Previous page Next page

Studio scene comparison (Low Light)

The low light scene is shot with Auto White Balance, to show how the camera's JPEGs look under artificial light. Any 'keep warm tone' options are left at their default setting.

The low light scene Raws are processed to demonstrate the capability of cameras in low-light shooting situations. Noise reduction is minimized and the white balance is neutralized to reveal blue channel noise. The black level is lifted to prevent noise being hidden by clipping. A standardized amount of sharpening is applied in Photoshop.

Note: this page features our new interactive studio shot comparison widget. Click here to find out more.

The Sony RX100II's auto white balance gives our low light studio scene an orange cast, likely in an attempt to avoid amplifying noise in the sensor's blue channel. All of the skin tones displayed in the scene take on this orange tint as well, something we spotted in real-world shooting under tungsten light. The color shift affects the purple objects in our scene as well, shifting the spool of thread to a very dark violet.

This problem is made worse at higher sensitivities like ISO 800, where the darker purple tones in our color wheels have shifted almost to black. At ISO 1600, the RX100 II is doing noticeably better than the Canon PowerShot G16 with rendering text, though predictably not as well as the Sony Alpha NEX-6. At ISO 6400 the darker blue and green tones are beginning to clip to black. The NEX-6 does a bit better with the dark tones at the same sensitivity, as well as low contrast detail. The RX100 II is obviously struggling, but renders an impressive level of detail in the scene even at ISO 12800 - much more than the Canon G16.

There's also evidence of some slight lens issues, seen more clearly in the low light scene close to the light source. The white arrow on the black background shows a bit of a brown halo on its top edge. It's some form of chromatic aberration, and wasn't something we found problematic in real world shooting situations.

Switching the low light scene to Raw shows about what you'd expect - less noise than the smaller-sensor Canon G16 and better rendering of darker colors even as ISO increases. At ISO 3200 the RX100 II is clearly struggling with darker tones and noise levels have increased, but it's still ahead of the G16. Compared to the NEX-6, it's obviously a bit more noisy, and the effect continues as ISO increases through the rest of the range. Still, evidence points to the advantages of shooting Raw, especially in low light to preserve as much tone as possible.

Previous page Next page
Our favorite products. Free 2 day shipping.
Support this site, buy from dpreview GearShop.
Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 II

Comments

Total comments: 499
1234
Galbertson
By Galbertson (3 weeks ago)

If connected to iPad via NFC, will Voice over in iPad read/speak data/words from iPad? I am sight limited, this would help me wonderfully!

0 upvotes
kecajkerugo
By kecajkerugo (4 weeks ago)

Hmmm...I am not Sony lover but just visited the review because I like reading about cameras. And....compared the dynamic range but not between the selected cameras as in this review but also between them and some of the FF DSLR and leading mirror less- stuff and I am kind of shocked: the latest small sensor are just well comparable to the big boys! You can argue than one is still better by one stop or something but hey, the winners are not obvious.
Check yourself!

0 upvotes
PatMann
By PatMann (1 month ago)

24-120 equivalent f/4 at the long end with built-in finder and somebody's got my $ for a compact P&S zoom with 1-inch sensor. Getting close here.

0 upvotes
theRose
By theRose (4 weeks ago)

canon GX1 mk ii comes close there, albeit without viewfinder, otherwise I think you'll have to go mft, but that is much, much bigger in terms of size

0 upvotes
Sad Joe
By Sad Joe (1 month ago)

PLUS: Zeiss lens ! CONS: MARK 3 is ready for roll out already.

0 upvotes
NYCzoom
By NYCzoom (1 month ago)

I've heard the RX100 M2 is not really so much better in low light as the first model. I currently own the RX100 and am wondering if I should upgrade to RX100 M2. Anyone out there that has both? What do you guys think? Also maybe I should wait for the successor to the RX100 M2... some say possibly this summer? I would love to have the EVF, but the current one is almost as expensive as the camera itself... hope Sony releases a less expensive EVF.

0 upvotes
pnoble
By pnoble (2 weeks ago)

I have both, the difference is not substantial. The Mk 3 is surely coming soon and surely worth waiting for. From my POV. I'm personally hoping for a wider lens (i.e. 24mm) and a wider and more uniform maximum aperture, but Sony is already evidently pushing the limits considering the camera and sensor size.

0 upvotes
davids8560
By davids8560 (1 month ago)

I am going to get the RX100 II simply because I can attach a viewfinder, when needed. And I have found that a viewfinder is sometimes sorely needed with the RX100, even in only modestly bright conditions. Even when setting the RX100's LCD to Sunny Day mode, a viewfinder is needed. I find the RX100 LCD is just barely bright enough in sunny conditions.

The Olympus XZ-1's high-quality VF-2 optional viewfinder is not all that large and it rides around in a case that attaches to the neck strap. It's a little inconvenient, but it is absolutely great to have, when the need arises. But of course the XZ-1's IQ just doesn't match the RX100. I suppose that goes without saying.

I would like to see a small viewfinder built in to a future design of the RX100, much like the one built into the tiny Panasonic LF-1. That would be ideal. Even if it was sub-par, since it would only be used occasionally, as needed.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 5 minutes after posting
3 upvotes
wke002
By wke002 (2 months ago)

Darn, I got myself the sony grip and found now it wont fit in the original casing. Am now looking for the smallest pouch possible that can fit these camera + my Samsung note 2 to attached to my waist belt.

Been searching the web, found some nice pouch but often its small enough for a compact or the pouch/bag is too large to my liking. hope forummers can direct the link for the smallest possible pouch that fits both at one time.

Thanks.

0 upvotes
wke002
By wke002 (2 months ago)

I just bought one in replace of my d7000. got the d7000 as never in life had one and it was a craze to learn photography at that time but than found my shots are mainly at home or with children strolling down the park. got the x10 when the orb issue surface. sold it as its not compact enough. to lug a d7000 around a park or just cycling seems crazy.

First shot of the camera after came out of shop was night scene parade. We were taking mostly children and its sooooo difficult to get all 9 childrens to pose in one place for more than 2sec. it might not be the many contributors whom had beautiful night shots in this forum but for me am satisfied with the outcome.

as each person has different opinion when I ask around for compact, recommendation from Canon GX-1, Fuji x20/x100s, canon s120/OMD !!!

Have narrow my term of compact to either rx100II or Canon S120 and given majority of photos under dim light and after searching the web for comparison, have settled down for the rx100II.

0 upvotes
papa natas
By papa natas (2 months ago)

Should have wait for the RX10...
Now you'll have to go and sell the RX100-2..
and start all aver again.

0 upvotes
Duncan Dimanche
By Duncan Dimanche (3 months ago)

The wifi is soooo useless !!! I tried it and all you can do is press the shutter change from video to photo and zoom.... And no setting at all !!

Let me explain :

You can't set it manually !
Even if you set up all your settings and then turn on the wifi it will still shoot in auto mode.... and the wifi range is pathétique too... I will say up to 5m (I tried taking picture with my Rx100 on my DJI phantom for a job and it lost it after less than 10m away...

I mean if Gopro does a better job with the wifi how come sony is incapable of doing so ?

Comment edited 42 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
PGSexton
By PGSexton (3 months ago)

Where can one obtain a quality hard-copy manual for the 100ii?

0 upvotes
papa natas
By papa natas (2 months ago)

It comes with the camera.
A VERY cheap, little, puny manual, edited on recycled paper.
And don't go there with rough fingers...it will deteriorate the ink.

0 upvotes
EricCul
By EricCul (1 month ago)

Not sure what "papa natas" is talking about, but that description doesn't fit the manual I got.

Anyway, PGSexton, if the official manual doesn't fit your needs, there are a couple of books written specifically for the RX100 II on Amazon. Judging by the ratings, people seem to like them.

0 upvotes
Chris62
By Chris62 (3 months ago)

In test scene we can see right down corner of the picture completely unsharp and on the left side is much better.
It means poor quality.
Right mounted lens on camera should give the same sharpness in all 4 corners.

2 upvotes
Cal22
By Cal22 (2 months ago)

You're right in seeing 'poor quality'!

Whatever might be causing the 'poor quality' - the alignment of the camera in the studio or the alignment of lens elements or the lenses attachment to the camera body - the result is an image quality, you can't seriously praise as 'top of its class'!

In a camera review on a german website ('dkamera') you can find the same phenomenon: They ignore the poor image quality of the RX100II compared to the RX100 (see last two images in test chapter 'Abbildungsleistung') - and give the camera the highest rating!

I'm surely no hater of Zeiss lenses as being owner of six of them. But the renowned brandname can't make me blind. That's why I haven't bought me the RX100 II I was really interested in.

0 upvotes
RasterFarian
By RasterFarian (1 month ago)

Hi, I'm looking into the 100 or the 100 II. Are you saying that the image quality of the II is lower than the 100? If so do you know why that would be? Identical lens and sensor.
Thanks for any advice, feedback.

0 upvotes
Cal22
By Cal22 (1 month ago)

Hi, RasterFarian!
'Are you saying that the image quality of the II is lower than the 100?' Yes, that's how it looks! And I don't know what to think of it!

My advice: If you can do without Wi-Fi or an optional viewfinder, go for the RX100, the price of which has dropped down a lot!

Or take the equally sized Panasonic GM1 into consideration, with its bigger sensor, its praised tiny zoom lens and the option for lens changing.

Or what about the Canon G1X II (still to be launched in a few weeks), which seems to be a really versatile and capable compact camera, albeit not as compact as the RX100 II, but with a bigger sensor and with expanded zoom range? The Canon - the optional VF included - is anything but inexpensive, though.

0 upvotes
jdob123
By jdob123 (4 weeks ago)

I tend to spot a lot of "equally sized" sentences and I'm always interested but always also let down. So the short answer to GM1 vs RX100 is: not really. See eg. http://www.dpreview.com/previews/panasonic-lumix-dmc-gm1/images/SidebySideTd_RX-001.jpg

There are no micro-4/3 cameras that come even close to having the same pocketability, since the thickness with the zoom lenses seem to be at minimum twice of RX100.

Then the zoom lens always also tend to have poor ability to capture light, like starting with F3.5. With a nice 80% larger sensor in 4/3 cameras than RX100, you'd still need at least F2.5 lens or so to match low-light capability of RX100, assuming other sensor aspects remain the same.

0 upvotes
acid592
By acid592 (3 months ago)

Yep, it seems there is a relation with focusing and sizes of sensors or lenses. But maybe nanotechnology can bring super sharp and high zoom cameras. And maybe there can high spectrum sensors including infrared or ultraviolet for example and then use it for some improvement in visual image. It is easy to imagine, but I am not sure if it is physically possible.

0 upvotes
clburton2
By clburton2 (3 months ago)

hello, will sony build the rx100II with a longer zoom range? why is this so difficult to find? I want a compact point and shoot camera with a larger sensor but more zoom range. is this impossible?

0 upvotes
Greynerd
By Greynerd (3 months ago)

You cannot have it all ways so I suspect what you want is not possible. The consensus is that Sony have got the most into the least space that has been achieved up to now.

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
Neodp
By Neodp (15 hours ago)

Yes balances; but then these have been repeatedly broken before and "limits" or "physics" have been worked around. This is true photographic progress. That's history and will be the future. What's not been done well or in more than tiny progress is putting it all together in one camera and well. Including affordability and size. Where's that balance? Given the mass market scale then That's no where near unrealistic.

0 upvotes
StephenTee
By StephenTee (3 months ago)

It was recently commented that at a given ISO of 3200, a longer exposure was needed for the Sony RX-100 II than the Fuji x20 (1/8s vs 1/15s for roughly the same f-stop).

However, since the RX-100 II "base ISO" is 160 vs the Fuji's 100, you could claim that it's expected for the ISO or exposure values to be about 2/3 different in the exact same light/exposure conditions.

0 upvotes
Causio
By Causio (3 months ago)

Again, not really. If you set the iso 3200 on both cameras, what the "base iso" is doesn't matter. It's just 3200 for both sony and fuji. My observation was that you can't compare them on the same ISO value when the other values (F, speed) turn out to imply that sony needs to get more time, hence possibly needing a further ISO increment

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Frank Z C
By Frank Z C (4 months ago)

You will be luckily enough finding that this is the only fault.

0 upvotes
Causio
By Causio (4 months ago)

I just noticed that the RX100 II overestimates ISO to the point where - being iso the same - it shoots at half speed as the Fuji X20. You can download the night shots at iso 3200 for both and check yourself: Sony is 1/8 sec f5, Fuji 1/15 f4.5. Sony shot at iso 6400 brings it at 1/15 sec (f5). Even considering the tighter aperture, sony overestimates iso more than Fuji does (2/3 stops?). In real world, this would translate as shooting at lower iso with Fuji, being the desired speed and aperture the same.
It would be nice if dpReview made people notice in an OBVIOUS way on their comparison pages, that there is some iso overestimation going on for all cameras, and varying from model to model.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 6 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
Timmbits
By Timmbits (4 months ago)

if you did a little bit of math, you would realize that the photosites are much larger on the rx100, hence, at identical iso, will pick up about twice as much light.

so of course, for a given exposure, at a given ISO sensitivity, the rx100 doesn't need nearly as long.

1 upvote
Causio
By Causio (3 months ago)

Doesn't make much sense, at least explained that way. I can reply that it needs more light because the sensor is bigger... if you put the same light received at the same time by a smaller sensor, distribute that amount of photons all over the bigger sensor and the photo will be darker. Hence, it captures more light because it is physically necessary for achieving the same exposure. And guess what? The sony needs in fact LONGER...

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 15 minutes after posting
3 upvotes
Dougbm_2
By Dougbm_2 (3 months ago)

At the long end of the zoom (f1.8-4.9) the Sony will be getting less light to it's sensor compared with the Fuji and although it's sensor has more light gathering area it cannot make up the difference to the Fuji with it's brighter lens (f2.0 -2.8). Hence the Sony needs more time to gather the light and chooses a slower shutter speed.

1 upvote
Frank Z C
By Frank Z C (4 months ago)

Thanks Robert. That makes sense.

0 upvotes
Robert Wise
By Robert Wise (4 months ago)

Hi Frank. I can answer your question regarding price of the RX100 Mark II.
The price of cameras are based on what they think you are prepared to pay and not cost of production. That is why manufacturers price cameras at a high price when introduced (to tempt the early adopters) and then a Dutch auction takes place over months where prices are reduced to tempt others.

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

Wise men say, only fools rush in.
But I can't help being a born hoarder.
That's the motto for early buyers.
I always wait at least 6 months to buy a camera of my fancy, so I have time to see the elevation and the landing of the novelty.
It's a quarantine I give to see the aps that will ensure a better performance. Usually the models bought after that period already have the aps.

0 upvotes
Timmbits
By Timmbits (4 months ago)

don't forget that there is a cost, to being without.
if you calculate the time until obsolescence as the end date of ownership, you aren't paying as much more as first appears.
the trick is to finding a good balance... what are the extra 6 months of using it (in the above example) worth to you? if you think you'll keep this camera 2 years, waiting 6 months to save 25% gains you nothing. if you keep your cameras longer than that before replacing them, then it makes sense, of course.

1 upvote
papa natas
By papa natas (3 months ago)

Remember the infamous Fujifilm X10? And the hellish lapse of time before the company acknowledged the disks flop? They all were first wave buyers. I never sell my cameras. I'm a camera hoarder, and they will lay me to my final rest with all my toys. Batteries included.

1 upvote
Frank Z C
By Frank Z C (4 months ago)

Yes MK2 have more features than the original RX-100. But wonder why it is so expensive for a camera made in China?

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

Patriotism doesn't make a better camera, Frank.

2 upvotes
Timmbits
By Timmbits (4 months ago)

china is known for shoddy, or at the very least, inconsistent, manufacturing, and they pay exploitative wages, which are reflected in their bottom line.
what has this got to do with patriotism @papanatas?
for me, anything coming out of a country that is half a century behind in the space race, is just a disposable consumer product not worth paying a premium for, no matter what label you slap onto it.

Comment edited 45 seconds after posting
2 upvotes
M Lammerse
By M Lammerse (3 months ago)

@ Timmbits: I sometimes have that feeling too when people (iDiots) pay a fortune for a chinese product with a US marketed shiny apple on it.

I have to use Apple myself too, so I know where I talk about. ;-)

1 upvote
crazyhorse5
By crazyhorse5 (4 months ago)

After looking for a compact digital with large sensor. It seems that the Lumix DMC-Lx7 seems to have the largest sensor with the best Lens . So would this make it the best one to buy for Picture quality , which is what i really want. Not sure if it has zoom , but then none of the large sensors seem to have zoom. Would cropping deliver the same results as a Sony HX50v

0 upvotes
Timmbits
By Timmbits (4 months ago)

you're kidding, or being sarcastic, dissing the lx7 and the hx50v?
otherwise you're mistaken. the lx7 has a small sensor at 1/1.7", and the hx50v has a tiny sensor at 1/2.3"
the rx100ii has a 1" sensor, much much larger.

1 upvote
Dougbm_2
By Dougbm_2 (3 months ago)

Maybe the confusing naming of sensor sizes has...er..confused him.
One day we may have an understandable naming ie diagonal measurement in mm (7.2 to 43.3mm) or surface area (28 to 864 mm) or just a grading eg size 1x to 30... 1x being the smallest used in cameras (1/2.3") and 30x being "Full Frame or 35mm film size.
This would make the Sony X100 a 4.1x sensor and an LX7 a 1.72x, a Fuji X20 a 2.0x, an OMD-E5 an 8.0x and Canon 70D 19.5x and a 5D 30x. The HX50V would be a 1.0x.

1 upvote
aerorail
By aerorail (4 months ago)

thom hogan

http://www.gearophile.com/cameras/camera-reviews/sony-rx100-and-rx100ii.html

Final Words

If you're looking for the best image quality you can produce from a shirt pocket camera that has a great deal of flexibility, then buy the RX-100. Or the RX-100II if you think the tilt LCD, WiFi, or EVF option will be useful. I've been carrying this camera around the world with me for over two years now. It's never disappointed me for compact-type camera usage. Never. That's saying a lot.

2 upvotes
DPReview007
By DPReview007 (4 months ago)

I couldn't agree more. Diamond award from me. As dpreview admits, this is the clear class leader. I'm somewhat confused about their "silver award"...

0 upvotes
geranium
By geranium (3 months ago)

Hi Thom. I have a Nikon 7001 etc that I am about to manoeuvre to my first and last trip to Africa. I cant really afford to buy a compact camera on top of all the other bits and pieces I've forked out for but I think it will be an essential extra for impromptu people shots and twilight walks. (I am 70 and arthritic) A Sony RX 100 seems the way to go but low light shooting and wide angle may be important on these occasions . Just how much better is the mark II for low light shots.? Would really appreciate your opinion.

0 upvotes
Peter Kroll
By Peter Kroll (4 months ago)

With a slightly higher max aperture at the tele and this would by my ideal camara.
Peter Kroll, Singapore

0 upvotes
shawnfb
By shawnfb (3 months ago)

it probably wouldn't get in your pocket...

0 upvotes
North Conor
By North Conor (5 months ago)

I did not really find an answer to this in the review: Putting the extra features aside, is it worth it to spend the extra money on the RX100 II (over the RX100) based on picture quality/focus speed?

0 upvotes
North Conor
By North Conor (5 months ago)

I read through the review again, and I did find the answers I was looking for.

0 upvotes
notnaff
By notnaff (5 months ago)

I'm in the same position. RX100 or RX100 mk2?

The review, last page, says "...would you be better off saving some money and buying the now-discounted RX100 instead? That depends. If a slightly-less-noisy ISO 3200 JPEG is worth an extra $150 to you, then the RX100 II will be the better investment. If you can live with a little more noise, don't care much for a tilting LCD and don't plan to use Wi-Fi sharing, then you're better off with an RX100".

I think I'll go for the RX100 as I only usually shoot in daylight and the shop will through in a free ever-ready case.

Comment edited 38 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (5 months ago)

From the review: "Overall, the RX100 II is virtually untouchable in its compact camera class".

And they still found it appropriate to give it a Silver Award? Pretty incredible really. I thought for sure when the RX100 II was reviewed, DPR would correct its earlier "Silver Award" slip up for the original RX100 by giving the II a much deserved highest rating.

The only other camera that I can remember that so obviously led its class in pretty much every area and still received "only" a Silver Award was the D7000. Not really a complaint as I don't own either camera just an observation.

5 upvotes
Michael Z Houston
By Michael Z Houston (5 months ago)

I really like the fact that the hotshoe allows me to attach the small Sony bounce flash to the camera when taking photographs of friends in unlighted spaces. I am pleased I traded up from the RX 100. Of all my cameras this is the one I use the most because I always have it with me.

Comment edited 47 seconds after posting
1 upvote
Stephen Owades
By Stephen Owades (4 months ago)

The pop-up flash in the RX100 can be tilted up (with a finger) to become a bounce flash, and I've been very pleased with the ability of my RX100 to shoot portraits without adding external flash gear. I assume the RX100II flash will also tilt. Agree completely that a camera that's small and light enough to have with you at all times can be more valuable than a "better" camera that you don't bring because of bulk and weight.

0 upvotes
alfpang
By alfpang (3 months ago)

Agree. This is a Gold camera for its class.

1 upvote
carlgt1
By carlgt1 (5 months ago)

has anyone tested it's "dust gathering" capabilities? My original RX100 had a dusty sensor within a few days, maybe not at Nikon D600 level, but it was still annoying to shoot a blue sky at higher aperture and see blue blobs.

2 upvotes
Steven Pam
By Steven Pam (4 months ago)

I have an RX100 Mk II, and had sensor dust within two weeks. I've just received it back from having returned it for cleaning, tested it on the sky, and there is still dust - well, a different, small spot in a different location.
To replace the RC as my "every day carry" camera, I bought a second-hand OM-D E-M5 which is an altogether more interesting, fun, and competent camera (although significantly larger, of course). As soon as the RX is fixed, I'll be listing it on eBay.
Maybe I'm fussy, but I find sensor dust on a non-interchangeable lens camera to be a total deal-breaker.

2 upvotes
Timmbits
By Timmbits (4 months ago)

thanks for mentioning this guys!
I had no idea this was a problem with these!

I guess it must be the chinese manufacturing making parts that rub against each other not as smooth as better quality japanese products?

there is no way I would pay the kind of money they are asking for it, for a product of lesser quality.

2 upvotes
cokeisit
By cokeisit (3 months ago)

@Timmbits Way to jump to conclusions! Reading on another site, people have had no problems with their RX100M2 made in China. And the OP didn't say whether or not his original RX100 was made in China.

0 upvotes
CaseyComo
By CaseyComo (5 months ago)

I have this camera. It's pretty terrific. My favorite feature is the articulating screen. Coupling this with its small size and non-threatening appearance makes it the perfect street camera. I typically hold it at chest or waist level and shoot it looking down at the screen. This makes me essentially invisible and able to get great shots. It's easy to get shots 90 degrees left or right of me by turning the camera, and even behind me by holding it to my side and turning it to face back.

My other cam is a Nikon D7000 with a nice array of lenses. Great, but definitely not able to get the same level of candid street shots because it gets noticed. If I had to keep only one? Don't ask! It's like asking me to choose which of my kids is my favorite.

0 upvotes
MarcusGR
By MarcusGR (5 months ago)

Now than Oly has released its Stylus1, it is high time for Sony to respond by equipping RX100 with a built-in EVF (and possibly a slightly wider and/or longer zoom, as far as camera size does not exceed 400-450 grs.) !!
A viewfinder is vital for ... 'grown-up' travellers, finding it highly un-practical having to wear glasses each time they need to see details on a darned small screen in a sunny day.
Of course, RX100's sensor is much larger than Stylus1's. Nonetheless, a long-sighted person will rather sacrifice some IQ (and some high-ISO performance) than the possibility to SEE all camera info when shooting. As to external (add-on) VFs, they are not a viable option for a traveller's camera !
You, camera-makers! Can't you see that MOST travellers are aged over 45 ??

Comment edited 4 times, last edit 10 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
JanesyB
By JanesyB (5 months ago)

Buy a camera with an EVF or OVF then... there's a lot of able sighted people that don't want to compromise on IQ and noise handling to satisfy people that can't invest in bifocal or varifocal glasses.

3 upvotes
MtEvans
By MtEvans (5 months ago)

Spot On My Friend!

I'd like to see the % of the under 45 market who own a camera other than the one on their phone, how old that camera is and how often the upgrade that purchase.

Ignoring the "grown up" market is stupid.

They have the money and they have more specific needs (visual acuity & dials-not touch screens) and are willing to pay handsomely for it. Developing a camera that suits the 45+ crowd is a lot smarter than trying to convert the twenty something to upgrade to a camera other than the one that's on their phone.

1 upvote
mcshan
By mcshan (5 months ago)

I hope they keep the RX series SMALL. Add EVF/OVF, more zoom all all the other internet wish-lists might ruin what is already special. Small size and larger point and shoot sensor made the RX100 different. I hope that doesn't change.

Comment edited 28 seconds after posting
3 upvotes
Dougbm_2
By Dougbm_2 (3 months ago)

@MarcuGR.
Sorry: have to do this.

IMPRACTICAL not UN.

Had a look at the Stylus 1. Great to handle and excellent viewfinder but the IQ is a little worse than the ZX-2 due to the longer zoom having quite a bit of distortion ( looking at the reviews now on the web).
It is also a little large. Make me think why not just have an EM-5 and a couple of lenses but I DO see the point of this camera.
A near equivalent is the Sony RX10 but as the sensor is much larger so too is the lens and therefore the whole rig.

1 upvote
Jolnar
By Jolnar (6 months ago)

For those who's been following, I've updated my test on this camera http://www.squidoo.com/sony-dsc-rx100-ii-review

Gotta say, honestly I'm impressed at the results (again). :)

2 upvotes
chillgreg
By chillgreg (2 months ago)

"This Sony camera beats my D7000 at ISO above 1600"

Squidoo is a joke, as are your "reviews". Just spamming for hits, pathetic.

0 upvotes
utomo99
By utomo99 (6 months ago)

I hope sony update the firmware ans solve some of the issue, and can get higher point.
some of them can be improved by firmware update.
But I don't know if sony willing to do it or not.

For next year, I suggest sony to start the lens from 24mm. and also trying to have fast lens (on tele)

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
mailman30
By mailman30 (6 months ago)

"the flash offers a working distance of 0.30 to 15 meters."

are you serious? Not even canon's top of the line external flash will do much at 15 meters (~50 feet)

These may be the specs but you guys should list real world numbers. I really don't think this flash would do much past 10 feet.

2 upvotes
rvenes
By rvenes (6 months ago)

Is there a time lapse function on this camera?
Will mount this camera on a hexacopter an shoot areal photography.
Cant use WIFI (if there is wifi on it)

0 upvotes
DerekWillmott
By DerekWillmott (6 months ago)

Am I the only one who finds a rear screen almost useless in bright outdoor light? If this camera or the Pana GM1 had a good EVF (and either a smaller screen or a little larger size to accommodate it) would not everyone who walks and shoots outside want one? I know I would. Who will be the first manufacturer to sell to every hiker on the planet?

1 upvote
DaveE1
By DaveE1 (6 months ago)

Personally, I have not had a problem with the RX100II's screen. I leave mine at Auto, so it adjusts to ambient light levels. There is an option in the menu settings for "Sunny Weather", as well as "Manual". Along with the tilt screen, that should cover most people's needs nicely.

You can also get an excellent Sony EVF to go with the RX100II. Too expensive if you don't need it, but good value if the absence of one bothers you. I like that it is an add on, so that the majority who don't need it can still enjoy the smaller size with large screen.

1 upvote
CaseyComo
By CaseyComo (5 months ago)

Nope, I know what you mean. That said, even in the brightest light I can usually see enough to compose the shot. Works for me, YMMV. :)

0 upvotes
Fotomaker01
By Fotomaker01 (6 months ago)

Given the price of this camera (and its optional electronic viewfinder) it is a crime that Sony doesn't provide a printed real (vs. Quick Start) manual for the camera. There is also no CD with the manual or other software disc included with the camera. And, the Web-based version of the manual is a pain to read - it's all topline topics only and requires clicking to expand any given topic. There is just no facility for the speed and ease of flipping back and forth b/wn manual pages that there would be with a printed, with decent sized font (geared to the eyesight of middle-aged people who can afford the blankety blank camera) manual. For such a complex camera that is so feature rich, a printed manual is a must!

5 upvotes
CaseyComo
By CaseyComo (5 months ago)

Agreed. Printed manual is useful. Want.

0 upvotes
mhammon
By mhammon (4 months ago)

I agree and found this ebook to be a great manual. I have it on my iPad and iPhone, so it's available when I'm in the field.

“The Complete Guide to Sony’s Cyber-Shot RX-100 Camera. Professional insights for the experienced photographer”, by Gary L. Friedman, Version 2.1. http://www.amazon.com/Complete-Guide-Sonys-Cybershot-RX-100-ebook/dp/B00BEO4IJK

He has one for the Mk2, too. http://friedmanarchives.com/RX100-MK2/.

0 upvotes
tropicmerc
By tropicmerc (1 week ago)

Same here. Put Gary Friedman's RX100 M2 ebook on my phone for easy reference anywhere. Great explanation of all the wonderful features of this magic camera. It really pays to take the time and learn about it in great detail. The more I use this camera, the more I like it.

0 upvotes
msmithphd80
By msmithphd80 (6 months ago)

So, no gold eh? Oh well, still an awesome camera - one would hope the price might come down with only silver (haha). Anyway - I am not a pro, but I love taking pics... so, since I ended up not even using the Canon DSLR package I've got... I bought the RX100II AND the RX1R from here - best prices are constantly updated here (and the writer is cute), so I finally got the other one as well: http://www.squidoo.com/sony-dsc-rx100-ii-review) and sold my DSLR. For a lot of photographers, I don't think these Sony compacts can replace their set-ups, but for me, they do. And they do it well too.

1 upvote
Jolnar
By Jolnar (6 months ago)

Well everyone is entitled to their own opinion. But do take a look at the tests that I had done using the RX100 II against 3 other mid to high end cameras - http://www.squidoo.com/sony-dsc-rx100-ii-review

You will be surprised why this camera is call a breakthrough product. :)

1 upvote
pvida
By pvida (6 months ago)

Does anyone know if Sony has managed to improve the locking mechanism of the battery door ? It´s all safe in even when the door is open but it´s annoying and I have the fear to break it while moving in and out of the pocket.

0 upvotes
FreedomLover
By FreedomLover (6 months ago)

When is your battery door opening?
When you reach for the camera in a tight pocket?
Or when you put it into a tight pocket?

0 upvotes
pvida
By pvida (5 months ago)

Mainly when getting it out. The door ist locked by a single slider only. The mechanism I know from the Canon S (90) ist more secure.

0 upvotes
Mike7500
By Mike7500 (6 months ago)

Is it worth the extra $150 to buy the II instead of the I?

I will be using it mainly for low light indoor and outdoor concerts.

Comment edited 60 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
DaveE1
By DaveE1 (6 months ago)

Yes. I would recommend the II for what you plan to use it for.

The tilting screen alone (not on the first model) will make the job of shooting at events so much easier. I find myself using the screen also tilted up; allowing easy waist level shooting.

The back illuminated sensor should also help with lower light conditions and the multi-interface hotshoe allows for a better mic to be attached. The added WiFi may come in useful for use on location too.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
1 upvote
alfpang
By alfpang (3 months ago)

Get the II so you can add a stereo mic. Really makes a difference for concerts.

0 upvotes
harry in harrisburg
By harry in harrisburg (6 months ago)

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

I would much rather have it infinitely variable.

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

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

1 upvote
Artvladi
By Artvladi (6 months ago)

Is this review biased?

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

2 upvotes
Artvladi
By Artvladi (6 months ago)

Also, Ricoh GR is even more pocketable, has bigger sensor and produces much better pictures than Sony RX100 II in low light according to its review on this site.

0 upvotes
DaveE1
By DaveE1 (6 months ago)

You are comparing the pocketable compact RX100II to the Olympus Pen E-PL5? Also, the Lumix DMC-GX7? Are you on the wrong page perhaps? Do you know the difference between these categories of camera? Throw in the Nikon D800 into the mix too - sure why not? ;-)

Comment edited 13 minutes after posting
11 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (6 months ago)

Artvladi:

Besides the fact that cameras like the GX7 take interchangeable lenses, which add bulk. The GX7 hasn't really shipped yet. It and the new Olympus are the first really good MFT cameras for high ISO work above ISO 1600.

The Ricoh GR, yes, it can be used at high ISOs, but it takes some work and serious raw extraction software. It also uses a fixed lens. It's a plenty good camera that someone can put in a biggish pocket, but it's not exactly in the same category as the Sony RX100.

2 upvotes
unofr
By unofr (6 months ago)

RX100 vs RX100M2

I really need your HELP
Fist of all I'm diver and i'll use this camera underwater in a Nauticam housing.
It was my birthday yesterday and my wife has bought the RX100
Since exchange with Alex from Nauticam yesterday I thougt thath the better option was the RX100M2
I didn't open the box and would like to know if M2 will be a better choice.

I will use the camera underwater but not so much on land
So what a difficult choice for me

I received this info from Nauticam :
"Will you use the camera a lot on land? If so, the RX100II is the better option. I think if you are spending €2000 on a housing, lenses and flashes, that €200 on the camera is not really so much and the RX100II is the better option.

Let me know and I can do you a devis.

I would exchange it for the version 2 if I were you. The hotshoe may
be useful, the wifi is convenient and the tilt screen is useful on land."

Thanks for your help

0 upvotes
unofr
By unofr (6 months ago)

Add information :

I received this info from uwdigitalcamera :
"It is very difficult.
The camera performance, definitely M2 is improved and better one.
But it is your decision which one you select, and consider it is worth for the difference 200EUR.
The housing for RX100, it is almost discontinued.
And now the housing for M2 is hot item.
I like ACQUAPAZZA housing, it is very good housing.
And its price is far reasonable than Nauticam.

But if you will use outside monitor, and you take movie mainly, then Nauticam housing has flexibility for these functions and accessories."

Tanks for your help

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (6 months ago)

V2 is better at higher ISOs, because of the BSI sensor, so easier to shoot with less light underwater.

Check to make sure that raws can be sent via wifi if your intention is to get raws off the camera while it's still in the underwater housing.

I assume you realize that this lens gets significantly slower as it zooms out.

0 upvotes
george2013
By george2013 (6 months ago)

The name of the game is wide depth of field. People today watch tv, and on tv you see no out of focus areas. When people look at photographs, they expect the same. The winner will always be the camera that creates clear focused pictures with no out of focus areas.

1 upvote
njb311
By njb311 (6 months ago)

Did I miss a huge amount of sarcasm here? Sorry if I did, but if not, then not only is it untrue what you are saying about TV shows being shot entirely within depth of field, but achieving large depth of field has always been far less challenging for cameras than narrow depth of field, with the proviso that in low light the photographer needs to be able to either slow the shutter or use higher ISO. But that has forever been the case. I also fundamentally disagree with the comparison between moving images and stills.

1 upvote
AndyW17
By AndyW17 (7 months ago)

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

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

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

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

1 upvote
DaveE1
By DaveE1 (7 months ago)

It's well worth getting to know the RX100II.

User experience and engagement is more in the head than in the hands. Unreasonable expectations aren't going to help with any new camera, and you can't reasonably expect to be as familiar with it as you are with the one you normally use. When you need a camera this small, you won't get a better alternative anywhere at this point in time.

Also, don't expect physics to bend just because the price tag reflects the high end specification. A very small camera with plenty of controls will feel like a very small camera with plenty of controls. In other words, the RX100II will shoot images like a bigger camera, but feel like a compact camera.

Good luck with your choice (whatever that may be). You may wish to broaden your source of information in the light of this review. I will.

2 upvotes
AndyW17
By AndyW17 (6 months ago)

Granted I know the FZ200 waaaay better than the RX100, but I have more than 1000 shots on the RX100 so am reasonably familiar with it. I DO think the key to these cameras is to fine tune their settings to what works for you as an individual. I had very different settings than the owner of this camera - simply because I worked more of the camera features than did the owner.

Yes - you're correct on the physics vs. $$ - I understand and agree.

My choice is complex. I own a full D600 kit as well, and am likely to sell that for m4/3 shortly..... This Sony camera is for having it "with me", and being happy with the results.

tx

1 upvote
km25
By km25 (7 months ago)

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

1 upvote
DaveE1
By DaveE1 (7 months ago)

It doesn't make my coffee for me either, but I'd still give it gold as the best compact camera around by a long shot.

Then again, I don't care whose badge is on the camera, so I don't carry that baggage with me when choosing.

5 upvotes
Neodp
By Neodp (7 months ago)

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

1 upvote
dweberphotography
By dweberphotography (6 months ago)

Because every time Nion or Canon catch up to Sony's innovations, Sny releases something else that Nikon and Canon just dont have. Think about it, Sony released the first full frame mirrorless camera, the first smartphone camera that has an appreciable sensor, a clipon camera for a phone that has the same sensor as a high end P&S (Rx100), the first mirrorless (tell me if im wrong) camera with an APS-C sensor (NEX3-5), DSLT technology, and so much more.

0 upvotes
travelshots_dpr
By travelshots_dpr (7 months ago)

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

10 upvotes
DaveE1
By DaveE1 (7 months ago)

There are many posts here that agree with you.

More about the camera, less about the reviewer, that should be DPR's new motto at the end of all this. A separate mood icon for the reviewer, to sit beside the camera award icon, might be a nice idea for DPR. I am actually serious.

4 upvotes
wayne131
By wayne131 (7 months ago)

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

4 upvotes
Alex Permit
By Alex Permit (7 months ago)

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

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

DPR's objective tests back up my subjective views.

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

The rx100 is, imho, a clear gold star.

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting
5 upvotes
Boky
By Boky (7 months ago)

RX100II is not pocketable, unfortunately. It does deserve gold, but it is not a P&S, it costs like entry level SLR, does not handle like an SLR, has yellow overcast and feels like a WW2 design.

Comment edited 9 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
ET2
By ET2 (7 months ago)

"RX100II is not pocketable"

It sure is

8 upvotes
Boky
By Boky (7 months ago)

Try putting that thing in a shorts' pocket and see what happens...

0 upvotes
DaveE1
By DaveE1 (7 months ago)

@Boky, I had two RX100II's in my short pockets recently, as I minded one for a friend who was swimming. What's supposed to happen?

Are you talking about boxer shorts? If so, why would you want to put a camera into your underwear?

4 upvotes
ekaton
By ekaton (7 months ago)

Fully agree. It`s the only versatile and pocketable cam with "good enough" IQ not constantly making one regret to have left he better gear at home. All the others will frustrate demanding users the sooner or later and IQ wise are challenged by newer smart phone camera.

2 upvotes
ekaton
By ekaton (7 months ago)

To "Boky": get out of your Speedos an buy some decent pants and shorts. The RX100 is even shirt pocketable, the Mark II a tiny little less so, but they easily fit into jacket pockets or not too tight jeans pockets.

Comment edited 23 seconds after posting
4 upvotes
Boerseuntjie
By Boerseuntjie (6 months ago)

WW2 Design... LOL, well WW2 gave us the "A" bomb and the RX100 is the" Bomb" Who cares if it's silver?, I think it should be Uranium with a Atomic clow
@Boky you must be wearing hot pants ;)

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 5 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
fotokeena
By fotokeena (4 months ago)

"By DaveE1 (3 months ago)
@Boky, I had two RX100II's in my short pockets recently, as I minded one for a friend who was swimming. What's supposed to happen?

Are you talking about boxer shorts? If so, why would you want to put a camera into your underwear?"

To keep the camera warm so the battery would last longer.

0 upvotes
Northgrove
By Northgrove (7 months ago)

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

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

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 59 seconds after posting
1 upvote
MarcMedios
By MarcMedios (7 months ago)

Man! Almost perfect except: no viewfinder and a 4.9 on the long end...

0 upvotes
Total comments: 499
1234