Upgrading from S100 to RX-100 (vs. S120) - disappointed?

[Heyseuss Hoolio]

Hi, folks. Thank you for excellent comments so far. I will try some suggestions here. I'm still undecided on where the truth is, but inclined to think that my original conjecture was largely correct and many reviews should have brought it into attention more. It would be good to get some hard numbers on how effective IS is on Canon and Sony. I think Canon says up to 4 stops.

I understand it's harder to stabilize 20MP. I don't need 20MP though, and most don't need either. I wish it was 10-12MP.

Let's not bring S90 model into this. It is now 4 generations behind the current. It is not fair or usable to compare it to RX-100 or RX-100 II. Even S95 is kinda old by now.

This is where I wish I had more megapixels.

 

[Tonkotsu Ramen]

Hi, folks. Thank you for excellent comments so far. I will try some suggestions here. I'm still undecided on where the truth is, but inclined to think that my original conjecture was largely correct and many reviews should have brought it into attention more. It would be good to get some hard numbers on how effective IS is on Canon and Sony. I think Canon says up to 4 stops.

I understand it's harder to stabilize 20MP. I don't need 20MP though, and most don't need either. I wish it was 10-12MP.

Let's not bring S90 model into this. It is now 4 generations behind the current. It is not fair or usable to compare it to RX-100 or RX-100 II. Even S95 is kinda old by now.

From what I'm reading, it really doesn't look like you need (or want) the upgrade. You don't need the extra mp, you don't like sony's stabilization. You're talking yourself out of keeping the RX100 and into believing that the S100 is comparable to the RX100.. when it's not. Why even bother?

Your S100 works great, just return the sony.

 

[Heyseuss Hoolio]

Here are some photos I took with the S110, I was blown away by it. They were all lower light and higher ISOs with slow shutter speeds handheld, just as your original first post was inquiring about.

ISO 320 is not "high" by any stretch of the imagination. I can say with complete confidence that the RX100 is significantly better at iso 800 than your s110 is at iso320. Maybe it makes you feel better to think your camera can compete with the RX100 but in reality your camera is in every way inferior. I'm glad you like your s110 but be realistic, it's microscopic sensor can't come close to competing with the RX100 IQ.

 

[2eyesee]

Hi, folks. Thank you for excellent comments so far. I will try some suggestions here. I'm still undecided on where the truth is, but inclined to think that my original conjecture was largely correct and many reviews should have brought it into attention more. It would be good to get some hard numbers on how effective IS is on Canon and Sony. I think Canon says up to 4 stops.

I would say that Canon stabilisation is 2-3 stops better than RX100. With other cameras I've used with better stabilisation handheld shots with 1/4-1/2 sec shutter speed are obtainable. With my RX100 II, I don't venture any slower than 1/15 sec unless I can stabilise the camera (either tripod or improvise).

Your original post shows you already know this anyway. So yes, if you shoot static subjects in low light then the more effective stabilisation on the S120 will allow you to use a slower shutter speed than the RX100. This means you can use a correspondingly lower ISO, which offsets the sensor performance advantage of the RX100.

I love my RX100 II, but it's not perfect and the area your are focusing on is one of it's biggest weaknesses. The other is the f/4.9 at the tele end - it's much slower than other premium compacts, which again can mitigate its sensor performance advantage in low light conditions.

 

[cewong2]

Just my 2 cents here, as I'm a fairly new amateur photographer that is learning more and more, and am quite glad at how much the RX100M2 is teaching me with aperture, speeds and ISO. So with that in mind please disregard my comments if they don't make sense to you.

Before I bought the M2 I did lots of research and reading reviews about the different cameras. The wife also chimed in that she wanted to be able to have some AMAZING night shots of Vienna (when I go I don't know haha) so low-light and night shots were a priority. Also with most situations here many people don't like flash, though being able to use the Flash on the M2 as a bounce flash is a great thing too (learned a bit about that too with the cam, I have the holster holder that screws into the tripod hole, camera case from Sony, so I use the rubber band technique for that and use the large screw to hold the other side of the rubber-band, works great)

I noticed that you wrote about using lower ISOs to lower noise, on one of my many reads of reviews there was a pretty good review (unfortunately I can't find the specific one again) that had examples and showed that Noise is actually quite low comparatively to other cameras all the way up to the ISO1600 mark, starting at ISO3200 it starts to drop quite dramatically. Even when doing a quick search to find the review, comparison shots that I've seen show that the noise increase and quality drop don't start to really appear until after the ISO800 mark. So that might be another thing to consider. So what you might be able to get on one camera at ISO400 you may be able to achieve the same quality and result at ISO800 on the M1/M2. This may be due to the larger sensor (I'm not quite sure).

Also I would have to say a majority of this has to do with personal taste as well so settings, IQ calculations and processing tastes may differ from person to person, and what works for some on the M1/M2 may not work for others and vice versa with the S120. Though after the learning curve of the camera I am quite happy with it, of course there are some things that Sony could improve on hopefully with a firmware update, but the camera has been out for more than a year and still no update.

 

[B1ackhat]

Here are some photos I took with the S110, I was blown away by it. They were all lower light and higher ISOs with slow shutter speeds handheld, just as your original first post was inquiring about.

ISO 320 is not "high" by any stretch of the imagination. I can say with complete confidence that the RX100 is significantly better at iso 800 than your s110 is at iso320. Maybe it makes you feel better to think your camera can compete with the RX100 but in reality your camera is in every way inferior. I'm glad you like your s110 but be realistic, it's microscopic sensor can't come close to competing with the RX100 IQ.

--
Tom
Look at the picture, not the pixels
------------
Miss use of the ability to do 100% pixel peeping is the bane of digital photography because it causes people to fret over inconsequential issues.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/63683676@N07/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/25301400@N00/

I've got both an RX100 and an S95 and while the RX100 certainly wins in overall IQ, low light, high ISO, focus speed, and video quality, the S95 is most certainly not "in every way inferior." For example, the IS, AWB, AE, color accuracy, and JPEG engine on the S95 are superior. The menu system is better as well; the RX100's, while a huge step up over previous Sony P&S cams, is still fairly cumbersome to use. Now I opted to keep the RX100 rather than trade it in for a new S-series because I just find that larger sensor too valuable to pass up. I'm not going to try to convince myself or anyone else that its shortcomings don't exist though.

--
"We can judge the heart of a man by his treatment of animals." ~ Immanual Kant

 

[jules153]

After reading this thread I did a test on my new RX-100. Indoor shot with lights on (20MP), shot at 1/100s, 1/60s, 1/30s, 1/20s, 1/10s, 1/5s, 1/2s and 1 second exposures. I'd say I'm pretty average regarding keeping the camera steady during shooting.

The 1/10s and faster shots were crystal clear. 1/5, 1/2 and 1 second had blurring from camera movement.

I also looked at some photos I'd taken over Christmas at a party. In a dimly lit room they were ISO3200, F1.8 and the camera selected 1/15s. All the shots turned out great - one even with someone else taking the shot (so I could be on the photo!) only problem was people moved in a few shots.

 

[YiannisPP]

Also, keep in mind that the Sony has nearly twice the resolution as the S100, so presumably the Sony's IS would have to work twice as hard to achieve per-pixel sharpness as the S100's. OK: there's another possible tip: try setting your JPEG output on the RX100M2 down to the level M/10MP option. See if the resulting shots look any steadier in low light. Not sure if that makes sense, but maybe worth a try.

Indeed, try that and you'll see it makes no difference at all! The plain fact is that the RX100's IS mechanism is just not as good as the Canon's, less effective by about 2 stops.

 

[YiannisPP]

To put it differently, it looks to me that Canon S100 has about the same capability vs. RX-100 for taking handheld jpeg low light pictures. Sony maybe wins 2-3 stops on ISO (from larger sensor) but Canon maybe wins 2-3 stops on exposure (from superior image stabilization).

I don't believe that. You must be doing something wrong because there is no way the Canon IS is 2-3 stops better. Another thing to consider is IS is useless with moving subjects at slow shutter speeds.

I do believe that pretty easily, as this is my experience as well. I wouldn't say 2-3 stops though, but the RX100 IS is indeed worse than other comparable systems by about 2 stops.

But as pointed out the IS is only for static subjects, so one can't speak in general about low-light capability taking IS into account as if it can freeze moving people. Having a larger sensor is more important than having a good IS. If you're going to shoot static subjects than you might as well bring a mini tripod.

 

[giaccophoto]

I'd say you did an excellent job of zeroing in on at least three key weaknesses of the RX100 series, ones I've seen mentioned many, many times on this forum. The idea that better theoretical IQ specs makes for a better camera regardless of usability doesn't wash with me. For me the RX100/2 is my dream camera. For you it's not. And that's cool.

better theoretical IQ?

my RX100II wipes the floor with my S90 in all situations. It's not even funny.

The people that own a S90 and say "wah wah wah, the rx100/100ii uses slow shutter speed of 1/30"

guess what? my S90 does too! The S90 also doesn't have Auto ISO in M! It's nothing new to get used to.

They actually both work very very similarly, however, many things have improved upon since then, and the newer Canon S series are apparently quite different.

Actually it was but was let down to be honest. Maybe I'll have a send thought if prices drops but decided to wait for "the next big thing out there" and get by with mine.

True but the point I was making is that to me and many others the image stabilization is better on canon. That was my experience with it, yeah for sure one can become a yogamaster when shooting and control every muscle in your body but I'll leave that for em-5.
I prefer lower resolution and better stabilization to image quality in a point and shoot.(I must say that after trying em-5 5 axis Is I can probably be biased toward IS)


Changing mode between A and M for example in a way that was quick and with setting that made sense for front and back dial wasn't easy for me, too much clicking to set it the way I wanted.

Long story short few little gimmicks that Sony could have solved with a firmware upgrade or taking inspiration from Pentax's way of handling menu made it a deal breaker in this moment for me.

 

[Heyseuss Hoolio]

Vs. S120, if you're willing to spend an extra $150 on the rx100 or even $300+ from the S110, which is basically on par with s120, both of which we've deduced the rx100 undoubtedly has better image quality than either, why not just get the Rx100 II which is even better than the rx100?

There's a huge price gap between the s110 and the rx100, let a lone the rx100II. I can't think of any other pocket camera that compares to the rx100II. So if you're considering that price level, might as well get the II.

new review on rx100II comparing it to the rx100.

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/sony-rx100-ii/sony-rx100-iiA.HTM

 

[Heyseuss Hoolio]

Actually it was but was let down to be honest. Maybe I'll have a send thought if prices drops but decided to wait for "the next big thing out there" and get by with mine.

I'm with you on waiting.

 

[mcshan]

If a lower class camera works for you run with it. The Sony is the better camera but if you can get by with the Canon save yourself the money.

 

[tbcass]

I've got both an RX100 and an S95 and while the RX100 certainly wins in overall IQ, low light, high ISO, focus speed, and video quality, the S95 is most certainly not "in every way inferior." For example, the IS, AWB, AE, color accuracy, and JPEG engine on the S95 are superior. The menu system is better as well; the RX100's, while a huge step up over previous Sony P&S cams, is still fairly cumbersome to use. Now I opted to keep the RX100 rather than trade it in for a new S-series because I just find that larger sensor too valuable to pass up. I'm not going to try to convince myself or anyone else that its shortcomings don't exist though.

Have you tried to fine tune the WB in real time? The sophisticated way you can fine tune WB while looking at the LCD means the RX100 and Sony cameras in general have some of the most accurate WB of any camera made (see below). It is a mistake to judge a camera based on the default settings as they come from the factory. By moving the yellow disk across the color chart you can adjust WB to be accurate in almost any lighting situation. The example below is from my A65 but the RX100 uses the same system.



I find it hard to believe the s95 jpg engine is superior since professional reviews in general praise the RX100 JPGs as being so good that they cannot be improved upon by shooting RAW.

As far as being cumbersome to use, that's probably because you are used to the Canon system. Being a user of other Sony cameras I find the RX100 very easy to use with the only drawback being it's small size. I also added the $15 Sony grip which makes it easier to hold.

The RX100 while extremely small is not a true P&S but is aimed at users of more advanced cameras who want the ability to adjust everything to their liking.

While I find the menu system easy to use have you customized the Fn menu to your most used settings? How about the front and rear wheels? Have you customized them. Anybody who uses the RX100 at it's default settings is making a big mistake.



--
Tom
Look at the picture, not the pixels
------------
Miss use of the ability to do 100% pixel peeping is the bane of digital photography because it causes people to fret over inconsequential issues.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/63683676@N07/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/25301400@N00/

 

[tbcass]

I think one thing that is making some of you think that the s95 IS is so much better is the high res sensor of the RX100 is less tolerant of slight movement making the blur show up more when viewed at 100%. The higher the resolution of any sensor the more every flaw shows up. The greater amount of noise reduction necessary with small sensors also hides things. I will admit that the IS with the RX100 can't compete with the IS of my A65 and A77 but I attribute that to the difficulty of holding a small camera steady.

--
Tom
Look at the picture, not the pixels
------------
Miss use of the ability to do 100% pixel peeping is the bane of digital photography because it causes people to fret over inconsequential issues.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/63683676@N07/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/25301400@N00/

 

[Heyseuss Hoolio]

I've got both an RX100 and an S95 and while the RX100 certainly wins in overall IQ, low light, high ISO, focus speed, and video quality, the S95 is most certainly not "in every way inferior." For example, the IS, AWB, AE, color accuracy, and JPEG engine on the S95 are superior. The menu system is better as well; the RX100's, while a huge step up over previous Sony P&S cams, is still fairly cumbersome to use. Now I opted to keep the RX100 rather than trade it in for a new S-series because I just find that larger sensor too valuable to pass up. I'm not going to try to convince myself or anyone else that its shortcomings don't exist though.

Have you tried to fine tune the WB in real time? The sophisticated way you can fine tune WB while looking at the LCD means the RX100 and Sony cameras in general have some of the most accurate WB of any camera made (see below). It is a mistake to judge a camera based on the default settings as they come from the factory. By moving the yellow disk across the color chart you can adjust WB to be accurate in almost any lighting situation. The example below is from my A65 but the RX100 uses the same system.

That's funny, you can sophisticatedly fine tune WB on the Canon too. It even uses the same letters. Though it doesn't have the beautiful rainbow of colors. ;-)

s110

 

[elliottnewcomb]

Thanks for this. Your combo of steadiness and ability to compare the Canon IS to the rx100 IS is very much appreciated. The rx100 is superior in many ways, except this is it's weakness.

rx100 poor IS is my major disappointment, after 8 years with R1 without IS, I expected more.

RX10 IS is much better than rx100 IMO, based on having both, RX10 just a short while.

Yesterday, I took tripod and handheld comparison shots with RX10, I did very well handheld, far better than with rx100 at slow shutter speed.

The rx100m2 has the hot shoe and accepts the EVF, which, braced on your face, probably will improve things, but at quite a cost.

Can you keep both, they are both quite portable, and use the Canon when it's advantages are needed, which is not most of the time I would think?

 

[tbcass]

Then it should be possible to set both cameras to be accurate with WB. Why do you think that AWB is better with the s110?

 

[Heyseuss Hoolio]

While I find the menu system easy to use have you customized the Fn menu to your most used settings? How about the front and rear wheels? Have you customized them. Anybody who uses the RX100 at it's default settings is making a big mistake.

Then it should be possible to set both cameras to be accurate with WB. Why do you think that AWB is better with the s110?

-- hide signature --

Tom
Look at the picture, not the pixels

I'm just adding to the debate since this thread is about comparing the two cameras.

Looks like they both have the same exact buttons including the front ring and rear rotating dial, except the Sony adds the Confusion(?) button.

I know it's rx100II, but the back is the same.

s120

Photo's from Imaging Resource

 

[tbcass]

He was complaining about the menu layout but I think he's just not used to it. Being a long time Sony user I find it straight forward and easy to use. It's kind of like driving in Britain where the steering wheel is on the right side. Hard if you are used to it being on the left but really it's 6 of one 1/2 doz of the other.

--
Tom
Look at the picture, not the pixels
------------
Miss use of the ability to do 100% pixel peeping is the bane of digital photography because it causes people to fret over inconsequential issues.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/63683676@N07/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/25301400@N00/