Nikon V1 vs. Sony RX100 ...thoughts and sample photos

I've been a very happy Nikon V1 owner now for 6 months...I had a bunch of gift certificates ect...so I thought I'd try out the Sony RX100...since this is the hottest camera in P&S now...Before I go into what I think...I've been on these boards before mentioning that I wasnt that impressed with the picture quality I saw from the early pics posted here..since then..I've seen some very good pics from owners of this camera so I decided to give it a try..First off, the Nikon V1 is three times the size of the Sony RX100 so obviously it weighs alot more...and cant comfortably fit into a pocket like the RX100.

I took both camera's out and tried to shoot the same scenes using both...this is not a scientific study by any means...and all the pics on the sony were shot using the superior intelligence mode. I just figured that would give me the best quality according to sony possible...specially in the outdoor lighting that these pics were shot in...The camera has very little lag....which surprised me....but my biggest gripe with the camera is the lack of the EVF. In bright light its almost impossible to see the screen and what your trying to compose...that takes away alot of the fun in using a camera in my opinion. Since the Nikon V1 has this, it makes for much more enjoyable picture taking...also, the Nikon V1 feels more responsive and it feels more solid...the Sony feels like a cheap P&S camera which of course its not. The scene modes built in are very cool...but as others have pointed out..the menuing system can be very confusing. The feature that I thought worked great..was the panoramic mode which just lets you sweep and keeps on taking pics and then stitches it for you seamlessly. That worked great...I think in time..the little

piece of cheap plastic covering the connector to allow you to recharge feels like it will crack off. One of the reasons I decided to try it..is that I love the I.Q the Nikon V1 produces, even if its not a 20 megapixel camera...I keep reading how everyone thinks the RX100 is so much better than any P&S camera or for that matter some DSLR's. I think it takes nice pictures, but not really any better than the Nikon V1...in the pics listed below...the first of the set is the Nikon V1 and the second is the RX100. Most of you in this forum Im sure will be biased towards the RX100, but to my eyes..I dont see a big difference in the I.Q of the two cameras...and in some cases I think the 10 megapixel V1 outperforms the Sony.Also, as far as im concerned the Nikon V1 is much more fun to use..and it handles like an SLR ...where I didnt feel that using the RX100....take a look and comments welcome.

At that small size you won't see much difference. To see the advantage of the RX100 IQ over the V1 you must blow up the photos to a very large size. If you want a single system camera with interchangeable lenses the V1 is a good choice. If however you want a camera you can throw in pocket or purse and always have with you The RX100 is a better choice. I already own 2 Interchangeable lens cameras with lenses and accessories so the V1 would make no sense to me. I checked it out and rejected it. I am very happy with my RX100.
--
Tom

Look at the picture, not the pixels

http://www.flickr.com/photos/63683676@N07/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/25301400@N00/

You need to do these tests again in aperture priority or shutter priority.

Its clear to me that even at a glance the exposure is different and the depth of field is different on shot 1 as compared to shot 2 .

I dont know what order you placed these in and it would be handy if you let us know that as well as giving us your setting for each shot it looks to me that the second image is producing better definition than than the first but I dont know which is which and I dont know how much the "magic do it all settings" are infuencing what I am seeing.

The order is simple...the first pic is the Nikon V1 followed by the RX100...for each set of pics.. I didnt want to label each one..but maybe I should have....

Well I guess...if your going to blow up the pictures than maybe the sony which will have twice the pixels will look better..but for pictures for the web...ect...I cant see a big difference..dont get me wrong...its alot of camera for a P&S..packed with features..and settings..some of which I'll prob never use....my biggest gripe is no EVF..and its hard to use in bright sunlight...other than that..it takes nice pics....

I made my comment before re reading your post and stated that the second shot outperformed the first shot in detail so I dont know what you are seeing ?? but clearly as i re iterate you need to re do these tests.

So there you have it the RX100 outperforms the other camera by a fair margin and thats before you actually do some serious testing.

thubleau7

What kind of test would you like me to perform..keep in mind I let the RX100 have a slight advantage by chosing the superior auto..if we want to compare apples to oranges i just should have shot programmed mode only on both with similar settings...maybe the same aperture will be better...i'll give that a shot...using plain vanilla settings...like u suggest..again ..you are entitled to your opinion..i dont see the second shot in each being that much better..maybe i need a better set of eyes.

As expected, under these conditions there shouldn't be much difference between the two.

The main advantage of the RX100 over the Nikon 1 is pocketability, faster lens (advantage only if you use the wider aperture, e.g. in low light), and higher resolution (more room to crop, larger print sizes).

The V1, on the other hand, is a systems camera which allows you to change lenses, and has an EVF as well as a hot shoe for a more powerful flash. The AF is also much faster in good light.

So other than same sensor size, there is not much in common between the two camera's.

For people who value easy pocketability, there is really no competition to the RX100 currently.

Hi Michael

Here's my take on the RX100: It is a tiny camera that has better IQ than any other camera its size. In fact, the IQ is as good as some of the other company's system cameras, such as the V1 and the 12mp micro four thirds cameras, and it has more resolution than those cameras. It operates quickly, is very customizable, and the high resolution is useful when cropping or using some of the camera's special features, or to print large.

The point I think you are missing is that this is the first time ever that all of these capabilities and image quality have been packed into a camera this size... the size of a tiny pocket point and shoot. That's what has people excited. It doesn't beat the IQ of most DSLRs. It doesn't handle better than a larger camera. It's just a lot more IQ and features than you could ever get before with this sized camera.

daniel your points are well taken...i understand...

I don't know why you care so much about which camera is better.
If you don't compare you would never know the difference.
You had every reason to be biased toward your camera,
as you very much implied.

Now you will never get over the fact that yours is beaten,
IQ-wise, not by much maybe, but enough to see.
And the important difference in cameras here, is the size.
Which camera are you inclined to carry with you most.
At least that was the main criteria for my haven chosen
the RX100 as my everyday, point and shoot camera.
If I'm leaving the house with photography as my intent,
I take my big rig, lens etc, why settle for anything in between?

I don't know just how good a test yours is, but I found the
difference in most of the two pictures quite apparent,
the winner going to the second one, that was before I read
the order of the cameras, and my wife also concurred.

Also this thing about not having a viewfinder I find rather bogus,
shooting on the brightest, high noon days is simple,
I never thought I'd buy a camera without a viewfinder, optical
or otherwise until the salesman took me outside, I was amazed
when I first tried the extra bright setting for the screen.
Still, it will never be my preference to take pictures with
outsteched arms.

By the way, I've handled a lot of cameras, you may not like the
feel of the RX100, I admit it does take some getting aquainted
with, but one thing it does not feel, is cheap.

As for being biased on this forum, I'm a Canon guy, at least
I've invested over seven grand in Canon stuff in the last year,
and had a Canon system before that.
I bought the 'Sony' RX100 because it's the right camera
for the job.
"Best picture/fits in a pocket."
Is that having a bias?

I think both were good but liked the exposure of the n1 better.

Michael Klein said:

I think the 10 megapixel V1 outperforms the Sony.

Click to expand...

Member said:

Click to expand...

Otherwise cant see much difference - probably have to pixel peep and/or look at some low light shots. The review (at dpreview) says that reds saturate first so maybe that's a clue.

It is a 20Mp sensor but with some internal compensation for lens barrel/pincushion distortion and perhaps CA the real resolution would be somewhat less. Look at the review and you will see that the studio shots are not quite as sharp across the whole frame as you might expect from a 20Mp camera.

Nonetheless this is a brilliant effort from Sony.

Cheers

Hi Michael, I think the RX100 shots are more detailed but that would be expected from double the MP. Look at the White sailboat in the upper left quadrant of the last shot named "Kat Bella" I think. In the V1 shot you can barely make it out, but the difference isn't enough for me to change even if I only cared about the the range up to 100 mm equiv. But now if we consider the range that the 30-110 covers, how well will the Sony do then? Someone in your position may decide to carry both and have the best of both worlds.
--
Regards, Paul

Lili's Dad

majesk,

I wasn't trying to come off as if I care one is better than the other...but it seems like there is some irrational exhuberance over this camera...it takes great pics....20 megapixels is over kill for me...and I didnt see huge difference in the I.Q between the two camera's and of course i've chosen the V1 because I enjoy shooting with it...much more than the RX100.

Taking pics in bright light without a viewfinder is a strong negative point in using this camera..I couldnt see what I was taking very easily..and the EVF helps tremendously..if that doesnt bother you..thats fine..its a matter of personal opinion..most of the high end camera's P&S and SLR's have come to the point that the I.Q is great on most...so what it boils down to is ease of use..fun factor ect..the fun factor on the V1 is stronger for me..but the pocketablitly of the RX100 is outstanding as you've said.

Danel said:

Hi Michael

Here's my take on the RX100: It is a tiny camera that has better IQ than any other camera its size. In fact, the IQ is as good as some of the other company's system cameras, such as the V1 and the 12mp micro four thirds cameras, and it has more resolution than those cameras. It operates quickly, is very customizable, and the high resolution is useful when cropping or using some of the camera's special features, or to print large.

The point I think you are missing is that this is the first time ever that all of these capabilities and image quality have been packed into a camera this size... the size of a tiny pocket point and shoot. That's what has people excited. It doesn't beat the IQ of most DSLRs. It doesn't handle better than a larger camera. It's just a lot more IQ and features than you could ever get before with this sized camera.

Click to expand...

--



Regards,
Kirwin
http://timebandit.smugmug.com

Paul Pasco said:

Hi Michael, I think the RX100 shots are more detailed but that would be expected from double the MP. Look at the White sailboat in the upper left quadrant of the last shot named "Kat Bella" I think. In the V1 shot you can barely make it out, but the difference isn't enough for me to change even if I only cared about the the range up to 100 mm equiv. But now if we consider the range that the 30-110 covers, how well will the Sony do then? Someone in your position may decide to carry both and have the best of both worlds.

Click to expand...

I swear Paul, I'm not stalking you.. you just happened to be here first, and happened (yet again) to voice my same sentiments

As you point out, if you want the 80-300mm range equivalent that the excellent 30-110 lens provides, then the RX100 isn't going to do the trick. If you want a truly pocketable P&S, then the V1 isn't goint to do the trick. So, both cameras are great, depending on one's needs. I am quite happy with what Sony has achieved with the RX100. It bodes very well for the future of the 1" sensors.

Cheers,

Wayne
http://www.pbase.com/wayne_n

Michael Klein said:

thubleau7

What kind of test would you like me to perform..keep in mind I let the RX100 have a slight advantage by chosing the superior auto..

Click to expand...

Not necessarily. It is best to compare with both either auto, or manual/semi-manual. You had V1 on semi-manual but RX100 on auto.

Michael Klein said:

First off, the Nikon V1 is three times the size of the Sony RX100 so obviously it weighs alot more...and cant comfortably fit into a pocket like the RX100.

Click to expand...

Member said:

...but my biggest gripe with the camera is the lack of the EVF. In bright light its almost impossible to see the screen and what your trying to compose...that takes away alot of the fun in using a camera in my opinion. Since the Nikon V1 has this, it makes for much more enjoyable picture taking

Click to expand...

Member said:

...also, the Nikon V1 feels more responsive and it feels more solid...the Sony feels like a cheap P&S camera which of course its not.

Click to expand...

The Nikon 1 equivalent of the RX100 would be the J1 rather than the V1. Not least, the V1 is magnesium alloy while the J1 and the RX100 are both aluminium alloy.

The J1 is near exactly the same size as the RX100. Even the same shape as well. And also neither the J1 or RX100 have a hotshoe, EVF etc etc so they are near identical for comparison purposes regarding size/handling.

You could separate them by the lenses required by their format. You can't build a retractable zoom when using a mount, it can only be done built-in. Inversely, you can't swap lenses on a fixed-lens camera. So call that a score-draw.

So basically the difference is really just the extra megapixels, and maybe the slightly faster aperture wide open on the RX100. But then there's the faster AF and more focus points on the N1. So call that another score-draw maybe.

I know all this about the J1 without owning one simply because the irony of having the RX100 has me looking at the Nikon 1 now. I previously dismissed it based on Nikon's strategy to position the 1" sensor against the APSC mirrorless systems where it looks tiny . Sony on the other hand positioned the 1" sensor against the 1/1.7" enthusiast compacts where it looks huge . Amazing how exactly the same size sensor and its results can be perceived so differently depending on what it's put next to..

So rather than losing out, maybe Nikon's 1 system sales will actually even improve now with the help of the RX100 opening peoples' eyes to how good the 1" sensor is. It's the 1/1.7" sensor cameras which will get pummeled, eg the P7700 really needed to be 1" as well.

Michael Klein said:

but my biggest gripe with the camera is the lack of the EVF. In bright light its almost impossible to see the screen and what your trying to compose...that takes away alot of the fun in using a camera in my opinion.

Click to expand...

Did you switch the LCD display brightness to "Sunny Weather" mode?
Putting it in Auto is not enough.

I had no problem seeing the LCD in Sunny Weather mode even directly under the sun in Florida.