Previous page Next page

Sony DSC RX100 Hands-on Preview

June 2012 | By Richard Butler & Barnaby Britton


Preview based on a production DSC-RX100

Despite the availability of comparatively small, large-sensor mirrorless cameras (at increasingly low prices), the enthusiasts' compact boom has continued. Most of the big names in the industry now offer models to appeal to people comfortable with a a DSLR but wanting something easier to carry around. The RX100, Sony's first venture into this market since 2004 (with the DSC-V3) is something altogether more serious.

Key Features:

  • 1" Exmor CMOS sensor
  • 20.9 million effective pixels
  • 28-100mm (equiv), f/1.8-4.9 Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T* lens with 'Advanced Aspherical' element
  • Steady-Shot image stabilization
  • Contrast-detection AF with 25 points, including tracking and flexible spot options
  • ISO 125-6400 (ISO 80 and 100 expansion, up to 25,600 using multi-frame noise-reduction)
  • Face Recognition and Face Registration (up to 8 faces)
  • Rear control dial and customizable front 'Control Ring'
  • 10fps continuous shooting in 'Speed Priority' mode
  • 3in, 1228.8K-dot 'WhiteMagic' LCD screen
  • 13 Picture Effects with 27 variations
  • Memory Recall feature can store up to three groups of custom settings
  • 1080 60p video (AVCHD) with MP4 option
  • Built-in stereo microphone
  • 330-shot battery life (CIPA)

A small camera with a big sensor

A 1" sensor is twice as large as the sensor in the Fujifilm X10 and two-and-a-third times larger than most of the rest of the class. The only comparable camera to offer a sensor larger is the Canon G1 X, which offers impressive image quality but with the payoff being bulkier styling and the larger dimensions demanded by its near-DSLR-sized sensor. Sony says the 'R' in the camera's name is intended to evoke its original high-grade fixed-lens camera, the DSC-R1, though the only similarities between the two are the ability to capture Raw image data and the ambition of their designs.

In general you can divide the enthusiasts' compact sector by body style, with the Canon S100 exemplifying the conventional compact style and the G12 representing the more bulky, dial-encrusted choices with tunnel-style optical viewfinder. Sony has chosen to go down the compact route and opted for a lens that slows considerably as you zoom in, rather than the bright zooms offered by the Olympus XZ-1, Panasonic LX5 and Fujifilm X10. This is the same balance Canon has chosen with its popular S100, but of course that doesn't have a sensor anywhere near as large as the RX100's.

Despite the large sensor, the RX100 is still pocketable. It's not the smallest compact camera on the market, but it'll fit in breast pocket of a jacket, making it a genuine carry-around second camera for DSLR owners. In principle, at least, the RX100 shouldn't present the same image-quality compromise that switching across to one of the existing compact cameras would.

The specification is pretty impressive - a 20MP 1" sensor, a 1.2 million dot 3.0" LCD (VGA resolution but using Sony's WhiteMagic technology to offer greater brightness or improved battery life), 1080i60 video capture with the ability to shoot a 17MP stills without interrupting movie recording. There's a Zeiss-branded 28-100mm equivalent F1.8-4.9 lens featuring Zeiss T* coatings to minimize internal reflection. The camera can even boast a respectable 330 shots from a charge, according to CIPA tests.

Shooting for the enthusiasts

The RX100's user interface makes very clear that Sony has concentrated on making a camera that enthusiasts will be happy with. The difference between this and the Nikon 1 models (and the Sony NEX cameras when they were first launched), with their beginner-focused interfaces, couldn't be more stark. The RX100 doesn't go overboard with manual controls but the now commonplace lens-encircling control dial is key to its usability. It also has a customizable function menu - allowing you to specify which settings you want quick access to, and in which order. This is similar to the customization options added to NEX cameras but is also reminiscent of the Ricoh control interface (still probably our favorite on high-end compact).

And these differences from the entry-level mirrorless cameras are telling. Clearly Sony believes there is a photographically-savvy audience out there that wants a second camera with good image quality but without having to battle against a simplistic user interface or invest in what is probably a second lens system. It's pretty clear it also hopes that some buyers wanting to move up from conventional compacts will prefer something small and will recognise themselves as part of a majority who wouldn't buy other lenses even if they bought an interchangeable lens camera. The RX100's $650 price tag may well work against this, though.

Isn't that a bit expensive?

To put this price in perspective, you have to really understand the sensor size and what it means for the camera's capabilities.

The sensor in the RX100 is the same 1" format that Nikon uses in its 1-System. It is considerably smaller than those used in most interchangeable lens cameras but it significantly larger than those used in most enthusiast compacts.

To do this, the table below shows it against its peers, showing the area of the sensor, the size of the camera and the effective aperture of the camera. This last figure gives an idea of how much control over depth-of-field the camera will offer, by relating the aperture ranges back to the 135 film standard.

  Price (MSRP) Sensor area, mm2
(dimensions)
Focal length range Focal length range (equiv.) Aperture range Aperture range (equiv.)* Dimensions, mm(bounding box**)
Sony DSC-RX100 $649 116
(13.2x8.8)
10-37mm 28-100mm F1.8-4.9 F4.9-13.4 101x58x36
(210cm3)
Canon G1 X $799 262
(18.7x14)
15-60mm 28-112mm F2.8-5.8 F5.2-10.7 117x78x65
(593cm3)
Olympus XZ-1 $499 41***
(7.4x5.5)
6.0-24mm 28-112mm F1.8-2.5 F8.5-11.8 111x65x42
(303cm3)
Fuji X10 $599 58
(8.8x6.6)
7.1-28mm 28-112mm F2.0-2.8 F7.9-11 117x70x57
(467cm3)
Canon S100 $429 42
(7.4x5.6)
5.2-26mm 24-120mm F2.0-5.9 F9.3-27.4 99x60x27
(160cm3)
Nikon1 J1 $649 116
(13.2x8.8)
10-30mm 27-82mm F3.5-5.6 F9.5-15.3 106x61x72
(464cm3)
Olympus E-PM1 $499 225
(17.3x13)
14-42mm 28-84mm F3.5-5.6 F7-11.2 110x68x84
(628cm3)
Nikon D3200 $699 358
(23x15.4)
18- 55mm 27-83mm F3.5-5.6 F5.4-8.7 125x96x149
(1788cm3)

* 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.
** The sum of each camera's longest dimensions (the volume of the smallest box that could contain the camera, with the lens retracted)
*** Figure takes into account that the XZ-1 uses a crop from a 1/1.63" sensor.


If you're new to digital photography you may wish to read the Digital Photography Glossary before diving into this article (it may help you understand some of the terms used).

Conclusion / Recommendation / Ratings are based on the opinion of the reviewer, you should read the ENTIRE review before coming to your own conclusions.

Images which can be viewed at a larger size have a small magnifying glass icon in the bottom right corner of the image, clicking on the image will display a larger (typically VGA) image in a new window.

To navigate the review simply use the next / previous page buttons, to jump to a particular section either pick the section from the drop down or select it from the navigation bar at the top.

DPReview calibrate their monitors using Color Vision OptiCal at the (fairly well accepted) PC normal gamma 2.2, this means that on our monitors we can make out the difference between all of the (computer generated) grayscale blocks below. We recommend to make the most of this review you should be able to see the difference (at least) between X,Y and Z and ideally A,B and C.

This article is Copyright 2012 and may NOT in part or in whole be reproduced in any electronic or printed medium without prior permission from the author.

Previous page Next page

Comments

Total comments: 539
12345
Timmbits
By Timmbits (10 months ago)

Thanks to DPREVIEW for the information in the table above.
I've taken that data, and charted it on a logarythmic scale.
http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/1310839954/photos/2090715/relative-apertures-logscalechart
(sorry if I don't know how to embed the image here)

1 upvote
Timmbits
By Timmbits (10 months ago)

ADDED THE SAMSUNG EX2F F:1.4
I'm not sure how to post a link to ony the photo

0 upvotes
Timmbits
By Timmbits (10 months ago)

UPDATED LINK:
http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/1310839954/photos/2102709/aperture135

APERTURE RELATIVE TO SENSOR SIZE

0 upvotes
Dinarius
By Dinarius (10 months ago)

I've owned the wonderful Canon G9 for a few years now. But, I think it's time to treat myself to something better. The viewfinder on the G9 is rubbish, & i never use it. Professionally, I use a Hasselblad & a Canon 1DsMlll. In both cases, basis framing is done using the viewfinder, but final decisions regarding composition are made on the screen (Canon) or laptop (Hasselblad). As with Polaroid in film days, beIng able to 'stand back' from the composition (rather than be 'in it' when your eye is against the viewfinder) is vital for me.

The deal breakers for me when choosing a new compact will be portability & image quality, nothing else. For this reason, I've ruled out the G1X. So, if someone can tell me what's the best camera using those criteria, I'd be very grateful. ;)

D.

1 upvote
Almeida
By Almeida (10 months ago)

In 1-2 months we will be able to get a better picture of the advanced compact landscape. This year we are getting Sony RX100, Samsung EX2, Panasonic LX7 and Olympus XZ-2. If you are not in a hurry, wait for the first reviews.

1 upvote
Julian Macoveanu
By Julian Macoveanu (10 months ago)

On the other hand I find it hart to believe that Panasonic and Olympus will think "out of the box" and equip this years iterations with larger sensors. I guess they will just bump the MB count and maybe zoom range on very similar body frame, just as Canon S90, S95, S100 etc. I think RX100 is a safe bet this year as the best compact.

1 upvote
johnsaxon
By johnsaxon (10 months ago)

Be warned- the minimum focusing distances are pretty bad at anything other than 28mm wide angle (equiv.). Nowhere near as good as the ones on your G9.

0 upvotes
aerorail
By aerorail (10 months ago)

one post about your focus distance is enough

1 upvote
Roland Karlsson
By Roland Karlsson (10 months ago)

I think the macro capability (or lack thereof) is worth mentioning more than once. Not all read all posts.

0 upvotes
TJGKG
By TJGKG (9 months ago)

He is the only person with an "issue". Everyone else seems to feel the camera's macro functionality is excellent. If all your shots revolve around macros then you should get a DSLR. This little camera does a lot of things very well. It is not perfect but what or who is? So to keep bitching about something that only he has a problem with is annoying.

0 upvotes
TJGKG
By TJGKG (10 months ago)

To DPR: When is a full scale review coming of this camera? It is due out shortly. Thanks.

3 upvotes
GSD_ZA
By GSD_ZA (10 months ago)

Pity about the bar-of-soap ergonomics. Otherwise a very interesting looking camera.

0 upvotes
TJGKG
By TJGKG (10 months ago)

Ergonomics are not much different from great cameras like the S95. It is a well thought out camera which seems to fit its mission statement. I am looking forward to the full scale review.

2 upvotes
GSD_ZA
By GSD_ZA (10 months ago)

I own an S95, and have fixed the ergonomics with a Freniac grip. I expect Freniac will make money out of this one too.

0 upvotes
GSD_ZA
By GSD_ZA (10 months ago)

Surprise surprise....

http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/07/19/Sony-RX100-accessory-grip-from-Richard-Franeic

0 upvotes
Simclarke
By Simclarke (9 months ago)

After just a few days, am loving the camera, but be aware, the buttons, controls and overall dimensions are very small, especially if you've got fat fingers like me. I am continually turning on the flash control (right button on back control wheel when holding to shoot). But, hey, this camera is really small. So I know I will get used to it and just love having the thing with me everywhere. IQ great. Controllability / flexibility / adjustability great. Trying to figure out - do I take the RX100 or the D700 with me this coming weekend? I know, I'll take both!

0 upvotes
lordsakana
By lordsakana (10 months ago)

Oh, why did this have to have a fixed LCD screen? After using an articulated screen on the Panasonic DMC-GH2, I can't go back to a fixed one. It is just too useful of a feature.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
photo perzon
By photo perzon (10 months ago)

Articulateds add weight, and make the camera plastic like and creaky. I do not use the articulation feature, I can see with the angle.

0 upvotes
Am Cam Guy
By Am Cam Guy (10 months ago)

These comments are interesting but does anyone realize we are talking about a P&S pocket camera? If they built is with a viewfinder, a huge ccd, a hot shoe etc it would be an SLR and you would carry it in a case with a strap around your neck. I do a lot of traveling and carry my P&S in a small pouch on my belt. This makes it convenient to take it anywhere, even formal dinners. What I like is the low light performance because the places I visit rarely allow flash. While I'm not a professional I do want sharp, clear pictures in a pocket camera. This camera isn't for everyone but it is just fine for me.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
10 upvotes
Timmbits
By Timmbits (10 months ago)

Well said! Thank you for posting.

0 upvotes
GSD_ZA
By GSD_ZA (10 months ago)

Well no, not quite an SLR, but it would be a Nikon V1 (which has the same size sensor).

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
Sephirotic
By Sephirotic (10 months ago)

Problem is, this is a P&S already in range of DSLR in PRICE. we expect more for such price level.

0 upvotes
Roland Karlsson
By Roland Karlsson (10 months ago)

Many DSLR are not more expensive than enthusiast P&S. The price for this gem neatly fits among the enthusiast P&S. It would be a surprise if it was cheaper. A welcome surprise, but a surprise nevertheless.

0 upvotes
darrenberk
By darrenberk (10 months ago)

This looks like a really great camera. Ask any professional photographer and they would say a wide angle lens and huge sensor usually comes in big and bulky cameras. But not this one. Not really a Sony fan but I was really impressed with this one. But yeah, it is quite expensive. And there are other disadvantages mentioned at

http://www.squidoo.com/sony-rx100

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 56 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Timmbits
By Timmbits (10 months ago)

I followed your squidoo link and these guys are out to lunch: they can't do simple basic math. Look at the quoted sensor sizes in their comparison, half of them are wrong. They quote f stops as fractions instead of in decimals. That is written by neophytes who know nothing.

Comment edited 10 minutes after posting
5 upvotes
Robgo2
By Robgo2 (10 months ago)

Your description of the sensor in the RX100 as "huge" certainly is not supported by the illustration of comparative sizes shown above. It may be much bigger than a basic P&S sensor, but it is much smaller than a 4/3 sensor, let alone APS-C and FF. I would suggest that you keep things in proper perspective and avoid hyperbole, if you want to maintain credibility.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
2 upvotes
TJGKG
By TJGKG (10 months ago)

@Robgo2-Compared to a 1/2.3 sensor used on most P&S cameras, it is huge. It represents a major leap forward in technology and functionality to have a quality sensor of that size in such a small footprint. Combined with the excellent lens, the IQ of these pictures should be a huge improvement over the small sensor cameras. Sony did a nice job. Better than Canon with the G1X. Let's see what Nikon comes up with.

3 upvotes
AmaturFotografer
By AmaturFotografer (10 months ago)

Nikon already has one.. One system(excuse the pun).

0 upvotes
regehr
By regehr (9 months ago)

I'm a bit confused on this "huge" issue
1" = 25mm making this sensor bigger than the G1X, it makes it a little bigger than my 60d

Am I missing something?

0 upvotes
Cacique
By Cacique (10 months ago)

Here's one long-time Hasselblad and Rolleiflex (and Speed Graphic, I'm older) user who by preference often used them with eye-level viewfinders -- even using the open-frame sight if no optical VF was attached at the moment. People see things differently, and for some an eye-level viewfinder is almost essential for comfortable shooting. The lack of one on any camera is an important fault to many of us. To me it might mean the choice of the Canon G1x or Fuji X10 over this Sony despite its many good points. Still pondering that one.

3 upvotes
ponyman
By ponyman (10 months ago)

I don't recall Hasselblad and Rolleiflex users bemoaning the lack of viewfinders. Personally I dislike having to peer through a tiny box. I remember cursing many times during the days when viewfinders became fashionable and I missed shots due to persons passing in front of my camera as I pressed the shutter. I much prefer being able to see what is going on around me and being able recompose accordantly, or be able to follow the subjects path and taking the photo as it aligns with the area in it's surroundings as I wish it - something I found very difficult to do through the tunnel vision a viewfinder provides.

0 upvotes
EHerman
By EHerman (10 months ago)

Don't know about your Rolleiflex, ponyman, but my Rolleiflex (well, anyway, it was my Rollei until my wife and I separated and she got custody: lost wife & Rolleiflex all at the same time) certainly did have a viewfinder. You didn't hold it up to your eye and stare straight ahead; you held it pressed to your chest or your belly and stared down into it. Very nice and comfortable it was, too. (Which is why articulating screens on DSLRs should not swing out to the side -- awkward! -- but just tilt back and become waist-level VFs, like the Rollei used to have and like my Olympus E330 [a quite intelligent camera] still does.) What a camera should not require you to do is hold it out in front of you at eye level, with no support. (Unless, of course, that's what you like to do... Why am I going on about this? There seem to be enough others griping about the missing VF. I'm going back to the locker room.)

0 upvotes
magneto shot
By magneto shot (10 months ago)

this is what nikon 1 should have been....instead of offering poor slow lens and labeling itself as a interchangeable system ....
gosh, if this have the EVF built in, nikon 1 is history.

2 upvotes
Dabbler
By Dabbler (10 months ago)

Well, the Nikon 1 can use 30-100mm lens with 2.7x 35mm equiv.. which gives 270mm at the long end. You can also throw on your fast Nikon glass with the optional adapter.. imagine 300mm f2.8 VR giving 800mm!!

0 upvotes
Julian Macoveanu
By Julian Macoveanu (10 months ago)

... and then put all that in your shirt pocket :)
RX100 is a pocket camera and the only valid comparison should be with Canon S100

0 upvotes
mydoll
By mydoll (11 months ago)

Once again an offering comes so close to what many are looking for and then blows it with no viewfinder. When will builders realize real shooters want a viewfinder. I'm a pro and when not using a reflex I would like a close to pocket size camera with RX100 type stats (for reproduction) but please...with a viewfinder. Detachable will do to keep overall size down. Still waiting.

0 upvotes
OS74
By OS74 (11 months ago)

I really wish for a DP-full review to come very soon for this one. Pretty please ;-)

1 upvote
lbpix
By lbpix (11 months ago)

Good attempt Sony but for me this is another 'almost perfect' compact. Deal breaker - no viewfinder. Availability of a plug in EVF would have sold it for me. I need reading glasses and much prefer a VF with dioptre adjustment. However good the LCD is it isn't good enough to replace a real viewfinder - optical or electronic.

3 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (11 months ago)

actually it's a more natural way to take photos through a view screen or LCD like the compact P&S or iPad, instead of peering into a small hole like we used to do with the funny SLRs.

the view screen is the wey people used to take photos a 100 years ago and should be the way in the near future. beyond that, it may be integrated into Star-Trek-like head-mounted display (remote control PC). some factory operators have it already. it's a small device, but you see a large screen projected infront of you just like a view screen.

Comment edited 12 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
EHerman
By EHerman (11 months ago)

"the view screen is the way people used to take photos a 100 years ago" ... with their cameras mounted on tripods! Not held at arm's length in front of them like an army of sleepwalkers. That sort of works for people using their phones to send Aunt Agatha a picture of the really terrific-looking hamburger they're about to eat. Not so much for photographers using real cameras to take real photographs.

So I'm in lbpix's camp. Took one look at the very nice-looking RX100, noted the absence of viewfinder (or connection for an accessory VF) and sighed: alas, I'll have to wait for the next best-camera-ever.

2 upvotes
Escaping
By Escaping (11 months ago)

Good product overall but it lacks a viewfinder for me to consider it seriously. The $650 price is also a bit rich for me. I hope this RX100 will excite the competition to produce a similar camera but with a viewfinder at the $500 mark. For now, I am sticking with my Lumix LX-5 and the Nikon V1.

0 upvotes
Timmbits
By Timmbits (10 months ago)

I like a viewfinder in bright sunlight when the screen starts to become useless. But for most conditions, the LCD is fine. An LCD even has the advantage of approximating final brightness and effects which the small simplistic/basic VFs on these inexpensive cameras cannot do.
I don't know why you're all quibbling over this... in this category (ie: Canon G series, Nikon D7x00), the viewfinders are so rudimentary, that it shouldn't be considered a deal breaker if they're not there. Sure, it's an annoyance if it's missing, but packaging choices have been made. Nothing we can do.
Listening to some of you, the manufacturers should offer us the equivalent of a Nikon D800 in a package this size, having everything, and costing under a hundred dollars. ;-p

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 15 minutes after posting
3 upvotes
Am Cam Guy
By Am Cam Guy (10 months ago)

I agree. No pocket P&S cameras have a viewfinder. To put a decient viewfinder on an RX100 would make it too big for my use and not pocket sized. Even removable ones that are powered by the hot shoe require making the camera larger. If you just need something to look through paste an O ring on the top or or better yet just stay with an SLR.

0 upvotes
ferdnerfer
By ferdnerfer (10 months ago)

I totally agree with lbpix. Digging out glasses to see a screen is a PITA. Diopter adjustment on EVF is critical feature for my next camera. Viewfinder also solves screen readability in sunlight.

0 upvotes
ulfie
By ulfie (11 months ago)

Very nice small(er) camera with very pricey price tag.

1 upvote
jjlmoose
By jjlmoose (11 months ago)

Looking at the table on the first page of the review regarding equivelant aperture range, it appears that the RX100 would have the most shallow DOF wide open of any of the cameras listed... and a better range of control than even the G1X. Is this too good to be true, or am I interperting the numbers wrong?

1 upvote
Plastek
By Plastek (11 months ago)

Yep, you are right. RX100 can get depth of field similar to DSLRs with some of zoom lenses. Really impressive achievement.

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (11 months ago)

RX100: 28-100mm f/4.8-12.9 equiv.,
G1X: 28-112mm f/5.1-10.5 equiv.,

similar specs, should be hard to tell from the output image if you downsize RX100 photos to the same low resolution as G1X (14.3MPix) and delete the exif data.

0 upvotes
Timmbits
By Timmbits (10 months ago)

I hope to see some sample images that show this off.
So far, I see samples that are easy as pie for any modern camera to shoot. Why not make some shots that our previous cameras had trouble with? Come on... impress me!

0 upvotes
ebosch
By ebosch (11 months ago)

does the rx100 able to take smaller size RAW files, e.g @ 12MP instead of 20MP? if it does, it would be a hell of a camera, the low light capabilities would be superb

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (11 months ago)

there should be no difference other than file size.

0 upvotes
ebosch
By ebosch (11 months ago)

AFAIK, taking a lower res image with the same area of sensor will improve performance because of the 'merging' of more than 1 pixels into 1 pixel thus creating larger photosites, but I'm not so sure myself either

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (11 months ago)

ebosch,

you can have your 1-100 dollar notes changed to 1000 but you won't become any richer, only it'll be more compact.

there may be a small issue if the rate isn't 1:1 (like forex).

there is a big problem that you won't be able to change them back if it's done in camera.

0 upvotes
ebosch
By ebosch (11 months ago)

I see, thank you for the info.

0 upvotes
Timmbits
By Timmbits (10 months ago)

Might be something to look into... if the night scene mode combines pixels, it will probably have a much smaller file size. You'd have to verify if you still have all the shooting flexibility / options that you want, in this mode, to make it practical for situations other than low lighting.

0 upvotes
acid592
By acid592 (11 months ago)

It is 649 euro at amazon.de (around 821 dollars). Seems like it will be unattainable for some of us. That said I remember a saying as "women buy things they dont need when it is half price, men pay twice for the things they want". So I may stupidly go in dept to buy that :)

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting
1 upvote
Timmbits
By Timmbits (10 months ago)

We all know the price will drop.
The questions is: will we want to wait over a year to save 200?

1 upvote
NewsieGal
By NewsieGal (11 months ago)

I want minimum size with maximum quality (including depth and max size of images before interference is noticable). Price is not a factor, and I don't care about video. Is this the camera for me?

1 upvote
inevitable crafts studio
By inevitable crafts studio (11 months ago)

leica M9

3 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (11 months ago)

but there is one thing Leica doesn't have -- quality.

1 upvote
Fazal Majid
By Fazal Majid (11 months ago)

If you are prepared to trade off the zoom lens for better optical quality, the Fuji X100 and Leica X2. They are still larger than the RX100, however. I don't think there is any other camera that size with the same quality.

The M9 or Fuji X-Pro1 are significantly larger than the RX100 and not really in the same class (I wouldn't qualify them as jacket-pocketable).

1 upvote
Thomas Richter
By Thomas Richter (11 months ago)

Dear Sony,

Make such a camera with 6..10 megapixel and I'll buy it blindly!

9 upvotes
nosnoop
By nosnoop (11 months ago)

I can't believe that there is still so much misconception about high pixel count. High pixel count sensor only looks worse if you do pixel peeping or at 1:1 zoom level (as you are effectively checking the image at much higher magnification level).

OTOH, if you compare the images at the same output size (e.g. 8"x12" prints), you would find that similar size sensors with similar technology (e.g. BSI, CMOS) would produce similar image quality REGARDLESS of pixel counts. And as you increase the output size/prints, higher pixel count sensor would gain advantage of having more details.

So go ahead and buy it blindly, as making such camera with 10MP would have no advantage over the RX100.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
3 upvotes
56785678
By 56785678 (11 months ago)

@nosnoop, the point is that in general, without smart techniques like Nokia's "over-samplimg" for the 808, the larger the pixel, the higher the signal-to-noise ratio, and the cleaner the image. So, the same sensor size with a lower pixel count leads into higher raw/unprocessed IQ.

2 upvotes
Dougbm_2
By Dougbm_2 (10 months ago)

Exactly. And the reason Canon reduced the 14Mp of the G10 to 10Mp for the G11. Result cleaner images.

0 upvotes
Sephirotic
By Sephirotic (10 months ago)

And pretty much all manufactures are rolling back to the 10~12mpx line because is the best compromisse between printable size/resolution to noise, even on larger sensors

While 6mpx i think is a little overkill to a "big" sensor like this 1", 10 or 12, would be the ideal. like nikon did. (not saying nikon is a perfect camera but) 1.6 microns for each pixel is TOO small. Ok, you do gain some extra resolution at base iso, but only on perfect light cituations. YOu'll have to sacrifie on price to have a great glass good enough to render such small pixels all over the frame (in the cornes this camera still doesnpt have glasse good enough fully opened, tough). I don´t know about you guys, but i like taking pictures at iso 800~1600 with my m4/3, i can´t find myself doing that with this kind of camera and won´t have it as a pocketeable backup for such high price tag, i mighty if it was around 500. or better at higher iso. Just look at the barrels picture at iso 1600, water-paint.

1 upvote
Sephirotic
By Sephirotic (10 months ago)

I have always waited for the "perfect" S95, a slighty bigger sensor (aroung 1/1.6-2/3, or even 1) camera,but without losing compactness (c'mon, g12 and G1x are monsters, can´t be considered a "secondary" or backup camera to put on a jeans) with a varifocal lens non-interchangeable lens with some decent range (in the margin of 100mm) and big aperture (2.0+). We always knew it was possible, sony has proven it, but ruined it with it's high price point and the already discussed overkill pixel count.

0 upvotes
Roland Karlsson
By Roland Karlsson (10 months ago)

Ouch! Destroy the IQ by have too few pixels! Why? What possesses you to say such a thing?

0 upvotes
micdair
By micdair (11 months ago)

I'm not too impressed by the sample photos. The colors seems little unpleasant to me. Still, I'd like to see the full review.

I wonder if this camera will follow the fate of Fuji X10 where we have never seen the full review although there definitely is a very high demand for it. Having these two compared in detail would be great.

Comment edited 27 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
shutterhappens
By shutterhappens (11 months ago)

A good compromise between bulk and sensor size. I hope the street price come down to under $500. But whether I buy it or not, I thank sony for creating this new class of camera. Hopefully other manufacturers would follow and give us more choices.

6 upvotes
SW Anderson
By SW Anderson (11 months ago)

Folks who covet things very small and sleek, and who have been pining for that form factor in a larger-sensor camera, will probably flock to this one. It delivers impressive IQ, going by the sample photos. But for the flock to be of good size, the street price will have to come down closer to where most people can reach it without getting behind in their bills. At this price, the RX100 is up against DSLR's and ILC's with terrific IQ, more features and greater flexibility.

And, BTW, some of us prefer a bit more camera to hold on to and work with over very small and sleek.

1 upvote
acid592
By acid592 (11 months ago)

Will nanotechnology make small sensors as good as DSLR or better in the future?

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (11 months ago)

basically all the sensors are not very different. they perform about the same at unit area regardless of the format size. then there is little we can do here.

it's the lens that makes the difference, specifically the aperture size which decides how much light can be collected at a certain shutter speed, regardless of the sensor size (whatever the sensor size you get the same image quality as long as unit area performance is the same).

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Plastek
By Plastek (11 months ago)

major thing about how good DSLR sensors are is their size - bigger sensor gives you better control over depth of field and that gives you more ability to get best shots.
No nanotech can change laws of physics.

0 upvotes
acid592
By acid592 (11 months ago)

No need to change laws of physics. Information comes into the camera as photons. So say, if there is 1000 photons difference between two pixels (I have no idea it can be any number) , maybe today's cameras interpret it as the same grey color but nanotech sensor can pick the difference. In that sense I asked my question.

0 upvotes
acid592
By acid592 (11 months ago)

http://www.nanotech-now.com/news.cgi?story_id=37750
I find that now. It shows an improvement in another way.

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Roland Karlsson
By Roland Karlsson (10 months ago)

Yeah - its an alternative to back lit sensors. The abstract compares it to front lit detectors. But - it was written 2010 - so its understandable. I have no idea if this technology is better or cheaper than back lit technology.

0 upvotes
kcphotos
By kcphotos (11 months ago)

Everything looks good .. except the RX-100 shares the same design weakness as the Sony NEX 5N. The video button. It's right under my right thumb, and easily actuated. Several times with the 5N, I'll compose a still and press the shutter release to have nothing happen. It's because it's recording video. It'd be nice if a firmware upgrade provided the option of "Press the video button twice to activate". I'll probably order an RX100 anyway, this is a major inconvenience, but not a deal-breaker.

0 upvotes
rtol
By rtol (11 months ago)

I own a 5n and have never once accidentally hit the video button. If you have gorilla sized hands, stop buying very small cameras and then blaming the fact that you accidentally hit buttons on "design flaws".

2 upvotes
William Pottinger
By William Pottinger (11 months ago)

It isn't about hand size. I own a 5n and 7, have very small hands (they don't quite stretch an octave on a piano) and share kcphotos' complaint. I love the cam and can accomodate the inconvenience, but that's what it is. This flaw was explicitly called out in DPReview's NEX-7 review (section 12), so perhaps it affects more than those with gorilla hands.

0 upvotes
kcphotos
By kcphotos (11 months ago)

Here's a brilliantly simple solution:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/the_sony_nex_7_redneck_edition.shtml

0 upvotes
Roland Karlsson
By Roland Karlsson (10 months ago)

There was also some comments about some other NEX problems. Sony dont seem to be good at making user interfaces and at fixing problems.

0 upvotes
na01
By na01 (11 months ago)

Is it possible to estimate the aperture that I have to use at the end of the zoom range of the xz-1 (112mm) to have the same DOF of the rx100 at 100mm f4.9 ?
I'd like to estimate how much DOF I'm going to loose of the already weak DOF of the xz-1.
on the examples of techrada it seems that at 28mm has degree of control on the DOF.
thanks

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 33 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
monky
By monky (11 months ago)

f/3.2 @ 24mm (112mm equiv. fov) will give you an the same amount of background blur, with fractionally (~4%) less DOF, as an rx100 shooting f/4.9 @ 37mm.

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (11 months ago)

35mm format equivalent of
RX100 is 28-100mm f/4.8-12.9 and
XZ-1 is 28-112mm f/8.2-11.4.

so XZ-1 has a very slight (within error range?) advantage at the tele-end.

0 upvotes
aricav05
By aricav05 (11 months ago)

Yabokkie, for your comment "35mm format equivalent of
RX100 is 28-100mm f/4.8-12.9," that is not how f-stops work. You're not suppose to multiply f-stop like you do with the focal length to get the equivalent of 35mm format. F-stops values are set and not relative depending on the sensor size. If it were relative, then f2.8 lenses on APS-C would become f4.48(using your formula for calculating the "relative" f-stop, by multiplying the f-stop number by the same number used to get the equivalent focal length) which would make every fast zoom lenses on the APS-C slow, not to mention making some compact cameras have "relative" f-stops of 15 or more wide open(Canon Ixus 120 with f2.8 multiplied by 5.6(value for 35mm equivalent) to get 15.68), which is clearly impossible. I was surprised no one bothered to inform yabokkie of his mistake.

1 upvote
yabokkie
By yabokkie (11 months ago)

aricav05,

if you cannot understand the f-number equivalent, go back to focal length equivalent, think about it again, and you may find out that these equivalents are not about the input. they are there to have the same output (though there are simple physical explainations about input, the angle of view and aperture diameter are the same).

a 28-100mm f/4.8-12.9 lens on 35mm format camera will give you exactly the same output image as RX100, everything controlled by focal length and f-number will be the same with no exception.

you can verify this either on paper or by tests, not difficult isn't it?

Comment edited 6 minutes after posting
1 upvote
Puffer Fish
By Puffer Fish (11 months ago)

I'm rather surprised at the image quality @ ISO 1600, it is much better than I would expect. The wine cask image is pretty good looking and better than anything I can take at that light level.

This appears to be sort of a Canon S95 with a big sensor...interesting choice.

Not been much of a Sony fan, but camera has several aspects that I find very attractive, including being able to do reasonable macro (which all the other larger sensor camera's cannot do.

0 upvotes
mwstebbins
By mwstebbins (11 months ago)

My 2 cents worth: I still use my Sony R1 as my main camera. I've been looking & looking for a up-dated R1 (or R2) for years now: I appreciate the articulated top screen of the R1, its optical quality, & battery life, but I now want in-camera HDR (in RAW) and/or auto RAW bracketing, Sweep-Panorama etc. The Canon G1 X comes close, but I'll wait and see how this RX100 performs, the sample images look great to me.
My 'carry at all times" camera is the Sony TX10 and I've been impressed with the results and I'll more than likely buy this new Sony RX100 and, if it is as good as it's potential, I'll continue to wait for my R1 replacement: fast fixed lens; large sensor; top rated optics; full feature set; articulated screen.
FWIW I'm more interested in feature set, and image quality, than I am worried about price.

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (11 months ago)

> I appreciate the articulated top screen of the R1,

+1, but the new NEX cameras are not very different.

0 upvotes
Webzilla
By Webzilla (11 months ago)

.

Comment edited 6 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
kevinci
By kevinci (11 months ago)

This camera is closest to what I've been looking for in a pocketable alternative to my DSLR. Not the Canon S100 (sensor too small and IQ too comparable to a phone camera). Not the Canon GX1 (its just too bulky and ugly). Not the Nikon J1/V1 (still too bulky and un-pocketable with a lens attached). Not the m4/3 (as with the Nikon J1/V1, I'm not looking for a system camera at this grade level). Cost is the only issue with the RX100 ...heck, i guess its time to start saving.

The one thing its missing is an add-on for an external flash with articulating head a la Nikon V1. Otherwise, I'm sold.

Comment edited 5 times, last edit 4 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
LowlightShadows
By LowlightShadows (11 months ago)

Interesting camera, but 20 MP is too much pixels even for this slightly larger sensor. Translated to the proportions of a APS-C size this would be 66 MP and 40 MP for a four-thirds. 12 MP combined with larger sensor on a compat camera would be way enough and more interesting i'd say.

Comment edited 34 seconds after posting
4 upvotes
Sephirotic
By Sephirotic (10 months ago)

Completely agree with you, sony is racing alone the mpx race, everyone has already dropped it, shame on you.

0 upvotes
RusVolley
By RusVolley (11 months ago)

I'm only confusing that there is no hand grip.

0 upvotes
WASBA
By WASBA (11 months ago)

My only and only best p&s was Ricoh GR Digital 3 but today, I can say RX100 is overall better than GR series at least comparing those specs. Large sensor, Best lens... That is it. hopefully want to get with aps-c type sensor on this camera but I like the body size. with bigger sensor bigger body? I think this is good compromising. Sony can put bigger sensor but They have NEX. Anyway Best in class so far.

4 upvotes
dfstarman
By dfstarman (11 months ago)

Wonder if front of lens is threaded for filters or screw
on converter

0 upvotes
HermanTheGerman
By HermanTheGerman (11 months ago)

Great device, but no viewfinder, once again.
Again a new compact, which can be forgotten for outdoor fotography during winter, or in the high mountains or on glaciers.
What a pity.

1 upvote
Ilove35mm
By Ilove35mm (11 months ago)

I really don't see why we can't take photos on a glacier in Switzerland for example with this camera.

0 upvotes
nick_j007
By nick_j007 (11 months ago)

Don't be ridiculous!

0 upvotes
proxy
By proxy (11 months ago)

Thanks HermanTheGerman for pointing it out. All I'm thinking about now is it's glacier performance...

1 upvote
CFynn
By CFynn (11 months ago)

@HermanTheGerman. There are several companies making folding viewfinder (LCD) hoods for cameras like this - some with an eyepiece.

One of those should work for your glacial photography.

Comment edited 34 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Strandlaeufer
By Strandlaeufer (11 months ago)

The problem in low light situations is that the maximum resolution is no longer limited by the resolution of the optics but by the number of available photons (quantum noise). You can compensate for this by a longer exposure time or a larger lense aperture but not by a larger sensor. The Sony RX100 has a maximum aperture that is roughly twice as large as that of the Canon 100/95. One can therefore expect an considerably improved low light behaviour at maximum aperture, but at the expense of a lower depth of sharpness. There exists however a relationship between sensor size and maximum lense aperture for wide wide angle lenses. This is the reason why one needs larger sensors with larger maximum aperture. It would be no problem building a fast (low noise) tele lense on the basis of a tiny detector size.

0 upvotes
breivogel
By breivogel (11 months ago)

It seems to me that a larger sensor has more surface area, thus picks up a larger number of photons under low light. This is why FF cameras like the D4 are better than a RX100.

0 upvotes
czadpoom
By czadpoom (11 months ago)

Compact camera concerns me as a pocket-sized body for my top priority. Definitely I use it as a point and shoot purpose. Keeping it in trousers' pocket does not mean compromising on picture quality. The DSC-RX100 was honed in aluminium with big sensor and bright lens for better pictures. The bulky compact camera that can only be handled or carried always like a tourist is not counted for me. Even the quality is almost the same as SLR like its size. If so I trade off carrying the SLR.

0 upvotes
Diopter
By Diopter (11 months ago)

it is a camera with the breath-taking future, but - same as both first nex models - it is prematurely swept from the drawing boards. Whoever is immune to the marketing pressure, would wait for more mature releases. I will.

0 upvotes
Sephirotic
By Sephirotic (11 months ago)

i've missed and always wanted something like this for years now. A intermediary sensor betwen APS-C and 2/2.3 with compact body, fixed quality clear lens (altough i would expect a little bit extra zoom) for years.

But the only reason i wanted one of these, as a backup to my DSL, would be, apart from the size, for the reduced price. At 650USD this becomes pointless to me. i'd rather have a 2/3 sensor and a tid bit more of zoom (5x) for 500usd. 650 USD is coming close to my my GH2, with hardly half the quality of it. I'd rather buy a GF3 for less than 400 usd.

Also, 20mpx? less than 1.5dot pix? That's even smaller than regular high quality 12mpx compact! What's the point of making the big sensor then? Bokeh? Hardly. Come on sony, you never learn? All the other companies STOPPED bumping megapixels in small sensors. Why won´t you?

0 upvotes
dvb
By dvb (11 months ago)

Actually, you are wrong. The Sony sensor has almost three times the surface area of the Canon. So the individual pixels are bigger.

2 upvotes
proxy
By proxy (11 months ago)

Really nice pics, natural... I can handle "the lens softness", not bad at all. For the size of the camera it's really nice. Bit pricey though for a small camera... but in line with competition.
Really not much to complain about, at the moment. The trend is set, there's a market for it and by looking at the posts there's some (a lot!) interest too.
Not everyone enjoys carrying 2-3 kilos all the time especially on trips and at gatherings... Not always you're welcome with your big DSLR lens right in someone's face. Compacts fill the gap. Point for Sony.

4 upvotes
bussyboy
By bussyboy (11 months ago)

I'd love to see sample photos in truely dark environments - especially given the f1.8 apeture - I need to know how it shoots in a darkened nightclub!

0 upvotes
Sephirotic
By Sephirotic (11 months ago)

Probably bad, since it has a dot pix similar to any 12mpx P$S

0 upvotes
Vitruvius
By Vitruvius (11 months ago)

These images look great but a bit flat or dull. Of coourse there is RAW and perhaps other in camera saturation and contrast settings. The landscape images look really dead. The tree in the desert looks like it is in the shade but it is actually in the full sun. There is no life in it. It looks like the camera is trying really hard to capture all the highlights, shadows, and acurate color, but somone needs to adjust for the type of image and wipe the bland out.

1 upvote
Max Thunder
By Max Thunder (11 months ago)

Just be happy with it as this shows good DR. It will be easier to get crisp and contrast with raw processing..

0 upvotes
JesperMP
By JesperMP (11 months ago)

The sample image DSC01011 @ISO2500 looks just as good as or maybe a bit better than my S95 @ISO800. To me, it seems that RX100 delivers on the sensor IQ at high ISO.

Really excited about RX100. Shame I cant really justify replacing my S95 so soon.

Btw. I just hate it when people refer to RX100 or S95 or similar cameras as "point and shoot" cameras. It is a derogative term that does not acknowledge that these cameras gives you as much control as a "higher end" DSLR do. To my opinion RX100, S95 etc. are superior to the typical entry-level DSLR with the kit lens mounted.

6 upvotes
For a few clicks more
By For a few clicks more (11 months ago)

IQ wise, Canon S95 is still a point and shoot camera. It would be an insult to Sony to compare S95 with RX100. No offense but Sony's brave innovation is worth to appreciate and I am happy that finally a camera is in market to break the Canon's best compaq camera dominancy.

1 upvote
JesperMP
By JesperMP (11 months ago)

No, S95 is not a P&S, similar that RX100 is not a P&S. P&S means that you only have basic controls (all you can do is point and shoot). S95 has all the controls of a serious camera, better than most entry-level DSLRs.

And if IQ defines if a camera is P&S or not (as you seem to argue, but I do not agree), then S95 provides much better IQ than your average P&S camera. It has a bigger and better sensor, and it has a much brighter lens than the average P&S camera.

No, RX100's intended audience is photogs that look for a really pocketable camera, but with as high IQ and full controls possible. Until now S95/S100 was the best option for these requirements. Therefore a comparison is quite reasonable.

0 upvotes
Veducci
By Veducci (11 months ago)

As good or a bit better than your S95? LOL. Wishful thinking on your part?
The Sony sensor is nearly 3 times larger! If it doesn`t blow the Canon out of the water it will be a big embarrassmant for Sony.

0 upvotes
Sephirotic
By Sephirotic (11 months ago)

@Veducci

Yet the S95 has HALF the resoltion of the RX100, while the 1" sensor isn´t double the size of the 1/1.7, (1.7x larger). This means the S95 has actualy LARGER INDIVIDUAL pixel size.
Sony hasn´t dropped the Mpx hype, i donpt get it. I want to see 100% image crops to compare it with others fully manual fixed lens compact camers.

0 upvotes
TrojMacReady
By TrojMacReady (11 months ago)

Actually, the sensor is almost 3 times larger (116.2mm² vs 42.5mm², thus a factor 2.8 difference), while it has twice the amount of pixels. Pixels from the RX100 are therefore a factor 1.4 LARGER.

Not to mention the fact that pixelsize isn't all that important when looking at high ISO performance for a given output size. Sensor size is.

1 upvote
Andrys
By Andrys (11 months ago)

Veducci,
JesperMP actually said that the image on the SonyRX100 at ISO 2500 was as good as, or a bit better than, images on his/her Canon S95 at ISO 800.

I have, and enjoy an S95 but will be getting the RX100.

0 upvotes
Sephirotic
By Sephirotic (10 months ago)

Your maths are wrong. Don´t compare the sensor area, only the pixel size.

RX100 = around 1.7 microns by pixel (still need the official numbers)
Regular 12mpx 1/2.3 P&S = 1.5
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

0 upvotes
Dianoda
By Dianoda (10 months ago)

Sephirotic - if you are implying that the pixel area of the S95/S100 sensors is larger than that of the RX100, then you are mistaken.

Here is a KISS method for comparing the area of a single pixel across camera sensors: take sensor area divided by megapixel count. Following that:
- Canon S95 - 41.52mm2 / 9.98 megapixels = 4.16
- Canon S100 - 41.52mm2 / 12.00 megapixels = 3.46
- Sony RX100 - 116.16mm2 (approx.) / 19.96 = 5.82

Pixel area of a single RX100 pixel is about 1.40 times larger than an S95 pixel, and 1.68 times larger than an S100 pixel.

0 upvotes
Lofi
By Lofi (11 months ago)

Does it overheat? ...

0 upvotes
drumsultan
By drumsultan (11 months ago)

This camera looks great. I miss my old 35mm Rollie I carried in my pocket. I have a couple issues here. I have been comparing the sample images with the Olympus XZ -1. I have two things that may make me not reach for my wallet on the Sony.

1. I/Q the RX100 images seems soft to me compared to XZ -1. The XZ -1 colors look better as well.

2. Low light performance. The samples for the RX100 seem brighter on the low end.

I don't care about the price difference and I want to really pine for the Sony but it seems that it is missing something image wise. Maybe this is just a settings issue. I have read here that the noise reduction on the Sony causes such issues on their other models.

If anyone has information to clarify this chime in.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 8 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
tompabes2
By tompabes2 (11 months ago)

Well, keep in mind that RX100 images are 20mp and the XZ-1 are 10mp, so you should first downsize the RX100 images to the same size and only then check if they are softer or not.

0 upvotes
Max Thunder
By Max Thunder (11 months ago)

As said here above, the flat look is a sign of extended DR. You will easily retrieve much deeper colours and contrast from RAW. Once you start to unRAW, you can't go back! :) Also, on an overcast day, u will get "flat" pictures with any camera, even a D800e. I also must admit that canon make better jpeg processing in camera but maybe there's a more "vivid" Jpeg mode available. Anyway, i like what i see here, even when cropped 100% (except for the warship (last picture)).

Comment edited 47 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Andrys
By Andrys (11 months ago)

That flatter look is because not so much in-camera color saturation is done as it normally is in Cameras. Basic photo editing will just adjust that (as must be done with RAW images anyway).

Also, we're all used to the current situation of heavily overdone saturation being seen as 'good' these days.

0 upvotes
CFynn
By CFynn (11 months ago)

More samples here:

http://poguenyt.smugmug.com/Photography/Sony-RX100-Samples/23731968_DFbxtC#!i=1921890871&k=GXKxBVJ

0 upvotes
Ben O Connor
By Ben O Connor (11 months ago)

This is, The top Of P&S cams. There is no "The Champ" Because

- Oly with the best lens
- fujifilm with its sleek leica type of hot shue
- canon with the biggest sensor
- Sony (right now) got the best pocketibility
- pnasonic wiht the best video (not anymore maybe...)
- Nikon with the biggest zoom & mic in
........

You name it ! So however it makes choosing preety hard, it also allows you to choose " Your own best: Based on your needings " Economical resession changed the companies ideas it seems. They don´t competite directly eachother anymore, They more like prepare their own market.

Comment edited 32 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
bluevaping
By bluevaping (11 months ago)

It looks like a interesting camera. I like they used some of the design cues from Canon's S100. It's got the basic elements for talking photos covered. I would like to see some enthusiast body design features for this price. It works for the lower price S100 and they included a front grip. No one wants to drop and brake $400 camera much less a $650 camera. I could see leaving off the hotshoe because assessories would be awkward. I would have like them to borrow the idea of the viewfinder from the Canon Powershoot A1200 or A1300. It might have made it 1/2 inch wider and more to hold as well and still very pocketable compared to cameras in its class. I just think you have to offer a wow point shoot experience because the price range is in DSLR and ILC price points. Well I like it more than Nikon J1. It doesn't come in pink, is a good selling point for some.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 6 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
David Zamora
By David Zamora (11 months ago)

Hmm, is it me, or are these images pretty darn soft at 100% crop? I'm not liking the IQ too much.

0 upvotes
ET2
By ET2 (11 months ago)

It's just you

5 upvotes
David Zamora
By David Zamora (11 months ago)

Biased and invalid, considering your plague of Sony fan posts. I like Sony products, but I'm asking a valid question here and am hoping to gain some legitimate observations.

Thanks for your time.

0 upvotes
Ilove35mm
By Ilove35mm (11 months ago)

According to DP's Barney Britton most of the outdoor samples were taken on a hazy weekend, guess that explains.

0 upvotes
ET2
By ET2 (11 months ago)

You asked if it's just you, and I answered your question. Why are you upset?

0 upvotes
Liz Z.
By Liz Z. (11 months ago)

David, they look a little soft to me too.

0 upvotes
Sephirotic
By Sephirotic (11 months ago)

+1

0 upvotes
Edgar Matias
By Edgar Matias (11 months ago)

Image quality should be great, but it's not much of a portrait shooter...

For shallow DoF fans, the Canon G1 X and the Fuji X100 are right in the zone you want to be for portraits -- 112mm / F11 (equiv.) vs. F13.4 on the Sony.

I think the edge goes to the X100 for the faster lens, better low light performance, less weight, and small size.

0 upvotes
theswede
By theswede (11 months ago)

I have an X100 and while it's definitely outstanding for all purposes a fix focal length equivalent of 35mm will fit it will absolutely not fit in a jeans - or even light jacket - pocket.
Therefore I can't take it with me all the time, although it seldom leaves my side. When it has to an RX100 would be a magnificent substitute, in my pants pocket.

4 upvotes
NeilJones
By NeilJones (11 months ago)

It's a point and shoot camera. Don't think you would be taking this on a portrait shoot!

0 upvotes
Edgar Matias
By Edgar Matias (11 months ago)

Not a studio portrait shoot, but for less formal situations, 112mm / F11 is enough to give you subject isolation when you need it.

0 upvotes
John Drummond
By John Drummond (11 months ago)

Now if only Sony had made it 24mm on the wide end it would be very tempting!

1 upvote
CNY_AP
By CNY_AP (11 months ago)

Not many people zoom in when it is dark (shooting birds or sports in the dark)...most of us do not need a super fast lens at the long end, but at ISO 100, even F5.6 (what I currently have) is iffy on cloudy days for sports.

0 upvotes
theswede
By theswede (11 months ago)

You want to use a camera that fits in your jeans pocket to shoot sports on a cloudy day?

2 upvotes
Total comments: 539
12345