Previous page Next page

Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 II Review

September 2013 | By Allison Johnson, DPReview Staff
Buy on GearShop


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.

This article is Copyright 2013 and may NOT in part or in whole be reproduced in any electronic or printed medium without prior permission from the author.

Previous page Next page
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
utomo99
By utomo99 (7 months ago)

Sony, please start M3 or better if RX 200.
With many suggestion and review, I believe you can make better products

0 upvotes
mpgxsvcd
By mpgxsvcd (7 months ago)

If you ignore the whole Gold/Silver award thing this was actually a pretty good review.

4 upvotes
Jogger
By Jogger (7 months ago)

The way this is playing out, its sort of like an Apple "fan" reviewing an Android phone.. on technical merits, the Android is going to do fine.. but, when it comes to the "verdict" (or in this case DPR award).. the Android phone never had a chance of Gold because the person reviewing it is an Apple "fan".

11 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (7 months ago)

J:

And unless you root the OS, Android phones are loaded with crapware, which slow the systems down.

With Android 4.1 there was a way to limit background processes, though you had to do that every time you turned the machine on from fully off. But now with Android 4.2, Google got rid of that feature.

I like the fact that many Samsung Android phones have removable batteries+plus take SD cards, but the new Blackberries do the same.

3 upvotes
locke42
By locke42 (7 months ago)

Then get a Nexus or Google Play edition phone. No crapware.

And you can still disable built-in apps in 4.2.2

1 upvote
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (7 months ago)

locke42--

The batteries are removable and there's a card slot?

0 upvotes
locke42
By locke42 (7 months ago)

I believe the Google Play edition of the Galaxy S4 has a user-replaceable battery and a microSD card slot. All of Samsung's previous phones (including my GNex) did.

But personally, I rely on an Anker external battery. Much more convenient to just plug my phone into it and leave it in my bag than to turn it off, swap out the battery, then turn it back on.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (7 months ago)

locke42:

A Google search does NOT tell me what a "Google Play Phone" is. I know what Google Play is. So I'm guessing such a phone is not readily available in the USA. (I'm clear on what a Nexus is.)

Right, one can use an external charger, but for phones with built-in batteries that doesn't solve the problem that batteries can only take a certain number of charges and discharges.

So we're back to rooting with Cyanomodgen something like the Samsung Gal. S4.

1 upvote
mpgxsvcd
By mpgxsvcd (7 months ago)

The only two cameras in this category “Large Sensor Compact” that got Gold awards are the Ricoh GR and the Fuji X100S. Both of those are not only fixed lens cameras but they are also Fixed Focal Length.

I still can’t fathom why anyone would want a fixed focal length lens over a zoom lens if the zoom has a faster focal ratio than the fixed focal length lens?

7 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (7 months ago)

Because fixed focal length lenses are usually optically better.

This Sony's lens is only particularly fast when widest.

1 upvote
mpgxsvcd
By mpgxsvcd (7 months ago)

And the Fuji and Ricoh lenses are not very sharp at telephoto distances since they are fixed focal length.

8 upvotes
mcshan
By mcshan (7 months ago)

I would agree that they are in a different category.

1 upvote
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (7 months ago)

mpgxs:

Get an Olympus XZ10, the lens zooms, it's optically better than the Sony's lens, the lens is much faster than the Sony's when zoomed, and the sensor can easily shoot ISO2000. Cheaper than the Sony too.

Not good at video.

0 upvotes
Joseph Mama
By Joseph Mama (7 months ago)

XZ10, seriously? It has a 1/2.3 inch sensor! They didn't even spring for the typical 1/1.7 enthusiast. Not in the same class at all.

6 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (7 months ago)

Jo--

The X20 sensor is not as good as I thought, but it's pretty darn good. Then there's the lens.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (7 months ago)

Jo--

Oops, thought you were talking about the Fuji X20, also good but not like the Olympus.

Right the Olympus' lens is better optically and faster than the Sony's and the Olympus shoots raw at ISO2000 easily.

So for a still camera, not video, the cheaper Olympus is a better camera unless you need all those pixels and video.

0 upvotes
Jogger
By Jogger (7 months ago)

Just wondering which compact camera DPR would recommend in place of the RX100/2 .. serious question. DPR reviews are increasingly irrelevant.

9 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (7 months ago)

Set the compare feature to ISO6400, RAW, and then try the Fuji X20.

1 upvote
mpgxsvcd
By mpgxsvcd (7 months ago)

Should we compare resolution or noise? The Fuji lacks both because of the in camera noise reduction even for RAW files.

6 upvotes
Plastek
By Plastek (7 months ago)

You mean just like Nikon? And everyone somehow are OK with de-noising in Nikon RAWs.

0 upvotes
TrojMacReady
By TrojMacReady (7 months ago)

@ HowaboutRAW:

First, there is no RAW ISO 6400 for the X20 in the database, so you're comparing ISO 6400 vs ISO 3200.

Second, scaled to the same output size, the RX100 II is both quite a bit cleaner and has a lot more resolution left, despite the stop difference. As expected of course.

Comment edited 26 seconds after posting
7 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (7 months ago)

Tro:

Okay, I concede the Fuji ISO 3200 point, but it's still a worthy challenger. And most certainly worth looking into given the better lens reputation.

Don't care about scaling tricks, unless you be printing beyond 300ppi.

0 upvotes
TrojMacReady
By TrojMacReady (7 months ago)

It's hard to take people seriously who call anything that involves scaling "tricks".

Because practically every picture you have ever taken, was subject to scaling/resampling at one point before ending up as a physical print or a picture displayed on your monitor. Even without your consent.

Comment edited 8 minutes after posting
6 upvotes
DaveE1
By DaveE1 (7 months ago)

DPR reviews are kind of political these days. So, its best to read them as part of a larger balanced diet of independent reviews.

2 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (7 months ago)

Tro:

How's that? I don't resample the tiffs I print. (If you mean zooming on a computer screen, then say so.)

I guess you have a point about my film pictures.

So in short, I don't pay attention to scaling tricks--except if printing beyond 300ppi.

0 upvotes
TrojMacReady
By TrojMacReady (7 months ago)

What do you think happens when you print at a given (standard) size with 300 DPI? Resampling/remapping done by the print software on your computer or the printer itself. The chances of hitting exactly 300 DPI or say 150 DPI at the print size chosen with the resolution used are usually close to zero.

Same with displaying on your monitor, because I have yet to see a consumer use a monitor exactly matching the resolution of his/her modern camera. No zooming required. In fact, only if you always display your pictures by zooming to 100%, you'd bypass resampling/scaling, but in that case, you'd always end up with a tiny portion of the original scene being displayed. Not plausible.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 4 minutes after posting
4 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (7 months ago)

Tro--

I ruled out the monitor thing in my comment--zooming.

Then to clarify: I think you mean ppi not dpi. And no I don't print at 300ppi much any more.

That's because I rarely send files out to be printed anymore. My Epson and Pictorico gloss white film do a better job, and print at a higher resolution than most who print the file on to real colour photo paper.

So, no I don't do resampling to print--unless I'm trying to print beyond 720ppi, which is something the printer doesn' t allow.

So you've mistaken your method of printing with how everybody prints digital photofiles.

Comment edited 6 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
TrojMacReady
By TrojMacReady (7 months ago)

You don't seem to understand what I just said. Only if you zoom to 100%, you can bypass scaling. Showing the full (scene of the) picture on a monitor, involves automatic scaling. So in my first mention of scaling, of course I didn't refer to zooming, because who in their right mind takes pictures to only look at 100% crops rather than the full scene. You don't either, so my comment about scaling for monitor purposes still applies.

3 upvotes
TrojMacReady
By TrojMacReady (7 months ago)

And as for printing, any modern DSLR at 16 MP or above would require resampling to display an uncropped scene on your printer at a regular 4x6 print.
Very few people use a variable PPI anyway (a slight crop would change it), most stick to certain predetermined values to achieve a desired quality and resample themselves or have the printing/printer software do that for them automatically.

Comment edited 46 seconds after posting
3 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (7 months ago)

Tro:

Duh about zooming on a monitor, you keep missing where I acknowledged this point. Quoting myself from above: " (If you mean zooming on a computer screen, then say so.)"

I use variable ppi all the time. That you don't is a different story.

Then more to the point, I don't print at 4"x6", and I crop.

You continually make the assumption that your way of doing things is absolutely the only approach+method, that's not a good way to approach life. And it leads to really limited thinking about the world.

0 upvotes
mpgxsvcd
By mpgxsvcd (7 months ago)

The awards Dpreview gives out are just a joke now. I don't even look at them anymore. However, their reviews are thorough and very detailed so that is what I look at.

Keep up the great work Dpreview but ditch the Silver and Gold awards. I don't think you have ever given a Bronze award so these awards really aren’t telling the readers much. My opinion is that the awards cause more controversy than they are worth.

Oh wait a minute…. Now I get it. Controversy = Clicks and Comments. I guess that makes sense. Most people would have overlooked this review because it was just an evolutionary and not revolutionary version of the previous camera.

Slap a Silver award on it and suddenly it has hundreds of comments overnight. Pretty smart thinking there. Clicks = $

22 upvotes
Simon Joinson
By Simon Joinson (7 months ago)

we don't have a bronze award.. and do you really think a website with a billion plus page views a year needs to lie to its readers for the sake of a few dozen extra comments/clicks? Really?

1 upvote
Andrew Wiggin
By Andrew Wiggin (6 months ago)

Well, at least he gave you some credit...

0 upvotes
TJGKG
By TJGKG (7 months ago)

It is bad enough the first version of this camera did not get a gold award when it clearly deserved one. But now the MkII version, which is supposedly better than the original, also gets a silver award you really have to question the ratings. Granted these are high marks but as someone who owns the first version of the camera, I can tell you it is extraordinary. Not only are the pictures fantastic, but the movies are incredible. In fact, the movies are far superior to movies on my other gear: the Nikon D7000 and the newly acquired Ricoh GR. The in camera charging is a nuisance but I bought an external charger for my spare battery so that issue is negated. I took this camera on vacation and it was just a pleasure to use with fantastic picutres.

8 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (7 months ago)

Perhaps gold will be awarded with version III, the one with a built-in EVF, like the Nex 7 or the even the Panasonic LF1, and most importantly a better lens. That Ricoh GR has a nice lens, enjoy it.

With a better lens, a lower pixel count could possibly help this hypothetical version III.

0 upvotes
Plastek
By Plastek (7 months ago)

Than it wouldn't be so small breaking a whole point of this camera. A reason why it does deserve gold is because of how tiny it is comparing to the features and IQ offered. With EVF it wouldn't be nearly as good as it is now.

2 upvotes
andywhoa
By andywhoa (7 months ago)

Why are you comparing this camera to the GR, Nex 7, etc. They are two completely different classes of cameras. The RX100 is a truly pocketable compact. It's tiny. You can fit it into your jeans pocket. The GR, Nex cameras, Fuji X100, etc. fit in a large jacket pocket at best, and most of them have huge bulky interchangeable lenses.

5 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (7 months ago)

Plastek:

Try the EVF on the Panasonic LF1, a camera I mentioned.

0 upvotes
Liz Z.
By Liz Z. (7 months ago)

I would have liked to see the original RX100 in the drop-down comparison options, especially in low light, where the RX100 II is supposed to have a noticeable advantage.

6 upvotes
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (7 months ago)

It should be added soon.

1 upvote
ET2
By ET2 (7 months ago)

Please add olympus XZ20 and Pentax MX1 too

0 upvotes
jim seekers
By jim seekers (7 months ago)

I have a RX100 MK1 and I find it over exposes at Times and find Greens to be Poorly Rendered and Auto White Balance is a bit off at times.
overall it is better that my Canon Powershot s95 but I find that the Powershot s95 had more accurate and Relistic Colour compaired to the RX100.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
naththo
By naththo (7 months ago)

Hey, you forgot about Carl Zeiss lens. That one resolve a lot of detail in it. Normal lens on compact digital camera won't resolve detail well. That Sony is always ahead with Sensor quality and having Carl Zeiss on resolve even better more detail than that. Canon didn't really make the cut of it unfortunately. It is a regular Canon lens, nothing special. But to keep price down of course. Compact digital camera with Carl Zeiss will cost more than regular lens itself. Carl Zeiss is the best I have ever seen. I am getting Carl Zeiss for my Sony Nex 7 and it will just blow regular Sony lens away in a single puff.

1 upvote
naththo
By naththo (7 months ago)

Also Sony RX100 II has a lot better less noise than Canon G16, you should check out high ISO.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (7 months ago)

naththo--

Don't be fooled by the name, this isn't the greatest Zeiss lens.

That 24mm Zeiss for the Nex system is excellent though.

So just not the same animal.

Yes, there are compacts with optically extraordinary lenses, but not this one--particularly when zoomed.

No, I'm not saying this is some bad lens, just not what you're shooting on the Nex.

0 upvotes
Konrad Lefkon
By Konrad Lefkon (7 months ago)

There's Zeiss and there's Zeiss...the RX100II Zeiss doesn't seem that impressive to me in the corners. Have a look on the Studio Scene Image Comparison. Out of all the cameras provided for comparison I couldn't find any that were less sharp than the RX100II in the corners. I'm surprised tbh as everyone seems to love this cameras sharpness. The G16 is sharper in the corners.

0 upvotes
Plastek
By Plastek (7 months ago)

NEX Zeiss isn't great either. Try A-mount Zeiss before posting any opinion. And than try some of high-end M-mount Zeiss.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
naththo
By naththo (7 months ago)

I have seen review of Sony 16-70mm with Carl Zeiss on and I see its very good review so far even corner is a little soft but nothing major so far and the corner is much better than my exist 18-55mm Sony kit lens. Although I rather stick to E lens compatible only since A mount converter is too awkward. The reason I bought Nex 7 is because the detail is much better than A77 overall. I hope the newer future Alpha with 24mp might see some improvement. But its a long way to go. Hopefully Sony will work hard and try make a lot of improvement. Before I was going to get Pentax but I was stopped after found out that red swatch is problem in JPG in high iso that detail is getting lost, and RAW came out fine compare to JPEG. Once again Pentax is still behind in competition and I have no way buying Pentax. Unless Pentax and Ricoh better hurry up, catch up and make a LOT of improvement. There are lots of Pentax fan waiting for you to improve, so please do so. Nathan.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (7 months ago)

Plastek:

The 24mm Zeiss for the Nex system has a plenty good reputation, you're thinking of the Touit's which are different and newer.

Right the A mount lenses are better, who cares?

Try good Leica M lenses if you want to better Zeiss.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
naththo
By naththo (7 months ago)

Once again, I am still waiting for SLR Gear to review that 16-70mm lens officially. The other review I saw was by some general photography showing their side of their story, review and their opinion and some sample images including edge, corner and centre of images. But I rather wait till SLR Gear comes up with more detail with graphs to show. DxO Mark may be very slow to review so its taking time. SLR Gear will come quickly though.

Btw, my dad's camera is Sony RX1 and has Carl Zeiss lens, no issue problem so far. Sharp on edge and corner and centre all up. This review here I saw has a bad luck with bad copy of lens where DPReview borrows it from Sony. Sorry Dpreview you had a bad copy. My dad's copy is perfectly fine. His camera kills all over my camera.

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Dimit
By Dimit (7 months ago)

To Nathlo:
Zeiss lens for nex are surely better vs regular Sony lens with one exception:50mm f/1.8 ...I doubt zeiss can make such an excellent quality in similar price

1 upvote
white shadow
By white shadow (7 months ago)

If anyone want to experience and enjoy the real quality of Zeiss lenses should try the Zeiss prime lenses in Canon and Nikon mounts or those made for the Leica M mount.

Zeiss do not make zoom lenses with auto-focus on their own. These lenses are only made under the Sony brand under license. Now, Fuji is trying to do the same. Somehow, the quality is not the same.

Try the Zeiss prime lenses and you will know the difference. The built quality and price are different too.

0 upvotes
naththo
By naththo (7 months ago)

Yeah but remember, not all lens are equal, like 100 of same lens will have slight marginal error in manufacturer, that is what to expect to look out for. Quality control is hard there. They have to make hundreds of it same day they have to have quality control in rapid speed to keep it up to speed. That review of RX1 had a marginal error in that lens that had soft corner, my dad's RX1 had no problem with corners so far. If your lens has problem that is more than marginal error, it probably for best send it back for refund or replace for another lens, its the store problem to send it back to factory under warranty and get lens replacement return to store.. But again thats what you get for what you pay for, for the quality of lens anyway. I really need zoom. I don't want inconvenience lens that constantly swapping exposing Sony sensor to dust, that Nex part.

0 upvotes
naththo
By naththo (7 months ago)

Hey I went to another website who done review on that same camera, it seems that sharpness is a slight issue problem in new RX100II apparently and I did compare to Nikon A, Nikon A comes out sharper than RX100II. Both same 1" size sensor. While here RX100II looks sharper than other website review.

Perhaps, I would like to see sample of JPG without any noise reduction, no sharpening applies to it, and nothing applies to RAW image for comparison that would be a lot more helpful to compare. It got me thinking maybe another website who review did not have sharpening on while here did have it on?

0 upvotes
Denton Taylor
By Denton Taylor (7 months ago)

The lack of an external charger is annoying but if you can afford $750 for a camera you can afford to go to ebay and get a charger and a few spare batteries for next to nothing. That's what i did with my RX100.

2 upvotes
tokugawa
By tokugawa (7 months ago)

Well, the logic is weird and only applies to people who paid the 750$ out of their pocket change money.

If you barely scratched together the 750$ (like many enthusiast people who do not earn money through photography would), there's nothing left.

1 upvote
Impulses
By Impulses (7 months ago)

A charger would run you like $10... I agree it's a bit offensive to omit it at this price point, BUT I'd rather they do that than not feature the ability to charge in-camera... It may not seem useful for some but it's a great addition for many as it allows you to charge off regular car chargers and USB battery packs.

0 upvotes
locke42
By locke42 (7 months ago)

Oh, good lord.

Just use a phone charger. No need to buy anything extra. The little cube chargers that come with iPhones and Android phones and whatnot can all charge the RX100M2. You just need a micro-USB cable.

1 upvote
max ott
By max ott (7 months ago)

i own this camera since 4weeks,
before, i had the canon s90 and s100..... the IQ ist superbe!
the pocketability is perfect, at the last photo-job i did the most pictures with the rx100 and not with the canon 7d or 5dmk2..... the lens at 1,8 is very sharp, and in low light, the rx100 rocks.....

BUT: i am very unhappy with the playmemory app, because it is not possible to change programs, setting the focus-point, choosing iso and so on..... i do urgently hope, that sony will do a much more professional app for remote-controling the rx100II, maybe they will do, because of the new wifi-sensor-lens-camera for smartphones which has the same sensor and lense like the rx100II .....
and: i am not shure, if ACR (latest version) renders the raw-files properly, in higlight or shadows, the values behave a little bit strange, compared to other raw files for example eos 7d or 5dmk2.....

2 upvotes
whtchocla7e
By whtchocla7e (7 months ago)

Too bad the lens sucks in the corners. Otherwise this would be a great, not just good, camera.

1 upvote
max ott
By max ott (7 months ago)

in my case, raw files and ACR lenscorrection are doing a perfect job....

2 upvotes
Konrad Lefkon
By Konrad Lefkon (7 months ago)

I couldn't believe it when I saw the lens poor corner performance. I'm disappointed to see that TBH, but I guess everything's built to a price.

0 upvotes
Neal Hood
By Neal Hood (7 months ago)

I also own the RX100 and have been very pleased with the pictures. The number of pixels and general RAW quality allows for easy cropping and just very good pictures. If I wished for anything it would be a slightly lighter weight body but there may be too many compromises to lighten it any more.

1 upvote
Greynerd
By Greynerd (7 months ago)

A valiant attempt by Sony to match the G1X but spoilt as usual in true Sony compact fashion by too many pixels when the light dims. The razor sharp image of the Queen's head if you select the G1X on the noise page, as the Sony descends into mush when you raise the ISO is pretty compelling. Especially as the ISO performance of the enormous sensor in the RX100 is supposed to offset the slow fully zoomed lens.

0 upvotes
TrojMacReady
By TrojMacReady (7 months ago)

It's one of the most efficient sensors out there, regardless of the amount of pixels.

The G1X sensor is well over 2 times larger still, so you'd expect it to be over a stop cleaner... if the sensor were to be as efficient, which it is not. Add the faster lens of the RX100 II and you have a tool that should at least be similarly capable in low light within its range of FL's.

4 upvotes
ET2
By ET2 (7 months ago)

I won't judge detail from noise page, as G1X looks sharper than full-frame D4 -- so does D4 have too many pixels too?

We don't have G1X images with the new studio scene. It was already known that RX100 images in the old studio scene are not representative of real world usage, as the old studio scene was too small, requiring the shots to be taken with very close distance. Not all lenses (especially not RX100 lens) are optimized for close focusing performance.

Let DPR shoot the new studio scene with G1X and I bet RX100 will outresolve it, at base ISO.

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 12 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
futile32
By futile32 (7 months ago)

best in class... silver.... 79%.... interesting....

I own the RX100, hands down an amazing camera pocketableness asside. My only quibble about using it for my everyday 'keepers' was no tilting display (for waist level shooting) and no EVF. Both of these objections have (sort of) been handled with the MK2. I do wish the EVF was part of the body, but I am still amazed at how they managed to fit in what they did. Can't have it all.

Seriously though, this camera should be graded for what it is intended for and for its target audience. To complain that it has too many options/filtering and no in-camera raw conversion is just a joke.

9 upvotes
Beckler8
By Beckler8 (7 months ago)

The review complaining about the tilting screen's limited use, makes no sense. It's *quite* useful and if one doesn't think so, their shooting skill is limited. There are many shots you simply cannot physically get because you can't see the screen from a 90 deg. angle! Sony likely opted for simple tilt (no swivel) because it has almost no impact on size - the main advantage of this camera.

Anyway I don't really like this site, alas. Such a long-winded review (as usual) that leaves out some things, repeats others like twelve times and then rounds it out by saying really stupid things too.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 4 minutes after posting
4 upvotes
Greynerd
By Greynerd (7 months ago)

If you have a camera and like it what is the importance of a review? The RX100 is a strange camera in that its users just seem to need so much acceptance from other people and to prove their camera choice is superior to others. There is no camera user base so given to gushing hyperbole on other brand user forums about their cameras as RX100 users.
I suppose the RX100 is the camera of choice for the user who views photography as some sort of competitive sport in equipment buying prowess.

1 upvote
Rick Knepper
By Rick Knepper (7 months ago)

DPR, I know your staff is busy but if the samples don't include basic scenes from a variety of genres, what good is the rest of the review? For natural landscapes, you need to find a location that provides a grand vista. If the lens has a WA equivalent, and the location is high enough, the scene will produce infinity in every corner of the image creating a flat wall effect. Scenes like this tell us a lot about the lens used (in the case of compacts - should be ultra important) as well as the IQ of the camera. It should be a standard for samples like your studio test thingie is. I have a location in my home town that produces an inifinity landscape/cityscape all in one fell swoop. I have posted it many times in the Canon & Nikon forums for a variety of camera and lens comparisons.

Link to a sample of my special location:

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7429/9386295692_a459c1813f_z.jpg

You are in Seattle so finding a place that is even better than the one I have should be a breeze.

5 upvotes
Niala2
By Niala2 (7 months ago)

Fujifilm X-M1 seems sooo much better in all comparaison shots with the RX100 II (RAW, JPEG, Low-light, Day-light, all ASA settings)...

So either I made a mistake, or it is truely so and not "tolerable" that this is not pointed out allready directly in the review.

Because I beleve the Fujifilm X series are not even full frame, and have (excellent) interchangable lenses...
Where am I wrong ?

0 upvotes
TrojMacReady
By TrojMacReady (7 months ago)

The X-M1 has a sensor that is over 3 times larger and even without a lens the Fuji is larger and heavier and by no means a pants pocket sized camera.

In other words, you're comparing completely different cameras. If you were to equip the Fuji with a lens covering a similar range, you'd also be shooting up to 2 stops higher ISO's in low light due to the slower lens at the wider and medium FL's.

7 upvotes
ET2
By ET2 (7 months ago)

You are wrong because you are comparing apples vs oranges. RX100 II is a pocket camera with smaller 1" sensor and built in zoom lens. Try fitting X-M1 in pocket with the kit (zoom) lens attached to the camera.

Second, images of X-M1 were taken with the $600 35mm F1.4 lens. That (camera + lens) is a $1500 combo, twice the cost of RX100 II

Third, with the kit lens that comes with X-M1, I won't be surprised that RX100 takes better mages even in low light, at wide angle. RX100 lens at wide angle is F1.8, more than 1 stop faster than X-M1's kit lens that is F3.5 That would mean you would need something like ISO 4000 on X-M1 when ISO 1600 would work on RX100

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
5 upvotes
Niala2
By Niala2 (7 months ago)

Thank You ! That all indeed explains verry well I was mistaken - ( I thought the RX100II was full frame) !

2 upvotes
unofr
By unofr (7 months ago)

So what will be the best choice for underwater shooting?
RX100 or RX100 M2 and why

Thanks

0 upvotes
locke42
By locke42 (7 months ago)

It won't make much of a difference. All of the RX100M2's improvements (hotshoe, tilting screen, etc.) are negated underwater. The BSI sensor on the M2 might make it slightly better than the M1, but that's the only difference.

0 upvotes
unofr
By unofr (7 months ago)

So not sure that the price difference will be a good point for RX100M2 vs RX100 !!!

Comment edited 25 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
gummybun
By gummybun (6 months ago)

Depends on the housing you choose. The Nauticom housing connects with the hotshoe on the M2 so that (when using strobes) you might not require to slave off the internal flash and improve re-cycle time and improve battery life - but I have yet to read of anyone using this yet. This is a very pricey housing though, rarely used by
hobbyists.

Also it should be noted that the adhesive 'handle' option to improve the 100 series ergonomics, when mounted, precludes fitting a camera into any underwater housing - or so it has been reported to me thus far.

Comment edited 59 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
James Booba
By James Booba (7 months ago)

Best compact by miles. Until of course RX10 will be out soon.

3 upvotes
peevee1
By peevee1 (7 months ago)

If it is APS-C and has zoom, it is not going to be compact.

0 upvotes
Garp2000
By Garp2000 (7 months ago)

Hello DPreview,

can you please make your sample gallery Retina display-aware? The pictures in the Flash-powered slideshow are all lowres (¼ the resolution of my screen).

1 upvote
Marvol
By Marvol (7 months ago)

From the introduction "The RX100 II has a list price of $750 - $100 more than that of the original RX100"

From the review "Sony promised better low light performance, and it has indeed been delivered. Is it $150 better?"

That, DPR, is a cheap shot and well below the belt. You of all people should know not to compare introduction prices with current market prices. You can make any camera look good or bad by comparing it to cherry-picked current prices of any other model.

That is even before considering the fact that the "$150" does not only go towards better low light quality, which the reviewer also conveniently ignores there.

This sounds like the reviewer was looking for something to justify the pre-concluded Silver Award. Very unprofessional.

4 upvotes
tokugawa
By tokugawa (7 months ago)

They were comparing RX100 original list price (650$) to RX100 II original list price (750$), not street prices.

0 upvotes
TrojMacReady
By TrojMacReady (7 months ago)

@ tokugawa :
But that's a $100 difference, not $150....

2 upvotes
ET2
By ET2 (7 months ago)

tokugawa, in the conclusion they mention $150 number. That was comparing street prices of old camera vs retail prices of a new camera.

0 upvotes
tokugawa
By tokugawa (7 months ago)

From a mathematical perspective, 150 or 100 doesnt really make that much of a difference, it's the same order of magnitude. Debating about that is really nitpicking.

1 upvote
whtchocla7e
By whtchocla7e (7 months ago)

What does it mean they shouldn't compare current street prices with introductory prices?

If I want to buy a camera RIGHT NOW, the difference is $150.

It's been $150 for a while now and it'll remain $150 for a lot longer.

Your complaint is absolutely silly.

Comment edited 31 seconds after posting
3 upvotes
ET2
By ET2 (7 months ago)

Marvol has a valid point. Previously simon joinson himself commented that comparing MSRP of new camera to street prices of old camera would make all new cameras look overpriced.

1 upvote
Ben O Connor
By Ben O Connor (7 months ago)

I prefer phone-going QX model over those hotshue + nonshue models... way more practical less space. Its screen will improve in your next cell phone for free ;)

0 upvotes
Marvol
By Marvol (7 months ago)

Now we just need to wait for the marginally-upgraded (but US$50 more expensive compared to its predecessor) latest Canon G camera to pick up their customary Gold award, based on, well, the fact that the G12 got a Gold, and the G15 got a Gold...

At least DPR is consistent.

18 upvotes
nathanleebush
By nathanleebush (7 months ago)

I've had it for over a week now and am blown away by its usability, compactness and build quality. I wanted a true compact that would really be a pocketable carry everywhere solution without much compromise on features and IQ – since I found myself not even carrying my relatively diminutive mirrorless – and it's absolutely been that. I've left the house without it exactly once since I've had it.

The only ergonomic touches that would have been nice is a clicked aperture ring and I prefer a rear thumb dial on the top right, rather than a scroll wheel. Also, quicker aperture change would be nice (though that might be something I can increase in the menu, haven't checked).

All the minor tweaks added to its value to me over the RX100. Foremost among these is the WiFi feature, and while iPhone integration is not as seamless as we've come to expect these days, it works pretty damn well, considering it's a relatively new feature, and the iPhone doesn't have NFC.

Comment edited 9 minutes after posting
4 upvotes
nathanleebush
By nathanleebush (7 months ago)

I don't know why anybody would buy another compact, given the substantially smaller sensors. Still, I'm sure I'll continue to see idiots with the G series cameras and S1xx in all auto telling me "it takes great pictures."

Sensor is huge compared to same-sized competition. Lens is fast and tack sharp. This is heads and shoulders above the competition, IMHO, and it's the camera I've waited a long time for. Kudos to Sony for innovating in a crowded but uninspired field.

3 upvotes
Garp2000
By Garp2000 (7 months ago)

Right, I was a longtime Canon G-series user (it started with the G2). The G1X was my last. While it takes great pictures, the autofocus s*** big time.

Really liked the RX100, now happily using the RX100 II for most of my pictures.

3 upvotes
locke42
By locke42 (7 months ago)

nathanleebush: People will still buy other compacts for one very simple reason: $$$

$750 is EXPENSIVE. Unless you are actually shelling it out yourself, I don't think you realize how much the high price makes it a lot easier to justify the slightly less capable but much less expensive S110.

P.S.
I preordered one, and I don't regret it, but I was on the fence about the original RX100 for a long time for precisely this reason. I'm glad I waited, though. :)

0 upvotes
RichardAB
By RichardAB (7 months ago)

The RX100 II is a camera designed for use by people who understand photography, in a category often referred to as 'high end', 'enthusiast' or 'premium' for example.

Why is it referred to in the review and in some comments below as a 'point and shoot' camera?

Surely 'point and shoot' refers to shooting in Programmed or Automatic modes, those modes being available on Compact System Cameras and DSLRs too.

9 upvotes
CeleryBeats
By CeleryBeats (7 months ago)

As a compact, It IS nearly perfect. Silver award is a bit like missing the point imo.

29 upvotes
Garp2000
By Garp2000 (7 months ago)

Full ack.

1 upvote
nilsch
By nilsch (7 months ago)

The reviewer argues that it has an "unengaging control wheel" and wants a camera that doesn't feel like a compact camera?

Hello, it IS a compact camera and is the best in it's class. Still it's given just a silver award for the above reason?

What a joke of a review conclusion...

20 upvotes
locke42
By locke42 (7 months ago)

Owner of the RX100M2 here.

I have to concur with the reviewer. The clickless control wheel feels very.... ehh... loose. You have to rely on a visual aid on the LCD to know what you're setting it to. A clicking control wheel like the S100, or even the RX100M2's own rear control dial, is far superior and makes a huge difference in ergonomics, because I can adjust zoom, aperture, shutter, or exposure control by touch instead of looking down at the screen all the time.

1 upvote
D1N0
By D1N0 (7 months ago)

I give it gold (then again I compare it with the LX-7 XZ-2 MX-1).

and Overabundance of filter and low-light shooting modes? Who cares? Don't use them.

11 upvotes
thelensmeister
By thelensmeister (7 months ago)

These are exactly the reasons i wont be buying the RX100.

Ergonomics are extremely important if you want to use the camera for any length of time.

Sensor tech and size is just not enough for me to part with cash and I'm sticking with G11 until the right model for me comes along.

A Canon G series with flip screen, X20 lens assembly, sony sensor, RAW. Thats how a compact should be made.

2 upvotes
Garp2000
By Garp2000 (7 months ago)

…and the superslow G1X autofocus.

Sorry, I *used* both cameras for quite some time and the Sony has clearly the better shooting experience. Don't compare charts, *use* cameras.

2 upvotes
thelensmeister
By thelensmeister (7 months ago)

who mentioned G1x? I wouldnt have spent money on a G1x lol!
Use cameras? I've used enough cameras to know that the Sony ergos wont be good for me.
DPreview boys know what they are talking about.
You should link to your work if you want to be taken seriously Garp, otherwise i might assume you are just a gadget freak :)

0 upvotes
Plastek
By Plastek (7 months ago)

"I've used enough cameras to know that the Sony ergos wont be good for me" - oh boy, if something like brand-racism would exist - you'd be a prime example of that.

4 upvotes
thelensmeister
By thelensmeister (7 months ago)

brand racism? I've owned canon, fuji, ricoh, panasonic, sony compacts, that qualifies me to make the statement of opinion. I like dials and direct function buttons to make a device useable. Obviously you are already used to menu driven interface so you are good with it. You are Sony fanboy with no images to show, another complete gadget freak!

0 upvotes
Antimateria
By Antimateria (7 months ago)

Dpreview on Sony reflex like Alpha700, no lcd on top, was a cons...

Dpreview on Alpha 77, lcd on top too, was a cons TOO and useless, because there is a resr too.

For Sony, Dpreview invent cons that on others brands are plus or simply not cons.

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting
14 upvotes
Plastek
By Plastek (7 months ago)

:D So true

1 upvote
Simon Joinson
By Simon Joinson (7 months ago)

wow if that's the best you can do to prove an institutional anti-Sony bias.... two reviews 4 years apart of two wildly different cameras, both of which got high scores and (in the case of the 700) our highest award. Oh and you're simply wrong about the A77 not having a top LCD being listed as a con. So maybe 'So false' would be a better reply.

2 upvotes
locke42
By locke42 (7 months ago)

Disappointed at the lack of mention of the step zoom in the review. (Or maybe I just missed it.)

The step zoom makes the clickless function ring a LOT more forgivable and engaging, because then you're just nudging it one way or the other. I just wish the step zoom function could be assigned to the zoom toggle, so that the function ring can be assigned to something else.

2 upvotes
Jeff Fenske
By Jeff Fenske (7 months ago)

Good review, but did you test the image stabilization for still shots?

I have an RX100, and the IS is only about 1 stop, which is by far the worst I've seen in high end compacts. It appears that Sony did not improve this. If they did, I'd like to know.

If they didn't improve IS, this would absolutely be at the top of the list under "What We Didn't Like." And this is the reason I would only recommend these cameras to extremely steady shooters who don't shoot much in low light.

This is a SERIOUS drawback, which often means not getting the shot that most other serious compacts would get.

Why isn't this addressed in your reviews?

2 upvotes
Marjan
By Marjan (7 months ago)

This camera deserve Gold Award status. Its one of a kind and best pocket camera in the world, isn't that enough??

20 upvotes
SeeRoy
By SeeRoy (7 months ago)

And if you need a viewfinder (if?) that'll be another $450 Sir.
"Never give a sucker an even break"
W.C. Fields

3 upvotes
white shadow
By white shadow (7 months ago)

Yes, indeed. That will be another $450.

Sony never expect customers at this level to buy a EVF anyway. So, if you want one that will be the price. Oh yes, make sure you order it in advance. They may not have stock on the shelf.

Well, that's Sony.

0 upvotes
Antimateria
By Antimateria (7 months ago)

If you want, you CAN have an evf, and one of the best evf, same of A99.
Competitors NO evf at all or BAD evf.

2 upvotes
Plastek
By Plastek (7 months ago)

Remember also the fact that it's an accessory EVF - you can reuse it with pretty much every other Sony camera you will buy in future.

0 upvotes
SeeRoy
By SeeRoy (7 months ago)

You're able to guarantee that!?
And even if it's true, in a couple of years you'll be turning up your nose at the abysmal resolution. Yes, today it's a great viewfinder but tomorrow marketing bit-rot will have turned it into a POS.

0 upvotes
peevee1
By peevee1 (7 months ago)

"Competitors NO evf at all or BAD evf."

Well, for XZ-2 Oly provides average VF-3 for as low as $99, very good VF-2 for $200 or so and an excellent, as good as this Sony or better VF-4 for $279. Or even 35mm-eq OVF for just $83.

1 upvote
yuvyuval
By yuvyuval (7 months ago)

again... sony being second place in their own category... as a 5n user its been a long time since I can shoot 10 fps of high quality raws and use a tilt touchscreen to focus... but I still haven't got used to rotate the kit lens the other way to zoom in/out. or forgive for HDR mode that can't be delayed or remotely triggered... sony are always two steps ahead with their technology. if they were just less original with human interface, they could have been the ultimate choice in many categories.

0 upvotes
DELETED88781
By DELETED88781 (7 months ago)

Fantastic Review and well balanced

0 upvotes
Mediterranean light
By Mediterranean light (7 months ago)

Jan. 2012 DPR review of Nikon 1 J1:
"[...]we can't help feeling that with the J1 and V1 Nikon has missed an opportunity to offer a product that fulfills that other great un-met point-and-shoot need: a small automatic camera that works well in a wide range of lighting conditions, from bright exterior to dim interior.
[...] Also, although we try not to be influenced by a retail price when writing our reviews, it's impossible to ignore the fact that at street prices of around $600 and $800, respectively (with 10-30mm lens kit), the J1 and V1 are entry-level mirrorless cameras that cost significantly more than several higher-end alternatives. Got a 67% overall score.

Informative, perhaps. But how can one understand the above, more so when the 1 System (same sensor size, first to use it) has an extra advantage: interchangeable lenses? Nothing against Sony, which is a great product. I'd just like to understand the meaning of 'unbiased'.

0 upvotes
ET2
By ET2 (7 months ago)

What a weird comment. So what you are basically saying is that since RX100 with 1" sensor received 79 score, Nikon 1 with 1" sensor should receive similar score too. If we follow that logic then every APSC camera ever made must have the same score, every FF camera must have the same score as all other FF cameras made in history, and all cellphones must have the same score as all other cellphones made in history as long as the sensor is same size.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
6 upvotes
white shadow
By white shadow (7 months ago)

Sony is Sony. They make very good point and shoot cameras with rather unfriendly user interface. That culture still seem to continue.

If you are looking for a p&s with good image quality, this is it. But they will overload the camera with too many "features" you may never use, just to be impressive.

Handling is a problem too for many. The soap-like design with fiddly controls can put many off.

The lack of a separate charger for such an expensive camera is a big disappointment to me.

Ultimately, Sony is Sony again. The price is way above for what it is. If one think it is still worth it, it is a good camera to have. At least it is still cheaper than a Leica. But Sony is not Leica. One can get the Lumix GF6 for much less and it will take give the owner much more satisfaction.

However, if one need a really pocketable which is not much bigger than the Canon S120, then this is it. For me, I would rather carry the Canon S120 for half the price.

For more serious shooting, use a 5D Mk2.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 10 minutes after posting
3 upvotes
Impulses
By Impulses (7 months ago)

Well, the GF6 would never fit in a pants pocket even with a prime pancake, and in-body charging is hardly peculiar to Sony... Panasonic and several others have gone down the same road.

Frankly I think that's a silly complaint, you always have the option of buying a separate charger but in-camera charging adds versatility as it makes it easier to charge in the car or on the go with USB battery packs!

The value proposition is a more subjective matter, tho I think ya have a point... But until Sony has a direct competitor they can charge whatever for it. I split the difference and got an LF1 for <$500. :P

4 upvotes
calking
By calking (7 months ago)

Is this an extension of the Final Word? Reads that way.

I'd also say that it's condescending to tell others what they will and won't use in the features of the camera. There are interesting modes and presets in this camera that make shooting with a compact fun. Sony isn't Fuji -- they're not trying to recreate an x-20.

I used my RX100 every bit as much as my ILC mirrorless system during a 2-week vacation to Canada and I loved the output from that little gem. Whenever I leave the house it goes with. Best compact ever.

6 upvotes
groucher
By groucher (7 months ago)

You're spot on regarding 'features'. If Sony (and other manufacturers) dumped most of the useless bloat, there would be no need for poorly designed menu systems and an excessive number of controls.

Image quality is excellent - other than the bloat, a very desirable camera.

0 upvotes
Garp2000
By Garp2000 (7 months ago)

You can use the RX 100 II for a week without charging (tried this on my last holiday). No way you can empty the battery on a single day. Just charge it while you sleep. The complaint about the charger is silly. I *like* that I don't need an extra charger in my backpack but can charge everything using USB.

And good look with putting the GF6 in your jeans pocket. Why don't you compare the RX 100 II to an EOS 1100D? I think they are about the same price level.

0 upvotes
Plastek
By Plastek (7 months ago)

Wow... if RX got an unfriendly user interface than you should try NEXes.
Sorry, but RX100 got one of the most user-friendly interfaces on a market. Just if you got into a habits of using one system - its very hard to switch into something new.

2 upvotes
gummybun
By gummybun (6 months ago)

Not so Garp, I dive with cameras using the same batteries and I go through 2 batteries a day, especially if it gets cold. and you can not charge a battery during a dive 'interval'. Also using the cheap third party batteries and chargers can be hit and miss - if I am charging a $75 battery (with taxes) I like to know that I am using a charger that the battery maker approves of.

0 upvotes
2eyesee
By 2eyesee (7 months ago)

I couldn't believe what I was reading in the 'Final Word' of the review about the 'shooting experience'. I agree with the criticisms about the Control Ring, but then to compare the camera to others that aren't anything like pocketable just shows me that DPR don't 'get' the RX100M2 . It was the same with the RX100 review.

10 upvotes
mcshan
By mcshan (7 months ago)

Maybe just bad luck. No dust in our RX100 and it was a preorder and has been used often.

NOTE: this was in reply to the "dust in optics" by SETI.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
SETI
By SETI (7 months ago)

Returned my RX100 due to dust in optics. 2 weeks was enough to pump 3 dust particles and it was just summer street photo walking. Will not risk again

0 upvotes
iudex
By iudex (7 months ago)

That´s almost inevitable with compacts. I hed issues with my S100s´ lens (got stuck open), so sent it to the service and sold right away.
I know this could happen to interchangealbe lenses too, but those can be changed (unlike lens on a compact).

0 upvotes
Lars Rehm
By Lars Rehm (7 months ago)

That S100 thing is fault that Canon is aware of and repairs free of charge even when you're out of warranty. Once fixed, it should be not a problem anymore.

1 upvote
mcshan
By mcshan (7 months ago)

Note: we purchased the RX100 when it first came out (preorder! rare for me) and no dust yet with lots of use. Maybe just luck but dust got in our older S90.

1 upvote
Plastek
By Plastek (7 months ago)

Fuji X100 got similar issue (actually - even worse considering the amount of reports people made).

1 upvote
Markol
By Markol (7 months ago)

Awards, awards, awards....
Why do people care?
A site which gives 95% of all reviewed cameras (above the travel zoom category) an award just gives them away, rendering them meaningless.
An award should be by definition something for rare, top of the class products. What DSLR was the last not to get an award here?
See...

2 upvotes
fz750
By fz750 (7 months ago)

well, largely DPR only test cameras worth testing, and not the mass of useless compacts for example.

I also think we're in a very rich era of camera development and the pace is such that each new camera generally does bring something to the table.. (and some more than others.. :-)

1 upvote
Markol
By Markol (7 months ago)

No, I don't see it that way. Even at a time when they were still reviewing most available DSLRs they all got awards.

1 upvote
sensibill
By sensibill (7 months ago)

The UI is fiddly and various shooting restrictions are annoying, but my primary user complaint is how super tiny the thing is. Did it really need to be this small? Could've made it a bit wider and incorporated a proper control wheel. The X20 (for less money) blows this away in terms of ergonomics and style. The AG-R1 grip is mandatory, so is a leather case.

In the RX100M2's defense, it does take unbelievable images. I'd say this is more than a full stop above where Micro 4/3 was in the 12MP days, easily. I'd bet the 1" 20.1MP gives the new 16MP models a real challenge, too.

I find the WiFi almost useless. Sure, you can send images to your phone with no problem, but the images get resampled down. Sending to PC involves dealing with firewall and UDP issues, and while I was able to connect, the transfer itself is slow, and there's no automation ala smartphones sending to DB. To do that, you might as well load it off SD or USB cable.

0 upvotes
Impulses
By Impulses (7 months ago)

Well, generally when you're sending to a smartphone it's for immediate sharing so it's likely it'd get downsampled anyway... Although I agree, if they're going thru the trouble of building in Wifi/NFC and developing the app they might as well hist give people the option.

I don't know if the review's comment about NFC pairing been smoother than other's implementation was a dig at Panasonic's effort (who else is doing NFC?); I admit the latter is occasionally fiddly and the difference in pairing during capture and pairing for instant transfer during playback is initially confusing, as is remembering to open the app first...

At least Panasonic gives you the option to do full res transfers tho, not to mention a lot more control while in remote control. Now if they'd only put out an uber LX7 replacement with Wifi and a 1" sensor...

0 upvotes
ET2
By ET2 (7 months ago)

I thought PlayMemories app has the option to download original full-size images. At least with QX100/QX10 PlayMemories app has that option

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
1 upvote
ShatteredSky
By ShatteredSky (7 months ago)

Yep, make it somewhat bigger and put a 24-120 equiv. lens on it, and I am all eyes.

Cheers

0 upvotes
Tonkotsu Ramen
By Tonkotsu Ramen (7 months ago)

et2

in earlier versions of playmemories, it only sent a 2 megapixel image.

That may have changed in the recent few updates, but that's how it was when i had a NEX-5R.

0 upvotes
Impulses
By Impulses (7 months ago)

Why are people complaining that the swivel display makes it chunkier? Is 2mm really the straw that breaks the camel's back? It's thick for a pocket cam, but the new display didn't change that significantly... Could it be thinner without it? Maybe, but then there'd be people asking for a touchscreen instead (pretty sure it was mentioned once already here) which also contributes to thicknesses.

It can't be all things to all people... Sony oughta consider replacing both models next year tho. RX150: as slim as possible and still $600 (price ain't coming down until it's got some competition sensor-wise at the same size), RX200: enthusiast focused model with hotshoe, swivel display, and maybe even a built in EVF, maybe a bit larger, $700-800.

Then they can please everybody and they're poised to scale the price of the low end model if any serious competitors show up without sacrificing any on the high end model. I'd buy a slightly slimmer low end model in a heartbeat.

6 upvotes
Impulses
By Impulses (7 months ago)

Did they fix the annoying lag when first zooming in during playback mode btw? Bugged the hell out of me when I tried the original, and zooming during playback was generally fine, it was just that one delay when you first zoomed in... Much more annoying than the divide between stills and video, that's somewhat subjective (tho having the option to have it either way would be best).

0 upvotes
Digital Suicide
By Digital Suicide (7 months ago)

I don't undrstand complains about clickless ring. For me it is perfect, when I shoot videos, change setting, or defocus insensibly...
I've bought mkI just after it appeared in the market, and I have to say, all those "Cons" in the review are just made up sundries. These "cons" are not of those, that could annoy you in everyday use.

2 upvotes
cgarrard
By cgarrard (7 months ago)

What makes your conclusion any more valid?

0 upvotes
Fredy Ross
By Fredy Ross (7 months ago)

I am delighted I bought this little pocket rocket. I am 73 and finding heavy gear too much to carry walking around. Just went to Romania for a week with a canon 600D, sony nex6 and this little camera and ended up using the rx100ii most of the time as I never print more than 13x19 and take raw. The only thing I hate is the memory recall as twice in the dark I pressed it by mistake and found later I had taken jpeg and not raw. Not sure what I did but had to reset the camera. well done sony. Look forward to FF in October. The LCD is so good I don't need a viewfinder.

1 upvote
DPReview007
By DPReview007 (7 months ago)

Thinking about it more, this camera is so innovative, so peerless, so amazing for its size, so without competition, pushes the envelop SO MUCH, if this is not a GOLD, what is???

18 upvotes
Raist3d
By Raist3d (7 months ago)

Usabilty/price. But if it works for you, who cares, then it's gold for you which is great. Go buy one and create some photographs.

1 upvote
cgarrard
By cgarrard (7 months ago)

$499.00 retail price, it would have probably got gold.

0 upvotes
DPReview007
By DPReview007 (7 months ago)

:) i bought one the first week it came out. I also bought the RX100 the first week it came out. yes the price is punchy. but it is punchy for a reason. no competition. still. a full year on. nobody is even getting close.

i think the price is justifiable. yes, it costs as much as a mid range, APS-C DSLR. but it takes just as good pictures. So i don't see why people are complaining.

BTW, I'm not a Sony sales rep. my full frame camera is a Canon, and I love Nikons, too. (Had my D600 not spit oil all over its sensor, I would be on Nikon.) But whenever i touch a Sony camera, it stuns me how much better the functionality is. they are years ahead of Canikon in terms of giving the customer what the customer wants.

5 upvotes
DPReview007
By DPReview007 (7 months ago)

This should be a GOLD. Really.

I owned the RX100. I didn't last a year. So I had to buy the RX100II. It's amazing.

I HATE the tilting screen (and the hot shoe, although less so.) It makes the camera bulkier, and its completely useless. This camera should fit into my pocket. The RX100 barley fit in there. The MkII is worse.

Re some of the negatives listed in the above review: the tracking AF is a lot more reliable than on my full frame Canon (Canon's AI servo really blows.) To be fair, given the smaller sensor / much thicker focus plane, it is easier to get it right here than on full frame.

Re the shooting experience, I love it. I put everything I need on the Fn Button. Works really well. Sure, if you are coming from Canikon, it'll be different. But I find it better than Canon's.

The functionality of this thing blows my mind. I wish my Canon 6D could do this much.

What's badly needed is a touch screen that doesn't tilt, and the MkIII will be a real winner.

DEFINITELY A GOLD!

1 upvote
sensibill
By sensibill (7 months ago)

The flip screen may be useless for you (and the camera does have some useless elements, for me) but it is as functional as any similar display you see on other cameras without it being full swivel; with swivel mount likely adding even more bulk.

It's funny, the UI functionality part of this is what disappoints me the most. The IQ is astonishing for the size (if not price).

0 upvotes
Hubertus Bigend
By Hubertus Bigend (7 months ago)

It's a shame that manufacfurers keep thinking people don't need viewfinders anymore. It may be the case, of course, that people really don't need viewfinders anymore. I sincerely hope, though, that many people will buy Panasonic's LF1, the only enthusiast-small-compact camera with built-in viewfinder at this point of time, which, by the way, also has at least a minimum of telephoto capability (200 mm eq.). Why doesn't the LF1 get reviewed, by the way? I think it's the most interesting compact camera on the market today (alongside its Leica branded sibling).

(As for the "award", I couldn't care less, but on the other hand I wonder why cameras without viewfinders get rewards at all ;-)

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 7 minutes after posting
4 upvotes
Impulses
By Impulses (7 months ago)

I imagine the P&S market in general doesn't much care about viewfinders since they were weaned off them ages ago, and the newer generations (born into modern smartphone use) were never even exposed to them. Then on the opposite end of the spectrum, enthusiasts' opinion of EVFs vs optical viewfinders are still pretty divided... And it probably wasn't very cost effective to slap even a low res EVF unto a pocketable camera until a few years ago.

I actually bought myself an LF1 so I guess that much might make ya happy, tho the EVF wasn't amongst the top three reasons why I got it. Zoom range/aperture, size, and Wifi/NFC implementation would probably top the list for me... And the price was just about what I was willing to pay for a pocket camera (if I could get an RX100 II for $600 I'd probably choose that, but at $750 it's a bit much).

I've used the EVF on the LF1 a bit and I can appreciate it's handy to have (it made it easier to take stable shots while zoomed in on a concert), but I'm also seriously thinking of now getting a M43 model sans an EVF, so what do I know... :P

0 upvotes
sensibill
By sensibill (7 months ago)

Because not everyone needs or wants a viewfinder on a tiny pocket camera.

1 upvote
Olymore
By Olymore (7 months ago)

I agree. I'm waiting for an improved version of something like the LF1 with a 1mb viewfinder. I don't mind if the camera is a bit bigger. The LF1 viewfinder was a little bit too low res for me as I've got used to the Oly VF-2 with my Olympus XZ-1

0 upvotes
Raist3d
By Raist3d (7 months ago)

@everyone "crying" for the Silver award choice - if you really think all it takes for a camera as a photographer's tool to get a Gold award is its great sensor disregarding usability as a photographer's tool you probably don't take that many photographs.

Don't bother reading reviews. Read paper specs and order through Amazon/Gearshop accordingly.

Comment edited 34 seconds after posting
2 upvotes
Zigadiboom
By Zigadiboom (7 months ago)

This review is very good but it can be summed up by the following:

Next time Usain Bolt wins the 100m he should be given a silver medal.

Comment edited 49 seconds after posting
32 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (7 months ago)

The Olympus XZ10, with a smaller sensor, has an optically much better lens, and that lens remains faster through out the zoom range.

The Olympus can also be used through ISO 2000, while it looks like this Sony tops out at about ISO3200.

Unless you're counting video quality, not an Olympus strength, or an available EVF, the Olympus beats this Sony--and the Olympus is a lot less expensive, more pocketable too.

So yeah there are problems with this camera, that other small still cameras best.

I'm less familiar with it than the Olympus, but I suggest you look into the Fuji X20 too.

0 upvotes
ET2
By ET2 (7 months ago)

RX100 in imaging-resources studio shots easily out resolved XZ10. If DPR shoots the new scene with XZ10, you will see RX100 20 MP would do the same here.

The old studio scene was not credible as it was too small. That meant the studio scene was only reflecting close focusing performance of a lens, not real world performance.

So no you're wrong. RX100's 20 MP sensor and lens combo is better than XZ10.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (7 months ago)

ET2:

Drop the more pixels = better camera thing, that only matters if you're going to do lots of cropping.

The Olympus has an optically better lens, and that lens is faster thru the zoom.

Yes the Sony is better at higher ISOs, but its lens limits what it can do.

You see I have real world shots from the Olympus, I'm not using the studio scene.

And don't mistake, I think the Sony is a plenty good camera, with a very good sensor, it's the lens that's that needs be better.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 4 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
ET2
By ET2 (7 months ago)

RX100 resolves more detail, has better dynamic range, lower noise, and focuses faster.

No contest here.

1 upvote
Total comments: 499
1234