Just Posted: Update to Sony RX100 II Samples Gallery

Not exactly the same. RX100 II has 1/3 stop lower noise.

Jul 10, 2013permalink

again ET2 I that is nothing. raising the iso a third a stop does not increase the noise an appreciable amount. you wouldnt be able to tell the difference on a 16x24 print

Jul 11, 2013permalink

bzanchet

No-RAW Sony cameras have much better jpegs colours than RX-100 IMO. I am amazed that I need to "fix" the images on a $650 camera...
Hope for a firmware update soon, or for the next gen of Canon and Olympus cameras with a sensor equivalent to the RX100.

Jul 10, 2013*permalink

FreedomLover

Bzanchet, what is wrong with the skin tones and how do you fix it?

Jul 10, 2013permalink

Darren Lee

Is the articulating LCD screen helpful for bright sunlight also besides being able to shoot from the hip? I don't have a need for the hotshoe since i don't plan to get an EVF. If the lcd screen really improved on the brigth sunlight then i would likely get the RX100II...otherwise, i think i will buy the RX100.

Jul 9, 2013*permalink

Jefftan

Can BSI actually worsen low ISO IQ?
I think that is possible
I would got a GR or Coolpix A and left the zoom to my TG-2 which is less than 10% of my pic

Jul 9, 2013permalink

photo perzon

the pictures on imaging-resource.com show at least at ISO 400 much les detail on the II

Jul 9, 2013permalink

Boky

something's seriously wrong with the colour.... does't look right, especially warm spectrum.

Boky

Jul 9, 2013permalink

Darren Lee

so you guys think a firmware fix will be in order to resolve IQ issues?

Jul 9, 2013permalink

B1ackhat

This is par for course for Sony. The color accuracy on the RX100 was awful and the score it received on IR supported that.

Jul 9, 2013permalink

FreedomLover

This is interesting, B1ackhat, do you have a link and are there software filters for correcting it?

Jul 9, 2013permalink

bzanchet

I own a RX100 and I have to tell you, the colors look the same... and that is a bad thing.
The IQ on the camera is awsome, but it is biggest problem are the colours... specially skin tones...
If you are looking to buy this camera for its jpegs you are in for a bad surprise.

Jul 10, 2013permalink

honestly what do you need a zoom lens for on a snapshot camera. its not like i am going to shoot sports or head shots with it. The fixed lens allows you to have a quality sensor in and a quality lens meet together in compact package in a way that is not otherwise possible. Zoom is overated for snapshot photography it really is rarely needed. certainly wouldnt choose either to be my only camera

Jul 10, 2013permalink

guyfawkes

Can someone explain what a "real world" image is, please? Are there surreal world images or unworldly images it can also take?

Jul 9, 2013permalink

balios

The real-world, as opposed to their studio scene shots.

real-world
noun
the realm of practical or actual experience, as opposed to the abstract, theoretical, or idealized sphere of the classroom or laboratory.

Jul 9, 2013permalink

wild ta

Like MTV's "Real World"... LOL.

Jul 10, 2013permalink

sik_photos

I didnt look at the DXO ratings but i did look at the sample images. While Im not a big fan of the colors, wouldnt one have to admit this wins best camera that fits in your pocket?

Jul 9, 2013permalink

ill take me Ricoh GR V anyday.

Jul 9, 2013permalink

That's a fixed lens camera with F2.8 max aperture. No comparison.

Jul 9, 2013*permalink

jon404

Can the GR V fit in a man's workshirt pocket?

That's my form factor... the XZ-1 and RX100 can do it... can the Ricoh?

Jul 9, 2013permalink

Yes GR V can fit in a pocket, I would say, but it's fixed lens camera and it doesn't really have lowlight advantage that comes with APSC sensor, as the lens is one stop slower (F2.8 GR V vs F1.8 on RX100 II).

Jul 9, 2013*permalink

Jul 10, 2013permalink

Zoom lens is far useful for average consumer than a fixed 28mm lens like on Ricoh, period.

Jul 10, 2013permalink

well now that you said period i have to agree with you

Jul 11, 2013permalink

cgarrard

Reply to Kodachrome200: LOL!

Jul 11, 2013permalink

so i looked at DXOs ratings on the sensor got to say not impressed. Wasnt the idea of this newer and more expensive model to have better low light. It impoved by just a third a stop. its hard to even call that an incremental improvement it is hardly better at all.

Jul 9, 2013permalink

inFocus

So the first thing you look at in a new camera model is sensor ratings? How odd.

Jul 9, 2013permalink

well when it is essentially the same as the old camera with a new sensor. yep i am just that odd

Jul 9, 2013permalink

Gwen22

1/3 of a stop is not that bad at all , in one years separing the 2 sensors even with the BSI technologie we could'nt expect much more.
The add of the tilting screen and hot shoes while keeping the same size is also a worthing improvement!

Jul 9, 2013permalink

when they announced it i honestly thought it would be getting into aps c territory. and i would bet money you couldnt tell the difference on a 16x20 print

Jul 10, 2013permalink

photo perzon

Why were the previous RX100 II samples dim and unfocused? These look good.

Jul 9, 2013permalink

They weren't unfocused - they were however shot in an extremely compressed timeframe on a crappy day (when we shoot for preview samples galleries we have to do so veryveryquickly and very close to our office).

Jul 9, 2013permalink

Tommygun45

Barney, c'mon now man. I love the work that you guys do and love this site but don't go down that road. If you can't post fair and realistic examples of what a camera can do why post them at all? It's not fair to the manufacturer or to the customers here who are trying to figure out how best to spend our hard earned dollars, know what I mean? The reviews in general are very well written and you guys do a great job but don't compromise it by saying you didn't have the time to take quality shots, or at least explain it when posting the original samples. (And maybe it was, I haven't seen them but based on that question and your response that is what I assumed, please correct me if I am wrong.)

Jul 9, 2013permalink

Kexi Cao

Barney, your comment will make people think that the RX100 can't take good shots in a "crappy day". If you have to have a nice day to get nice pictures, my iPhone 5 can do that but we all know RX100 is 100x better than iPhone 5.

Jul 9, 2013permalink

@Tommygun - I don't really see your point. When we get pre-release cameras, on the very rare occasions we're allowed to actually shoot with them, we usually have an extremely short time available to us to do it.

In the case of the RX100 II, I pretty much ran out of the office for a couple of hours one day before it started raining, took a few hurried shots that evening, and the next day the camera was in the studio all day, while we wrote the preview, and then the product was announced.

This is the point - we do what we can to get pictures on the site for you, then we follow-up when we have more time, post-announcement (when we don't have to hide the camera from view every time someone comes down the street towards us.)

The initial preview gallery was OK, given the contraints, but it wasn't the greatest, so I wanted to update it as soon as possible.

Jul 9, 2013*permalink

sagephotography

The previous samples were decent and showed image quality.... Which was the point of them. So many wannabee photographers online pretending they take amazing photographs I see.

Jul 9, 2013permalink

Tommygun45

Sorry Sage, we all can't be pro's like yourself. Nice gallery.

My point is, if I worked at Motor Trend and Ferrari gave me a car to write a review about, I wouldn't drive it down a dirt road to see how it handled or how fast it went just to be the first one to 'post my results.' Thanks for 'updating it as soon as possible' but you realize what that does right? When you post sub par photos or reviews of a product in a 'time constrained' manner are you being fair? I'm not some crazed Sony fanboy, just being a realist here.

Jul 9, 2013permalink

You know about embargos, right? Like when we're given a product 24 hours ahead of announcement, and only have that amount of time to prepare news and preview content...?

Would you rather we just said 'sorry, this just happened but we had no time to write or shoot anything, so we'll get back to you'? I'm not sure that would be a very sensible approach for us to take...

Jul 9, 2013permalink

Eric Hensel

I appreciate you posting the nuts and bolts of your decision-making, for those of us not in the business, Barney.
we never got these explanations in the 60's...no one explained anything...;)

Jul 9, 2013permalink

cgarrard

Don't worry Barney, I for one completely understand. It's one of those things that you just cant explain until you are in the situation yourself. Kinda like being a parent.

Jul 11, 2013permalink

sagephotography

Nice gallery? Where do you see my gallery? Shot for Armani and Audi, what about you? Fruitcake. PM me to see my gallery. It's wannabees like you on the forums that give photography a bad name. The sample images were decent and served their purpose. You, are a effing gearhead. Wannabee.

Jul 13, 2013permalink

Rooru S

Geez...maybe it's time to get myselft one of these RX-series. (RX1 still out of reach, but really want it!)

Need a comparison between the original RX100 and the upgraded RX100 II to decide which one to get since it seems both are going to stay in the market.

Jul 9, 2013permalink

Your shots are beautiful and at times visceral. One of the lake pictures reminded me of a backpacking trip in the High Sierras in California (picture #DSC00372). When looking at that one lake shot, I felt I could reach right into that shore water and stir up the underlying silt. Now that you have a broader realistic life feel for the RX100 Mark II, any chance that you could provide a comparison series of maybe 10-15 side by side tripod RX100 vs. RX100 Mark II shots similar to the pictures provided above? Other than low light shots, some now are reporting that still shots of the RX100 are actually sharper than the RX100 II. So, such a comparison series of shots would be very educational.

And, thanks again for the gorgeous pictures! Much appreciated.

Jul 8, 2013*permalink

And, Barney: For such a Sony RX100 vs. RX100 Mark II comparison study, it would be really interesting to see the untouched photo shots from both of the cameras side by side; and, then the finished pictures side by side to see what each of the cameras ultimately is capable of achieving.... Thanks!

Jul 9, 2013permalink

Geekapoo

Absolutely love my RX100 and it's my go to small camera (the OM-D being my fav larger camera). Am curious to see a comparison for shots taken with the new vs. Original ......but am hardly disappointed with the RX100 now so doubt there is much they have done to warrant an upgrade or buying the new cam at a premium vs the RX100 at a discount. Oh and the slightly larger size/tilt rear LCD has no appeal to me.

Jul 8, 2013permalink

Michael Stephen

I use my RX100 under a multi rotor for aerial photography, have a double page spread full bleed shot in an issue of Top Gear magazine.

Jul 9, 2013permalink

Mattoid

Please do a direct image comparison (with foreground and background elements to show blur amount and character) between the RX100 II and the Ricoh GR wide open at 28mm 35mm and 50mm equivalents. (interestingly the GR cropped to "1 inch" sensor size gives 50mm equivalent)

Jul 8, 2013permalink

OK, you do have a point with the Ricoh GR. I still prefer the RX but the GR is a superb little camera, no doubt.

Jul 8, 2013permalink

Joe Ogiba

I just checked Imaging Resource Comparometer of the Ricoh GR vs Sony NEX-3N @ 12800iso and the NEX-3N kills the GR. The NEX-3N is not much larger with the 16-50 PZ OSS and is much cheaper.

Jul 8, 2013*permalink

Mattoid

I took a look myself and couldn't see much in it. The hair on the dummy looked pretty un-detailed in both at that ISO. The nex did look more flattering though. The 35mm crop mode would be best to be used with the GR in that situation. As for size, the 3n body is the same at 34.6mm but the 16-50 adds a further 30mm, so for jacket poketability they are similar but the GR is just slim enough to be pant pocketable, which isn't the case with the nex unless you transport the lens separately. But you are right that at that price it is very attractive, and I actually will now look at that as a serious option so thanks.

Jul 9, 2013permalink

Tommygun45

You can always add the 20mm pancake to make it very portable. No let up in IQ either as many examples of that lens have shown.

Jul 9, 2013permalink

mugupo

No matter how you slice it, the bokeh is still weak is nothing dramatic different than those smaller sensor point and shoot. For that money i would just EOS M with pan cake 20mm for less than half the price.

Jul 8, 2013permalink

LOL, EOS M... probably the worst mirrorless camera in existence, and it's NOT pocketable; the RX100 I and II are. Just look at this size comparison: http://j.mp/15rQBnW

Even with the pancake, it's much bigger and heavier. And if you try to get some zoom to match the RX, it's ridiculously huge in comparison. Again, LOL EOS M.

And the RX bokeh is absolutely more impressive than smaller sensor cameras, though obviously (duh) it can't compare to much larger sensors. Again, it's a pocket camera.

There simply is no camera in this category that matches the RX series.

Jul 8, 2013permalink

cadet stimpy

Why do people always have to compare incomparable cameras in these comments? It drives me nuts...

Jul 8, 2013permalink

mcshan

@cadet....I am with you there..someone will ask for pocket camera suggestions and ultimately be directed to a Canon Rebel. Camera and sensor size matters. Mention that the RX1 has great IQ and you can bet someone will bring up the LX7. Huh?

Jul 8, 2013permalink

Impulses

Even the LX7 isn't pocketable in the way the RX100 is... Honestly, there IS no direct competition, that's why Sony can raise the price by a hundred bucks without batting an eye. The only cameras in the same category, e.g. pocketables with larger sensors/control ring/RAW, all cost half as much (give or take) and they all have 1/1.17 sensors (S110, P330, LF1, etc, there's not that many to begin with...).

Jul 9, 2013permalink

sagephotography

If you want bokeh then there's things out there called full frame cameras.

Plus, look at magnum photographers. OHHH SOO MUCH BOKEH right? Not really. Pocketable, good high iso, decent zoom range with large aperture, stop moaning and use the tool that will achieve your artistic vision.

Jul 9, 2013permalink

CameraDebate blog (July 11, 2013) actually has compared the Sony RX100 Mark II , a compact interchangeable lens camera and an SLR camera to each other. Taking into account the importance of choosing based on the purpose of a camera, for a compact camera and an overall achiever, they still chose the RX100 Mark II. Pretty impressive.

(PS: Hope it is OK to mention other blog sites. Wasn't sure...)

Jul 11, 2013permalink

@mugupo: Meant to open the replies & accidentally hit "like". Since no way to correct, am commenting instead that I do not agree with @mugupo.

Jul 12, 2013permalink

HomoSapiensWannaBe

I would like a 1" sensor camera with a fixed 24-85 f2.0-4.0 full frame equivalent lens and built-in EVF. C'mon Sony, you know you can do it!

Jul 8, 2013permalink

ChicagoRob

Some of the nicest samples I've ever seen, regardless of sensor size. Absolutely superb image quality.

Jul 8, 2013permalink

Barend

Normally I take my Nikon D700 with a 50mm and 35mm for street photography but I'm afraid the RX100 took his place.
http://www.pictureplaza.nl/barend/amsterdam/

Jul 8, 2013permalink

attomole

They're nice and i like the little sony, but can you get the subject to pop from the background as you could with your D700 and primes?

Jul 8, 2013permalink

Barend

Not exactly but de DOF of a 50mm is also reasonable and I have to take more pictures from the hip as they do not see me shooting. For that I use at least aperture 8.
The following pictures are made in Paris with my D700
http://www.pictureplaza.nl/barend/parijs/

Jul 8, 2013permalink

attamole, can you carry a D700 and primes in a pocket?

I think some people are missing the whole point of a small pocket camera -- it's the camera you can always take with you. To dinner, on a walk, whatever, it can always be there. This alone is very valuable, and why the RX series has become so popular.

Jul 8, 2013permalink

mcshan

@Tapper123...Good attempt to get attamole to understand but if his/her post wasn't sarcasm I have to wonder if he/she is capable of getting the huge vs small camera concept. Some people just don't get it.

Jul 9, 2013permalink

Mikhail Tal

Barney is the RX100 II the best compact camera ever?

Jul 8, 2013permalink

I think as far as IQ is concerned it's definitely a contender, but there's lots of work still to do ;)

Jul 8, 2013permalink

new boyz

He said no, hehehe.

Jul 10, 2013permalink

peevee1

Much better, thanks.

Jul 8, 2013permalink

DPR team, can you comment (yet) on the RX100 II compared to the original RX100, in terms of sharpness and color saturation? As you know, there has been concern on the Sony Cyber-Shot forum about this, due to comparisons made between early sample shots.

Is your copy of the II exhibiting any such issues in your opinion? If so, can changing in-camera settings (i.e. sharpening and saturation) produce images more similar to those from the original model?

Thanks for any insights.

Jul 8, 2013permalink

We're really just starting our testing - as soon as we've been able to get a good set of studio samples to compare against other cameras (including RX100) we'll add them to our previously-published content.

Jul 8, 2013permalink

OK. Thanks, Barney.

Jul 8, 2013permalink

fotografer

RX100 series rule! Mine's the original version. Very happy to see there are visible improvements to the high iso pics. Well done!

Jul 8, 2013permalink

Boerseuntjie

Impressive little camera

Jul 8, 2013permalink

Digitall

My first impression is that really improved the higher ISO, but at the cost of some loss of detail, nothing problematic but relevant. I still happy with my I version.

Jul 8, 2013permalink