Previous page Next page

Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 II Review

September 2013 | By Allison Johnson


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
567
I own it
330
I want it
113
I had it
Discuss in the forums

Comments

Total comments: 507
1234
wayne131
By wayne131 (Sep 28, 2013)

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

4 upvotes
Alex Permit
By Alex Permit (Sep 28, 2013)

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
6 upvotes
Boky
By Boky (Sep 28, 2013)

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

Comment edited 9 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
ET2
By ET2 (Sep 28, 2013)

"RX100II is not pocketable"

It sure is

9 upvotes
Boky
By Boky (Sep 28, 2013)

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

0 upvotes
DaveE1
By DaveE1 (Sep 28, 2013)

@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?

5 upvotes
ekaton
By ekaton (Sep 29, 2013)

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

2 upvotes
ekaton
By ekaton (Sep 29, 2013)

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

Comment edited 23 seconds after posting
4 upvotes
Boerseuntjie
By Boerseuntjie (11 months ago)

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

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 5 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
fotokeena
By fotokeena (9 months ago)

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

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

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

0 upvotes
Northgrove
By Northgrove (Sep 27, 2013)

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

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

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 59 seconds after posting
1 upvote
MarcMedios
By MarcMedios (Sep 27, 2013)

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

0 upvotes
chillgreg
By chillgreg (Sep 26, 2013)

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.

8 upvotes
sensibill
By sensibill (Sep 26, 2013)

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
3 upvotes
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (Sep 26, 2013)

@ 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

4 upvotes
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (Sep 26, 2013)

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.

9 upvotes
sensibill
By sensibill (Sep 26, 2013)

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.

5 upvotes
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (Sep 26, 2013)

@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
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (Sep 27, 2013)

@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
javidog
By javidog (Sep 27, 2013)

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
sensibill
By sensibill (Sep 27, 2013)

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.

2 upvotes
chillgreg
By chillgreg (Sep 27, 2013)

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
DaveE1
By DaveE1 (Sep 27, 2013)

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
Jogger
By Jogger (Sep 27, 2013)

"...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
Revenant
By Revenant (Sep 27, 2013)

"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
DaveE1
By DaveE1 (Sep 27, 2013)

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
ekaton
By ekaton (Sep 29, 2013)

Well said, Sir.

2 upvotes
OneMoreComment
By OneMoreComment (Sep 26, 2013)

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
le_alain
By le_alain (Sep 26, 2013)

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
ET2
By ET2 (Sep 26, 2013)

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
le_alain
By le_alain (Sep 26, 2013)

hope G17 will be more "compact" than G16

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

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
1 upvote
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Sep 26, 2013)

OneMoreComment:

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

0 upvotes
ET2
By ET2 (Sep 27, 2013)

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
ET2
By ET2 (Sep 27, 2013)

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

1 upvote
zodiacfml
By zodiacfml (Sep 26, 2013)

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
ET2
By ET2 (Sep 26, 2013)

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
Petrogel
By Petrogel (Sep 26, 2013)

@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
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Sep 26, 2013)

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
AndreaV
By AndreaV (Sep 26, 2013)

"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.

1 upvote
ET2
By ET2 (Sep 26, 2013)

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
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Sep 26, 2013)

@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
ET2
By ET2 (Sep 26, 2013)

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
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Sep 26, 2013)

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
ET2
By ET2 (Sep 26, 2013)

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
zodiacfml
By zodiacfml (Sep 27, 2013)

@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
steelhead3
By steelhead3 (Sep 26, 2013)

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

1 upvote
le_alain
By le_alain (Sep 26, 2013)

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

11 upvotes
coody
By coody (Sep 25, 2013)

Wish it could be comared with the Canon GX1.

0 upvotes
KW Phua
By KW Phua (Sep 25, 2013)

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
KW Phua
By KW Phua (Sep 25, 2013)

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
coody
By coody (Sep 25, 2013)

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

0 upvotes
Miwok
By Miwok (Sep 25, 2013)

@ 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
Petrogel
By Petrogel (Sep 25, 2013)

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
vv50
By vv50 (Sep 25, 2013)

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

0 upvotes
Petrogel
By Petrogel (Sep 26, 2013)

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
vv50
By vv50 (Sep 26, 2013)

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
Petrogel
By Petrogel (Sep 27, 2013)

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

0 upvotes
Petrogel
By Petrogel (Sep 27, 2013)

"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
vv50
By vv50 (Sep 28, 2013)

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
Petrogel
By Petrogel (Sep 28, 2013)

Are you sure english is your first language ?

0 upvotes
FreedomLover
By FreedomLover (Sep 28, 2013)

"VISIT YOUR SHRINK" "you might worth it"

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

0 upvotes
Petrogel
By Petrogel (Sep 28, 2013)

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

0 upvotes
Petrogel
By Petrogel (Sep 28, 2013)

Psychology not psychiatry

0 upvotes
thelensmeister
By thelensmeister (Sep 25, 2013)

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.

6 upvotes
whtchocla7e
By whtchocla7e (Sep 25, 2013)

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
thelensmeister
By thelensmeister (Sep 25, 2013)

True but its a better lame body than the RX100.

0 upvotes
probert500
By probert500 (Sep 26, 2013)

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
Dafffid
By Dafffid (Sep 25, 2013)

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
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Sep 25, 2013)

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
Tee1up
By Tee1up (Sep 25, 2013)

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
Jogger
By Jogger (Sep 25, 2013)

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
probert500
By probert500 (Sep 26, 2013)

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

0 upvotes
Alberto Battelli
By Alberto Battelli (Sep 25, 2013)

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.

4 upvotes
JT_FD
By JT_FD (Sep 26, 2013)

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
designdef
By designdef (Sep 26, 2013)

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
409novaman
By 409novaman (Sep 25, 2013)

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
MikeStern
By MikeStern (Sep 25, 2013)

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

4 upvotes
Everlast66
By Everlast66 (Sep 25, 2013)

Which one is better then?

7 upvotes
MikeStern
By MikeStern (Sep 25, 2013)

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
Marvol
By Marvol (Sep 25, 2013)

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.

3 upvotes
MikeStern
By MikeStern (Sep 25, 2013)

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
Serenity Now
By Serenity Now (Sep 25, 2013)

What's the food in the white bowl?

0 upvotes
Boky
By Boky (Sep 25, 2013)

almonds

0 upvotes
Alex Moscow
By Alex Moscow (Sep 25, 2013)

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

0 upvotes
Alex Moscow
By Alex Moscow (Sep 25, 2013)

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
Boky
By Boky (Sep 25, 2013)

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
Impulses
By Impulses (Sep 25, 2013)

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

3 upvotes
Eleson
By Eleson (Sep 25, 2013)

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

0 upvotes
designdef
By designdef (Sep 25, 2013)

$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
Lofi
By Lofi (Sep 25, 2013)

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

0 upvotes
ekaton
By ekaton (Sep 25, 2013)

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
18 upvotes
MikeCanon
By MikeCanon (Sep 25, 2013)

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

2 upvotes
ClickonRobyn
By ClickonRobyn (Sep 25, 2013)

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
MikeCanon
By MikeCanon (Sep 25, 2013)

For RX200 I need

11 MP 1" Sensor

3X zoom with fixed 1.8 aperture

ISO upto 51200

2 upvotes
Jogger
By Jogger (Sep 25, 2013)

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

11 upvotes
justmeMN
By justmeMN (Sep 25, 2013)

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

5 upvotes
Marvol
By Marvol (Sep 25, 2013)

LEAVE THE RX-100 II ALONE!!!

10 upvotes
peevee1
By peevee1 (Sep 25, 2013)

"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
dopaul
By dopaul (Sep 25, 2013)

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

5 upvotes
mcshan
By mcshan (Sep 25, 2013)

Indeed.

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

2 upvotes
Marvol
By Marvol (Sep 25, 2013)

Indeed ;)

1 upvote
utomo99
By utomo99 (Sep 24, 2013)

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
new boyz
By new boyz (Sep 25, 2013)

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

2 upvotes
CFynn
By CFynn (Sep 25, 2013)

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
Babka08
By Babka08 (Sep 24, 2013)

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.

4 upvotes
vadims
By vadims (Sep 24, 2013)

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.

10 upvotes
AbrasiveReducer
By AbrasiveReducer (Sep 24, 2013)

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

1 upvote
Revenant
By Revenant (Sep 24, 2013)

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
vadims
By vadims (Sep 24, 2013)

> 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
Simon Joinson
By Simon Joinson (Sep 24, 2013)

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
Roland Karlsson
By Roland Karlsson (Sep 24, 2013)

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
vadims
By vadims (Sep 24, 2013)

> 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
Babka08
By Babka08 (Sep 24, 2013)

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
vadims
By vadims (Sep 25, 2013)

> 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.

3 upvotes
Francis Sawyer
By Francis Sawyer (Sep 24, 2013)

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

1 upvote
abortabort
By abortabort (Sep 25, 2013)

Care to point out one that is better?

4 upvotes
mckracken88
By mckracken88 (Sep 24, 2013)

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
Ednaz
By Ednaz (Sep 24, 2013)

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
SnappyUK
By SnappyUK (Sep 24, 2013)

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
DaveE1
By DaveE1 (11 months ago)

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
SnappyUK
By SnappyUK (11 months ago)

Dave, if I had a store that stocked such equipment within 50 miles of where I live, I'd have visited it. As it is, the UK distance selling regulations allow me to order something online and return it for refund if I just don't like it, so that's what I did.

I know exactly what I want from a compact camera and my remarks are my honest opinion of my personal experiences, I have no axe to grind either for or against any camera manufacturer.

Your views are different from mine but no more nor less valid, as we may have different requirements, though I note with interest that you seem to have taken offence at pretty much everyone who has expressed some sort of negativity towards the camera and replied sarcastically.

In your opinion, it's the best compact in the world and you bought one, but other opinions are available. Get over it.

1 upvote
David Pastern
By David Pastern (11 months ago)

hear hear. Physical retailers are whinging about losing sales to online stores, well guess what guys - improve your customer service and stock the damn items and offer competitive prices. If you can't do that, then go the way of the Dinosaur. Oh, and trying to return items to most physical retailers is downright painful, Amazon is fuss free.

As to the camera itself, I had a quick play with it today and its ergonomics don't inspire me at all. IQ feels very good though, AF is fine and it's small & light. If only Sony improved the F stop at the long end of the lens range - even f4 or f3.5 would be a massive boon imho.

Dave

0 upvotes
ulfie
By ulfie (Sep 24, 2013)

Simple: Too expensive.

0 upvotes
vadims
By vadims (Sep 24, 2013)

Compared to what?

6 upvotes
whtchocla7e
By whtchocla7e (Sep 25, 2013)

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

1 upvote
Boerseuntjie
By Boerseuntjie (Sep 25, 2013)

Ricoh who?

3 upvotes
DaveE1
By DaveE1 (11 months ago)

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
h2k
By h2k (Sep 24, 2013)

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
new boyz
By new boyz (Sep 25, 2013)

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
Roland Schulz
By Roland Schulz (Sep 24, 2013)

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
jkoch2
By jkoch2 (Sep 24, 2013)

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

1 upvote
Roland Schulz
By Roland Schulz (Sep 28, 2013)

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

1 upvote
Artpt
By Artpt (Sep 24, 2013)

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
jkoch2
By jkoch2 (Sep 24, 2013)

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
Fox Fisher
By Fox Fisher (Sep 24, 2013)

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
sensibill
By sensibill (Sep 24, 2013)

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
locke42
By locke42 (Sep 24, 2013)

"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
ET2
By ET2 (Sep 24, 2013)

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
justmeMN
By justmeMN (Sep 24, 2013)

"Our disappointment with the slightly unengaging control wheel and shooting experience has remained unchanged since we reviewed the RX100."

So, no Gold...

6 upvotes
Marvol
By Marvol (Sep 25, 2013)

Well, you have to admit that a slightly unengaging control wheel is just a big nono on a large sensor sensor compact camera with flipout screen, Wifi and a hotshoe, that fits into a jacket pocket. A big nono.

2 upvotes
M DeNero
By M DeNero (Sep 24, 2013)

Another niche model from Sony that is too expensive to generate strong sales and will contribute to Sony's financial problems. They have too many niche products.

Comment edited 31 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
TrojMacReady
By TrojMacReady (Sep 24, 2013)

Except that it seems to sell well, which isn't too surprising after the success of the predecessor.

It's compact cameras like these that can really set themselves apart from cellphone cameras and therefore will be able to dodge the fall of compact camera sales in general, much longer too.

13 upvotes
jkoch2
By jkoch2 (Sep 24, 2013)

If Sony offered only the RX100 II, one NEX model, and maybe the A77, and exited the P&S market, it might make money. Instead, it makes redundant models that exceed the (inelastic) demand for "Sony" brand. But executives are graded by the count of products, plants, and people they control, the same way Navy admirals are ranked by deadweight tonnage and obsolete measures of firepower, rather than diesel consumption or vessels' survival in real combat. So the company will follow the same course as the doomed Yamato.

2 upvotes
TrojMacReady
By TrojMacReady (Sep 24, 2013)

Yes, because one camera per mount really builds a system that people would faithfully "invest" in. ;-)

Comment edited 30 seconds after posting
6 upvotes
nathanleebush
By nathanleebush (Sep 24, 2013)

Oh yeah, too niche. Wonder though why it's rocketed to the top of the P&S camera list on Flickr while everything else collapses? http://www.flickr.com/cameras

9 upvotes
M DeNero
By M DeNero (Sep 24, 2013)

It may outsell other P&S cameras according to a user-based top sellers list on a photo sharing website, but I doubt it outsells other P&S cameras in general. You just proved my point.

0 upvotes
Fox Fisher
By Fox Fisher (Sep 24, 2013)

Lol, this is one of the sony's best selling cameras of all times.

3 upvotes
RDCollins
By RDCollins (Sep 24, 2013)

Sorry, Sony, but I need an electronic or optical view finder! The option you offer is far too expensive and compromises the camera's compact size.

8 upvotes
PedroMZ
By PedroMZ (Sep 24, 2013)

I agree,tried the RX100 when it came out,went out of the shop on a sunny day could not see a thing. Hardly photography if you wave the thing in front of you.press the shutter and hope! I am sure the add on view finder is wonderful but its the nearly the price of the new Nikon expert compact with a built in viewfinder. Am pleased that a manufacturer has at last seen the light(excuse the pun) and put a decent viewfinder in an "enthusiast" compact. Not every photographer is under fifty with perfect vision or only takes photographs in the gloom.

0 upvotes
flipmac
By flipmac (Sep 24, 2013)

At almost $450, the FDA-EVM1K is definitely expensive. Also, there really are no other options. Compare that to the Olympus VF4, which has the same resolution but cost only $280. On top of that, there even cheaper options: VF2 and VF3.
Anyway, the RX100II is nice and all but if one needs an EVF, might as well go for a NEX6 or GX7, which are also wifi capable.

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
locke42
By locke42 (Sep 24, 2013)

I've shot the RX100M2 on bright sunny days in Disneyland, and the LCD is bright enough to see even without shading with my hand. PedroMZ probably just didn't have the brightness turned up (the auto brightness sets it a little low, and I don't think it's that responsive).

6 upvotes
RDCollins
By RDCollins (Sep 25, 2013)

Good for you, but I'm seriously thinking of selling my G1X for the same reason -- I can't see enough detail on the screen in bright daylight to frame photos to my satisfaction. That defect reduces the camera to a true "point and hope."

0 upvotes
Joseph Mama
By Joseph Mama (Sep 24, 2013)

I don't understand the complaints about the battery charger. It is WAY easier to charge using any ole random mini-USB cable, rather than drag around a specific battery charger. It makes for a more elegant charging table.
For a whopping 18 dollars, you can buy TWO backup batteries and an external charger from @mazawn. This is what I did with my RX100 and the backups have worked excellent.

11 upvotes
m87501
By m87501 (Sep 24, 2013)

Same here, painless to order the charger with battery & car charger included <$15 w/free ship on ebay - search sony rx100 charger. It's not a Sony battery but works as good as the Sony OEM. One for the car, one for the cave. (Only painful thing was going to the post office to pick it up.)

4 upvotes
DPReview007
By DPReview007 (Sep 24, 2013)

same here. i charge my RX100II through my phone's charge (if you're not an iDiot, you can do it too.) a lot more convenient than making sure you're not forgetting your outside charger.

it's a Pro, not a Con!

4 upvotes
DPReview007
By DPReview007 (Sep 24, 2013)

oh, and if you're not an iDiot, you'll love the NFC!

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Sep 24, 2013)

DPR:

The charging in the camera is a silly method, best to be avoided unless desperate.

The guy running Luminous Landscape makes the same point about camera makers being dumb to not include separate chargers.

0 upvotes
Jogger
By Jogger (Sep 24, 2013)

People are just used to charging their small personal electronic devices by plugging it in... e.g. phones, tablets, watches, ipods, etc.

Do you hear people complaining that they need to charge their iPhone by plugging it in??? Of course not.. this is the norm for these types of devices.

4 upvotes
Veijo Vilva
By Veijo Vilva (Sep 24, 2013)

Besides, you can charge it on the run or even shoot using an external USB battery pack, either a rechargeable one or one with standard alkaline batteries -- just carry a couple of dozen AA batteries along on a long trek.

1 upvote
ET2
By ET2 (Sep 24, 2013)

Also, you would need a separate charger only when you are buying an extra battery. You can buy the charger when/if you are buying the battery.

2 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Sep 24, 2013)

ET2,

Well then you have to plug the camera into the charger, instead of simply leaving a charger ready.

Look I used my Canon G2 to charge its batteries for years; it's dumb and convoluted. Even if you only own one battery--which is unlikely.

0 upvotes
ET2
By ET2 (Sep 25, 2013)

Or you can plug the camera to a computer and charge it while transferring files. Or you can plug the camera in a car with car charger while driving.

The pros far outweigh the cons.

This is simply stupid con that DPR has invented out of thin air.

3 upvotes
Marvol
By Marvol (Sep 25, 2013)

...aaaaaand same here. Even before I bought my NEX-6 (same thing qua charging) I bought for 17 GBP a spare battery plus charger off of a well-known auction site rhyming with freeway.

At least for those who don't need the external charger this keeps cost down. And as has been said, if you only have 1 battery there is actually no point to an external charger.

3 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Sep 25, 2013)

ET2,

Many people don't tether their camera to a computer when transferring files to the computer.

Just like charging the battery in the camera, transferring files with a cable is not impossible, but it's a silly approach most of the time.

0 upvotes
bert01
By bert01 (Sep 24, 2013)

I think dpreview is being a troll on it's own review just to create controversy. Giving the RX100 the Silver award for being the best in its class makes a mockery of their rating system.

29 upvotes
DaveE1
By DaveE1 (Sep 24, 2013)

This is exactly how it looks to me too. I'm beginning to wonder how many more reviews are questionable too.

Normally I take DPReview reviews as a credible indicator of a camera's worth, but I am quite familiar with this camera and don't see how they could arrive at that conclusion, short of just trying to generate a bit of discussion. Not good.

12 upvotes
Joseph Mama
By Joseph Mama (Sep 24, 2013)

Well, they are factoring in the high cost. Sure, its better than a LX7 G16 and P7800 but it also costs quite a bit more. Its price is at the top of its class, along with its quality.

4 upvotes
DanielFjall
By DanielFjall (Sep 24, 2013)

Best image quality is not even half the story. I'd pick a beautiful designed interface over that any day.

0 upvotes
Kalin
By Kalin (Sep 24, 2013)

Yup, it is more than a bit incongruous....

3 upvotes
DPReview007
By DPReview007 (Sep 24, 2013)

i suppose Daniel is being sarcastic here...

BTW, I love the UI! If you customize your Fn button, you can put everything on there that you need quick access to.

2 upvotes
jkoch2
By jkoch2 (Sep 24, 2013)

Priced a bit lower, it would merit a "gold." Price does matter, especially considering the short functional an economic life of any pocket camera that actually gets heavy use.

1 upvote
steelhead3
By steelhead3 (Sep 24, 2013)

You are right about price; dp would have to give a bronze to the 1dx and d4, that is why they aren't reviewed.

2 upvotes
Boerseuntjie
By Boerseuntjie (Sep 24, 2013)

DP Review had a bit too much of the Canon and Nikon Cool-Aid and when it comes to phones iPhone and Samsung Cool-Aid.

1 upvote
DT200
By DT200 (Sep 24, 2013)

It is another great pocket camera. For many more usable/portable than the mirrorless cameras.

6 upvotes
vesa1tahti
By vesa1tahti (Sep 24, 2013)

Very, very impressive! Is there any third party battery charger available?

2 upvotes
locke42
By locke42 (Sep 24, 2013)

Yes. If you search on Amazon for an "RX100 battery", you'll find several packages that come with spare batteries and an external charger.

0 upvotes
gavp
By gavp (Sep 24, 2013)

It does indeed look very capable in low light. Probably far less so in bright light - a base ISO of 160 and only 1/2000th on offer will potentially be quite limiting. Something like an LX7, with ISO80, 1/4000th and built in ND filter certainly trumps it easily there.

0 upvotes
TrojMacReady
By TrojMacReady (Sep 24, 2013)

If you don't use an external ND or even polarizer filter that is...

Comment edited 29 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
DT200
By DT200 (Sep 24, 2013)

Does the RX100 II allow for filters? The old model did not and there was a market for things you had to glue on it. Even sony sells a "filter adapter" for the camera.

0 upvotes
TrojMacReady
By TrojMacReady (Sep 24, 2013)

First, there were several (non OEM) solutions for the old model that did not involve glue and yes, Sony offers its own solution for the II now (again without the need for glue).

1 upvote
Joseph Mama
By Joseph Mama (Sep 24, 2013)

I would consider lack of threads to be a huge limitation. The Magfilter works extremely well. It glues a metal ring to the camera but it is only like half a millimeter thick and weights nothing. It is completely undetectable. The filter assembly itself works fine.
I agree it would have been nice to have a built in ND filter but you can still get decent background separation even with F2.8 zoomed in slightly. My CPL has been sufficient to take 1.8 aperature shots in direct sun. You only need 1.5 stops or so.

0 upvotes
DT200
By DT200 (Sep 24, 2013)

Not gue, but tape (worse)...
" bought and carefully installed the Sony 49mm filter adapter with the hope of leaving it permanently on the camera. WARNING TO ALL: the adhesive ring doesn't stick well. "
Sony Team at Amazon says: "The VFA-49R1 is composed of two parts - a compact mount ring which attaches to the front structure of the lens with an adhesive (glue)"

Comment edited 6 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
ET2
By ET2 (Sep 24, 2013)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uyPUYIM4MaE

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Total comments: 507
1234