an entry level DSLR.........

0 upvotes

The most important thing is the camera effect. And this is a picture. My wife complains about Sony RX100 picture quality, and this is not her first camera. So I started testing and comparing with: Canon G11, G12, Canon A720 IS, the old Canon S45, Sony NEX-5 and FUJIFILM X10. I had a chance to have them in my possession for a longer time. Later I showed all pictures to some people, not indicating a camera. Excluding night pictures, always the picture from RX100 was chosen as a worst. Pictures were good after “the Photoshop treatment”, but Photoshop cannot add missing details.
My conclusion: if you need average pocket camera, with a lot of functions, easy to use, and you don’t care about the price – buy it. If you want to spend some extra bug for better than average quality, stay away from it. There are better choices. Do not listen to Sony agents – a lot of them are here.

0 upvotes

OMG You must be hired by Canon or another VERY envious/jealous camera maker to write these texts here. I do not know what camera you were testing but certainly not the RX100!

2 upvotes

Did you show these picture samples after the guide dogs left the room or did you have to bribe them with treats?

2 upvotes

Adam, I'm not a brand fanboy--I love this camera. WAY better my Canon S90. Check out your exif info: On auto or iauto Sony went for bokeh--wide open aperature, slow shutter speed on many shots. This isn't good for moving subects (kids etc). If you know how to use aperature or shutter priority use them and see what you think.

If you like a camera mode, choose sports or the kids mode to eliminate movement blur. If you hadn't mentioned the Nex-5, I'd bet it is bigger sensor panic ; the depth of a bigger sensor is way more shallow--so less in focus. This still may be it if you have a slow (max 3.5 or greater) kit lens on your NEX (which should blow it away.

PS cameras you mentioned have strong sharpening v.the RX and PS colors which are turned up. You can change teh RX's in camera settings to match this and eliminate some PP.

Anyway, for others this camera is so good that it replaces my DSLT for most everything outside of my kids sports which I use a $1800 lens to capture the action.

1 upvote

Yeah, this is some serious nonsense. I've owned a Canon S95, Lumix LX3, Olympus XZ-1, and now the Sony RX100. The RX100 has capabilities that markedly exceed all the other cameras, assuming you have any idea at all what you're doing. I've done a bit of my own "testing," comparing RX100 shots to nearly identical shots taken with a Canon 5D and Fuji X100. Given the size of the RX100, it actually stands-up very well for images taken under typical shooting conditions. Such was never the case for any of the other, small-sensor compacts. And--sorry--but a statement like pictures "...were good after `the Photoshop treatment'..." leads me to suspect you may not be entirely clear on how to use your camera.

0 upvotes

The RX100 is very good for any pocket or a woman’s purse. It is good for night pictures. Also, it is well balanced device even for large hands if the flash is set off. All buttons are well designed so accidental use of them is not a problem. Generally RX100 is easy to use. And this camera has excellent marketing (but these guys are always liars). And this is why. Resolution of pictures (landscapes and close-ups with a lot of details) is worse than from six other cameras I tested. Same object with the same settings using tripod. RX100 has a problem with high contrast scenes with any setting. HDR function is disappointing – rather than deep colors, pictures are foggy. Blue color dominates on each picture with any setting. Battery and memory compartment is very clumsy and looks like a part from different camera. The HDMI micro jack cover looks even worse. The pop-up flash is a mistake. The picture quantity is no more than 200 from full loaded battery. Only specification is excelent.

0 upvotes

So glad the camera fits in your purse. I just feel bad about that chip on your shoulder that is preventing you from taking good pictures. Perhaps if you spent less time looking over your shoulder for the dreaded "marketing agents" and concentrated on applying the right settings to your camera, you will get pictures that won't look so "foggy".

2 upvotes

The RX100 is a pricy high quality gimmick. It is fun to use and the imagery is pritty impressive for such a small camera. In my opinion the camera does what it is supposed to do, it delivers good images from a pocket camera. If somebody requires higher quality images and does not bother to carry around a camera bag then the NEX5N is a very good choice. I have 3 of them (2 twinned as a 3D camera). Just wanted to have something which I can carry around all the time providing quality imagery and movie. In my opinion 12 megapixels would have been enough (providing even better low light quality). Hoping that Sony will include adjustable time lapse in a future firmware release. And maybe they can return the snowman too :-)

1 upvote

The camera is hardly a gimmick. It is a high quality/high performance camera in a small body. You still have to learn how to use it in order to take good pictures. But instead of lugging around a bunch of gear on holiday, you can take this little camera and get really good stills and movies without breaking your back.

0 upvotes

mistake

Comment edited 56 seconds after posting

0 upvotes

no hotshoe ? no way!
i dont need built in viewfinders, but not having the ability to mount an external ovf or a bullseye level, makes it a no go for me

lets hope ricoh uses the sensor for their grd5

but otherwise, that would mean 640x480 video i guess ...

0 upvotes

The level is built in software and it is very accurate, the flash is quite good for a P&S and the bounce feature is great...

0 upvotes

After using the camera for a few weeks, a few comments:
1. I'm getting great images with remarkable contrast and resolution albeit large files. I wonder how long I will have to wait for a RAW translator in PS?
2. This thing has the ergonomics of a brick...a small brick. The top plate is smooth and gives very little feedback to the user trying to sort out the shutter from the on-off switch. Without Richard Franiec's custom grip aftermarket, the camera is very tough to hold (thanks Richard).
3. Macro mode is barely usable: wide zoom only and fixed f-stop
4. Very fast write times for such a large file. Great work here.
5. There is only 1 or 2 mm of clearance between the outer lens control ring and the base of the body. A tripod with a cushioned top will cause the ring to bind and that ain't good for the ring. A grievous oversight by Sony. Gotta use a very small tripod head.....so there is a workaround.
6. Menus are tough and circuitous; go pretty deep to erase the card!

1 upvote

Asking again for the forum, when will the review be complete.
Once it is would like to ask the reviewer why it has taken him this long to complete ?

1. Did he like the camera so much that he did not want to give it back ?
2. Was there something wrong with the camera and hence the delay ?

0 upvotes

man, just go to a freaking store or another site, this site is for rumors and ios apps only

0 upvotes

Touché ;-) Let's have that final review now, please!

0 upvotes

How soon until DPR posts the RAW image quality comparisons (the interactive tool)? Can't wait!

0 upvotes

I bought it a few weeks ago.
1.) Pictures are worse than from my old Canon G11.
2.) Poor resolution due to pixel density.
3.) No manual, and you have to print over 200 pages from Internet, one by one, as no pdf file. This is a shame! Not even arm strap included. Pretty soon a battery will be optional. From Sony.
4.) HDR function does not work properly.
5.) Poor battery. Quantity of pictures is not as Sony promised.
6.) S=$100, O=$100, N=$100, Y=$100. Total = $400. If they do not discount that, do not buy it.
7.) NOT RECOMMENDED. To have better pictures buy any Canon. ANY!

0 upvotes

You have just posted something that lacks any credibility. It is quite obvious that you do not know how to use this camera since you feel the need to print out 200 pages of the manual. The rest of your bullet points are subjective rants with no supporting evidence. The only thing your bullet points support and show evidence for is the fact that you have no clue how to work the camera, and/or you are just a Canon fanboi. You probably don't even know how to take pictures correctly because you are the only person who has posted that the quality of pictures is not good. All the reviews and picture samples that are on the internet from reliable sites show otherwise. So go back to your G11 and leave the RX100 to people who actually know how to take pictures. BTW does the G11 have an arm strap or do you pop it in your purse?

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting

5 upvotes

What reviews? When will there be an actual review for the RX100 -- so we can compare images head-to-head with other cameras? As it stands now, this fellow's negative impression is every bit as valiid as positive ones from other people.

0 upvotes

What reviews? Try Googling RX100 reviews. They are all over the net. Or is that too much of an effort for you? Popular Photography also just put out a recent full review. Adeaples did not provide a valid "impression". It's just some whinging post by a Canon fanboi or Sony hater. These forums have become a source of erroneous and ridiculous comments by haters instead of a source of information for people looking to make an educated purchase or actually learn something.

Comment edited 8 minutes after posting

0 upvotes

Sell your RX100 for a G12 and then you will be the happiest person in the world!
Also, you have extra money for buying many arm straps from selling your overpriced RX100 for a G12!

Comment edited 5 minutes after posting

0 upvotes

1) you take the pictures, dont blame a camera for bad pics hehe
2) does that make sens to you ? to me neither
3) youre kidding right ? just be glad that they dont waste paper on a manual that 99% of mankind doesnt need. sorry for you for beeing one of the 1% that doesnt understand symbols or can read the menu
4) what a professional statement
5) stop chimping you amateur :)
6) i buy what i want, and for sure no sony
7) a canon .. yeah ... for sure haha

0 upvotes

Hey 'bought it a few weeks ago' ... if , after a few weeks, you're so sure it's so bad, return it. It must be a bad one. Cause mine is amazing. Great pics. No problem with resolution. Easy to use. Ok manual not great, but online one is adequate. Haven't bothered with HDR function so wouldn't know, but i thought G11 - to which you apparently compared its pictures - didn't have an HDR function anyway. Far as i'm concerned , based on my few weeks with mine, RX100 is best compact camera I have ever used .. nothing else even close .. and i've used many.

0 upvotes

Its a shame they didn't make two versions
1) As is.
2) With the EVF from the Nex 7 making it slightly longer but no fatter or taller. They could possibly have given it a bigger battery also with the extra space. They could have charged more.

Am dithering between this and the panny lx7

2 upvotes

Why make two versions? The "mission" for this camera was to be a pocketable, feature rich camera with excellent IQ that DSLR owners can use when they don't want to lug around a big kit. Sony has succeeded magnificently in this. There is no reason for an EVF, the LCD is great as is. To put an EVF on this camera would defeat its purpose. Maybe Nikon's new entry will have one, but this camera does not need something like that. It does its job very very well.

1 upvote

When can we expect the final review to be posted I wonder?

0 upvotes

Good question. Almost all the other authoritative sites have posted a full review of this camera.

0 upvotes

nice but an optical viewfinder would add in using. Sony had it in some earlier models

0 upvotes

In a camera this small? I doubt it. Trust me, there is NO room for it and it is not needed.

0 upvotes

I think you forget what an optical viewfinder looks like in a camera this size. Don't you have a first generation elf lying around or know somebody who does? Guess they all made it to the trash can by now. It's like a pinhole and it's only loosely connected to the frame the sensor is seeing. It's off to the side, and it costs you rear real-estate for the LCD. No thanks, good riddance. I don't even like the optical viewfinders on entry level DSLR's anymore, too small.

Actually, if you want to see what it might of looked like on the RX100, you can check out the optical viewfinder on the G1-X. Useless.

0 upvotes

Shame it once again has crap AE bracketing that Sony thinks is unimportant or is trying to convince us that we need a top of the range/expensive camera to achieve which of coarse is pure non-sense (i have cheap compact that achive superior bracketing). How many amatuer and professional reviews does it take to convince Sony of this? Come on Sony WAKE UP!!!!

1 upvote

Yes, agree. I am looking for a compact camera like this one where I can configure AE Bracketing for optimum external HDR result - I would like to have 3 or 5 shots selectable and define the AE range based on my needs, not only 1/3 EV or 2/3 steps. This camera should allow that...

0 upvotes

The more I use my RX100, the more I love it. The IQ is just incredible especially shooting RAW. The AF is fast, I think it is faster than my D7000. The camera really gives you the opportunity to be creative not only by providing you flexible settings, but also by having some interesting filters. I really like the B/W shots, particularly the rich monotone setting. These shots actually look like they were taken with film. The movies are stunning with excellent sound, and you can apply the filters to them as well. The camera is very small and sometimes that is a hinderance considering I have big hands. This means I have to hold the camera "just so" before shooting. I am really looking forward to taking this camera on vacation.

4 upvotes

I agree. I expected great things from the sensor size and the f1.8 lens but the autofocus speed really surprised me. At least at the wide end, it autofucses from infinity to macro quicker than anything I've shot with including phase detection APS-C SLR's. I do 90+% of my shooting at wide so to me the RX-100 might as well have a 28mm f4.9 equivalent prime on it for all I care about telephoto. The multi-shoot-and-merge "HDR" auto feature is also finally simple enough to use where my wife will give it a try.

There are negatives I wouldn't have expected though. I was afraid the camera would be too big compared to your typical canon elf but man, it is just tiny! Not easy to maneuver. You end up holding it with your hand over the flash which just seems like something that will break with it's electric-only flash deployment. The USB connector cover (notice it's extra important that it doesn't have an external battery charger) is staggeringly flimsy.

0 upvotes

@mosc: I agree with you, the camera is really small and I have big hands. But eventually you get the hang of things. I keep the flash always on Off so it won't pop up when I am holding the camera with my left hand whilst adjusting the controls with my right. And yes the USB cover and even the battery door are both flimsy. I will never "pocket" this camera. Instead I keep it in a Lowepro pouch so I can keep the spare battery and cards together. RAW shots are still great-I am now experimenting with different JPEG size files and other features.

0 upvotes

I'm anxiously waiting to purchase the RX100 personally and if it should be that I'm only able to shoot macros at wide angle I'm willing to accept that for the IQ that I'm sure that I'll receive. Although this may not be an optimum solution by any means, I saw an RX100 recently with a Raynox CU lens and after trying them on one of my Panasonics on a friends recommendation I was quite stunned by the results that I was capable of achieving.

0 upvotes

The focus distance macro is 5 cm...and the depth of field is very shallow, at F1.8. I usually stop down to 2.8 to 3.2 and then crop and enlarge, the amount of data the sensor produces makes this very viable, but uses center focus...or DMF..which I prefer. I think a Raynox on his camera would be mindblowing!

0 upvotes

Bought the RX 100 as an adjunct to my D 700. I love the Sony. (And I still love the D700. This is no comparo. They are entirely different beasts). Still learning how to handle the Sony, as I have fat fingers and this thing is really small! Small=ever-ready and pocketable, so I will enjoy the convenience and just get used to it. But I have pretty well got it set up as I like anyway and there's a lot of scope to do that - the Fn button is assignable 6 or 7 ways and the rear control wheel gives you a pretty good spread of adjustments. I'd love to have 24 mm at the bottom end, but I'll keep TINY in preference. IQ great. Getting used to a new shutter button - there's no real 'give' before the shutter fires.A half-press is really just a finger contact and the AF is activated with a feather-touch of my fat index. Battery life OK but that's after just one cycle. Having no charger to fill the batt outside the camera is a pain, but the Sony guy assured me there was one coming Sept/Oct-ish.

1 upvote

I have to say as someone who has not been a huge Sony fan, from the specs and the reports, with this camera they've come up with something pretty special. I can't see there's anything to touch it in this bracket. It's pricey of course, but it starts to make sense when you consider you're looking at CSS/SLR quality images, not compact-camera quality.

It does have some cons as mentioned in http://www.squidoo.com/sony-rx100

0 upvotes

The RX100 IS something very special. I own it for two weeks now (next to SLT A55 & A77). Friends and collegues are also very impressed and they call it the high tech mini Leica.
If you use it as a compact and are aware of the fact that something soo small has some physical limitations you will be even more impressed by the results. The RX100 is blazing fast, has magnificent high iso quality and awesome low iso quality and sharpness. The use of the SLT menu system is also very handy and versatile offering a shipload of functions and customisation.
I love this gem!

I wonder WHEN the DP Review will see the light of day!

0 upvotes

I all. I stumbled over this great compact-cam a few days ago as I was checking out some options for my next cam. At first I wanted a outdoor-waterproof-cam for our maldives-holiday (01/2013), but I didn't like the IQ of two top-rated cams. So I changed plans and focussed on compact cams to combine them with an underwater-housing. well, and than after looking at the canon S95 + housing I found the RX100 - wow - what a cam. Seems to be my most-wanted cam, but :

Does anybody know, if there will be an underwaterhousing for this cam? Sony told me that there is no housing "at the moment". Or is there a third-party housing that fits the RX100??? Well: there is one, the Recsea housing, but I won't spend 1100 $ for a snorkeling trip! Something about 200 or 250$ is the max...

Thanks in advance for any help on that topic!

Comment edited 1 minute after posting

0 upvotes

Recsea ...is the only enclosure I know of currently made for the RX100,, this could change at anytime however...

0 upvotes

Yes, indeed. I got a reply from Ikelite and they told me that there could be a housing after 5 to 8 weeks. I think that it will be only a matter of time ....

And before I forget it: Ewa-Marine replied that the RX100 fits into the "3D-L" bag, but I'm not 100% sure, cause the measurements (depth) of the cam are a bit to long...

0 upvotes

Why they don't made the len start at 24mm? Love the 24mm Focal length

1 upvote

Physics

0 upvotes

Surprise! The RX100 can be charged in the car with the universal Phone charger cord (mini USB, Samsung, Nokia etc.)!! Very convenient. Btw the RX100 is a fantastic performer, love this pocket rocket next to the Sony A55 and A77!

1 upvote

Looking for a RAW converter on the Mac try RPP. It will intergrate with some versions of PP. It goes a nice job of RX100 .ARW files

http://www.raw-photo-processor.com/RPP/Overview.html

0 upvotes

Exterior charger will ship around 10/15/2012 according to Sony Canada...Expensive!

http://store.sony.ca/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?catalogId=100803&storeId=20153&langId=200&productId=8198552921666458996#features

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting

0 upvotes

You're not kidding it's expensive! I guess they figure if you have the money to buy the camera, you will overpay for the accessories. They have a leather carry case with shoulder strap for USD90.00. I put mine in a $17 Lowepro.

1 upvote

Probably see a charger with battery bundle at Christmas for much less. The case is nice, but it should be real leather for that price...not plastic synthetic leather...Yuk.

0 upvotes

...or, go on eBay and score a third-party model, right now, for, like, ten bucks... Just sayin'...

0 upvotes

Exactly...why would anyone buy an $80 charger

0 upvotes

I wonder if a regular usb charger would work. I mean, HP's old Touchpad chargers are like $5 and they are 2.1 Amp. So, it might even be faster.
I have also seen a bunch of external usb power packs on Amazon that can charge this too (similar to charging my phone), I would assume thru USB. If that's the case, I wonder if I can carry one of those with a longer USB cable to charge and shoot at the same time?

0 upvotes

Having just taken delivery of my RX100, I'll try to add my two-cents to the pile, here. Background for me is that I've never owned a Sony before, and it replaces my Oly XZ-1. What mystifies me about so many of the comments here are the things people point-out as "detractions" from the camera: e.g., "slow" aperture at the longer focal lengths, the "poor" macro focusing distances, even lack of a VF. It's like complaining that a Toyota Prius can't accelerate from 0 to 60 as fast as a Porsche. There's just no point to the comparison. You don't buy a camera like an RX100 if photographic versatility is your priority. You buy it because you have a need for a very small camera with the best image quality possible, given "normal" shooting conditions. You always have to give something up to get something else, and in this case you're giving-up on broad versatility in order to have a tiny camera with great IQ. Sony has done a great job, here, and basically created an entirely new camera class.

8 upvotes

Amen, to that comment.

0 upvotes

Totalt agree.
You "never" see comments like;
Yeah ... The Nikon D800 sure is pretty good. But ... Since I cannot put it in my jeanspocket I don't care much for it all. Now if they would make a camera in that size I would probably buy one."

1 upvote

@Michael Doleman... in a word... 'agreed'. If someone wants highend DSLR / SLT type of performance then that is what he/she should be buying. If a minivan capability is desired, don't buy a compact car.

I intend to buy this camera but am holding off for two reasons:
1. Waiting for price drop. (currently ¥55,000-ish (Tokyo))
2. New (influential) announcements between now and Photokina.

I also own a NEX7 which is not as compact, but serves me well. The purpose of obtaining an RX-100 will be for low light shooting situations with the f1.8, the manual controls on video, and pocketability of quality photos beyond the typical 'mom-and-pop' type of P&S cameras. But now I hear a new 11-18mm and 16-50mm pancake zoom lenses are soon to be announced for NEX, so, now I am thinking, waiting.... End of summer perhaps or into Septmeber I will make my decision.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 3 minutes after posting

0 upvotes

Not sure I agree they've created a new class, but it does seem they may have hit a home run in the high-end compact class.

0 upvotes

One problem with many of these small cameras seems to be battery life. How are people finding the RX100? I only got 105 shots from the first battery charge, but then I was enjoying the excellent detail the camera provides by previewing a lot. Hope the capacity will improve in future charges?

0 upvotes

I would agree that this issue is probably the most glaring shortcoming of the ultra-compacts. I honestly don't know if it's a technological limitation thing, or simply the manufacturers saving cost by using lesser materials.

0 upvotes

My Battery life is great. Make sure you fully charge the battery when you get the camera. I did and have gotten over 300 shots with the charge.

1 upvote

What is with the manual problems...the printed one in the box is a Start-up Guide.

The complete and extensively searchable manual is on line and can be found here...

http://esupport.sony.com/docs/dvimag/DSCRX100_guide/en/index.html

0 upvotes

decent review - some valid points raised by people. However, the forum seems to have developed into more brand bashing..and it seems funny that even though Sony has pulled off a gem, many are unhappy. For a pocket size, an increased sensor and a decent all round performance, the camera is cool. close calls - S100 - yes cheap, but small sensor.. Fuji X10 - sexy but smaller sensor and yet big. Try fitting it into ur jeans :) this RX 100 fits the bill. Cant have a mazda compete with a ferrari. So lets not expect features of 3K-5K cameras in this 700$ camera. i wish it was 450-500 bux. But Sony aint a charity. there is no close competitor for these specs in that pocket size (no dont think interchangeable - bcoz that big fat lens is not pocket size) so they can charge for it. All cameras can be reviewed with a 'big if' in them, but lets give credit where it is due - camera is hot. getting one tomm.. so dont wanna think otherwise.

2 upvotes

I support this sensible post. There seems to be a lot of vitriol flying about in these forums recently and too much pointless brand bashing or alternatively partisan brand supporters spouting off which is just as pointless. Please get a life. Whatever happened to 'IMHO'? After all these are just opinions and without a camera genuinely in hand, any views about it based on stats are speculative and limited at best. Let's stick to helping each other with genuine experiences or helpful information and observations and leave the BS where it belongs.

0 upvotes

Minimum focusing distance goes from 2" at 28mm to a whopping 8" at 35mm, an equally whopping 15.5" at 50mm, then 18" at 70mm and 19.25" at 100mm. IMHO, this makes the camera fairly useless for most macro work. It's hard to believe that Sony would even release a camera with such poor close-focusing distances. I also feel that DP Review failed to mention this as a major problem in their review. I certainly would have immediately dropped the camera from consideration.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 8 minutes after posting

0 upvotes

John, thanks for this useful information. You had a nasty surprise when you discovered something that is either not described online, or is very hard to find.
I have some gripes too about the info regarding this camera -- namely the statement that it uses a 1 inch sensor. It is NOT 1 inch, but only slightly more than 1/2 inch wide. Plus, the max aperture of 1.8 is only for the widest zoom. At a normal zoom, the lens is almost 2 stops slower -- around F3.2 or F3.5.
These gripes are about the hype, not about the camera.

0 upvotes

for one this isn't a total review
secondly what may be a major problem for you is meaningless to others
buyer beware

0 upvotes

I could honestly care less what a camera this size has for macro capability. I have used telephoto macro on compacts before for some flower pictures but for me this camera will almost exclusively be used to take pictures of people, animals, and maybe some landscape-tourist type stuff. I understand the artsy shot of a closer look at something than is possible with the human eye but I rarely shoot for me. My "target customer" is a great-grandma who wants to seep pictures of her great grandson at the carnival, not a tulip that I walked by.

0 upvotes

Just got a new RX100 yesterday. It's nice but has what may be a deal-killer flaw. When you try to close-focus at anything but the widest angle the lens suddenly becomes very un-macro, forcing you to back way up. I don't know about you, but I consider it very important to be able to close-focus while being somewhat telephoto-ed out. For one thing, if you can only focus close at the widest angle setting you are right on top of whatever you're shooting and your shadow is on top of it. My Canon S95 has no problem doing macro with the telephoto, so I guess I'm spoiled. Honestly, the user-friendliness of the Canon trumps whatever advantages the Sony may have in Megapixels or aperture. ATTENTION, DP REVIEW: please tell us what the minimum focusing distances are at ALL ZOOM LEVELS. What good is it to have this super-detailed review if you're going to leave out something so essential?

2 upvotes

I took quite a few macro shots and never had a problem with shadows or lighting. The closest focusing distance is just under 2 inches. Since you are coming from Canon, there are going to be differences in handling and functionality. I think the menu system is very good and pretty easy. The macro shots are easy to take as well. There are tradeoffs between any brands. If you invest the time, you will acclimate to the Sony. It takes higher quality shots than the S95.

0 upvotes

TJGKG, as long as you don't care about focusing close at anything other than 28mm you should be OK. I just expect closer focusing from a $650 camera. Most of these little point and shoots have excellent close-focusing abilities, including many of the sub-100 dollar ones. I'm not sure what Sony was thinking here.

1 upvote

John, I found the macros I took at 28mm to be fine. The other focusing distances you mention in another post appear to be OK if one is in a museum and you can't get to 2". For $650 I think a lot of people are expecting DSLR capabilities, but that is not going to happen with this form factor. There are tradeoffs-like with the G1X, many of them due to laws of physics. To me as long as I can take high quality pictures and not break my back lugging a DSLR and gear around on vacation, I am happy.

0 upvotes

@johnsaxon, the increased minimum focus distance is a direct result of having a larger sensor. Lens design is all about compromises.

0 upvotes

But a macro when wide-open is pretty nice: as seen at http://www.f64.ro/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/DSC00644-665x443.jpg

0 upvotes

Had a chance to take some pictures with my new RX100. Got the camera so I can carry a good camera with lots of features that produces quality shots whilst traveling instead of lugging my D7000 and all its gear. So far, the results appear very encouraging. The camera is small and light, but loaded with many features that allow the user a great deal of creativity and control, or just set it and shoot. It produces nice JPEGs, but outstanding RAW files. "Intelligent Auto" shots are not as good as in P mode. Macro shots are beautiful and extremely detailed. The AF is quick which is a relief for me. I must say that I have been able to get the hang of the function ring very quickly and it really aids in using this camera. The movies are sharp, no blur or stutter and focus is instant. Plus you can use many of the special effects in the movies. The sound is really amazing considering how small the camera is. Flash is a bit weak. This is not a formal review but a few first week observations.

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting

1 upvote

One of the other sites drooling over this camera includes a promo that urges the gullible to "pre-order" now because the camera will be "back ordered" for a long time. In other words this is another Sony special that will have the reviewers jumping like lemmings even though they have never actually laid eyes on an RX100. Another site (Luminous Landscape) notes the RX100 does not even come with a manual -- either print or disk.
In other words, the RX100 is another piece of Sony hype, just like the NEX-7 -- and just as ignorable.
Some manufacturers respect consumers. Sony doesn't. It's a company that deserves to fail.

1 upvote

Really, no manual with a $700 camera? Are you really that stupid or just a sony hater? It only takes a sec to figure out that the camera comes with a full manual from all the RX100 unboxing vids out there.

Cool story brah!

5 upvotes

I received my camera Friday from B+H. It comes with a PRINTED manual, not a great one but it is there. If Luminous Landscape did their homework, they would also be able to find it in PDF on the Sony site. If you bothered to check yourself instead of posting your hateful, ignorant rubbish, even someone like yourself would have found this out. By the way, the camera lives up to the hype. The pictures are just fantastic. The camera is easy to use and intuitive. The only thing that will take time to learn is the "touch" of the function ring. Other than that, Sony has hit a grand slam.

2 upvotes

Yes, this is the experience I have had too, it has outstanding image quality for a pocket camera. I have had an RX100 for about a week and genuine experience of using other small compact and mirror less cameras and my initial observations about its portability and viability as a pocket DSLR alternative, (which I hope will help prospective buyers and which are submitted respectfully 'in my humble opinion!) are that it is noticeably smaller than the LX5, (I have put it next to one right now), in depth, height and width, but seems slightly bigger than the S95 I used to own, but very similar in shape. It outperforms both for image quality by a significant margin in both detail and print size, trounces them for dynamic range and will go in a shirt or trouser pocket, but you will know it is there as it is hefty!

0 upvotes

ADVANCED guide for RX100 for use online with working search function:
http://esupport.sony.com/docs/dvimag/DSCRX100_guide/en/contents/02/index.html

DOWNLOADABLE PDF of Advanced Guide (but search function doesn't work on this small PDF) - available here:
- http://www.datafilehost.com/download-a9ef796a.html

This is WAY beyond what the small booklet we got includes.

1 upvote

most new cameras are hyped and in short supply in the beginning, nikon being one of the worst.

manuals....almost nothing comes with a printed manual anymore. perhaps a quick setup guide at best
cameras, cell phones etc. all have manuals on disc or online

0 upvotes

No written manual. That alone is a another tick to buy it. I don't want a manual, and don't want to have to have trees cut down to have a manual. A ebook version would be wonderful, I can have many copies. On my Android Phone or my Computer or tablet (if I had one) So kudos to Sony for not having a written manual

0 upvotes

The iPad 3 does read the raw .ARW files of the RX100 with the camera kit adapter...

1 upvote

For those ruminating about lack of an out of camera battery charger, there will be one available in August/Sept from Sony for the 'X' battery and a number of other types

Product..BC-TRX

1 upvote

I found this link very informative...

'The RX100 bares a striking piece of text on the base. ‘Made in Japan’. This speaks volume about Sony’s approach to this camera.'

http://www.eoshd.com/content/8499/sony-rx100-review

0 upvotes

I've updated my chart of the numbers above, and added an estimate for the new Samsung EX2F f:1.4 camera:
http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/1310839954/photos/2099528/relative-apertures-logscalechart

0 upvotes

UPDATE:
Aperture relative to Sensor size, converted to 135mm

new chart can be found here:
http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/1310839954/photos/2102709/aperture135

0 upvotes

24 to 90, f/2.0 to 3.3... my Panasonic Lumix LX5 is what I will keep. The wide angle and bright aperture is worth it. Eye level finder keeps me from being spotlighted in dim areas.
Come on Sony or Fuji or Canon or Nikon - take a real shot at rangefinder style bodies with wide and fast capabilities.

1 upvote

it has a panorama feature that the others don't and makes up for the narrower wide angle
1.8 instead of 2.0 is little consequence. large sensor trumps lx7
panny could have vastly upgraded the LX but instead decided to nickel dime it once again

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting

0 upvotes

I just bought the RX100 from Luxembourg. The sony store was down to the last one which was in the shop display. I didn't want to wait and since it was on display behind glass only for 2 days and it looked perfect, I took it (at full price).
Later I noticed that the front rotating ring is not completely smooth but it sort of sticks a little bit (feels a bit harder to turn) at each half rotation and then gets smooth again. Since I still cannot find any other RX100 in the shops to compare it with can any one who has bought this camera tell me if this is the intended way the front ring should behave? Thank you!!

0 upvotes

Front ring on mine is completely smooth in operation throughout its full range - sounds like yours might be 'dodgy'!

0 upvotes

i'm the only one that over the 10mpx mark doesn´t care anymore for more resolution, but only on actual pixel-dot size? Larger the better?

This camera has a pp of 1.6 microns. Roughly the same of a standard 10mpx P&S.

i'm the only one that finds ridiculous to see how all the companies are dropping the mpx race and rolling back their maximun resolutiom even on prosumer/enthusiast market to the 10~12mpx mark while sony alone keeps running alone increasing their resolution and sacrificing IQ at iso 400+? Look at the noise of this camera at ISO 800, is awfull.

Not alone i find ridiculous this posture of Sony, i see no point at all in this camera at this price point. i can have a larger sensor (4/3), virtually the same body size with much better overall IQ, specially at low light for a LOWER PRICE POINT (either pen, or gf3).

What's the point of this camera again? Another Sony camera im passing. Try decreasing your resolution next time and i may consider buying from you guys again

1 upvote

"i can have a larger sensor (4/3), virtually the same body size with much better overall IQ" - Do You have IQ-test results? Share with us, please... About size - show me 4/3 body + 28-100 of the same size, please...

3 upvotes

Of course not, yes, we still need some studio comparisons for proper low-light evaluation. My point still stands:

At such small pixel dot, and relative large sensor area, the lens will have to have suberb optics performns to delivery sharpness enough, specially at bordes at such high apertures. Center sharpness is fine at f2.8, but over f5, specially at bordes, we can clearly see that things are getting dull. Those extra 20mpx are being wasted even at perfect light conditions.

0 upvotes

Just for curiosit and sake of comparison:

RX100 = around 1.88 microns by pixel (still need the official numbers)
Regular 12mpx 1/2.3 P&S = 1.5 (virtually the same)
S100 = 1.8
S95 = 2.03
J1/V1 = 3.86
12mpx m4/3 = 4.24
18.1mpx APS = 4.29
Canon g1x = 4.16
Canon G12 = 2.03
Sony nex7 = 3.9
Panasonic LX5 = 2.0

Of course, PSNR also takes in acoout current technology implementations, differenct manufactures of different generations have different performances. STILL MORE than 20%-30% increase in physical size of individual pixel can hardly be compensated by only enginering improvements in cameras from only 1 or 2 years apart. Specially this day and age where we have still new releases of cameras of different brands with 3yr old sony 12mpx sensors.

Even if this sony sensor is brand new, top notch enginerring, i can hardy believe it'll ouperform cameras with pp roughliy 30% larger. We still need more low-iso samples, tough. (no to mention the airy-disk issue at F4+ at such size

Comment edited 9 minutes after posting

1 upvote

I think you worry too much for nothing, should have done some research before you calculated the pixel pitch. Even if smaller pixels are noisier than larger ones the overall SNR of the sensor increases with decreased pixel size (not dramatically but still). For instance, for the same sensor size, one with 10MB one with 20MB, a 10MB rescaled output from the 20MB sensor will have less noise than than the 10MB output of the 10MB sensor.

If sony thinks their lens can give that resolution there is no other drawback in high megapixel count except image size, and that only for raw shooters. If you shoot Jpeg you can always choose the megapixel count of your choice.

1 upvote

Your calculation is somewhat wrong - the camera has pixel size of 2.4um (based on pixel density). Anyway, as others have commented it is important the final output size - print or screen. Imaging-resource.com shows a very capable sensor, much much better than 10mp P&S.

0 upvotes

I agree with your qualms...
but, 2 things:
I can't fit a micro 4/3 into my pocket,
and the 4/3 don't outperform this one on Bokeh, see chart here:
http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/1310839954/photos/2102709/aperture135

1 upvote

I believe this camera has 13.2/5462 mm per pixel or 2.4213 microns. Some of the other comparable cameras do not give the actual sensor size in mm of width or height in these reviews. I guess I could figure it out from the aspect ratio. The Canon G1x is close to 4.3.

There are other factors however. Not all sensors are the same. If you look at the performance of the Olympus OMD, the performance it achieves from a 4/3 sensor is much better than almost all APSC.

0 upvotes

why are there so many math errors here Sephirotic? It's rediculous.

If you want the size in square microns of each camera, you divide the area in mm^2 by the number of pixels. Easy peasy.

Sony's RX100 has a 116mm^2 area and 20mp. That gives a surface area of approximately 5.8 um^2 per pixel. That's not like a 12mp standard compact at all. They have a 28.5 mm^2 area which gives a size of 2.4 um^2. The individual pixels on the RX100 are more than double the size of a standard 12mp compact.

Also, this is a totally irrelevant conversation. The Nikon 808 does a good job of showing how well grouping pixels can give you the same results as larger, fewer pixels. If you want a 5mp version of the RX100, it's quite easy to average the neighboring pixels and get very similar results to what a 5mp sensor would give in terms of noise reduction.

0 upvotes

Anyone know how long it takes Apple to release their RAW image support drivers for new cameras, specifically this unit the Sony DSC-RX100? I have Mac OS X v10.6 (Snow Leopard)

The I only see 3 Sony DSC models on Apple's list...
● Sony DSC-F828
● Sony DSC-R1
● Sony DSC-V3
(Via their support site: http://support.apple.com/kb/HT3825 )

Thanks!

0 upvotes

you mentioned your hardware... care to specify the software package you are referring to?

There are plenty of software packages out there that regularly update their camera support.

0 upvotes

How long? In my experience, Apple is almost always last to the party with their RAW updates. I waited for months after acquiring my XZ-1, and suspect I'll have an even longer wait for my new RX100. It's one of the things that constantly makes me question my choice of Aperture for import & asset management.

0 upvotes

deleted

Comment edited 36 seconds after posting

0 upvotes