Carry-everywhere convenience: Sony RX100 V samples gallery update

We're all very, very eagerly waiting for the Nikon DL 18-50. And I keep praying for a 1"-sensor compact with a 35mm-equiv. F1.2 prime lens.

Nov 1, 2016permalink

electrophoto

@Carey... That would be pretty brilliant (35mm f/1.2)...
Are you hinting at something up in the pipeline?

Nov 1, 2016permalink

I'm not a math person but an f/1.2 equivalent for that size sensor would be around f/0.6 which is not really feasible using earthling technology. You might have to wait for the alien astronaut pyramid-builders to return.

Nov 1, 2016permalink

Mike FL

"1"-sensor compact with a 35mm-equiv. F1.2 prime lens" will be f/0.44.

It may be easier for Nikon to just make a FF P&S with f/1.2 lens.

Nov 1, 2016permalink

@electrophoto if only. I managed to mention the idea to a few folks at Photokina in passing, but no one has hinted to me that they're even thinking about it.

As far as the equivalency discussion - I meant a 13mm F1.2 lens, i.e. a lens for a 1" sensor compact with a 35mm field of view and F1.2 on that particular sensor. Think 23mm equiv. F2 on the X100.

Nov 1, 2016permalink

Jonathan Lee

Hey, thanks for the tips. I can see the dl 18- 50 in my hand. PC lens, too. Oh my...

Nov 2, 2016permalink

LiangMing

I have the RX100 MK1. The MK4 pictures are very impressive. I wonder if you can take some portrait shot with f2.8 and show some bokeh effect at both end of the lens. Thanks.

Oct 31, 2016permalink

NJOceanView

I have the Mark I and there is a tremendous improvement in this. Mine breaks up to almost a point of worthlessness by ISO 400.

Oct 31, 2016permalink

There hardly been any improvement in high ISO performance for 1" sensors since the first RX100. Check DxoMark.

Nov 1, 2016permalink

For their professional video cameras, Sony (and all the other video camera makers) has very sophisticated skin enhancing options to make sure high-priced talent looks great on TV.
If this camera has something similar, could we give it a go when the full test is run?

Oct 31, 2016permalink

First I heard about this. Can you share an example explanation from Sony?

Oct 31, 2016permalink

Alex Permit

Higher end video cameras have a slew of options for setting colors. Here is a spreadsheet for setting options on the A7s.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1rGxsgFMLk-oATs-05iN6fzb-uGkcgvLBIgJo_2GWvB8/htmlview?pli=1#gid=0

Nov 1, 2016permalink

Here's an explanation:

"This function allows users to change the sharpness of an object with a specific color, and is particularly good for making skin tones look more natural. The target color can be specified by controlling the Phase/Range/Saturation/Y Level/Y Range parameters or by pressing a button to specify the color of an object with a color picker..."

Nov 1, 2016permalink

princecody

What setting is the 24fps located @ to make a gif?

Oct 31, 2016permalink

AbrasiveReducer

Sony needs to send you guys to Florida again. These look pretty good to me but after the seagull and before Pioneer Square, I'm not sure any camera would look great given the light.

Oct 31, 2016permalink

It's been a long, dark, wet October, that's for sure.

Oct 31, 2016permalink

Photographers use God's light when available but make their own when She is otherwise occupied. That's why She inspired inventors to bring us speed lights and Pocket Wizards...

Nov 1, 2016permalink

need for speed

Does Sony pay DPR to post these images?

Oct 31, 2016permalink

Nope. Another gallery update was suggested because I've been shooting the camera quite a bit for the review, which is on the way.

Oct 31, 2016permalink

It would be awesome if dpreview could find a way to give their reader a little more insight into the color response of the tested cameras. The colors in the galery images are dull, with "standard" color profile.

Actually it is not very easy (for me) to find some good comparisons of different "Sony creative styles". This is also true for other cameras, though.
The whole camera review industry is obsessed with lens sharpness, DR and high ISO noise, but hardly ever tries to get an insight into the color characterisics of a camera.

If I look at some long-time-ago review on dpreview, color reproduction actually WAS a topic that was being looked into. Things have changed, as everyone seems to post-process even occasional snapshots in Lightroom.... instead of trying a tiny little bit harder and get a sweet result straight out of the camera.

After all, for a bigger part of dpreview's community the RX100 is probably not the main camera, but the "on-the-go-snapshotter" alternative to an ILC.

Oct 31, 2016permalink

I second that emotion. Why has color taken a back seat to dynamic range and the rest. Is color so universally and flawlessly good now that it doesn't require comment anymore? And same for resolution...whatever happened to poor old Harry Nyquist and his frequency?

Oct 31, 2016permalink

It's called Seattle

Oct 31, 2016permalink

Pavel Muller

Medon 78, accuracy of color reproduction differs relatively little when we are talking about recent higher end cameras. This may not be the case for color-critical work (like matching colors, high end pro grade portrait photography), but it is true for most of the rest of us. So if I understand you correctly you just want more saturated photos - something that any photo editing software will give you - as much or as little as you want. You can also adjust the hues, if you like hues other than the the fairly accurate ones delivered by the camera. I do both routinely (www.).

Lets just ask ourselves why DPR creates these galleries for us. They are there not to show off the artistic talents, good taste or postprocessing skills of DPR staff, but to help photographers evaluate image quality delivered by the camera under various conditions and settings. Including postprocessed images in the gallery would make such evaluation using the gallery photos essentially impossible.

Oct 31, 2016permalink

Dear Pavel,
"accuracy of color reproduction differs relatively little when we are talking about recent higher end cameras"

Let's forget about the "higher end" for a second and take a look at two images, shot within seconds of each other with two major brands' cameras:
https://www.dpreview.com/galleries/1568685537/albums/colors-oly-and-canon
The default picture style on each camera was used, P-mode, auto-WB.
Could you agree that the colors differ by a huge amount?

Now, if for some reason I would not like the Canon's output, maybe I would conclude "Canon has a bad color profile".
BUT, of course that Canon camera offers some other built-in color profiles, which look a lot different from the "Standard" profile used in this picture.
And it is NOT about saturation only!
As you said:
"DPR creates these galleries for us ... to help photographers evaluate image quality delivered by the camera under various conditions and settings".

For me, this includes COLOR.

BTW, I like your images! :-)

Oct 31, 2016*permalink

probert500

Once you have a file with a lot of information, you can use programs lke photoshop to adjust all sorts of things, including color.

The question is: Can you get that file?
The answer seems to be: Yes

The camera has done its job, now we do ours.

Nov 1, 2016permalink

... actually, for snapshots: My job is done after I pressed the shutter. ;-)
For highly sophisticated work I am OK with poking around RAWs, but I hate to HAVE to do it to get a nice output.

Nov 1, 2016*permalink

probert500

Canon has been notorious for bad color separation - may have changed with the Mk3, but accurate color reproduction (I do copy work) - was difficult.

Nov 1, 2016permalink

... I do not want accurate color.
Accurate color reproduction looks BORING (like the Adobe Standard profile).

I want yummie colors. :-)

Nov 2, 2016permalink

riveredger

Carry anywhere convenience = smartphone. I have had a bunch of compacts over the years and find that I just never carried one everywhere. My phone, though, is always with me.

Oct 31, 2016permalink

(unknown member)

Agree with you 100%. Did you see the Google Pixel images just posted? SInce the vast majority of folks have their phone with them anyway, why carry a 2nd photo device everywhere when the phone is that good?

Oct 31, 2016permalink

virtualkyr

Agree. My iPhone 6s+ has become my everyday camera.

Unless I know I'm going to be in a challenging situation (i.e. low light). Then the D750 or D7200 makes an appearance.

Oct 31, 2016permalink

Camp Freddy

Surprised at the fairly crumby dynamic range for a 1" sensor from sony. Bokeh is still a little funky for such a fast lens. It will suit some who want a small camera though.

Oct 31, 2016permalink

(unknown member)

When I view the RX100-V pics at 100% they completely fall apart. Ugly blocky grain, weak colours, weak DR, many many out of focus shots which is surprising since the DOF is so large on 1", etc...

Can't believe the hype train for this camera.

Oct 31, 2016permalink

Camp Freddy

They had a dull day for the shoot, which would have excused a mobile phone in review. Not a top end pocket camera.

Earlier versions of the rx100 friends own take better snaps and bright light shots, but use more contrast default in jpeg settings

Oct 31, 2016permalink

The dynamic range is actually quite good and around the same as most 4/3 cameras like Olympus OM-D E-M5 Mark II etc.

The problem I see with the Sony are the colors which are not that good. Nikon, Canon and Olympus are much better at providing great colors out of camera, even though the latest high-end Sony FF cameras seems to be quite good at providing great colors too.

Nov 1, 2016permalink

Camp Freddy

You can see v. clearly that whatever sony's one inch sensor should be able to achieve in DR and tonal depth, it just doesnt with this camera. The new canon and the LX10/15 look much better so far.

It would be good to see Olympus join Panasonic with a cropped mFT , single lens compact. The bokeh is so much better on the LX100 than the crumby effecft on the RX.

Nov 1, 2016permalink

Alan2dpreview

Looking at these photos on a cellphone doesn't do it. I've put together a slide and 4k movie clip75" 4k uhdtv. (With my rx100 m4). Then you will see the value of a 1" sensor to compare to a cell phone.

Oct 31, 2016permalink

zubs

Nice output, would love one but not at that price!
The Sony RX100 series was a breath of fresh air when it launched had many rethink about using the camera as an intermediary as an SLR alternative. I was lucky to bag a Mark III in the summer for an absolute steal on Amazon UK marketplace. Took the brave step of leaving the Sony SLT behind to Malaysia and it paid off. The RX100 iii did not let me down.

Oct 31, 2016permalink

Jaythomasni

one good thing about this camera and output is its natural looks , in terms of color or saturation, brightness and contrast.. it is as if you stand there...and the camera disappears. but for most of people 'normal' or 'neutral' is boring...they like punchy ,saturated, warm, contrasty pics...

Oct 31, 2016permalink

springsnow

Unfortunately true.

Oct 31, 2016permalink

WilliamJ

Right ! As most nowadays kids would - hell, sure ! -prefer a Big Mac instead of a good ol' T-Bone.

Oct 31, 2016permalink

kodakrome

I guess the camera's capable in some ways...but also very limited. 24fps, but not useful for sports or wildlife because the lens only goes to 70mm. The short zoom range severely limits the kind of photos that can be taken. How many people are going to want to spend a thousand dollars for a small sensor pocket camera that can never take a telephoto shot?

Oct 31, 2016permalink

Tobamory

Agree i sold my MK3 for this reason, it hindered me lovely camera though, I've now got the TZ100/ZS100 from Panasonic which does everything i need for the same price as the current MK3, i just wish they would make that zoom longer, but i suppose that would then hurt that nice F1.8 lens

Oct 31, 2016permalink

probert500

A lot. Also -you should look up what telephoto means - there are many wide angle telephotos.

Nov 1, 2016permalink

EthanP99

So... 960fps 1080p doesnt impress anyone?

Oct 31, 2016permalink

Couscousdelight

Maybe because it's not real 1080p, H.F.R. at 960ftps uses 1136x384px for 2secs. sequences, and 800x270px (!) for 4sec sequences... pretty far from full H.D. i guess.
http://imgur.com/WHtOewX

Oct 31, 2016permalink

ObelixCMM

Those are mk IV numbers, mk V records 4 seconds in quality priority and 8 seconds in time priority.

Oct 31, 2016permalink

Richard Murdey

The dynamic range enhancer (whatever Sony has for the equivalent of D-lighting) seems to have only two settings, "max" and "supermax". That and the sharpening does not seem to go below 11.

In general the results are okay - as others have noticed, dull and flat if you want to be nitpicky - but there are a couple of disasters, 90 and 92 in particular. It's not that the sky is overexposed - I'm not one to shy away from some blown highlights - what's objectionable there is how the highlight recovery processing has made such a cack-handed mess of things.

Oct 31, 2016*permalink

WilliamJ

I guess that for nipplespickers, nothing is never too much overexposed...

Oct 31, 2016permalink

Sezano

I'm on my second copy of the original RX100. There's something about the B&W Rich mode there that strangely was not quite the same on the later iterations.
It justifies $200. From the output here, I can see that nothing's changed.

Oct 31, 2016permalink

Pavel Muller

I have been reading these last few comments about the JPGs and postprocessing (or the lack of) and I am confused. Is it not the purpose to know what the camera produces at default setting? How would I be able to interpret the "samples" if they were processed? How would I separate the skills of the photographer from the performance of the camera? How would I be able to make purchasing decisions on processed images? I look for out of the box sharpness (center, edge, corner), distortions, ISO sensitivities, exposure and focus accuracy with camera set on Auto exposure and focusing and color accuracy. I do not need or welcome enhanced saturation coming from the camera. I like to control saturation myself (and I often do like saturated images).

So, whether you photographers providing photos for the DP reviews gallery are superb photographers or not, please continue to provide us with default images that gives us a realistic insight of what the camera will do for us if we buy it. Thanks

Oct 31, 2016permalink

Richard Murdey

How would I be able to interpret the "samples" if they were processed?

Every image you look at is processed from a big matrix array of ones and zeros. It is only a question about what, or who, makes which decisions.

Judging image quality based on manufacture defaults is useful to a point, but sometimes - especially when the feeling is that these defaults leave something to be desired - it is nice to see what can be obtained on a "best effort" basis.

Oct 31, 2016permalink

Magnar W

They could have posted files straight from the camera, and also some post processed files to show how to get the most out of these files ... but then there would have been a lot of discussions about the post processing and how good/bad the staff is on post processing instead of attention on the file quality from the camera! :-)

Oct 31, 2016permalink

@Magnar W true that! Still waiting even on preliminary Raw support, though, I'd have processed quite a few of these out if I could.

Doesn't help that you still can't Raw-process in-camera...

Oct 31, 2016permalink

abelvi59

gracias por compatir!!

Oct 30, 2016permalink

Boky

I really expected to be blown away with this latest RX100 incarnation. Unfortunately, I still see unexciting and dull colours leaning towards cold. This is supposed to be a high end, most expensive P&S camera today that will attract masses; but I simply do not see its appeal. I am still waiting to see if Sony can finally make a camera that will produce nice colour-saturated photos... but have great hopes for DL if Nikon decides to release them one day.

Oct 30, 2016permalink

Tan68

I think DPR tests camera output at default setting.
Although they have used Fuji film modes...
Anyway

I imagine the jpg output can be modified...

Plus, the light was flat and people in Seattle like gray and brown and dark green. They are like elves.

+ except those young elves
they like pink and cyan

Oct 30, 2016*permalink

video

Oct 30, 2016permalink

M H S

I really don't understand the dpr philosophy on "real world" samples. be creative! do some post processing! push the limits! 7se some artistry!

no one would shoot and process like this in the "real world"

we Gan gather the tech specs from the charts and studio shots. what people want to see here is what the camera can do in the hands of a skilled photographer and photo finisher.

these shots don't do justice to this or any other Camera... and lead folks to the errant conclusion that there phone is all they need

Oct 30, 2016permalink

@M H S sorry you don't find the gallery helpful - but you are right about one thing that I can't control, though, which is that I don't process this way (i.e. I almost never provide photos to a client that are SOOC JPEGs).

We don't have any Raw support (even preliminary) right now, which precludes the possibility of pretty much all of my processing workflow. The full review will include plenty of Raw conversions.

Oct 31, 2016*permalink

TonyPhillips

Try IDC for RAWs. The default sharpening is a bit strong (in IDC).

Oct 31, 2016permalink

Dale Baskin

@M H S - What Carey said. We don't have any Raw support for this camera yet, so the best we can do is provide SOOC JPEG files (along with Raw files you can download). You'll notice that in some galleries images are 'processed to taste' to show what you can create from the Raw file, but of course that requires Raw support...

What you see in a sample gallery is also dependent on factors like 1) how long we have the camera, 2) how much time we have to shoot, and 3) environmental factors. We wish we could fill every gallery with fine art shots and amazing landscapes, but this month has been the wettest October on record in Seattle (which is saying a lot), so we've been a bit limited.

Oct 31, 2016permalink

RandyPD

Well, the lighting is pretty dull in most of the shots because they were shot with an overcast sky.

Oct 31, 2016permalink

Ramchi

Still RX1 RII is officially the most expensive Point and Shoot FF Camera in the market..(I am not talking about Leica Q etc..which are little bigger than P&S)

Oct 31, 2016permalink

Marty4650

The camera seems OK, but the most impressive thing is Carey Rose's skill as a photographer. He has a great sense of composition.

This is why we gearheads prefer cold blooded test shots of color charts, wine bottles, and coins and currency for pixel peeping!

Oct 30, 2016permalink

Cal22

Can't agree more!
I'm astonished to see what a capable photographer can do with this small Sony device.

Nov 1, 2016permalink

SELEES

So many people mentioning the iPhone 7 as a better alternative to the Sony RX100 MkV....what are you doing on this site if the iPhone 7 is your benchmark, really? The RX100 (of any generation) actually fits easily into your shirt pocket, that is how small it is. iPhone 7 and 7+ on the other hand hang out the top of your shirt pocket, so the Sony is VERY convenient to carry around. The quality it produces far outweighs that of any smart phone, even the Mark 1.

Oct 30, 2016*permalink

Tom May

I suspect that most people have a smartphone on them, whether that be an iPhone or Android OS phone, and given the cost and fact that they would still be carrying the smartphone, I think that the point is that the smartphone has or is becoming "good enough".

That's very troubling for the camera market when 1 inch sensor camera's are displaced by smartphones, whatever the numbers.

Oct 31, 2016permalink

KrisAK

I wonder how many people are introduced to photography via their cellphones. And as such, have been "trained", so to speak, into a corner, based upon the design of a phone. So they do very little manual anything, haven't come to appreciate the use of a good viewfinder, etc., etc.

In other words, chances are that they even know what they're missing. That's quite an uphill battle for camera makers to overcome, and they need to provide a high-quality, economical point-of-entry.

Oct 31, 2016*permalink

SELEES

Tom May I get your point, I am in that boat myself, but the RX100 of any generation is far more capable that a Smartphone, and given it's high cost (relative to the snap shot carry around pocket cameras of old) is something only guys like us with larger DSLRs or Mirrorless cameras use on those ocassions when we do not want to carry our larger gear around. In other words, the RX100 is no mere point and shoot.

Nov 5, 2016permalink

Steve in GA

Since I enjoy photos that tell a story, I was especially intrigued with the shot of the stripped, locked bicycle frame. What's the rest of the story?

Oct 30, 2016permalink

Dale Baskin

Steve - I took the photo, but unfortunately I don't know the rest of the story. I'm assuming somebody left their bike locked up and unattended in the same spot just a little bit too long...

Oct 31, 2016permalink

norman shearer

Great gallery. I was going to make some remarks about the high price but this is the best 1" camera around so maybe it's unrealistic to not expect Sony to cash-in while they can. I'd like a Leica too but it's not going to happen..

Oct 30, 2016permalink

Mrrowe8

Deal breaker for me is price .. yeah yeah yeah blah blah blah Tara yards yada ..great images , but for that price ? Not seeing the advantage of it out pacing price ..

Oct 30, 2016permalink

video

Oct 30, 2016permalink

I think the sample images looks sort of allright and some of them are actually quite good, but the price for the camera is absolutely crazy in my opinion.

Oct 30, 2016permalink

KodaChrome25

I've said it before.... Very nice looking gallery. Props to Mr. Rose.

Oct 30, 2016permalink

Tan68

No built-in non-replaceable SSD storage.
Image quality no better than a Samsung Precipice IV.
Failure to take the next step and fit a fixed focal length lens like cell phones.

Yeah, well I want to know why the shutter release doesn't have a fingerprint reader. When will the camera people wake up to the reality of biometric photometry??!

There is no reason in Seattle this thing couldn't tell me when my heart rate goes up. How else should I know I have a good shot ?

I want the pop up viewfinder to double as a breath alcohol screening device so people know when they have had too much to drink...

Oct 30, 2016permalink

Yup.

Deal breaker!

Oct 30, 2016permalink

I don't see why a camera like this should not have a retinal scanner built in the EVF.

Oct 30, 2016permalink

NoMirror99

Hell, why can't it just take and make calls so I don't need to buy a separate phone?

Oct 31, 2016permalink

barrym1966

Looking at the sample photos on my phone, doesn't look like anything a phone camera can't do

Oct 30, 2016permalink

Cameracist

"Looking at the sample photos on my phone, doesn't look like anything a phone camera can't do"
Than don't look at them on the phone :-D

Oct 30, 2016permalink

NDT0001

Do you realise the absurdity of your statement?

Oct 30, 2016permalink

I looked at them on my 1 inch smart watch screen..... And he's right. It'd nothing my smart watch can't do.

Oct 30, 2016permalink

Arn

Just to tell you a few really obvious differences:
- the camera has a zoom lens which starts at 24mm equivalent.
- a 1" sensor camera has a way better dynamic range.
- a camera like this can also achieve much narrower DOF than a phone camera.
- with an EVF you can shoot in bright conditions easily.
- etc

Oct 30, 2016permalink

barrym1966

It's not that absurd any of the new camera phones can produce photos like the ones in the samples for less money

Oct 30, 2016permalink

Video

Oct 30, 2016permalink

Arn

None of the new camera phones can produce anything remotely similar to the indoor photos taken at ISO 1000 +. Also, I repeat: zoom lens 24-70/1.8-2.8.

Oct 30, 2016permalink

Disagree. The camera is expensive but no cell cam can match it.

Oct 30, 2016permalink

barrym1966

My phone can take more than 220 photos before it goes flat.

So if you can shoot 24 frames a second does that mean your battery will be flat in 10 seconds since the battery is only rated for 220 shots

Oct 30, 2016permalink

Marty4650

God help us!

This cameraphone thing has become a cult!

Oct 30, 2016permalink

@barrym1966 do keep in mind that the battery rating, which I admit is absurdly low, is somewhat akin to the fuel economy estimates placed on new cars.

In other words, if I take the RX100 V out on a snowy day, I might get less than 100 shots because of the cold. Likewise, I got 2000+ shots on one battery shooting at 24fps (plus HFR and 4K video clips). It's wildly variable, but the idea is that it just gives some form of comparison between cameras.

Oct 31, 2016permalink

faterikcartman

Perhaps we've reached the point where technology has passed the budget, needs, capability, and/or vision of many shooters. But not all...

Oct 31, 2016permalink

Great work. You know that posting on sunday sets a bad precedent and that people will henceforth expect you to work on weekends? :-)

Oct 30, 2016permalink

Kaso

They already do, regardless, when "work is easy as play," especially for the natural Mr Rose. ;)

Oct 30, 2016permalink

"work is easy as play" yeah but it's still work buddy.

Oct 30, 2016permalink

https://blog.mingthein.com/2012/08/06/the-sony-rx100-a-somewhat-comparative-review/

Occasionally, it can be both ;-) But thanks to you both for the positive feedback, it's greatly appreciated.

Oct 31, 2016permalink

Wave forest

Frankly, I don't see the Sony RX100 V produces any better pictures than those of the original RX100. Compare

Oct 30, 2016permalink

Tonkotsu Ramen

It's only been 4 years of sensor progress with the same sized sensor and body..... what are you expecting?

Oct 30, 2016permalink

The thing is that MT is a far, far better photographer (at least technically) than anyone from the Dpreview staff and he is furthermore extremely good at post processing, making the output from almost any camera look very good.

Oct 30, 2016permalink

RidgeRunner22

Old lens was a bit soft and had some real flair issues. One thing i will say about sony they do try and address people's concerns. I just find their cameras to have impressive speed spec eise but sluggish and glitchy in real world use

Oct 30, 2016permalink

NJOceanView

It definitely does at higher ISOs, and in this case "higher" means ISO 400 and up.

Oct 31, 2016permalink

obsolescence

Very nice, wide-ranging set of samples. I have a question about the terminology used. Some photos say "Straight-out-of-camera JPEG with accompanying Raw file." Others do not -- are all of those processed from Raw?

Oct 30, 2016permalink

desaint

i like to see a shout out between this came and the Pixel phone..it's getting close.
Don't like the shot's of the sony,no detail at all,to much noise control,look at the first pic..the feathers of the bird..terrible..
And bij the way i haven a RX100..but don't use him...because off my phone cam..

Oct 30, 2016*permalink

zodiacfml

just open a copy of the comparison tool to compare them.
The RX100 is better by a minuscule amount compared to the Pixel. I think the fixed and prime lens is the reason.
It is time for Sony to create an RX100 with an APSC sensor.

Oct 30, 2016permalink

Tan68

But the bird picture was taken at 25.7 mm
This is zoomed in some, yeah ?

I think the only way to replicate that picture with the fixed focal length of a cell phone would be either a really long selfie stick or some mad stealthy bird stalking. (selfie stick used to extend the cell phone camera toward the bird, of course)

Zodiacfml, you think the pixel looks so good compared to this Sony because of the fixed focal length lens on the pixel? I imagine so and am just asking for clarification.

Oct 30, 2016*permalink

piratejabez

Lovely shots, Carey! And fantastic diversity. Thanks for sharing :).

Oct 30, 2016permalink

Tieu Ngao

I'd rather "carry-everywhere" my $400 Coolpix A with APS-C sensor.

Oct 30, 2016permalink

RidgeRunner22

Me to, but that was not a popular camera. And, the retail price was highway robbery. I prefer the A files to work with but if its a digital outlet...meh 1in is probably fine

Oct 30, 2016permalink

I'm surprised Sony allowed you to post these samples, how about hiring some halfway decent photographers to use the cameras.

Oct 30, 2016permalink

Sir Corey of Deane

Change your nick to 'Soused', immediately!

Oct 30, 2016permalink

Sample galleries need to be maximum 12 photos. Snapshots just waste everyone's time and don't show technical capabilities of a camera.

Oct 30, 2016permalink

(unknown member)

Agree completely - Sony should have total editorial control, and the number of pictures should kept to an absolute minimum!

Oct 30, 2016permalink

Vik2012

@Boused1234, why would you think Sony should regulate what the camera user photographs?

This particular camera is more a very nice snapshot camera than one aimed at Pro work. The 1 in 10,000 chance shots that are published in marketing material are nice, but in real world general use, we shoot under different conditions.

Oct 30, 2016permalink

In no way is this to be considered a "snapshot camera". If you want a snapshot. You have great modern say cell phone cameras that suit snapshots very well. I have taken some incredible photos with my rx100iv. With a $1000 price tag, they are not targeting snapshot users. I have been backpacking 14 months through South America with only an Rx1Rii and Rx100iv...most times on social media and small print you can't tell the difference. The rx100 series is a seriously powerful sidearm for many professionals. I know world class videographers who use it as a 2nd or 3rd angle camera in professional work. Dont dare call this a snapshot camera. In the right hands this blows many $2000+ DSLR/Mirrorless out of the water. But..in the right hands. The photos should be limited to technically significant photos to display sharpness, dynamic range, CA Control, vignetting, bokeh, ISO performance in low light and color. You can do that in 12 well places photos. No need for 100+ horrible shots.

Oct 30, 2016permalink

If the purpose here is to have people purchase the camera through an affiliate link...don't show them garbage. It doesn't help the selling point. Give a trained photographer the camera and let them take some photos. No need for a "Professional" because you want realistic expectations, but a talented enthusiast would be ideal. I honestly don't see any reason a new rx100 series customer would see these photos and feel inclined to get one

Oct 30, 2016permalink

whakapu

I just tried to check out your galleries Boused1234 in order to learn what a "decent photographer" could do, but guess what, you've posted none. Here's an idea for your consideration - not taking cheap shots at a guy doing his job and going out,quikly grabbing a range of shots around town, and showing those to the world. For the record I thought there were some pretty good ones in there.

Oct 30, 2016permalink

Eric Hensel

" I honestly don't see any reason a new rx100 series customer would see these photos and feel inclined to get one"
You do understand the difference between a review, and an advertisement?

Oct 30, 2016permalink

"You do understand the difference between a review, and an advertisement?"
You realize the site runs on affiliate commissions. Every review on here is essentially an advertisement.

I would much rather prefer a review from someone who actually knows what they are doing

Oct 30, 2016permalink

@whakapu

Check my IG at @ EverydayAdventuring if you want to see my work. Also, I agree there were some good shots in there as well, however they were diluted by the trash. Don't say "just a guy trying to do his job"....if you are at a restaurant and the chef made you terrible food would you said "eh it's ok, he's just trying to do his job".

Oct 30, 2016permalink

notpc

You haven't said which photos you consider horrible and for what specific reasons. I have my complaints about the sample galleries too, but I'm guessing they're the opposite of yours. Too many artsy fartsy pics, too few detail in the distance shots, too many where much of the pic is out of focus. Not enough high ISO in low light with slower shutter speeds. Though as sample galleries go, this one is significantly better than many others.

Oct 30, 2016*permalink

As mentioned earlier. Many lifeless photos. If you're going to how me Bokeh, at least make a creative photo. Who wants to look at a water fountain spout... especially two photos of it...
The portrait of the guy with a backwardswas a great photo for review purposes, I liked the bikes too.
The valves, with no depth...the bike on the ground, the motorcycle wheels.... boring

Oct 30, 2016permalink

whakapu

If you only have great photographers taking sample pics then every "review" just becomes like a digitalrev pro-photog/cheap camera challenge. A great photographer will make every camera look great. I don't pay a lot of attention to samples anyway other than to get some sort of idea of image quality in a variety of situations. And I think it's reasonable for samples to represent how the average buyer might use a camera. For the D5 it was reasonable to have a pro sports shooter use it. A camera like this... maybe something an enthusiast slips in a pocket when they don't want to carry a big camera but don't want to rely on their phone. It's not necessarily what they'd be using to go and create their masterpiece. And regarding chefs - fair enough but just be careful not to criticise them until you know you're never going to eat another bite from there. (I've heard anecdotes, chilling, disturbing anecdotes).

Oct 30, 2016permalink

@Boused1234 I am genuinely sorry you don't find the gallery to be of as much help as it could be, and you are certainly entitled to your opinion so I won't argue that (though I'm very much looking forward to processing some of the files out from this gallery when we have Raw support).

However, I just didn't want to let this continue to float out there: "You realize the site runs on affiliate commissions."

Not entirely sure what you're referring to, unless display ads are 'affiliate commissions.' In any case, sure, if we give a camera a good review, it will probably sell more. Can't avoid that. But any and all content that is specifically paid for by a manufacturer is labeled as such, and anything that isn't labeled as such is created by our editorial team without outside influence. After all, this is the law, per the FTC.

And an aside - very nice IG.

Oct 31, 2016permalink

If you only have great photographers taking sample pics then every "review" just becomes like a digitalrev pro-photog/cheap camera challenge. A great photographer will make every camera look great

Or, you use a camera to its ability and show aspiring photographers what the camera is capable of. This way, when they get different results they can aspire to be better. For cellphones and low end cameras marketed to casual shooters, snapshots are perfectly fine. However we are reviewing a much more technically advanced camera which should be marketed in the prosumer genre.

Carey. Let me apologize by saying that this certainly came off as a personal criticism as your skill as a photographer. Please let me clear that up. My negative attitude to the gallery is not pointed at you as a photographer. It was directed at the method and selection of photos. There are certainly a good number of excellent photos. For instance I love the pier photo and if bracketed and edited well, would be a fantastic photo if it weren't for the blown out sky. I would love to see this PPd as I think it would make a stunning photos. I also really love the photo of the lady standing between the two large autumn colored trees. Beautiful symmetry and the ladies give excellent perspective to the size.

What I was trying to say, and came across rather harsh is that I would limit a review gallery to such photos and avoid "snapshots" like the bike brakes, water fountain and the similar. You obviously have a keen eye and some of these photos PPd would be absolute stunners. So again, i'm sorry if this seemed like a personal attack I know it certainly came off that way. I just feel that camera reviews can be done without more style than just a photo of a stationary object to display sharpness. Your name is on the work, show what you got.

As for the "affiliate" topic. In ever camera review is a link to purchase. If someone clicks that link and purchases a camera. dPrevjew earns commission. That is what I mean.

Oct 31, 2016permalink

Vik2012

@Boused1234. You filled the thread with comments slamming the site and the photographer. Then you try to say that you weren't really doing that.

Wouldn't it have been better to cut out all the ants in your pants comments about the gallery and just let everyone know what you thought could be improved? I'm sure the DPReview guys would have appreciated it too.

Oct 31, 2016*permalink

@Boused1234 Thanks for the gracious reply. I'll admit I did think you were a bit harsh at first, but I appreciate your clarification and I'm all for constructive criticism. It's how we grow.

As for PP-ing - I agree! I really really want some Raw support for this camera, I'm just not a huge fan of the JPEG output as it is (despite the market-leading noise reduction).

To the water fountain photo - well, I try to strike a balance. A lot of times, a photo that I think is aesthetically pleasing just won't show much about the camera. The water fountain ones certainly aren't my magnum opus, but they do show lens characteristics at close-focus distance at both wide-angle and telephoto, so that's why they're there. I agree, though, that this is a large gallery, could possibly have been edited down, and I would have really liked to have some more time with the camera outside of Seattle, which is just wrapping up its wettest month ever.

Thanks for reading and taking the time to comment.

Nov 1, 2016permalink

gn28

I would really love to see Sony, Cannon and Nikon wake up and add a damned SSD (64-128 GB) like all the phones have. That would be a fast storage solution and I would no longer have to carry these pitiful SD cards around. Phones have had this kind of storage for years and cameras are 10-15 years behind everything else.

WAKE UP !

Oct 30, 2016permalink

Please not, I don't want to pay for overpriced memory and 128 GB are very small if you are traveling.

Oct 30, 2016permalink

chaos215bar2

Why would you want to be stuck with your camera's built-in 64-128 GB, forced to transfer photos to another storage device when you need more room, when you could just buy a 128 GB SD(XC) card for about $35 and swap it out if you don't have access to a large storage device?! The SD format has long moved past its original 2GB storage limit.

Oct 30, 2016permalink

txsizzler

Wow, gotta say I totally disagree with the OP on this. I would MUCH rather have removable memory cards, than be stuck with just the built in memory. Much more convenient, practical, and less expensive.

Oct 30, 2016permalink

No! Why don't you just buy a 128GB card and stick it in your camera? Is that really too difficult for you? You can connect most cameras via USB to download pictures too. Glue it in and there you go, permanent 128GB ;)

Personally I want to be able to change cards when they're full. Particularly if you're travelling or shooting 4K video it's an invaluable feature.

Nothing more annoying that filling up your phone and not being able to do anything until you've downloaded it to somewhere, or having to delete half your stuff. Built-in memory is a really really profoundly bad and fundamentally limiting idea.

Oct 30, 2016permalink

txsizzler

Another thought for the OP... what happens if the internal memory starts having errors and corruption issues? Then what? You are S.O.L.. Instead of simply replacing the memory card, the whole camera has to be sent in for repairs. Big NO-NO, if you are using these cameras for venues, or as back ups for professional photography.

The day that camera manufacturers rely on built-in memory only, will be the day that they will not get my money anymore!

Oct 30, 2016permalink

Vik2012

One of the big benefits of having multiple removable cards is that you can take measures to store and secure the cards while you are out shooting on new cards on a trip. I wouldn't want all my photos stuck in the device until I have an opportunity to transfer them.

I also want to be able to hand cards to someone working with me to backup, while I continue to use the camera.

Oct 30, 2016permalink

gn28

@Vik2012 - this technology has been around for years in phones and laptops and it is dirt cheap, fast and reliable... everyone caught up except for camera manufacturers... and all of them still have a card slot that you only use when you want to make a copy of data for someone else

@txsizzler - no camera should rely only on internal memory, though I have never heard of a phone's memory to go bust or a data center SSD to have storage issues and corrupt data (standard 4 year warranty).... even so, nothing would stop the manufacturers to add a cheap and fast SSD chip in addition to the SD card

@Lan - a 32GB high performance SSD chip for a 4k dash cam costs the manufacturer around 20-30$ depending on volume. That can't increase the camera's cost and you can always dump data on an SD card if you truly need the space... just like on your mobile phone.

Oct 30, 2016*permalink

Lol.

Oct 30, 2016permalink

Tonkotsu Ramen

The responses to this comment are worrying. A bunch of narrow minded replies from people stuck in the past, holding the camera industry from moving forward.

Adding internal storage should be a natural path for cameras, they don't need to remove the SD card slot if they add internal storage.

Oct 30, 2016permalink

And when I'm in the field shooting time lapses and my camera fills up?

Now I can just swap cards... onboard memory means having to stop and unload.

Wedding photographers use different cards for different parts of the wedding. Sports photographers sometimes swap cards between periods/quarters/innings and hand them off to editors for immediate edits....

Yeah...no thanks

Oct 30, 2016permalink

txsizzler

@Tonkotsu and GN28:

Why should I have to pay the extra premium that these manufacturers will add with internal memory storage, if I cannot continue using memory card storage? Advocating this philosophy, will just drive the prices (not to mention size) of cameras even higher. Really pointless to add SSD or internal NAND storage, when extremely fast memory card solutions are already in the here and now.

Oct 30, 2016permalink

If a company wanted to add 16-32ish GB of SSD and the uocharge was significantly minimal...i would be ok with that as long as I still had access to a SD slot. I have forgotten a card once or twice.

Oct 30, 2016permalink

gn28

A few facts for the non-IT people:
- SSD market capacity doubles every year
- SSD speed doubles every 2-3 years
- a higher performance 512 GB m2 card sells for 300$ for consumers and 170$ bulk buyers... that would cover 1.5 GBps read and write speeds
- basic math... 30$ would easily buy you a chip for 51.2 GB... 64GB to round up sizes... so if this year the camera manufacturer builds in 64GB next year they'll build in 128 GB and so on as technology advances

@txsizzler - 15-30$ isn't a premium for a manufacturer selling a camera at +1000$.. you will nto pay anything extra to have it in there in addition to your SD card

@Boused1234 - based on today's technology, next year they would have a touch time to find anything smaller than 64GB because it gets that cheap... that's why you see the larger sizes in all mobile phones... because they can't get a quality SDD any smaller than that

Oct 31, 2016permalink

@gn28

What advantage do you don't get with a card? Actually I use cards in my phone too because I am always run out of memory. The cloud thingy is really sad because you often have no fast connection or the connection is really expensive if you are travelling around. Sorry, your story is not really compelling. and yes I want better connectivity with my phone too but not at the cost of flexibility.

Oct 31, 2016permalink

> so if this year the camera manufacturer builds in 64GB next year they'll build in 128 GB and so on as technology advances.

Which is fine if you throw away your camera every year, but for anyone who keeps a camera more than a year, you're just limiting what you have and paying more for the privilege.

Plus, have you seen how much Apple charges for adding an extra 64GB of storage? I can buy a 32GB iPad Air2 for $399 or a 128GB for $499. How much would a fast 128GB memory card cost? Well, I could get a Samsung Evo+ 128GB for $40. Next year no doubt I could get it for $20. Built-in memory costs you more money, *and* limits your flexibility. It's a lose lose.

Oct 31, 2016permalink

Mateus1

With this high price - €1200 in EU - I would be gull buying it. I can buy for it Pana GX-8 or GX85 with lens, or Fuji X-E2s, X-T10 with amazing 18-55 f/2.8-4 lens!
They are small enough to have it always with me in a small bag or on holder.

Oct 30, 2016*permalink

Hugo808

Ha! I looked at these shots because my X-T10 has turned out to be too heavy to carry around everywhere.

There is no one camera to rule them all...

Oct 30, 2016permalink

Everythingis1

"Small bag" kind of defeats the purpose doesn't it?

Oct 30, 2016permalink

Samuel Spencer

Carey everywhere?

Oct 30, 2016permalink

Facepalm. Okay, and a chuckle.

Oct 31, 2016*permalink

NoMirror99

OK, but he's going a darn sight heavier than the V. Can't upgrade memory, has to be fed and beered. No, you keep him; I'm going with the V.

Oct 31, 2016permalink

justmeMN

Speaking of "carry-everywhere convenience", I think the smallest 1" sensor camera on the market is the ($480) Canon G9 X, which DPR never reviewed.

Oct 30, 2016permalink

Frank C.

Whip out the Sony RX100 V
Whip out an iphone/android
Difference = ?

Oct 30, 2016permalink

Alex Permit

Less noise on those ISO 1000 shots.

Oct 30, 2016permalink

HatWearingFool

Zoom

Oct 30, 2016permalink

Video

Oct 30, 2016permalink

Eric Hensel

Ok -besides those ;)

Oct 30, 2016permalink

princecody

A Starbucks frappuccino $5
A bottle of cologne $50
Paying $1,000 for a compact camera with no touchscreen Priceless 🙃

Oct 30, 2016permalink

bmwzimmer

OK Camera manufacturers, heres your next camera innovation...
Make a dual lens 1" sensor camera with a Portrait Mode like the Iphone 7+. It can be a 35/85mm combo. The secondary lens doesnt need to be a 1" sensor, it can be smaller to fit everything into the package.

Oct 30, 2016permalink

M H S

does anyone ever wax poetic about "the 1 inch sensor look"

these samples show why not. sharp, detailed, well exposed, and mostly lifeless and dull.

Oct 30, 2016permalink

Eric Hensel

You prefer the look of Velvia? Change the settings.

Oct 30, 2016permalink

Kaso

"Carry-everywhere convenience" -- this applies to many cameras that are less expensive and more capable. At the fifth iteration, the price is still ugly and the battery is still lousy. Carry everywhere? Possibly. Convenience? Not sure.

Oct 30, 2016permalink

(unknown member)

Carry everywhere a truckload of spare batteries ;)

Oct 30, 2016permalink

gehairing

I just made 2 day mountain hikes.Yesterday and today. 158 photos first day (all with EVF). 226 the second day (all with EVF).
Now the camera want's some charge.
So what ?

Oct 30, 2016permalink

Death89

Also, you can charge it with any micro USB battery pack, so if you plan to go hiking you can charge the phone/camera off the same pack. I do find my RX100M1 does last a fair while unless it's used for a lot of video (I know stating the obvious a bit, but for my use - frequent at work throughout the day, more in the evening and used alongside my K-50 at weekends - I don't often find I need to charge it more than weekly).

Oct 30, 2016permalink

justmeMN

Almost $1,000 for a 1" sensor and no touch screen - meh.

Oct 30, 2016*permalink

Some good sample images there; some of the architectural shots in particular show very nice details. The high ISO results aren't bad either - and I love Carey's "glowing sword on top of the head" shot :)

The only thing that isn't really impressing me (other than the exorbitant price) is the bokeh. It's a bit busy (see first shot for more details), and the specular OOF highlights and sunstars are also not great.

Other than that, I'd say that's a really good performance from Sony!

Oct 30, 2016*permalink

HP1999

I am interested more in people shot then landscape and buildings. As a landscape and taking architecture / buildings the camera looks fine.

For people shots this camera is not impressive. I would not say terrible but save your $1,000 for sure. It is not about the money but the quality of the photos pertaining to people is not good at all from these samples .

Oct 30, 2016permalink

I see where you're coming from, but do bear in mind that most of the people shots were taken in unfavourable lighting conditions; and some are at ISO4000 to counter the effects of movement.

I think people shots taken under more typical lighting conditions would look a lot better...

Oct 30, 2016permalink

HP1999

OK, fair enough I will reserve final opinion till we see more. However, I call it like I see it

Oct 30, 2016permalink

The technical quality of the images is stunning. The shots and the whole gallery are top notch!
Would be very interesting to see, which other color profiles the camera is capable of. The standard profile leaves me wanting for more colour richness and "pop".

If the camera has something like a beefed up Canon "standard" profile, or Oly "Vivid", I probably couldn't resist. ;-)

Oct 30, 2016*permalink

Sony cameras have vivid, neutral, portrait, autumn, bw, sepia beside standard. I use neutral and portrait alot. So actually I hover for the complains about the missing red(sony colors). Actually I don't like the reddish pictures, they look like people have a sunburn.

Oct 30, 2016permalink

Hi Darkerlight, do you know of any comparisons for the different Sony picture styles?
Having the possibility to get pleasing JPEGs right out the camera is a clear must for me; no idea if I could tweak a current Sony camera's setting in this way.

Oct 31, 2016permalink