DSLR owner very disappointed with RX100 M2

Ecorone said:

I didn't realize that this forum was "positive feedback only". Perhaps if I had read some critical feedback about this camera along with the positive buzz, then I would have had a better understanding of what I was actually buying.

I put my hard-earned money to buy this camera with the intention of keeping it. I used it, and it didn't work out for me. Now I am sharing my experiences on this forum.

I didn't realize that posting my honest opinion about what I like / don't like is "forum/thread crap".

Click to expand...

I think all of your criticisms are valid, and I wish my NEX and RX100 cameras had them. But the cameras still work very well, and I no longer notice their omission. One reason is that the RX100 can be pushed to much higher ISOs than I expected, so you can push up shutter speeds.

I guess, by definition, regulars here are going to be positive about their cameras, or they wouldn't still be here. So you shouldn't be too surprised when they resent it when a stranger breezes in and announces, after a cursory inspection, that their prized possessions are unusable bad.

Ecorone said:

Necessary to you or not, Auto-ISO in manual mode is a useful feature for me and one that should be very easily implemented considering it's already present in its A and S modes. Most other modern already cameras have it (including Sony's newest offerings) while the RX100M2 does not.

Perhaps it's not as pure to you as full manual control, but then again, you've moved onto digital photography which many others consider much less pure than film photography. Where do you define the boundary where progress should give way to nostalgia?

Click to expand...

I agree completely, Auto ISO in manual mode is very useful, and I was very glad to find it on the RX10.

There was a similar thread recently where one of the more sensible views expressed is that it is a matter of definitions and wording. There is a post by Sean Nelson pointing out that Pentax call it "TAv" mode, "Shutter and Aperture Priority".

The problem for some people is that if it is called "Manual" they feel there should be no element of automation in it. Call it something else like TAv mode and the argument evaporates.

It isn't as though incorporating auto ISO in Manual takes anything away from the pure Manual mode where the user selects ISO manually as well as Tv and Av. This isn't an either/or choice.

If the user wants to deliberately under or overexpose using Manual mode, then obviously Auto ISO is futile, but if the user wants a correctly exposed photo with particular Av and Tv then Auto ISO is ideal...two very different situations.

Aperture Priority and Shutter Priority were born in film days when changing the ISO was not an option. "Auto ISO in Manual" = "Aperture and Shutter priority" was not an option then, but now that it is, the logic for it is as strong as the other two, if not stronger.

Digital Nigel said:

Ecorone said:

I didn't realize that this forum was "positive feedback only". Perhaps if I had read some critical feedback about this camera along with the positive buzz, then I would have had a better understanding of what I was actually buying.

I put my hard-earned money to buy this camera with the intention of keeping it. I used it, and it didn't work out for me. Now I am sharing my experiences on this forum.

I didn't realize that posting my honest opinion about what I like / don't like is "forum/thread crap".

Click to expand...

I think all of your criticisms are valid, and I wish my NEX and RX100 cameras had them. But the cameras still work very well, and I no longer notice their omission. One reason is that the RX100 can be pushed to much higher ISOs than I expected, so you can push up shutter speeds.

I guess, by definition, regulars here are going to be positive about their cameras, or they wouldn't still be here. So you shouldn't be too surprised when they resent it when a stranger breezes in and announces, after a cursory inspection, that their prized possessions are unusable bad.

Click to expand...

Thanks for your post, Nigel. Btw, how high are you comfortable with pushing the ISO up to on the RX100?

In fairness, my expectations were probably too high as I only heard praise about the RX100's. I've been used to the Canon/Nikon forums where people highlight problems on a regular basis.

KennyXL said:

Like you, I have a full frame DSLR and I also have the RX100M2. I agree with you that the auto-ISO issue is a shortcoming that really doesn't need to be there. For whatever reason there are a great many apologists who think that something so simple and standard are non-issues. Perhaps to them it is, but when it's so prevalent on other cameras, their arguments really are just excuses. Unlike you, I accept the little camera for what it is and, under the right conditions, it's a great camera. However, it could have been better which something the people on this thread can't quite seem to grasp.

Click to expand...

Kenny: It simply is that a number of us are smelly old baby boomers, who grew up taking pictures in the '60's, and remember how real cameras used to work. We aren't spoiled millenials, who want everything to be so automatic and easy

If a person finds the RX100M2 difficult to work with, then he is in store for a very rough life. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennials


.

lancespring said:

Kenny: It simply is that a number of us are smelly old baby boomers, who grew up taking pictures in the '60's, and remember how real cameras used to work. We aren't spoiled millenials, who want everything to be so automatic and easy.

Click to expand...

I am a smelly old baby boomer too, and I still want everything to be automatic and easy.. why not? Like I want automatic transmission (or at least synchromesh) and air conditioning etc...

Ecorone said:

Digital Nigel said:

Ecorone said:

I didn't realize that this forum was "positive feedback only". Perhaps if I had read some critical feedback about this camera along with the positive buzz, then I would have had a better understanding of what I was actually buying.

I put my hard-earned money to buy this camera with the intention of keeping it. I used it, and it didn't work out for me. Now I am sharing my experiences on this forum.

I didn't realize that posting my honest opinion about what I like / don't like is "forum/thread crap".

Click to expand...

I think all of your criticisms are valid, and I wish my NEX and RX100 cameras had them. But the cameras still work very well, and I no longer notice their omission. One reason is that the RX100 can be pushed to much higher ISOs than I expected, so you can push up shutter speeds.

I guess, by definition, regulars here are going to be positive about their cameras, or they wouldn't still be here. So you shouldn't be too surprised when they resent it when a stranger breezes in and announces, after a cursory inspection, that their prized possessions are unusable bad.

Click to expand...

Thanks for your post, Nigel. Btw, how high are you comfortable with pushing the ISO up to on the RX100?

In fairness, my expectations were probably too high as I only heard praise about the RX100's. I've been used to the Canon/Nikon forums where people highlight problems on a regular basis.

Click to expand...

Oh, you do get complaints here, too, but not as many as on the anguished Sony NEX forums. This is a pretty friendly group.

With RAW, I go up to ISO 3200 quite happily, and 6400 is still quite usable. With Multi-Frame Noise Reduction MFNR), the RX100 can go even higher, though with some compromise to image quality and JPEG-only output. Here's a test example I shot at ISO 6400 with RAW+JPEG. First the noisy OOC JPEG, then the RAW image processed using DxO.

Both images are at full res:, so you can view them at 100%:


OOC JPEG. Note that this noisy image was shot at ISO 6400 in a 20mp pocket camera.

View: original size

Now let's look at the DxO corrected image:


RAW image rendered using DxO, with Prime noise reduction.

View: original size

Note that DxO has recovered more information from the sides of the image than the camera itself managed, so the effective wide angle is closer to 25 mm than 28mm.

Wow, I didn't realize you could get more info from the edge of the frame.. Being closer to 25 mm rather than 28 would be great. Do you notice much distortion when you do that?

Your high ISO images look really good. Much, much better than my old S95 where I'm reluctant to go to ISO 800, let alone anything higher.

Ecorone said:

Wow, I didn't realize you could get more info from the edge of the frame.. Being closer to 25 mm rather than 28 would be great. Do you notice much distortion when you do that?

Your high ISO images look really good. Much, much better than my old S95 where I'm reluctant to go to ISO 800, let alone anything higher.

Click to expand...

No, no distortion, because DxO corrects it, but the image is mushier at the edges, where the most distortion correction has been applied. This is the same image with the lens correction not applied:


RAW, rendered by DxO with lens corrections turned OFF.

View: original size

This high level of distortion only occurs at the wide end.

lancespring said:

KennyXL said:

Like you, I have a full frame DSLR and I also have the RX100M2. I agree with you that the auto-ISO issue is a shortcoming that really doesn't need to be there. For whatever reason there are a great many apologists who think that something so simple and standard are non-issues. Perhaps to them it is, but when it's so prevalent on other cameras, their arguments really are just excuses. Unlike you, I accept the little camera for what it is and, under the right conditions, it's a great camera. However, it could have been better which something the people on this thread can't quite seem to grasp.

Click to expand...

Kenny: It simply is that a number of us are smelly old baby boomers, who grew up taking pictures in the '60's, and remember how real cameras used to work. We aren't spoiled millenials, who want everything to be so automatic and easy

If a person finds the RX100M2 difficult to work with, then he is in store for a very rough life.

.

Click to expand...

Someone in this thread had suggested for me to use Av mode, and use ISO your variable to hopefully control the shutter speed (this is what I used to do on my 40D). However, doesn't it make more sense to have control over the shutter speed directly?

My case for making your camera choose the ISO: The difference in image quality for a shot taken at ISO 400 vs ISO 800 with a modern camera is minimal, whereas if you're shooting something that moves, the difference between a shot taken at 1/60 and 1/30 can be the difference between a keeper and a blurry reject. Why not let the camera make the choice that has less of an impact on the final results?

Don't take my word for it. I noticed that two of your cameras: RX10 and D600 both have Auto-ISO available in Manual mode. Try it out, and let me know if it's as helpful as I make it out to be.

Digital Nigel said:

Oh, you do get complaints here, too, but not as many as on the anguished Sony NEX forums. This is a pretty friendly group.

With RAW, I go up to ISO 3200 quite happily, and 6400 is still quite usable. With Multi-Frame Noise Reduction MFNR), the RX100 can go even higher, though with some compromise to image quality and JPEG-only output. Here's a test example I shot at ISO 6400 with RAW+JPEG. First the noisy OOC JPEG, then the RAW image processed using DxO.

Both images are at full res:, so you can view them at 100%:

View attachment 377835
OOC JPEG. Note that this noisy image was shot at ISO 6400 in a 20mp pocket camera.

View: original size

Now let's look at the DxO corrected image:

View attachment 377836
RAW image rendered using DxO, with Prime noise reduction.

View: original size

Note that DxO has recovered more information from the sides of the image than the camera itself managed, so the effective wide angle is closer to 25 mm than 28mm.

Click to expand...

Are you saying that the standard distortion correction in DXO has a wider field of view than Sony's JPEGs? That would be very interesting if it is the case. I wonder how this compares with Lightroom?

By the way - I prefer the JPEG in this specific example. The DXO rendering looks noticeably softer - it looks like the noise reduction has been a bit excessive and its lost some detail.

2eyesee said:

Digital Nigel said:

Oh, you do get complaints here, too, but not as many as on the anguished Sony NEX forums. This is a pretty friendly group.

With RAW, I go up to ISO 3200 quite happily, and 6400 is still quite usable. With Multi-Frame Noise Reduction MFNR), the RX100 can go even higher, though with some compromise to image quality and JPEG-only output. Here's a test example I shot at ISO 6400 with RAW+JPEG. First the noisy OOC JPEG, then the RAW image processed using DxO.

Both images are at full res:, so you can view them at 100%:

View attachment 377835
OOC JPEG. Note that this noisy image was shot at ISO 6400 in a 20mp pocket camera.

View: original size

Now let's look at the DxO corrected image:

View attachment 377836
RAW image rendered using DxO, with Prime noise reduction.

View: original size

Note that DxO has recovered more information from the sides of the image than the camera itself managed, so the effective wide angle is closer to 25 mm than 28mm.

Click to expand...

Are you saying that the standard distortion correction in DXO has a wider field of view than Sony's JPEGs? That would be very interesting if it is the case. I wonder how this compares with Lightroom?

By the way - I prefer the JPEG in this specific example. The DXO rendering looks noticeably softer - it looks like the noise reduction has been a bit excessive and its lost some detail.

Click to expand...

No, it hasn't lost detail, but it is softer. Look at the brickwork at 100%, and DxO has recovered a lot of detail that's lost in the JPEG, but the strong NR needed in this high ISO case has softened the edges. I could obviously have applied more sharpening in DxO, but prefer not to. I could also have reduced the NR, of course, but preferred this particular balance between the two.

DxO gives you the option of preserving the original aspect ratio, or not. If you choose not, it'll give you the max possible image size after correction, which at the wide end, is often wider than the OOC JPEG does. LR doesn't have this option, so it can't. In fact, it doesn't even give you the option not to correct the distortion.

Digital Nigel said:

DxO gives you the option of preserving the original aspect ratio, or not. If you choose not, it'll give you the max possible image size after correction, which at the wide end, is often wider than the OOC JPEG does. LR doesn't have this option, so it can't. In fact, it doesn't even give you the option not to correct the distortion.

Click to expand...

That is interesting - obviously a plus for DXO. I've always liked Lightroom for its local editing, but this is making me interested in looking at DXO again. I take it you prefer DXO?

I guess you can do local editing in Photoshop Elements or something for local editing after you've rendered the RAW in DXO. What's your workflow?

2eyesee said:

Digital Nigel said:

DxO gives you the option of preserving the original aspect ratio, or not. If you choose not, it'll give you the max possible image size after correction, which at the wide end, is often wider than the OOC JPEG does. LR doesn't have this option, so it can't. In fact, it doesn't even give you the option not to correct the distortion.

Click to expand...

That is interesting - obviously a plus for DXO. I've always liked Lightroom for its local editing, but this is making me interested in looking at DXO again. I take it you prefer DXO?

I guess you can do local editing in Photoshop Elements or something for local editing after you've rendered the RAW in DXO. What's your workflow?

Click to expand...

Yes, you can export images in the format of your choice (16-bit or 8-bit TIFFS, DNG, JPEG, etc) to any paint apps of your choice. I seldom do, but prefer PSP to Elements.

The other big thing in DxO Optic 9 is the Prime NR for very noisy images: very slow to render, but can take out much more noise than any other product. For normal ISOs, the much faster High NR is fine.

It would be nice to have that feature but it doesn't for who knows what reason.

The problem is that it is hard to come up with another pocket camera that can easily replace the RX100.

I generally shoot in A mode with the RX100 (and M on my other cameras) for that very reason.

I don't like it but do like the camera overall.

Ecorone said:

Bounce flash: I was so excited to see that the flash is on a hinge. I could even tilt it back and it fires... but it only tilts 45 degrees or so. Why not let the user tilt it just a little bit more?

Click to expand...

Are you sure about that? The flash on my RX100M2 tilts back 70 degrees or so - it's not 90 degrees but certainly enough for a bounce flash.

Now, now.

Using M, I would expect that if I choose a Shutter Speed for the motion, and choose an Aperture for desired DOF, that the camera could/would then automatically figure out ISO.

Seems like something everyone would want from time to time, certainly me.

Are you telling me, I would have to pick ISO also every time I use Manual?

Elliott

The usual story. The OP comes up with valid points and quite rightfully hints at Sony being retarded, then a bunch of persons are very quick to retort that no! talking about such function is moronic in the first place because nobody ever operates a camera this way!!!! The problem CANNOT be the camera, it must evidently come from its owner's lack of experience or deluded expectations!!!

Puh-lease. Someone tells you there's a precise issue and you're content to ignore it in your replies? Does that even make sense?
That's fanboyism defined and I'm growing tired of it.

DFPanno said:

It would be nice to have that feature but it doesn't for who knows what reason.

Click to expand...

"The reason is Sony"
- quote which came up in yet another thread regarding the firm's firmware-upgrade-impairment

Ecorone said:

Ron AKA said:

Ecorone said:

Just because you don't understand a feature, doesn't mean it's not a good one.

Click to expand...

I got my first camera about 50 years ago, and I understand exactly what the feature is. I'm just not convinced it is a necessary feature and there are different ways to achieve the same thing if you understand photography and what you are trying to do. That said, each to their own, and I wish you luck finding that perfect camera that you do not have to think to use.

Click to expand...

Necessary to you or not, Auto-ISO in manual mode is a useful feature for me and one that should be very easily implemented considering it's already present in its A and S modes. Most other modern already cameras have it (including Sony's newest offerings) while the RX100M2 does not.

Perhaps it's not as pure to you as full manual control, but then again, you've moved onto digital photography which many others consider much less pure than film photography. Where do you define the boundary where progress should give way to nostalgia?

Click to expand...

I agree completely...it's a terrible omission for the RX100 and now the RX100/2. I've wanted to use it MANY times. Shame on you Sony.

OTH...I still manage to get some pretty awesome shots without it.

.

I went from an S95 to an RX100 then the RX100 II.

I shot Canon Digital Ixus up to the S95. I really thought it would be Canon that built a camera like the RX100.

I could never go back.

I shot this frame today at work, fill flash. Check the detail at 1:1. An S95 can never go here.