QUICK LINKS:VideosSample ImagesCamera TimelineLink Directory

connect.dpreview.com geasrshop.dpreview.com

News ReviewsBuying GuideSample Images Articles Cameras LensesPhonesPrinters Software Forums Galleries Challenges

Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 II Review

September 2013 | By Allison Johnson with additional material by Shawn Barnett

20.2MP | 1" BSI CMOS | $750/£649 (MSRP)

True breakthrough products are rare in consumer electronics and perhaps even more rare in the digital camera space. The Sony Cyber-shot RX100 was one of those rare products that caught the attention of casual photographers, enthusiasts and critics alike. It successfully fitted a large 1”-type sensor into a compact camera so inconspicuous that without knowing otherwise, a casual observer would assume it to be a point-and-shoot like any other. Unassuming to the eye, it succeeded in pulling off an impressive trick - delivering excellent image quality from a truly pocketable camera.

Now Sony has introduced the RX100 II, sold as a sister model to the existing camera. A new, back-illuminated 20MP sensor (the largest BSI chip we've yet encountered), gives a claimed 40% improvement in low-light sensitivity, which Sony says will allow the RX100 II to focus faster in low light than its predecessor, as well, of course, as producing cleaner high-ISO images.

Meanwhile, the camera's enthusiast appeal is bolstered by the addition of a Multi-Interface hot shoe, allowing use of external flashguns or, significantly, accessories such as an electronic viewfinder. The rear screen also now tilts up and down, which makes the RX100 II more flexible to use and more at ease in bright light. Impressively, Sony achieved this while adding just 2mm to the camera's depth - so it retains its pocketable prowess. The RX100 II has a list price of $750 - $100 more than that of the original RX100.

Key Features:

1"-type Exmor-R BSI-CMOS sensor (13.2 x 8.8mm, 3:2 aspect ratio)
20.2 million effective pixels
28-100mm (equiv), f/1.8-4.9 Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T* lens
Steady-Shot image stabilization
ISO 160-12,800 (Down to ISO 100 and to 25,600 expanded)
NFC-mediated Wi-Fi allowing file transfer and control from smartphones
Rear control dial and customizable front control ring
10fps continuous shooting in 'Speed Priority' mode
Tiltable 3" 1.2M-dot 'WhiteMagic' LCD screen
13 Picture Effects (33 with variations)
Memory Recall feature can store up to three groups of custom settings
1080p60 video, (AVCHD) with MP4 option (50p in PAL regions)
Built-in stereo microphones
330-shot battery life (CIPA)

The RX100 II also manages to find room to include Wi-Fi capabilities that can be set-up using near field communication (NFC) if you have a smartphone that supports it. Those of us without NFC in our mobile devices will have to set the Wi-Fi up manually. The RX100 II's video capabilities have also been expanded, with the camera now offering the ability to capture 1080p footage at 24 frames per second, in addition to the 60p and 30p the current RX100 offers (50p/25p on European models). Sony now offers a filter adapter for the RX100 II and its predecessor, a $30 accessory that makes it possible to use 49mm filters with either camera.

Following on the heels of a hit

The RX100 was well received by consumers, and when we reviewed it last year it earned a Silver Award (mainly in response to user interface concerns). It wasn't just another enthusiast compact camera, it was truly a stunning piece of engineering. Now, the pricier RX100 II promises better low light performance, faster auto focus and the option to add a viewfinder/flash/remote trigger.

With the RX100 still on the market (and selling for a more-attractive $600 in the U.S. and £549 in the U.K.) do the RX100 II's additions and improvements make it worth the extra investment? If a tilting screen and the ability to use accessories aren't deal-makers, does the image quality justify its expense? Read our full analysis.

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.

GearShop

Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 II Compact Camera●

$748.00

Buy on GearShop

Sony DSC-RX100M II Cyber-shot Digital Still Camera 20.2MP, Black	$679.99
Sony DSC-RX100M II Cyber-shot Digital Still Camera 20.2MP, Black	$679.99
Focus Camera Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100M2/B RX100M2 RX100M II RX100MII 20.2MP Wi-Fi Digital Camera with F1.8 Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T Lens and Full HD 1080p Video at 60fps + Sony 64GB SDHC Class 10 Memory Card + Wasabi NP-BX1 Battery Pack + Sony Camera Case + Micro HDMI Cable + Focus Multi Memory Card Wallet	$748.00
Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100M2/B RX100M2 RX100M II RX100MII 20.2MP Wi-Fi Digital Camera Bundle with Sony 64GB Memory Card + Wasabi Power Replacement Battery for Sony DSC-RX1 + Sony Black Carrying Case + Wrist Grip Strap + Camera Accessories	$788.00
Sony DSC-RX100M II DSC-RX100M2 DSC-RX100MII RX100M2 RX100MII DSC-RX100M II Cyber-shot Digital Still Camera 20.2MP, Black Bundle with 64GB Class 10 High Speed Card, Spare Battery, Micro HDMI Cable SD Card Reader, Mini Tripod + More!	$759.00
Sony DSC-RX100/B 20.2 MP Exmor CMOS Sensor Digital Camera with 3.6x Zoom	$598.00
Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100M2/B RX100M2 RX100M II RX100MII 20.2MP Wi-Fi Digital Camera Bundle with Sony 32GB Memory Card + Wasabi Power Replacement Battery for Sony DSC-RX1 + Sony Black Carrying Case + Wrist Grip Strap + Camera Accessories	$768.00
Sony Cyber-Shot DSC-RX100mII DSC-RX100m II DSC-RX100M2/B RX100 II + LoweProCase (Red) + Battery + Charger + Giotto's Blower + Lens Cleaning System + 64GB Kit	$748.00
Sony Cyber-Shot DSC-RX100mII DSC-RX100m II DSC-RX100M2/B RX100 II + LoweProCase (Sage) + Battery + Charger + Giotto's Blower + Lens Pen Cleaning System + 64GB Kit	$748.00
Sony DSC-RX100 II Cyber-shot Digital Still Camera DSC-RX100 MARK II	$734.99
Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 Digital Camera (Black) 32GB Package 3	$598.00

Show all listings (11) ...

Get more prices from Amazon

Comments

Total comments: 411

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

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?

1 upvote

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

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

5 upvotes

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.

1 upvote

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

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

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

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.

0 upvotes

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

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

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.

1 upvote

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

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

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

1 upvote

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.

8 upvotes

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.

3 upvotes

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 :-)

3 upvotes

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

4 upvotes

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

"RX100II is not pocketable"

It sure is

5 upvotes

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

0 upvotes

@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?

3 upvotes

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

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

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

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

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

0 upvotes

Sorry DPR. Another boring, paint-by-numbers review. Regurgitated. The reviewer lacks even a modicum of enthusiasm, almost as though forced to perform the review as punishment. You really need to lose the hyper-defensive chip-on-the-shoulder attitude when the overwhelming majority of comments disagree with your findings.

7 upvotes

Agreed. Not to mention no explanation of their finding that the new model clips highlights 1 EV worse than the old one, yet the sensor is supposedly improved...

Comment edited 18 seconds after posting

2 upvotes

@ chillgreg - I think a defensive position is understandable (though not ideal), given some posters' dismissal of something that a lot of work went into. And, having searched through the comments, almost the only responses from dpreview have come in response to outright accusations about our integrity - something I'm sure you can understand would be offensive.

Ultimately, we drew a conclusion based on extensive use and explained our logic. At which point, if you still disagree, that's fair enough. It's not reasonable to then make spurious accusations though - which some people have.

I sat out of the discussion of the award on this camera because my decision to give the RX100 a Silver (which is still meant to denote a good camera, and which Sony uses on its website), was controversial.

However, while the RX100 II's image quality is excellent (though the slow aperture at the long end of the zoom means it's not that far ahead at full zoom), it's not a very interesting camera to use

3 upvotes

If I were spending $750 on a camera, I'd want to feel engaged with the shooting experience - I'd expect to feel like I was completely in control of the photos I took. And I just don't get that from the RX100 (or II).

So yes, the camera is groundbreaking from an engineering standpoint. And yes, it offers great image quality (which the review makes pretty clear, I think), but a camera is more than just its images and, despite its capabilities, I just don't enjoy photography with the RX100 - I feel dislocated from the shooting and it seems Allison felt the same way.

At which point, I think the Silver award makes sense. We all admire what Sony's achieved, but it's not an easy camera to love. If your experience differs, you're welcome to disagree, but that's what I sincerely believe and I'd rather err on the side of caution than risk being hyperbolic about a camera I don't enjoy using.

6 upvotes

I couldn't give two figs about whether you guys find it interesting (I have one and I can see how that might be the impression if you don't feel like messing with memory settings and avoiding its various oddities like 1/30 shutter). Or if it got gold, silver or chartreuse.

What I'd like to know is where the nice in-depth DR testing stuff went that we saw in older reviews, why the new (bad) test scene was shoved at us, throwing out years and hundreds of cameras to directly compare to the new ones, and how it is that DPR finds the Nikon V1 blows away the RX100M2 in EV range like that, despite what seems to be contradictory DxO data.

I am voicing no grievous aspersions, and I certainly sympathize with staff when the more egregious and disrespectful types vent their dissatisfaction with their own lives in rant form here. You guys have an unfortunate aspect to the job, dealing with the nerd-u-copia of temperamental self-proclaimed experts.

3 upvotes

@sensibill - The only place I can see a 1EV difference is in DRO Auto (they're identical in DRO Off).

The extra 1/3EV in the highlight looks a lot like a rounding error - the graphs track each other so closely, you have to assume they're the same (this is bound to happen if you report results rounded to the nearest 1/3rd).

In the shadows, there's a little more range, but that could simply be because the RX100 is slightly cleaner in the shadows at base ISO (125) than the RX100 II is (at its base of 160).

If you look at the noise page, set the first widget to show just the two Sonys, click onto graph view, then select black noise (a little convoluted, I appreciate), you can see the noise level for the RX100 is a little lower than the RX100 II - this could well be just enough to cause the bottom of the DR chart to clip later - giving an extra fragment of DR in the very deep shadows, but not a lot in the real world.

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting

0 upvotes

@sensibill - The reason we find a different DR result to DxO is that they're testing Raw DR and we're showing how much of that is conveyed into the JPEGs. We're working on way to incorporate some Raw DR info into our reviews.

And I'm sorry you feel the new test scene is being forced on you. Believe me, the decision to move away from a scene with nearly four years' worth of cameras in it was not taken lightly. If you've not already seen it, this article should explain why we had to change.

Ironically, the RX100 was one of the cameras that convinced us we couldn't continue to use our existing scene. We've done everything we can to try to make sure the new scene tells you more about the real-world behaviour of cameras than our old one did and we're working hard to offer more cameras in the new scene.

0 upvotes

Nuisances like these two are nauseating. You both have incredible supernatural powers to be able to detect 'enthusiasm' and 'punishment' via your monitors. Just shut up and shoot. Or better yet, start your own websites and come up with your own standards and awards. @R Butler keep up the good work despite the hating trolls.

0 upvotes

Richard, thanks for the explanation.

Javidog, I for one have been here longer and contributed far more to these forums than you have. Complaining about complaints is laughably hypocritical, doubly so when you do it with vitriol. Sycophantic trolling is still trolling.

1 upvote

As always Richard, your logic and ability to maintain that positive and professional attitude under fire is admirable. We might disagree at times, but respectfully.

@sensibill, well said. Have a look at jabmydog's history... ;)

2 upvotes

The review is questionable (for reasons many others have pointed out)...

...but the posts from people giving out about people giving out are downright hilarious.

Thanks for the laugh!

4 upvotes

"...At which point, I think the Silver award makes sense. We all admire what Sony's achieved, but it's not an easy camera to love."

Seriously?? DPR is practically he only review that does not like the RX100... most people LOVE the portability and image quality. I guess if you hate small cameras with amazing image quality, then this makes sense.. but, then its hilarious how the iPhone is overly hyped on DPR for its photo taking features.

3 upvotes

"most people LOVE the portability and image quality."

Yes, but those things are not what DPR found fault with. They didn't like the ergonomics and user experience. Those are very subjective things, so you shouldn't expect every reviewer to have the same opinion.

I for one wouldn't trust a reviewer who weren't honest about his opinions, and were afraid to publish a conclusion that didn't conform to the "consensus view".

0 upvotes

The review won't go down as DPReview's finest. I think that while people appreciate honesty in reviews, there is more than a fair smattering of whim and the superficial about this one... best camera in its class, but not in the mood to acknowledge that, not engaging, not yanking my chain, whatever.

I've received some great buying advice on this site over the years. I think that the site should feel flattered that people care enough about the integrity of the reviews to criticize when such is seen as warranted. That concern won't last though, as people are fickle with so much choice available to them.

3 upvotes

Well said, Sir.

2 upvotes

Sony RX 100 opened the way to 1' sensors, IMHO the "G 17" for Canon and "P 7900" for Nikon will be equipped with 1' inch sensor

0 upvotes

Why ?
Nikon Already have 1" sensor, and even interchangeable lenses and even an evf if you want one, and phase detect

Comment edited 42 seconds after posting

2 upvotes

Nikon 1 are not a compact cameras. They are interchangeable lens cameras and should be compared to other interchangeable lens cameras; all of them (except Pentax Q) have larger sensor than Nikon 1

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 1 minute after posting

0 upvotes

hope G17 will be more "compact" than G16

http://camerasize.com/compare/#124,474

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting

1 upvote

OneMoreComment:

The Canon G1X already has a sensor bigger than 1"; it's pretty close to APSC.

0 upvotes

So did 2005 R1. That had a bigger close to APSC size sensor. RX100, however, is truly a pocket camera and appears to be directly inspired by Canon S90 series.

1 upvote

le_alain, G16 includes a zoom lens. J1 does not. Try putting the zoom lens on J1

1 upvote

Excellent and now with a hot shoe, but the price killed it for me. The price is too close to a Ricoh GR though Sony still deserves to price it that high.

0 upvotes

GR at 28mm is F2.8. RX100 at 28mm is F1.8, so GR doesn't really have any lowlight advantage, despite the larger sensor.

Add to the fact that RX100 has image stabilization. GR does not. That adds one more stop advantage to RX100

Add wifi, tiltable LCD, 60p video, zoom lens, all missing in GR

Comment edited 43 seconds after posting

2 upvotes

@zodiacfml
if you are ok with the "fixed" 28mm lens, Ricoh GR is a great camera and i'm sure you'll enjoy it,

0 upvotes

GR is 27mm f/4.3 equiv.
RX is 28mm f/4.8 equiv.
0.3 stops between them so not much difference here.

1 upvote

"GR is 27mm f/4.3 equiv.
RX is 28mm f/4.8 equiv.
0.3 stops between them so not much difference here."

Equivalent for depth of field, not for amount of light per area that hits the sensor... that's what count for low light performances.

0 upvotes

But don't forget rest of my comment. GR doesn't have image stabilization. Combined that with slower lens, and I am sure RX100 beats GR even in low light. You can use ISO 800 on RX100 in a low light scene that will require ISO 3200 on GR

Faster lens plus image stabilization.

0 upvotes

@AndreaV,

what image will be projected in a unit area? very different on sensors of different sizes right? we care the amount of light for the same image (like the face of a kid), not unit area, if the image quality is what we want.

every photographic effect will be the same at an equivalent f-number. anything we observe in a unit area will have to be translated into image area (or simply the sensor area) before we can compare.

@ET2,
> slower lens

GR's lens is about 0.3 stops faster per image quality (well, what a lens can contribute). RX100 may beat GR if the sensor is more than 0.3 stops better, that I don't know.

Comment edited 6 times, last edit 6 minutes after posting

1 upvote

yabokkie, is there are a reason why you keep ignoring the other part of my sentence? GR doesn't have image stabilization. RX100 does. Combine faster lens and image stabilization, and you will need to use 2 stop higher ISO on GR. GR is not 2 stops better than RX100

Comment edited 1 minute after posting

0 upvotes

RX100 doesn't have a faster lens. the f/1.8 lens is about 0.3 stops slower than f/2.8 on GR in terms of light gathering capacity.

1 upvote

No, RX100 has a faster lens. The bigger sensor doesn't make the slower lens faster. What it does is allow the sensor to capture more overall light, so high ISO is better on a larger sesnor. In this case GR has bigger sensor and RX100 has faster lens so these two things negate each other.

However, RX100 still has image stabilization so overall RX100 would take better lowlight photos as you can use lower ISOs and still keep it handheld.

Comment edited 50 seconds after posting

0 upvotes

@ET2

Good points.Though I still prefer the image quality of the bigger format since I find joy in processing high quality RAW files, the features of the RX100 are quite tempting to have such as the 60p video and IS.

0 upvotes

This is really humorous, DP has become a Ken Rockwell, putting out absurd statements to drive clicks to their site (and Amazon).

1 upvote

This kind of repetitive and distressing commenatires are unnecessary and tiring.
Thank you to the team of DPreview for all the work they do, and all the information and advice they give

7 upvotes

Wish it could be comared with the Canon GX1.

0 upvotes

Compare to other cheap PnS this IQ is best, but not perfect with yellow tined. Not as pocketable as PnS, not as fast as DSLR not as cheap as PnS. I know many people who buy expensive cameras and keep inside cabinet but use iPhone most of the time.

0 upvotes

You can check the challenges site. Many beautiful photos were taken by D90, 7D, D300 and 5DII, still. Their IQ may be dated but still catch the best shots. I hardly see RX__ in the Challenges.

1 upvote

Well, it is true that rarely the best picture is taken by the Sony camera in the Photo Contest.

0 upvotes

@ coody: How many Canicon sold for one Sony camera? Sony have great stuff (Zeiss AF), a IQ comparable to others, some great photographs also and have the most innovative new technology on the market.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 12 minutes after posting

5 upvotes

The 280grams of weight, the 28-100mm lens (with manual focus) and the 1inch sensor with the ability of producing raw files, makes it more pocketable (and portable) than a DSLR, better optical zoom (also faster) than any iPhone or phone camera, and you should check the IQ again cause it is better (in some cases) even compared to older micro 4/3 under low light conditions.

6 upvotes

whatever happened to "the bigger the better"? you couldn't help contradict yourself again

0 upvotes

Bigger pixels, Better images,
Don't let your bipolar disorder take over. VISIT YOUR SHRINK BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE give yourself a chance ......... you might worth it ....... might !!!!

0 upvotes

RX100 sensor = 2.4 microns
4/3 sensor = 3.7 (newer) to 4.2 microns (older)

P: "Bigger pixels, better images"
P: "and the 1inch sensor...you should check the IQ it is better compared to older micro 4/3"

Lying to yourself. Tsk tsk.

0 upvotes

Tsk tsk you can't be that ..... slow

0 upvotes

"Pixel size, pixel count, generation of sensor and cpu all make a difference but most of all the lens".

That was a three day old comment, on the "How many megapixels are enough" comment thread, that you are aware of and re-commented but you like arguing for the argument or just playing ... short

0 upvotes

come on. in that same thread you called APS-C sensors undersized and insisted that "FF sensors get better IQ under any kind of light". it's obvious that your opinion keeps changing, you can't understand yourself.

0 upvotes

Are you sure english is your first language ?

0 upvotes

"VISIT YOUR SHRINK" "you might worth it"

Petrogel can't write complete sentences and
seems familiar and even obsessed with psychiatry.

0 upvotes

One good thing is that, after 2 months of silence you come up commenting for victor ?
Is this a complete sentence ?

0 upvotes

Psychology not psychiatry

0 upvotes

Actually there is no defence here for the all you people shouting foul of the dpreview silver award.

Look at the RX1 - with ergonomics like that the RX100II would have been the highest scored compact EVER. FACT.

SONY failed to deliver the user experience which they so could have based on exisiting products.

5 upvotes

RX1 - what ergonomics?
Holding the camera out at arms length is a major fail.

They brought out a killer sensor+lens combo and put it in a truly lame P&S body..

1 upvote

True but its a better lame body than the RX100.

0 upvotes

The tilting lcd changes the equation - by using it as a waist level finder and tensioning the strap around your neck, you have a stable framing/shooting base. The RX1 doesn't have that.

2 upvotes

Seems like DPReview would save themselves a lot of grief with a very slight redesign: clearly separate the scoring from the 'medal'.

Put the score chart BEFORE the 'final word'.
Then in 'final word', spell out in the last paragraph (as they *sometimes* do) exactly why they chose bronze, silver or gold. Indeed I would expand the final word to a longer subjective insight, and put it and the medal on a different page altogether, entirely distinct from the objective testing.

Constantly reiterating the methodology in reply to antagonistic comments - or relying on the comments of others to do so - must be the least efficient way to justify their thinking, while causing the most antagonism.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting

2 upvotes

What is this obsession with the colour of the medal?

Isn't the image quality the most important, followed by things like easy of camera use? So look at pictures taken with the camera and/or lens at all sorts of settings.

I guess I don't buy wine based on Robert Parker's scoring.

0 upvotes

I agree with the review. You really have to compare this camera with those of a similar price point and while the RX100-2 is a very good performer, it begins to pale a bit when you see what is available for the same money.

0 upvotes

The issue here is that the reviewer does not value having a camera that you can put in your jean pocket; thats the whole point of the RX100.

This bias is clearly shown. They should give it to someone who gets it. This reviewer clearly doesnt.

17 upvotes

You should read reviews before criticizing them. It will give at least minimal cred.

0 upvotes

For me this is right on the money. Great camera and pix but not photographer centric. I sold my rx100 because I never enjoyed using it. It felt like a bar of soap, amongst other annoying traits.

3 upvotes

Experience immeasurably improved by the Richard Franiec grip, it must be said. But I shot a lot with it before getting the grip and (although I have very, very big hands), a bar of soap is not how it felt to me. The one thing I have missed is a tiltable screen - which the II now provides (though I won't be getting one jest noo).
I have to say - even from the biased position of someone who carries his RX100 with him everywhere (because neither my 1Ds III nor my X Pro 1 fit in a pocket - and nor did my LX3) - that I don't get DPR's take on this camera. It is ground-breaking, class-inventing and -leading; on the objective tests, it scores very highly. Unsurprisingly, for such an astonishing piece of engineering (has everyone forgotten that Time named it one of its top 50 inventions of 2012?), it is not cheap so that can hardly count against it. To give it a Silver Award and then hide behind the "it's all subjective, don'cha'no?" mantra is flimsy - and belittles the Awards themselves.

Comment edited 55 seconds after posting

2 upvotes

I do enjoy using my RX100, mainly because of the image quality it produces give it's size. I totally agree, Sony have a consistent but annoying habit of putting 'Sony Style' or more accurately, styling, before functional design. Oddly, they stop doing this when they get up to the SLT-A77/99 level. Maybe they just need to re-define which cameras are at 'consumer' level?

0 upvotes

Maybe if Sony silk screened Canon on the front of this little gem it would have garnered a gold rating. But the croissant eating crowd at dpr knows best, farce.

7 upvotes

Gold award stands for being best in it's category.
RX100 II is NOT best in its category DPreview claims.

4 upvotes

Which one is better then?

6 upvotes

Silver award? It is ridiculous guys.

Sony improved their rx100 which was in the 50 best inventions of 2012 on Times magazine. Then a small online photo magazine (compared to) gave it a silver.

I find that a bad and funny decision.

8 upvotes

It is true that the awards are unrelated to the scores.

Canon's G12 got a Gold from 73%, the G15 Gold from 76% and the G1X Silver from 76%. So the RX100 (and -II) getting a Silver from 78% and 79% respectively is indeed something you can't argue against.

That doesn't mean it doesn't feel odd, though.

2 upvotes

I got sick reading this to be honest.
All the cons are there comparing this good machine with others which are not in same category.
In my understanding it is pointless to compare this with nex6 for the price ($750 of nex6. that must be body only, how about putting a Zeiss glass on for the reach ?) or nex7 (when rx100 II with EVF on will cost $1200)

I suggest the audience to ignore some of this comparison DP review comes up with.
For the sake of bloodYoranges and cutietangerines.

6 upvotes

What's the food in the white bowl?

0 upvotes

almonds

0 upvotes

No idea. But I am sure it is good for a pint of ...

0 upvotes

I feel lots of compassion to those folks who try to compare RX100 to one or another camera. But: to me the reason to compare only within the compact class comes from the class itself – it is a pocket gadget, period. When you do not walk around with a DSLR or another medium/large camera, but pretend to have a fair quality shot at ones – is this Sony a good choice, regarding the sharpness, responsiveness, manual or auto handling, dynamic range, ability to have a good crop afterwards or adjusting the RAW? And for what $? My experience with the RX100 answers me “yes”. Right from the beginning I was missing movable LCD, true. Hot shoe? – I was not. The final question: am I happy with the pictures, without arguing the comparisons with the canons or whatever? – YES. If I was selecting a pocket camera now, would I go for the ungraded RX100 – no doubts. Because I am getting great pictures from it.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 2 minutes after posting

6 upvotes

excellent camera, no doubt an revolutionary development by Sony with impressive IQ. Two main complains, though:

1. (way) too big. It is not really pocketable. What is it then?
2. yellow overcast (minor issue, but annoying one that requires fair amount of time to correct)

The best thing is that Canon will finally have to release the good stuff... wonder what S120 will be capable of...? Would be happy if it comes close enough to RX100II. I'll always sacrifice a bit of performance for a true pocketability - hence the reason I'm still using S90 on-the-go; it fits in a shorts' or shirt's pocket with ease. This should be Sony's main design concern; at least it is the most important MUST in my book of NEEDs.

Nevertheless, RX100II deserves Gold Award - that's a simple fact. Coming to think of Awards...
... maybe dPreview reserved a Gold Award for S120? Everything's possible these days.

0 upvotes

I hope you're kidding, the S120 is a very mildly refreshed S110... With a price hike.

3 upvotes

After years of watching Nikons yellow jpeqs, I'm glad someone finally started to react on the yellow tones.

0 upvotes

$50 rebate in the Sony store on a RX100!
It's all about pocket-ability, Sony are to be congratulated for adding 'features' to an already 'great' camera, but keeping almost the same overall size, not an easy task!
RX100: 58.1 x 101.6 x 35.9
RX100 II: 58.1 x 101.6 x 38.3

2 upvotes

The loss of detail is impressive with this one, when you look at the samples larger than screen size :o

0 upvotes

Such an unbiased review! For example because of statements like the following: "Comparing the RX100 II's JPEGs to the Canon PowerShot G16's (a compact bearing a 1/1.7” CMOS sensor) is a little unfair since the Sony’s sensor is much larger,..." And then you compare the Sony`s sensor with much larger mft and aps-c size ones and consider it fair. The fact that you do not bond with the camera is written all over the review and prevented you from a fair and balanced test result. It`s simple, the Sony RSX100 (II) is in a class of its own and punches way above its weight class. It actually invites to skip mft with kit zooms. Smaller sensor competition feels camera phones breathing down its neck and eventually will become insignificant in terms of market share. Sony has achieved what all product manufacturers dream about: it has changed the rules of the game in a certain market segment. Not a small feast. Others will be followers and will try to copy it. A gold award winner.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 8 minutes after posting

17 upvotes

I was trying to compare RX100 M2 with Canon G1X, but I am not able to see G1X in the list...

2 upvotes

Well, before I bought one, I managed to compare it with the Canon G1X and Canon 7D so that's a mix. It did what I wanted it to do. Having said that, dpreview had a link to DxO where I went so maybe that's where I did the comparison in the beginning of August.
Since then, I know that DxO have reviewed the lens. It's great at wide angle, but nothing spectacular on the zoom but I can live with that. It's easier to transport after all...

0 upvotes

For RX200 I need

11 MP 1" Sensor

3X zoom with fixed 1.8 aperture

ISO upto 51200

2 upvotes

That camera would get a score of 89 and a Silver Award.

10 upvotes

Sony enthusiasts are such emo boys. Not getting a Gold isn't the end of the world. :-)

4 upvotes

LEAVE THE RX-100 II ALONE!!!

8 upvotes

"Our disappointment with the slightly unengaging control wheel and shooting experience has remained unchanged since we reviewed the RX100. We want a compact camera with a big sensor, we really do, but we want to not feel like we're shooting with a compact camera. We want the convenience of a camera that will, if we want, make some or all of our shooting decisions for us with reliability and fit easily into a bag or big pocket. But we still want to take control and feel a connection between ourselves and the pictures we're making. That's not asking too much, is it?"

You are grasping at straws and trying too hard to justify your very obviously wrong decision not to give a Gold Award to BY FAR the best compact camera out there. ;-) Clickless wheel, really? ;)

8 upvotes

I see where they are coming from though. I have an RX100 and find the handling cumbersome. I don't think the wheel clicks is a problem all the time-- great for manual focus. But it's bad for menu selection. (which I do more than manual AF) In general I find I'm quicker making changes with my canon s95 than I am with the RX100. I always feel like I'm fiddling, never got the second nature muscle memory thing going with RX100. Other than that, excellent camera

4 upvotes

Indeed.

Somebody posts this useless "Indeed" reply on almost every thread so I have taken care of it for this thread.

2 upvotes

Indeed ;)

1 upvote

I suggest Sony start design New RX 200
1. LENS Faster lens at Tele. and also wider lens start from 24mm, and also 5 or 7X zoom.
2. Better Design. Grip and also button need to be adjusted.
3. 12-16MP is enough.
4. Control wheel with Click.
5. in Camera RAW conversion
6. and others

Comment edited 39 seconds after posting

1 upvote

That's basically a NEX. Or if you insist on 1" sensor, you're describing a Nikon V2.

2 upvotes

Faster lens with longer zoom range and the camera becomes considerably larger. Longer zoom range would likely also mean a little poorer IQ.

You can't have everything

5 upvotes

Spot on conclusion. Brilliant pictures for a pocket sized camera that is nicely designed and has fairly mainstream interface and features. I agree that it's not a very "satisfying" photography experience. I've had mine for six months and have yet to use much more than aperture priority and panorama modes. Point and shoot. But really, really good point and shoot in a really small package. If I'm hiking or travelling, it's the best thing if I want good quality images in something I can pocket or wear on a belt ring. No intention of upgrading to version II. If the hotshoe viewfinder was $125, maybe.

3 upvotes

So, Silver award... OK.

Controversy increases traffic but reduces credibility. Seems like the choice was made here already.

Next logical step is hiring Ken Rockwell as reviewer.

8 upvotes

Ken would be much better as a moderator; making sure that opinions were not cloaked as facts. (Insert smiley face, here).

1 upvote

Nonsense! The awards reflect the reviewers' subjective opinion, and is unconnected to the numerical scoring system, as has been explained many times by DPR. Therefore, there is no right or wrong, and nothing to argue with. It's like saying that someone loses credibility because he prefers vanilla ice cream instead of your personal favourite. You can't expect everyone's taste and opinions to conform with your own.

2 upvotes

> The awards reflect the reviewers' subjective opinion

I could understand that. Phil Askey (remember him?) was biased towards Nikon, we all knew that, and just accepted as a fact. We are all humans.

What I see here now is controversy for the sake of controversy (thanks goodness there are no "domestic violence documentary" and similar stuff for a while... maybe somebody at DPR finally thought that was over the top). Your mileage may vary, of course.

1 upvote

Funny thing is all the time I knew Phil he owned canon slrs. Still does. So if he was nikon biased he took extreme steps to hide it in his personal life.

6 upvotes

It is quite easy. The reviewer did not like to use the camera. He said something about it being not inspiring - or something like that. How can it then get gold?

But ... this review makes life more difficult. That camera was high on my wish list. But now ... if it is uninspiring ...

1 upvote

> he took extreme steps

He certainly did, in great many areas, as he managed to develop this site and sell it to Amazon. Not something you'd expect from a mere mortal.

0 upvotes

So find another review site. They're not your elected representatives. I agree that it's a silver award same as why Pentax K5II didn't get as high a score. Not enough improvements over the previous model. Canon 70D tangible advance. RX100 II not so much.

0 upvotes

> So find another review site.

That's Luminous Landscape. In fact, that's the only place where I look for *reviews*.

DPR for me, these days, is a camera database and forum site, that's all. BTW, a great camera db site -- and I'm thankful to them for that, honestly. That's what I use when I need to pick a special purpose compact, for instance (I have many).

What am I doing here, in comments section? Providing feedback to DPR. You know, despite my age, I haven't lost *all* faith in humankind... not yet. For instance, when I shopped for RX100II on Sony Store site, I took my time and carefully filled their quite lengthy survey.

If you disagree with my comments, that's 100% fine with me, I can only suggest that you follow your own advice and just pass by.

2 upvotes

What's up with the abysmal resolution of the screen, though?

1 upvote

Care to point out one that is better?

3 upvotes

for that price you would expect way better iso and sharpness.

dont really understand that review. but i dont have to - i just look at the raw test scene.

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting

0 upvotes

When I bought the RX-100, it was based on the excited reviews here and elsewhere. I had some good fortune selling some images so treated myself, thinking with my emotions - my head wouldn't have approved spending that much on a compact camera.

It's probably one of the best things my emotions have done for me photographically in awhile. The image quality is excellent - with a tiny amount of work the RAW files at 800 and 1600 process into very usable prints up to 12x18 sizes, and at 800 and below, upscale reasonably well for larger prints. (As with all digital cameras, some images upscale better than others.) I've sold many prints from images shot with this camera.

I've recommended the RX100 to many friends, and every single one has raved about the camera.

Cost is relative to quality, and the RX100 was definitely value for money. I have D800e kit for big work, m4/3 and XPro1 for personal work. The RX-100 holds up well as a "never be camera-less" carry camera.

12 upvotes

I ordered the RX100M2 from a well-known online retailer named after a South American river, and sent it back the day it arrived. I had several reasons for this:

I didn't like the position of the video button. I don't have huge hands but my thumb kept knocking it so I'd end up recording a short sequence of video instead of taking a photo.

The lack of click-stops on the ring around the lens was unsatisfying, I also found the autofocus hunted a lot, especially when focussing close-up.

My biggest gripe, however, was how fragile the pop-up flash felt when extended.

The few test shots I took were nice, but not exceptional (IMHO) and I wasn't too impressed by the image stabilisation, so I'll be looking at other cameras instead.

2 upvotes

You might be better off drop around to your friendly photo equipment store to take a look at equipment at this price level before buying. Besides they could do with the business when given the opportunity to explain what a light compact camera is and how to use one.

Buying from online retailers named after South American rivers is fine if you know what you are buying. If you don't, then don't take it out on Sony, Canon, Nikon or other.

1 upvote

Simple: Too expensive.

0 upvotes

Compared to what?

6 upvotes

In the digital world, there's the Ricoh GR, priced similarly and offers better image quality.

1 upvote

Ricoh who?

3 upvotes

Actually, it's quite inexpensive.

As a shelf ornament, it would be pricey. As a compact, have-with-me-at-all-times camera, it is worth at least twice the price for its convenience and image quality.

0 upvotes

So the news for this review doesn't start with "Just posted"?

Another thing:

I think whenever you mention a "tiltable LCD", you should make clear if it tilts just vertically tilting or sideways too - which is a big difference in use.

1 upvote

Whenever reviewer mentioned "tilt" I would assume it's a one axis tilt. I thought it's a common way of saying it.

4 upvotes

Reviews are coming down here: The new test scene is not where it should be.
I still have both cameras and tested for DR and noise. MKII is definitely better in DR (especially using ACR), here they found the opposite. ISO sensitivity is not accurate since RX100 ISO125 is as ISO160 on RX100II, so one must be wrong. Why are there no noise tests below ISO160? ISO100 is definitely better on the MKII than native ISO160, but I see only a whiny tiny bit of loss in DR, so I always use ISO100 as long as light allows that. The lens seems decentered from the test sample here. Ok, my first RX100 was decentered, too.
For me the MKII is about one stop better in the end, about half a stop in noise and half a stop in DR. So for me the MKII is an improvement. Lens could get somewhat better, but in the end for me the very best camera in that size and somewhat about, large headroom for PP. More than worth the price for me...

Roland.

4 upvotes

$1,400 spent on two pocket cameras. MII for the right pocket, MI for the left. Oder Linkshänder?

1 upvote

Rechtshänder ;-)!!! The MKII for me, the MKI for my partner during last holidays. Now the MKI is going to eBay...

1 upvote

My father started using this model with the WIFI and I tried it one day....I have to say for a camera of this size, the pictures are lovely....the 60p video of his grand-kids running around the house look great on TV....perhaps not for a professional photographer, but boy.. what fun for an enthusiast.

7 upvotes

RX100 II @ $500 = Gold.
RX100 II @ $750 = Silver (or iron pyrite).

Fan: "You cannot put a price on quality," then keels over coughing.

Me: $750 > D3100 + 2-lenses, J1 or V1, G5, NEX6, T4i, or 2.5x LX7.

Comment edited 40 seconds after posting

1 upvote

you are completely missing the point of this camera. besides, who cares if it got gold or silver. the most important mark is the mark on it's user's eyes. if it's doing what it's meant to, then every camera is a "gold" for it's user. try putting on of the cameras you listed in your pocket and you'll understand what this camera is meant for and what it's not.

11 upvotes

I really wish DPR had just stuck with the old test scene. You've totally nuked the comparative database of years of other cameras (even if it wasn't perfect). The new scene has a lot of wasted space and lacks detailed skin tones, faces, specular objects, etc. in the center. Why relegate all the useful subjects to the outer thirds of the scene, where many lenses lose sharpness? Almost all you have in the center are black and white patterns.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting

10 upvotes

"Why relegate all the useful subjects to the outer thirds of the scene, where many lenses lose sharpness?"
I think you just answered your own question.

I, for one, like the new studio scene. I especially like the fact that right near the center of the scene is a box of fine text that lets me see how well the camera handles loss of fine detail with higher ISOs.

1 upvote

The old studio scene was bad. It was too small that required the shots to be taken from close distance. This introduced several problems

(1) Forcing DPR to shoot at F8 when most 50mm lenses are sharpest at F5.6. Even that didn't resolve the focus and DOF issues and several cameras looked worse due to focus shift /lens issues (look at all older Sony shots taken with 50mm F1.4 before they switched to SAM lens, and all are focused back at queen of hearts).

(2) Most compact and cellphones lenses are not optimized for close focusing performance. That made some compact cameras (including RX100) looks far worse than they would perform in real life. That meant the studio shots were not representative of real world shooting experience.

That old studio scene needed to go, and I am surprised DPR took THIS long

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 4 minutes after posting

5 upvotes

Total comments: 411

Editorial content

Product database

Community

About us Write for us Advertise with us FAQ Feedback Interest-Based Ads Privacy Legal

All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998 - 2013 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved. Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.

Mobile site