RX100 vs RX100M2 RAW samples from ISO100 to 6400

Started Jul 19, 2013 | Discussions thread
newellj Senior Member • Posts: 1,064
Re: my conclusion so far, M2 wins...

Here's my current stream of consciousness thoughts.

Image quality: I did some pretty extensive but informal comparisons while I had two Mk2 cameras and my Mk1 last weekend. I checked at ISOs from base ISO to 800 and at apertures from widest available to f/5.6 and at a variety of focal lengths from extreme wide to extreme tele. Based on that group of three cameras, with the raw files processed in LR5 with no processing other than applying the Adobe Standard profile, I see no observable difference in low-ISO sharpness. I did not check OOC jpgs at all, and I didn't attempt to process any of the raw files for best presentation.

I did not check high-ISO performance. I'm happy if the consistent view that the Mk2 offers between 1/2 and one stop better grim light performance. Frankly, the Mk1 was good enough that for me (and YMMV) the BSI sensor was not a big motivation for upgrading, although if (as Sony claims) low light AF is improved, that's very nice - almost more important than an extra stop of sensitivity and reasonable noise control.

Exposure: I found no observable, consistent difference between the Mk2 and the Mk1. In other words, the Mk2 raw files were not less exposed.

WB: I also did not observe any differences between the Mk2 and the Mk1. The subject was a wall of bookshelves in our living room with mixed halogen and daylight lighting.

 newellj's gear list:newellj's gear list
Sony RX100 II Sony RX100 VA Olympus OM-D E-M5 Olympus E-M1 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 7-14mm F4 ASPH +5 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow