"Anyone saying that it outclasses either the G1 X or APS C or full frame sensors really does not have a clue"

It does not outclass the APS-C, or FF cameras. But it outclass the Canon G1X for sure
http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Compare-Camera-Sensors/Compare-cameras-side-by-side/(appareil1)/812|0/(brand)/Sony/(appareil2)/769|0/(brand2)/Canon

RX100
Image quality- 66
Color depth- 22.6 bits
Dynamic Range - 12.4 Evs

G1X
Image quality - 60
Color Depth - 21.7 bits
Dynamic Range - 10.8 Evs

RX100 vs G1X Image sample
http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Sony_Cyber-shot_DSC_RX100/outdoor_resolution.shtml

" the RX100 crops you can actually see more detail than in the crops from the Lumix LX7 and the PowerShot G1 X."

David Kilpatrick " ISO 80 to 125, stopped down just one full step from full aperture – the RX100 can match or better the typical output of a 21 megapixel full frame DSLR with 24-105mm lens.”"

Aside from high ISO, RX100 beats G1x :)

I don't get why some people continue to compare the RX-100 against cameras like the G1X or DSLRs. That's not what it's target customer is. The target customer is the photographer that wants better pictures from a small bodied camera. Possibly the kind of person that has a large high-end camera but doesn't or can't take it around with them all of the time.

I can't stand Sony as a company. I stopped buying their products a long time ago but I had to swallow my pride and buy this camera because it was the only one that did exactly what I wanted. I can't carry my 5DMkII with me everywhere nor do I want to but I can put this in my jean pocket without much hassle and take above average pictures.

No Argieramos it is not just at high ISO. The people who say such comparisons are not fair to the RX100 on size may have a point. The claims that it somehow "beats" the G1 X for untrammelled IQ do not.

You are confusing sensor measurements with images. Never a good idea. A film camera was/is never only the film you put in it.

Small sensors bring compromises. Small sensors in small bodies bring even more. For a Zeiss lens, the RX100's lens is very disappointing. Dealing with the physics issue with excessive barrel distortion which you then process out is not an ideal way of getting the best image, and reduces the quality of the picture. The edge performance of the lens is nothing to write home about anyway, particularly at anything over f3.5.

The RX100 is a bunch of compromises that suits some. It won't be enough for others. And if you want to make a point, SHOW us. Anyone can cherry pick magazine articles. You can even find some that prove people have been abducted by aliens.

Sure. You can own cameras with different brand. But having different brand of cameras in the same category is just plain stupid. Just like you. lol

I see kindergarten is out again. Come back and play with the grown up photographers another day. Oh, and how about some pictures? Troll.

Kindergarden? Thats a strong word coming from someone who don't even shoot RAW. Owning a G1X and RX100 at the same time prove your stupidity. And for the one who keep comparing his G1X to the RX100 shows the you barely know photography. No reason to own a camera that big if there are cameras like NEX who can give out much better IQ. G1X just don't make sense lol

Once again, learn a little and you might be worth talking to.

The G1X and the RX100 are NOT in the same range, and certainly not in the same class, as everyone with more than your two brain cells has told you.

But keep making yourself look stupid if you wish.

Pictures yet? Or don't you own ANY camera?

Oh, this is what pictures look like

http://masters.galleries.dpreview.com.s3.amazonaws.com/2305613.jpg?AWSAccessKeyId=14Y3MT0G2J4Y72K3ZXR2&Expires=1352365509&Signature=NuCMfgNtpEQbRS4mjBMo%2ftjYj1U%3d

http://masters.galleries.dpreview.com.s3.amazonaws.com/2305608.jpg?AWSAccessKeyId=14Y3MT0G2J4Y72K3ZXR2&Expires=1352365772&Signature=LNwZERYVQIguUd7l7sn9uu1aKYQ%3d

As for the NEX cameras, which I have considered, to get decent images with them you still need DSLR size lenses. So why not use a DSLR and go for the best? Don't you love ANY OTHER brand but Sony?

GaryJP "The G1X and the RX100 are NOT in the same range, and certainly not in the same class"

It's funny that you are now saying that. You were the one who keeps bashing the RX100 and keeps saying G1X better. Don't put me on your shoes. You are passing that on me because you now realized owning the G1X is stupid while having the RX100, right (if you own the RX100)? That camera is bigger and more expensive than the NEX C3 that gives MUCH better IQ.
Pictures? Funny, I was about to ask you that because you are the one who is claiming that own almost every camera brand. Can you prove to me that you own the RX100 and G1X?
Next time, spend more time to practice shooting RAW, and stop spending most of your time trolling around the forum. It is really showing you barely know photography. lol

GaryJP "NEX cameras, which I have considered, to get decent images with them you still need DSLR size lenses"

Bwuahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!
Nyehehahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!
Wahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!
Sorry, but I can't help but to laugh lol. Your comment proves that you are such an amateur when it comes to photography. You do know "lens size" does not mean better pictures, right? Just like the Carl Zeiss 24mm 1.8 for NEX produce better image compare to Samyang 24mm for Alpha.

Man, you're such a noob lol

You know, anyone reading these posts, aware of your lack of images or background,your seven day posting history under this pseudonym, and your general childishness cannot help but be fully aware of who is the noob here.

As for lens size, I am talking about good glass. You won't find many who accuse Sony of having great glass. Not on the RX100 or anywhere else.

You are nothing but a troll. Really, take your attention-hungry games elsewhere. You are of that tiresome breed that thinks persuading anyone with experience to give you any attention at all is a sign of success. Chip on your shoulder much?

Have you EVER actually taken a photograph? Do you own ANY camera? I seriously doubt it. Anyone can look at my galleries, here and elsewhere, and see mine, as well as my posting history and experience. And see what cameras they were shot on.

Go back beneath your bridge, and allow the grown ups to talk photography. If you are over fifteen, life cheated you.

For me, the noise levels at anything above ISO 800 on the RX100 in RAW are simply not acceptable. They may not matter so much to others.

The reason Sony has such intense noise reduction in its JPGs is because they need it.

"As for lens size, I am talking about good glass."
So good glass means bigger lens? lol. You wouldn't use the "lens size" term if you were really talking about good glass. That's a mess up excuse.

So here you are, making such a long comment but the content are mostly insult towards me. You are trying to change the topic. And do not question my photography skill because you are the one who thinks "lens size" affects IQ, and thinks NEX needs DSLR size lens to take a decent pictures, but at the same time praising the G1X IQ. NEX with kitlens takes much better IQ than G1X mind you.

"For me, the noise levels at anything above ISO 800 on the RX100 in RAW are simply not acceptable. They may not matter so much to others."

If you can't take good pictures in ISO 800 from RX100, I suggest stop using the camera and go to school of photography. Even 3200 is acceptable.

"The reason Sony has such intense noise reduction in its JPGs is because they need it."

Another one who don't shoot RAW like GaryJP.

Is English not your first language? I can think of no other reason why you cannot understand the words "in its JPGs".

The noise REDUCTION is there in the JPGs, the noise is there in RAW.

It doesn't take me long to see that other people's assessment of your immaturity is spot on.

If 3200 is acceptable to you, your standards are lower than mine, and way lower than the photo agencies I know. That's fine. It happens.

I've seen GaryJP's photographs both in the galleries here and on Zenfolio. I see he knows his way around a camera. You offer no such evidence but a lot of mouth. Good luck with that.

"They may not matter so much to others."
If you actually know how to shoot properly, you wouldn't have a problem in ISO800. And learn how to shoot in RAW! lol.

"I've seen GaryJP's photographs both in the galleries here and on Zenfolio."
Now you're stalking him? You creep me out lol

You would?

How much?

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/post/50199121

http://masters.galleries.dpreview.com.s3.amazonaws.com/2302656.jpg?AWSAccessKeyId=14Y3MT0G2J4Y72K3ZXR2&Expires=1352245442&Signature=pzgwniSKMT1h%2b17ctRRk%2bko22v8%3d

http://masters.galleries.dpreview.com.s3.amazonaws.com/2101861.jpg?AWSAccessKeyId=14Y3MT0G2J4Y72K3ZXR2&Expires=1352245626&Signature=wpncJUVDGAA39bNncDjH3NzCl6M%3d

Grow up, children.

And Argie, no matter how many times you say it takes better images, it isn't true, as most sane RX100 owners (and any owner of both) will acknowledge. As I said, you live in your own world.

It's a nice camera, but it's no DSLR beater and it's no G1 X beater, as long as IQ is your primary consideration.

By the way, look at those two pictures I link to carefully. Zoom in on the faces. The G1X image - which is already cropped - is not appreciable noisier at ISO 3200 than the RX100 is at ISO 800, and the colour depth is better.

The trade-off is acceptable to some - and to me on some occasions - for the convenience, but it's there.

And Hans, I have no problem with the idea that the RX100 delivers better IQ than either the S100 or the Fuji X10. I just know from direct experience the G1 X does better. All cameras have their foibles. Canon included.

Burger, I am comparing because others are comparing and talking nonsesne about there being no need for DSLRs, blah, blah, blah. And their comparison is bs.

I agree with you that the RX100 is probably the best camera of its size. That's why I have one. But that does not make it the best compromise between IQ and size for everyone. At least more reasonable posters like you see the compromises in the RX100, including that not so great lens. Likely the DPReview reviewers do too. Oh, and if you want to examine trolls, check the posting and photographic history of our argie friend.

Really Argie, grow up.

This tells you exactly where the RX100 belongs. For someone who have NEVER used a camera you profess to know an awful lot about it.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/studiocomparefullscreen.asp#baseDir=%2Freviews_data&cameraDataSubdir=boxshot&indexFileName=boxshotindex.xml&presetsFileName=boxshotpresets.xml&showDescriptions=false&headerTitle=Studio%20scene&headerSubTitle=Standard%20studio%20scene%20comparison&masterCamera=canon_eos5dmkiii&masterSample=5d3_5218&slotsCount=4&slot0Camera=canon_eos5dmkiii&slot0Sample=5d3_5218&slot0DisableCameraSelection=true&slot0DisableSampleSelection=true&slot0LinkWithMaster=true&slot1Camera=canon_g1x&slot1Sample=img_0021&slot2Camera=sony_nex5n&slot2Sample=dsc00791&slot3Camera=sony_dscrx100&slot3Sample=dsc00495&x=-0.3370845776785015&y=1.3129114206797892&extraCameraCount=0

And I honestly cannot believe you take Snapsort seriously. One day you will find out why.

Your need for attention is tiresome. Did your mother not wean you?

Oh,and from your Cameralabs article: "Ultimately the big sensor is the G1 X's key selling point, and its ability to essentially deliver the same quality as many EOS DSLRs in a relatively smaller package make it a popular companion for many photographers."

Note that he does not believe the RX100 does this.

I use both. You do not. You actually have no evidence of using any camera at all. You are talking from the wrong orifice.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/post/50199121

http://masters.galleries.dpreview.com.s3.amazonaws.com/2302656.jpg?AWSAccessKeyId=14Y3MT0G2J4Y72K3ZXR2&Expires=1352245442&Signature=pzgwniSKMT1h%2b17ctRRk%2bko22v8%3d

http://masters.galleries.dpreview.com.s3.amazonaws.com/2101861.jpg?AWSAccessKeyId=14Y3MT0G2J4Y72K3ZXR2&Expires=1352245626&Signature=wpncJUVDGAA39bNncDjH3NzCl6M%3d

As you own none of them, you would not know.

@Garyjp, clearly some people walk the walk, and others just talk the talk.

Who cares if YOU said anything about jpgs? I DID. And you were too dense to notice. You seem to have the same comprehension problems reading other people's posts, perfectly clear to everyone else, too.

Ever heard the saying "all mouth and no trousers" ?

Suits you to a t.

And no, they are not acceptable to me at full size. The cat and wine pictures in particular are in focus almost nowhere, have had enough noise reduction applied (whether in camera OR from RAW) to have taken on an almost posterised look in places, and show the awful edge performance of the lens. You can just about get away with them at the smallest viewing size.

But if they are acceptable to you I am not in the least surprised this is all you ask for from a camera.

Your idea of a good shot is not mine. Professionally or personally, You have shown that all too clearly.

You are the one claiming this ""pocket camera" outstrips others that are larger and yet you are presenting pi$$ poor evidence to back it up.

And you do enjoy LOLLING yourself. Those are the kind of people we usually avoid taking elevators with.

Sorry, KingDon, I forgot to use the sarcasm font

I have had one for 3 months now and I agree with DPreviews Silver award. Its the best in the class (class leader) from a technological point of view, but it's not as fun to use as it could be. It lacks some soul or something. It's designed by Engineers to be a monster, not by Photographers to be their toy.

Straw man comment. Some of us have it and still don't like the kind of hype that Time is providing.

If they believe in one thing from one side for their whole life, then if something come along from another side and which is better than whatever that side they have believed in can produce, they feel scared.
Because if they admit that new thing is better, it would mean they have been dumb ass in the wrong faithfulness for their whole life. In a state of denial, they would attack the new thing for any flaws so that they can feel a sense of comfort that what they hold dearly is better.

This applies to religious beliefs & also fanbois of any brand.

At least someone know what he is talking about. Marike6 and GaryJP doesn't get that. A camera that rival the DSLR in terms of IQ, and fits in your jeans, that is the RX100.

GaryJP" Canon G1X has better IQ"
lol. All review and comparison say otherwise. Don't fool yourself. IQ is not Canon's strength. Even the NEX-3 has better IQ than the Canon 7D.

Photoclubalpha "in low ISO, (RX100) stopping down one full stop outresolve a 21mp FF camera (is that a Canon? lol )

The entire Canon G series has good IQ, including the G1x. So ... maybe you dont like Canon. But thats your problem.

argieramos, keep trying to convince yourself on IQ. And then being surprised when other people are getting better images than you. I never object to people using less good equipment. Makes them less competitive. Most sane RX100 users here are admitting the G1 X has better IQ but then saying it's not a fair comparison. You, on the other hand, live in your own world.

One major difference between you and me - there are no doubt many others - is that I use both cameras. You do not. Another major difference is that I am a longtime poster here on many cameras. You joined two days ago just to troll this thread and post puerile insults.

Marike6 and GaryJP, these two idiot are hopeless. One who doesnt know what he is talking about, and the other one claiming that he has almost all camera brand meaning he don't know how to shoot properly because none of his camera serve him well. Nyahaha!!

Fanboy kindergarten out already argie? Cameras are tools. So are some fanboys. Like EVERY person who trash talks other shooters, you have not a single image in your gallery. It's really predictable how this is ALWAYS the case.

Dude, the invention here is not the camera or the machine itself... it's the "class" just show me another camera who has 1" sensor and fits in your pocket then?

and No, Nikon-1 is not a pockatable camera.

The plane of focus for those two cameras is different. You aren't seeing a difference in IQ, just focal clarity (the Sony is way forward in that scene - DPR ought to fix that). With both cameras focused equally the RX100 pretty much stomps all over the smaller sensor compacts.

And yet all of Japan still does without. On the other hand, the *washing machine* might meet your hyperbolic standards.

From dentists point of view, the best invention so far is the electronic toothbrush.

The G1 X (please note the correct name before trashing a camera) lens ranges from f2.8 at the wide end. If you care about sharpness, the RX100 lens isn't that great at anything wider than f2.8 either.

At f1.8 it's pretty crap.

At full tele (which is a little longer than the RX100 at 112 mm) the G1 X has f 5.8. My RX100 has 4.9. at 100mm equivalent. And the lens is better in the G1 X. Not only that, given the larger sensor size I see more room for zooming in in PP.

Autofocus is a bit slow, but not as slow as reviewers still using the "half-oress" technique in their one day of testing seem to think. But then it depends what you're shooting. G1 X depth of field control is excellent. See some of the pictures taken with it if you have any doubt. And, for some of us, IQ trumps size.

My RX100 beats it when I am doing street photography or want instant shutter response, but for IQ for a good typical touristic scene, and for lowlight (which I do a lot), the G1 X wins hands down.

Anyone thinking Canon G1x is a compact camera either must have gigant hands or never seen the RX100...

Well, people DO keep making the comparison. And no-one ever looks at my photos and says: "Nice photo. You must be able to keep your camera in your jeans pocket."

@GaryJP, so is the case with nikon D800 also ie no one asks if you have to put camera in jeans pocket, yet there are people who want small and compact camera instead of d800. Nice photos could be taken with almost any camera so this point really does not count much here.

Canon g1x? LoL, try to fit it in your pocket or try to focus it in low light, it takes ages.

the invention here is: 1" sensor in a pockatable camera, show me another camera who does this.

and No, Nikon-1 is not a pockatable camera.

I am so tired of hearing that " fit's in your pocket " line. Any camera that I have had that can actually fit in my pocket never spent any time there. Let me see... I am taking a hike, let me get my camera out of my pocket and take a picture. Now let me put it back in my pocket and then take it out again and again. Not for me. I don't even like putting my wallet in my pocket. I wouldn't even keep a camera that was the pocket size equivalent of the 5dMKIII in my pocket. Just not a big deal. I'm not saying that the Sony is not a great camera just that the " fit's in your pocket " thing is overdone. Most people have cell phones in their pockets that are adequate enough for simple things. I would rather have a more capable camera the size of a G12, XZ-1 or M-4/3rds that I would have around my wrist ready for the shot.

In many cases there would be no photo to see if the camera wasn't small enough to fit in a pocket!

Sorry, but I don't take many pictures in my pocket. And no-one who looks at my images gives a toss about where the camera was 30 seconds before.

Sony RX100 - why a unicycle is better than a Rolls Royce.

I slip it in along with a piece lint-free microfiber cloth that I got free with my eyewear. That solves the pocket-lint problem and still leaves the camera more freely accessible than from a camera case.

If you go by volume the G1x is nearly 3x larger than the RX100, it has a slow lens which results in worse DoF control, extremely poor minimum focus distance, and has been panned for it's terrible auto focus performance by multiple review sites. And "Near APS-C", equates to slightly larger than micro 4/3rds. And all of this comes at a significantly higher MSRP than the Sony.Camera.

G1X isn't a pocket camera. Nex-6 with 16-50mm pancake lens is just as small as G1X.