Jun 4, 2012 at 11:26 am #1290678
Seems like a decent new contender for a travel cam. I wish the lens was slightly wider (somewhere around 24mm). But still – f1.8, raw, high ISO, 1080p60, 20mpx looks quite nice.
1" Exmor CMOS sensor
20.9 million effective pixels
28-100mm (equiv), f/1.8-4.9 Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T* lens with 'Advanced Aspherical' element
Steady-Shot image stabilization
Contrast-detection AF with 25 points, including tracking and flexible spot options
ISO 100-6400 (up to ISO 25,600 using multi-frame noise-reduction)
Face Recognition and Face Registration (up to 8 faces)
Rear control dial and customizable front 'Control Ring'
10fps continuous shooting in 'Speed Priority' mode
3in, 1228.8K-dot 'WhiteMagic' LCD screen
13 Picture Effects with 27 variations
Memory Recall feature can store up to three groups of custom settings
1080 60p video (AVCHD) with MP4 option
Built-in stereo microphone
330-shot battery life (CIPA)Jun 5, 2012 at 10:21 pm #1884470
Really looks like a nice camera, but the price of $650 is a killer for me.
It does seem like almost perfect travel cam though – small and high spec.
Dpreview is already working on full review for this little gem.Jun 6, 2012 at 11:27 am #1884594
@dianodaLocale: Chicago, IL
The price makes me think twice, but other than the somewhat soft corners and CA fringing/loss of contrast at max aperture, I think the sample JPEGs look pretty good. ISO 125 is clean enough. This would be perfect for those trips where I don't want to carry 4-5lbs worth of photo gear but still want a decent camera. When you think about it, the price really isn't too bad for what it delivers – I think this Sony does a better job of balancing IQ (sensor+lens) to size compared Canon's GX1. I'd like to see some RAWs and a review first, but it looks like a contender.
Did they mention a release date anywhere?Jun 6, 2012 at 4:05 pm #1884677
The preview is up at dpreview.com
Didn't realise that it has a much larger sensor (1") than the perceived competition (Canon S100/Pana LX5…)
Here is a diagram from DPreview
also smaller than perceived (by me…)
Note that there is a chart there quoting the equivalent depth of field compared to 35 mm.
(in this case F1.8 gives the same effect as F4.9 on a "full frame" (35mm sized sensor) camera.
FrancoJul 13, 2012 at 8:51 am #1894508
@craig_shelleyLocale: Rocky MountainsJul 13, 2012 at 11:01 pm #1894664
Very very good camera. I want one. Currently selling my Panasonic TS4 that i got a month ago if anyone is interested in order to pay for this Sony.Aug 28, 2012 at 9:25 pm #1907090
Lots good and a few warts. In sum, an impressive, tiny camera with big-chip ambitions.
RickAug 29, 2012 at 2:15 am #1907128
delAug 29, 2012 at 9:35 am #1907211
Out of curiosity, why do you think it costs more to build a high-volume camera like the D3200? My presumption is the high-volume entry-level dslrs are among the cheapest cameras to build, likewise, the "kit" lenses.
FWIW I do think there's a price to pay for relatively low-volume, high-end "boutique" compacts like the RX100, but there's also a lot of R&D cost and specialty hardware in them–they don't share many (any?) components with other cameras and typicaly have metal chassis or casings. They also tend to be built in Japan versus China or other lower-cost countries.
In case it helps, compare the RX to the X2. Suddenly, it's a bargain! And, once the bloom is off the rose prices may soften, especially just before Sony releases the RX200. I was able to snag a DP1s for less than half retail that way.
RickAug 29, 2012 at 10:23 am #1907236
@jacobdLocale: North Bay
I came across this the other day, M9 vs. RX100 in Croatia. The OP isn't trying to make the $6000 camera vs. X argument, he just happened to use them both on the trip.Aug 29, 2012 at 5:44 pm #1907385
I sold a T2i to buy a RX100, and I'm honestly very satisfied.
I've owned a Rebel XT, 7D and then a T2i and while I desperately miss the utter glory of my 7D, the RX100 is absolutely the right amount of camera for me. I have use for almost all the features, there's very little that's extraneous and it's very, very small.
The best advantage of this is that I take it many more places and consequently it becomes a dramatically better camera than any DSLR could ever be (for me).
Video is astonishingly good for such a small camera, and its far more usable than any DSLR video in terms of ease. Good autofocus, for one.
Stills are simple and quick, and while I miss the visceral shooting with a mirrored body, it's absolutely good enough for me.
Probably the best thing is that I can't buy more lenses. That was always a bit of an issue with my DSLR hobby. I never had quite the lens I really wanted.Aug 29, 2012 at 5:59 pm #1907390
"Probably the best thing is that I can't buy more lenses. That was always a bit of an issue with my DSLR hobby. I never had quite the lens I really wanted.
Bug, meet feature. ;-)
RickSep 2, 2012 at 1:09 pm #1908475
@tallblokeLocale: DON'T LOOK DOWN!!
Destined to be a classic I'm certain. Doubt they'll ever be produced in sufficient quantity to become a second user bargain. I'll be interested to see how well the low light capability compares with the new Samsung TL2 and my Ricoh GXR /A12 28 prime. The Ricoh is chunky in comparison, but I'm loving the quality and capability for the same sort of price tag. Handling is great.Sep 2, 2012 at 3:28 pm #1908504
@verberLocale: San Francisco Bay Area
I have been using a RX100 for a bit more than a month now. It's the first pocketable digital camera than I don't wince at the resulting pictures. Sure, there have been times that a larger lens / sensor would have produced a much better image or might have let me captured something I couldn't with the RX100, but the RX100 has done surprisingly well. I am much more willing to leave our larger cameras behind now.
For me, it's a game changer. I have tried a number of other small cameras. None of the smaller digital cameras has really made me happy. I regularly found myself asking the question "Do I want to have images from XYZ event / location?" If the answer was yes, I would bring a "real" camera. If the answer was "It's not that important" I would more often than not leave my small camera behind because even if I used it, the odds that I would have any pictures I wanted to keep was really low.
With the RX100 the question is "Is a primary purpose of this journey to make images"? If the answer is yes than I bring one of our "serious cameras". If the answer is no, I bring the RX100 because you never know what might present itself opportunistically… and if there is something interesting, the RX100 has a fair chance of capturing it well enough to keep the picture, even if it doesn't have superior image quality.
–MarkSep 7, 2012 at 10:25 am #1910064
so to summarize:
smaller, lighter, faster (10fps, 60p video, shot to shot, etc), wider dynamic range, wider ISO gammut, optical stabilization, all aluminum body, higher resolution lcd, and more.
Sounds like a winnerSep 7, 2012 at 9:39 pm #1910269
@verberLocale: San Francisco Bay Area
I didn't realize dxomark had released their stats for the RX100, cool. My real world experience agrees with their results, if not suggested that there was a bigger gap. The RX100 was clearly superior to the GF3, even when the GF3 has the advantage of a faster / better lens. My experience was that the RX100 maintained image quality better than the GF3 at higher ISO. That said, the GF3 is not know to be one of the better 4/3s cameras. I owned one briefly as a backup body and dumped it as soon as I get my OM-D. I was very disappointed with it. Of course, the GF3 is a previous generation of the cost contained 4/3s line, so it is not a good representative of what 4/3s can do.
If you compare the RX100 to the GH2, which is the best of the 4/3 that dxomarks has published their results, you will see that while the RX100 has a better overall score and maximum dynamic range, etc… that is due to you being able to shoot the RX100 at ISO 80, where the GH2 bottom ISO is 160. If you look at the graphs, you will find that once you get to ISO 160 and above, the GH2 is typically performing better than than the RX100. When we have done test shoots (or used both in the field), the GH2 was better (to my eyes) as ISO 200, and clearly better from ISO 400 and up. Actually, it was better even when we were shooting the RX100 at ISO 80, and the the GH2 at 160, but the GH2 was using what I expect is a better lens.
My experience is that the newer 4/3s such as the Olympus OM-D (which dxomark hasn't release data on yet) have sensors that out performs the GH2 by 1-2 stops, I expect that what these cameras' data goes up, you will find they have better sensors than the RX100. Add to that a wider selection of lens, and you have something that clearly trumps the RX100 on image quality. On the other hand, the GH2 or the OM-D, or the G5 don't fit into your pants pocket.
The RX100 is a remarkable little camera, and I think close to ideal for the range of pictures I typically take backpacking. The only camera that might be better (since most of my pictures could be classified as either landscape or portraits in environment) would be the Sigma Merrill DPx… which I will … must… resistant. I am trying to simply life, and I really don't need another camera.
–MarkSep 8, 2012 at 9:36 am #1910344
DXOmark is, well, controversial but offers some limited help sifting through a mountain of cameras. But using it to make a selection would be like picking a car based on comparing engine dyno graphs and, by the way, you can't watch the dyno being operated.
The little Sony offers compact users a nice alternative but isn't an interchangeable lens camera replacement–not its mission.
The new Sigma DP output is impressive but dear lord, they still can't manage to build a usable camera (see LL's review for more). My DP1s can make wonderful images but only within a razor-thin set of parameters. The circa 2002 user interface, display, and above all, vastntime required to do anything have not been addressed in the Merrills. A thousand bucks? A bargain, I guess, compared to the X2.
RickSep 15, 2012 at 6:09 pm #1912544
To get an idea of how it compares, for example with the Ricoh GXR A12 , see here :
Click on "scene add" (top bar) to add low light and other comparison shots.
FrancoSep 25, 2012 at 4:31 pm #1915557
@tallblokeLocale: DON'T LOOK DOWN!!
Thanks Franco, interesting comparison. The Sony is a superb device.
The GXR beats it in terms of lens quality, resolution, high ISO performance, auto white balance, handling, external flash options and robustness.
The Sony has it for weight, movies, weight, zoom, weight, and weight. Did I mention weight? It's a superb camera for its weight. Considering how close behind the Ricoh GXR it is in terms of IQ, it's a great option for backpacking light. The lens is just a bit on the soft side.
Tough call, but I got my mint GXR and A12 28 prime plus a P10 10x zoom lens for less than the Sony would cost, so I'm happy for now.Sep 28, 2012 at 5:26 am #1916342
@sgiachettiLocale: Boulder, CO
got mine in the mail yesterday around 3 in the afternoon, just in time for a quick jaunt in the indian peaks. It was raining down in Boulder, so I wasn't sure what to expect up high. Sure enough, it was snowing. I think the first of the season.
Its been a while since I brought a camera backpacking. I always seem to focus too much on working a scene and being a photographer when I bring my DSLR, so I've been on the look out for something that I could move fast with and just snap as I go, but still get good quality results from. So far, I'd say this fits the bill. Super impressed with the IQ, and I'm glad I opted for the pocketable option over the NEX. I know everyone has already said it, but the engineers at sony really pulled something off with this one.
And here is a crop at %100 for the pixel peepers. Shot in jpeg since I don't have the latest PS updates.Sep 28, 2012 at 6:23 am #1916347
@dbogeyLocale: East Coast
This camera is a gem. I'm an owner of a few point and shoot plus a Nikon d40 with expensive lenses and the rx-100 has replaced all my cameras. I love the ability to shoot jpeg/raw and HD video with one device.
Oct 28, 2012 at 2:28 am #1924812
@sgiachettiLocale: Boulder, CO
I would give this camera a full on review, but don't have much negative to say about it. I'm surprised at how good the IQ is each time I open a file in PS. I also appreciate the increased depth of field for landscape work. That, combined with the steady shot IS makes the camera pretty usable without a tripod.
Its responsive and easy to use with an LCD thats easy to see even bright sun. Really happy with this purchase.
There's not much to hold onto, so I generally keep the wrist strap wrapped if I'm moving with it. I wish the macro could get closer at standard and tele focal lengths, but I understand this is a natural limit of putting a relatively large sensor in a small camera with a big aperture. It'd be great if there were a hotshoe for an external mic like the one for NEX models. The video is great, and sound is not bad, but to do more legit video I'd probably need an external mic. Also, I wish this thing had android or built in wifi, which I bet will be in the next model. Speaking of which, my only reluctance around this camera is that, with sony's aggressive approach innovation, I know I'm going to want to replace this with their next drool worthy model.
Here's a gallery with indian peaks, san juans, and zion trips form october. Its been a good month!Jan 5, 2013 at 11:51 am #1941006
@mtn_nutLocale: Morrison, CO
for those of you that use this camera, is there any way to charge the battery pack via USB?Jan 5, 2013 at 12:50 pm #1941014
As it comes , you can only charge it via USB
(in camera charging)Jan 5, 2013 at 1:01 pm #1941018
@ngatelLocale: Southern California
Sony also sells a wall charger you can insert a battery into, plus this charger has a USB port. I have one.
Ah, heck I can't get the HTML do-hickey thingy to work with my iPad. Jordan really needs to fix this stuff with a modern UI.
Edited to fix link..
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.