Sony Cyber-Shot RX100 REVIEW

0Comments

It’s a big claim: “The best pocket camera ever made.” … or so The New York Times declares. No doubt there will be some rumblings from a well-known German company about such a contention. And Nikon will be banging at the gate too!

Sony Cyber-Shot RX100.jpg

(insert Productshot_Front_007-1200)

Sony’s story is that the RX100 does do things quite a bit differently from the rest of the crowd. For one thing, as a fixed lens camera, the sensor is claimed to be considerably larger than the rest of the crowd, with many having 11mm sensors (as a diagonal measurement). Sony claims the RX100’s sensor is a one inch job.

Screeech! Reality check! The RX100’s CMOS measures 13.2×8.8mm, which means the diagonal is only 15.8mm and not 25.4m (one inch) … same as the Nikon V1and N1 cameras.

Sony Cyber-Shot RX100-1.jpg

Sony Cyber-Shot RX100-2.jpg

It gets stickier. The RX100 has 20.2 million effective pixels, while the Nikons offers only 10.1 million packed onto the sensor. Same space: smaller pixels. Not a good start!

Well I’ve got that off my chest.

Now let’s look at the lens. At last! A star! One of dear old Carl Zeiss’ top optics: the Vario-Sonnar T* f1.8-4.9/10.4-37.1mm job. Yes, it’s relatively fast at f1.9, but this drops off to a much smaller f4.9 at the tele end, giving a modest 3.6x zoom range (based on the 35 SLR equivalent range of 28-100mm).

Sony Cyber-Shot RX100 Features

Built around an aluminium body, the camera inherits some features from Sony’s Alpha range of cameras which places it in the same territory as the mirrorless interchangeable lens cameras.

Although small, the RX100 feels chunky, solid and workmanlike, while feeling surprisingly heavy for such a small camera. Powered down, it fits a pocket easily. Powered up, the lens protrudes another 3.5cm from the 3.5cm deep body.

It feels good in the hand, although I would have liked a textured grip surface at the front right edge, as there is at the rear edge.

Controls are very Sony-like: power, zoom and mode dial on top; the rear has a Function button (HDR, scene modes, exposure compensation, ISO), with controls for menu, replay, instruction guide and the movie record button.

There is a USB port at the camera’s right end with the mini HDMI and memory card access placed in the camera’s base.

At this point I should mention the lens control ring, close to the body and giving direct access to aperture, shutter speed and manual focus … all operable with the camera in Program AE, shutter or aperture priority and visible on the LCD screen. Pretty neat!

Menu 1.jpg

Menu 2.jpg

I have to say the manual focus arrangement is one of the best I have come across: easy to access and giving the clearest indication of sharp or unsharp focus. However, I found the shutter button hard to feel for, as it’s recessed beneath the top surface. A bad design flaw.

Maximum image size is 5472×3080 pixels, enough to make a 46x26cm print.

Movies are well taken care of with maximum res at Full HD 1920×1080 in AVCHD or MPEG format for the lesser sizes.

Luna Park entrance 1.JPG

Ferry and city.JPG

Speaking of which: sounds of the shutter button and zoom can be heard while shooting video — but you can shoot stills while in video mode. The stabiliser works well as does the auto focus. The instruction manual indicates that in some video resolutions still capture is not possible … but I had no trouble.

Sony Cyber-Shot RX100 ISO Tests

Sony RX100 ISO 80.JPG

Sony RX100 ISO 200.JPG

Sony RX100 ISO 800.JPG

Sony RX100 ISO 1600.JPG

Sony RX100 ISO 3200.JPG

Sony RX100 ISO 6400.JPG

While the specs indicate the camera has an upper ISO setting of 25,600 this is only available in Auto ISO, with the camera making the setting according to prevailing light levels.

At ISO 80 the image was sharp and noise free. Only when ISO 1600 was reached did noise appear. By ISO 3200 noise was up but not to an objectionable level. At ISO 6400 noise was up but definition was acceptable. A good performance.

Startup Times

It took three seconds from startup to first shot; follow-ons about a second apart.

Distortion

No problems at the wide or tele ends of the zoom. A good performance.

Sony Cyber-Shot RX100 Verdict

Quality: the pictures I shot with the RX100 simply jumped off the screen with excellent definition and accurate colour. A top performer, no doubt thanks to Herr Zeiss’s precision.

Why you’d buy the Sony Cyber-shot RX100: a pocket performer.

Why you wouldn’t: a vari-angle screen would have made the camera near-perfect;

An elegant and practical camera it could be used by virtually anyone with any skills level. However, it could seriously sing and dance in polished hands!

Sony Cyber-Shot RX100 Specs

Image Sensor: 20.2 million effective pixels.
Metering: multi zone, centre-weighted, spot.
Lens: Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T* f1.8-4.9/10.4-37.1 (28-100mm as 35 SLR).
Exposure Modes: Program AE, shutter and aperture priority, manual.
Effective Sensor Size: 13.2×8.8mm Exmor CMOS.
Shutter Speed (stills): 30 to 1/2000 second and Bulb.
Continuous Shooting: 2.5/10 fps.
Memory: SD/SDHC/SDXC, Memory Stick Pro Duo cards.
Image Sizes (pixels): Stills: 5472×3080 to 2592×1944.
Movies: 1920×1080 (AVCHD); 1440×1080, 640×480 (MPEG4).
Viewfinder: 7.6cm LCD screen (1,228,800 pixels).
File Formats: JPEG, RAW (Sony ARW 2.2), JPEG+RAW, MPEG4, AVCHD.
Colour Space: sRGB, Adobe RGB.
ISO Sensitivity: Auto, 100 to 25600.
Interface: USB 2.0, HDMI mini.
Power: Rechargeable lithium ion battery, DC input.
Dimensions: 102x59x36 WHDmm.
Weight: 213 g (inc battery).
Price: Get a price on the Sony Cybershot RX100 at Amazon.

Summary
Review Date
Reviewed Item
Sony Cyber-Shot RX100
Author Rating
3

Read more from our Cameras & Equipment category

Barrie Smith is an experienced writer/photographer currently published in Australian Macworld, Auscam and other magazines in Australia and overseas.

  • Ozone51

    A compact camera that deliver usable photo taken at 6400 is more then a good performer. It’s stunning! It got the size of a small Canon S100 with the performance of the much bigger Nikon J1. Wow!

    Must resist… Must not buy… Weak man I am…

  • Roger

    “It gets stickier. The RX100 has 20.2 million effective pixels, while the Nikons offers only 10.1 million packed onto the sensor. Same space: smaller pixels. Not a good start!”

    Wouldn’t that mean it’s better ie. packing more pixels into the same sensor? More detail? Finer Detail?

    Not sure maybe I’m missing something but when pixels go up in the same size I thought that was a good thing.

  • I SO wish I had the money for this right now, as this looks to be an outstanding P&S. I’m very happy with my current Sony P&S, but I’ve been waiting for them to come out with a decent competitor to the S100, LX5, etc. – something that has a decent-sized sensor and the ability to shoot RAW. And the kick-ass Zeiss lens is the cherry on the cake!

  • Jack Clarfelt

    If only it had a EVF my hand would already be searching for my credit card. Am currently trying out a Delkin folding hood on my Canon s90 and if it cures the sun glare problem, I might be tempted by the Sony.

  • It’s hard to find an EVF on a P&S, though, unless you go for the likes of the Canon G1X or Nikon P7100, but then those aren’t really compact anymore.

  • HB

    @roger
    more pixels on the same size sensor means each pixel is smaller. They can’t capture as much light as larger pixels so the image is noisier. Any gain you get in resolution, you loose with noise at higher iso. This is why most P&S camera’s perform so badly above iso200. Though I must say this camera seems to preform exeptionally well.

  • Barrie Smith

    To Roger

    smaller pixels can mean an increase in noise.

    an excellent discussion on this matter can be found at

    http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/does.pixel.size.matter/#sensorconstant

  • Tassy

    it says that the sony DSC RX100 is he best compact camera right now at the moment that shoots video. interesting video and test indeed for a point and shoot looking camera with professional features.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vTzLtvHbk68

  • I’m the only one that over the 10mpx mark does´t care anymore for more resolution, but only on actual pixel-dot size? Larger the better?

    This camera has a pp of 1.6 microns. Roughly the same of a standard 10mpx P&S.

    I’m the only one that finds ridiculous to see how all the companies are dropping the mpx race and rolling back their maximum resolution even on presume/enthusiast market to the 10~12mpx mark while Sony alone keeps running alone increasing their resolution and sacrificing IQ at iso 400+? Look at the noise of this camera at ISO 800, is awful.

    Not alone i find ridiculous this posture of Sony, i see no point at all in this camera at this price point. i can have a larger sensor (4/3), virtually the same body size with much better overall IQ, specially at low light for a LOWER PRICE POINT (either pen, or gf3).

    What’s the point of this camera again? Another Sony camera im passing. Try decreasing your resolution next time and i may consider buying from you guys again

  • Haptic

    One inch does not refer to the chip’s diagonal measurement. It’s an old nomenclature from tube days. Explained here: http://www.dpreview.com/news/2002/10/7/sensorsizes

    The RX100 rocks.

  • Awesome Camera, got one last week 🙂

  • This is not impressive…my Sony DSC-w210 is better than this.I prefer investing on a entry level DSLR rather than this.Just my opinion.

    http://nepalgunjeyes.blogspot.com
    http://flickr.com/ssatyamm

  • David

    Purchased the RX 100 and set quality to jpeg and raw – after taking pics and downloading to mac, i was only able to find the jpeg files, not the raw. suggestions?

  • Satyam: I love my 210, too, but I think this model has some defnite advantages that the 210 doesn’t; namely the 1.8 lens and RAW file format. Now, it’s debatable if those advantages are worth an extra $400…

    You’re right that if you don’t already have DSLR, an entry-level DSLR would probably be a better purchase for the money (depending on one’s true needs, of course), but I think this camera appeals to those who already have their DSLR, but want a pro-quality P&S to carry around with them.

  • Kinda tempted with this one. I love my Sony a33 and a77, but have been wishing for a decent compact to take out to dinner and that sort of thing. How is the low light performance and what’s the built in flash like?

    @jewel – there are so many discussions about sensor size vs pixel count. As someone once pointed out to me, it really takes a balance between not just the size of the sensor and the number of pixels but also the capability of the built-in software. You can’t just say high pixel count = bad.

    That said, I do wish my a77 didn’t have quite so many pixels crammed in. If only to make the file sizes a bit more manageable!! 😉

  • JOhn

    How does this compare with the new Panasonic LX7?

  • JacksonG

    I’m a big Sony fan and currently shoot with the a 390. I needed something smaller for my street work so I went with the Lumix LX5. The RX 100 looks like it takes great pictures but I couldn’t bring myself to spend that much money on a P&S.

  • Neil Heeney

    Sold my D7000 kit today (24-120 f4, 35 1.8, 85 1.8d), bought an RX100 and banked $1,700. I’m very happy with my decision and look forward to my new pocketable camera when I travel. From what I can see, it’s capable of capturing some beautiful images.

  • Jon Carson

    I own a Nikon D300, and it is great when I want to haul around my 50-60 lbs. of gear. But I often end up with so-so phone photos, or nothing at all because of the lack of motivation to get a workout lifting weights.

    My 12 year old daughter has a Panasonic Lumix, and is getting great results in bright light, but when dusk hits, not so good. She has great potential shooting candid portraits, but my old Nikon D100 is not appealing to her small hands. The RX100 will also give me the opportunity to introduce her to shooting “RAW” when the time comes.

    My wife loves to shoot video with her P&S, but results are often shaky.

    The RX100 looks to be the ideal fit for all three of us. For me, it’s not a matter of “if?”, but rather “when?”

  • Richard Eng

    @jewel
    As you say, you are completely missing the point. The RX100 is an easy-to-carry camera that fits in your shirt pocket. No m4/3 camera fits. The best camera is the one you always have with you, and I doubt very much that you’ll carry your m4/3 camera everywhere you go.

    I’ve examined the high ISO performance of the RX100 against the much-vaunted S100, and the RX100 easily wins hands down. If you say the noise at ISO 800 is awful, the question is, relative to what? M4/3?

    The point is, you’re getting an easily pocketable camera with low light performance never seen previously in this category. And for that, the camera commands a price premium. Now do you understand?

  • Carroll Lam

    I have an RX100 and love it. I have two minor nits about it that I haven’t seen reported elsewhee.

    First, none of the display options in the shooting modes displays current batery level. You have to go to the playback mode to get a battery level readout.

    Secondly, if you use a tripod camera plate that extends to the width of the control ring it will block the turning of the control ring. I have to place a small rubber washer between the camera and the plate of my Shotoku tripod to be able to rotate the ring when the camera is on the tripod.

    One other thing that is different from other Sony p&s cameras. The playback function only accesses one of the three folders (photos, mp4, AVCHD0 at a time. You have to manually switch between the folders to see all collections.

    Other than that, the camera is essentially flawless.

  • Richard Eng

    @satyam
    How is the Sony W210 better than this camera? It has a tiny, 1/2.3″ sensor which exhibits horrible smearing of detail (in JPEG) even at ISO 800. I can still see pretty good detail in the RX100 images at ISO 3200. The difference between these two cameras (sensors) is like night and day.

    Moreover, the RX100 has astonishing AF speed, pretty good shot-to-shot times, and low shutter lag. It may not be a DSLR replacement, but for an easily pocketable camera, it is certainly very close to being a DSLR in terms of IQ and performance. I have a Canon 40D, and I’d be happy to pick the RX100 over it, just because of the enormous convenience. Kudos to Sony for an amazing achievement.

  • Brian

    Can you please get reviewers who are knowledgeable. The designations of 1″ and 1/1.7″ (etc…) do not mean they are 1 inch or 1 and 1/7 inch “big”. Actually a 1/1.7″ sensor is SMALLER than a 1″ inch sensor. These designations are hold overs from days gone by when they where used as ratios for the vacuum tubes used in video cameras. I expect the people that do reviews would be knowledgeable about the subject they are reviewing and not bash the company for using the industry standard terminology.

  • Barrie Smith

    Of course a 1/1.7 inch sensor is smaller than a 1 inch sensor.
    But what on earth has the ratios from the days of vacuum tubes have to do with 21st century digital camera sensors?
    If we’re talking about sensors and comparing the diagonal measurements of various ones, let’s use a common yardstick.
    As I said about the RX100: “the diagonal is only 15.8mm and not 25.4m (one inch).”
    Beter still, let’s all use metric figures for all specs. No-one talks about an f3.5/one inch lens!

  • cato2

    @David there needs to be RAW updates to all software like Adobe so they can access the files. Until then u have to use the shite Sony software that comes with the camera, apparently its dreadful.

  • GA

    I’ve been thinking of getting a Sony RX-100 but I’ve been hesitating mainly because I’m starting to think Sony seems to be a good choice only because they advertise a lot where I am. Hahaha. It’s a relief to know there are real good reasons to get it.

  • Fred

    This camera is one of the best compacts I’ve ever tested. The very versatile Zeiss zoomlens is powerful and excellent, the AF respons is excellent, the multi-functional lensring very practical, the high ISO value of 6400 is excellent (for a compact), though it looses a bit of detail sharpness, it’s sensor has enough pixels for a large print, the colors are spot on (one of the best Imatest-results I’ve ever seen on ‘standard’), it’s size and weight are really compact for a f1.8 zoom. Only flaw is dynamic range of 9 and you’d have to get used the menus. The RX100 would be a very cool basis for a new Sony system-camera range with exchangeable prime lenses! But I guess Nikon has claimed it’s rights with Sony since both sensors come from the same factory…

  • Jim

    I’m hooked. After years of lugging around my Sony Alphas for my daily street photography work, I’ve come to appreciate the small format p-&-s which we all probably evolved from while striving for better picture quality. I’m not giving up my SLT and DSLR, nor all my interchangeable lenses, flashes, etc., but for a lot of my daily shooting, the RX-100 has earned its place in my pocket.
    I’ve recently blogged about using it alongside the A77: http://jimmartinphotoblog.blogspot.de/2013/03/testing-sony-rx100-at-zoo.html

  • Heidi

    I traded in my Nikon D7000 for the Sony RX100 6 Wks ago due to the Nikon being to big to have with me at all times…it was a hard & long decision…But I LOVE it! So easy to use, I highly recommend it.

  • I saw these samples and had a thought. If I could drag these to my desktop, then open in photoshop and truly see how they look and compare for grain/noise. It all worked til, and I know there is a limitation, I got to photoshop and the images are only 600 pixels wide. Oh my. But it would be great if the files could be available as original camera files. I am new signing up with you. Is anything like that available? True comparison would be great at these high ISO’s. Thanks, Gary.

  • oohay liamg

    Dear Barrie,
    In your opinion which Point & Shoot Camera will get a 5 star rating ok say 4.5

Some Older Comments

  • Gary June 16, 2013 04:04 am

    I saw these samples and had a thought. If I could drag these to my desktop, then open in photoshop and truly see how they look and compare for grain/noise. It all worked til, and I know there is a limitation, I got to photoshop and the images are only 600 pixels wide. Oh my. But it would be great if the files could be available as original camera files. I am new signing up with you. Is anything like that available? True comparison would be great at these high ISO's. Thanks, Gary.

  • Heidi June 3, 2013 06:59 am

    I traded in my Nikon D7000 for the Sony RX100 6 Wks ago due to the Nikon being to big to have with me at all times...it was a hard & long decision...But I LOVE it! So easy to use, I highly recommend it.

  • Jim March 31, 2013 12:02 am

    I'm hooked. After years of lugging around my Sony Alphas for my daily street photography work, I've come to appreciate the small format p-&-s which we all probably evolved from while striving for better picture quality. I'm not giving up my SLT and DSLR, nor all my interchangeable lenses, flashes, etc., but for a lot of my daily shooting, the RX-100 has earned its place in my pocket.
    I've recently blogged about using it alongside the A77: http://jimmartinphotoblog.blogspot.de/2013/03/testing-sony-rx100-at-zoo.html

  • Fred March 26, 2013 09:37 pm

    This camera is one of the best compacts I've ever tested. The very versatile Zeiss zoomlens is powerful and excellent, the AF respons is excellent, the multi-functional lensring very practical, the high ISO value of 6400 is excellent (for a compact), though it looses a bit of detail sharpness, it's sensor has enough pixels for a large print, the colors are spot on (one of the best Imatest-results I've ever seen on 'standard'), it's size and weight are really compact for a f1.8 zoom. Only flaw is dynamic range of 9 and you'd have to get used the menus. The RX100 would be a very cool basis for a new Sony system-camera range with exchangeable prime lenses! But I guess Nikon has claimed it's rights with Sony since both sensors come from the same factory...

  • GA August 20, 2012 02:09 pm

    I've been thinking of getting a Sony RX-100 but I've been hesitating mainly because I'm starting to think Sony seems to be a good choice only because they advertise a lot where I am. Hahaha. It's a relief to know there are real good reasons to get it.

  • cato2 August 18, 2012 09:16 pm

    @David there needs to be RAW updates to all software like Adobe so they can access the files. Until then u have to use the shite Sony software that comes with the camera, apparently its dreadful.

  • Barrie Smith August 16, 2012 10:22 am

    Of course a 1/1.7 inch sensor is smaller than a 1 inch sensor.
    But what on earth has the ratios from the days of vacuum tubes have to do with 21st century digital camera sensors?
    If we're talking about sensors and comparing the diagonal measurements of various ones, let's use a common yardstick.
    As I said about the RX100: "the diagonal is only 15.8mm and not 25.4m (one inch)."
    Beter still, let's all use metric figures for all specs. No-one talks about an f3.5/one inch lens!

  • Brian August 16, 2012 10:12 am

    Can you please get reviewers who are knowledgeable. The designations of 1" and 1/1.7" (etc...) do not mean they are 1 inch or 1 and 1/7 inch "big". Actually a 1/1.7" sensor is SMALLER than a 1" inch sensor. These designations are hold overs from days gone by when they where used as ratios for the vacuum tubes used in video cameras. I expect the people that do reviews would be knowledgeable about the subject they are reviewing and not bash the company for using the industry standard terminology.

  • Richard Eng August 12, 2012 11:43 pm

    @satyam
    How is the Sony W210 better than this camera? It has a tiny, 1/2.3" sensor which exhibits horrible smearing of detail (in JPEG) even at ISO 800. I can still see pretty good detail in the RX100 images at ISO 3200. The difference between these two cameras (sensors) is like night and day.

    Moreover, the RX100 has astonishing AF speed, pretty good shot-to-shot times, and low shutter lag. It may not be a DSLR replacement, but for an easily pocketable camera, it is certainly very close to being a DSLR in terms of IQ and performance. I have a Canon 40D, and I'd be happy to pick the RX100 over it, just because of the enormous convenience. Kudos to Sony for an amazing achievement.

  • Carroll Lam August 12, 2012 12:21 am

    I have an RX100 and love it. I have two minor nits about it that I haven't seen reported elsewhee.

    First, none of the display options in the shooting modes displays current batery level. You have to go to the playback mode to get a battery level readout.

    Secondly, if you use a tripod camera plate that extends to the width of the control ring it will block the turning of the control ring. I have to place a small rubber washer between the camera and the plate of my Shotoku tripod to be able to rotate the ring when the camera is on the tripod.

    One other thing that is different from other Sony p&s cameras. The playback function only accesses one of the three folders (photos, mp4, AVCHD0 at a time. You have to manually switch between the folders to see all collections.

    Other than that, the camera is essentially flawless.

  • Richard Eng August 10, 2012 11:08 pm

    @jewel
    As you say, you are completely missing the point. The RX100 is an easy-to-carry camera that fits in your shirt pocket. No m4/3 camera fits. The best camera is the one you always have with you, and I doubt very much that you'll carry your m4/3 camera everywhere you go.

    I've examined the high ISO performance of the RX100 against the much-vaunted S100, and the RX100 easily wins hands down. If you say the noise at ISO 800 is awful, the question is, relative to what? M4/3?

    The point is, you're getting an easily pocketable camera with low light performance never seen previously in this category. And for that, the camera commands a price premium. Now do you understand?

  • Jon Carson August 10, 2012 05:07 am

    I own a Nikon D300, and it is great when I want to haul around my 50-60 lbs. of gear. But I often end up with so-so phone photos, or nothing at all because of the lack of motivation to get a workout lifting weights.

    My 12 year old daughter has a Panasonic Lumix, and is getting great results in bright light, but when dusk hits, not so good. She has great potential shooting candid portraits, but my old Nikon D100 is not appealing to her small hands. The RX100 will also give me the opportunity to introduce her to shooting "RAW" when the time comes.

    My wife loves to shoot video with her P&S, but results are often shaky.

    The RX100 looks to be the ideal fit for all three of us. For me, it's not a matter of "if?", but rather "when?"

  • Neil Heeney August 5, 2012 09:25 am

    Sold my D7000 kit today (24-120 f4, 35 1.8, 85 1.8d), bought an RX100 and banked $1,700. I'm very happy with my decision and look forward to my new pocketable camera when I travel. From what I can see, it's capable of capturing some beautiful images.

  • JacksonG August 4, 2012 08:21 am

    I'm a big Sony fan and currently shoot with the a 390. I needed something smaller for my street work so I went with the Lumix LX5. The RX 100 looks like it takes great pictures but I couldn't bring myself to spend that much money on a P&S.

  • JOhn August 3, 2012 10:26 pm

    How does this compare with the new Panasonic LX7?

  • Pauline August 3, 2012 01:17 pm

    Kinda tempted with this one. I love my Sony a33 and a77, but have been wishing for a decent compact to take out to dinner and that sort of thing. How is the low light performance and what's the built in flash like?

    @jewel - there are so many discussions about sensor size vs pixel count. As someone once pointed out to me, it really takes a balance between not just the size of the sensor and the number of pixels but also the capability of the built-in software. You can't just say high pixel count = bad.

    That said, I do wish my a77 didn't have quite so many pixels crammed in. If only to make the file sizes a bit more manageable!! ;)

  • Fonk August 1, 2012 01:19 pm

    Satyam: I love my 210, too, but I think this model has some defnite advantages that the 210 doesn't; namely the 1.8 lens and RAW file format. Now, it's debatable if those advantages are worth an extra $400...

    You're right that if you don't already have DSLR, an entry-level DSLR would probably be a better purchase for the money (depending on one's true needs, of course), but I think this camera appeals to those who already have their DSLR, but want a pro-quality P&S to carry around with them.

  • David August 1, 2012 09:47 am

    Purchased the RX 100 and set quality to jpeg and raw - after taking pics and downloading to mac, i was only able to find the jpeg files, not the raw. suggestions?

  • satyam August 1, 2012 03:07 am

    This is not impressive...my Sony DSC-w210 is better than this.I prefer investing on a entry level DSLR rather than this.Just my opinion.

    http://nepalgunjeyes.blogspot.com
    http://flickr.com/ssatyamm

  • Paul Engineer July 29, 2012 10:34 am

    Awesome Camera, got one last week :)

  • Haptic July 29, 2012 06:57 am

    One inch does not refer to the chip's diagonal measurement. It's an old nomenclature from tube days. Explained here: http://www.dpreview.com/news/2002/10/7/sensorsizes

    The RX100 rocks.

  • jewel July 29, 2012 12:24 am

    I'm the only one that over the 10mpx mark does´t care anymore for more resolution, but only on actual pixel-dot size? Larger the better?

    This camera has a pp of 1.6 microns. Roughly the same of a standard 10mpx P&S.

    I'm the only one that finds ridiculous to see how all the companies are dropping the mpx race and rolling back their maximum resolution even on presume/enthusiast market to the 10~12mpx mark while Sony alone keeps running alone increasing their resolution and sacrificing IQ at iso 400+? Look at the noise of this camera at ISO 800, is awful.

    Not alone i find ridiculous this posture of Sony, i see no point at all in this camera at this price point. i can have a larger sensor (4/3), virtually the same body size with much better overall IQ, specially at low light for a LOWER PRICE POINT (either pen, or gf3).

    What's the point of this camera again? Another Sony camera im passing. Try decreasing your resolution next time and i may consider buying from you guys again

  • Tassy July 28, 2012 04:02 pm

    it says that the sony DSC RX100 is he best compact camera right now at the moment that shoots video. interesting video and test indeed for a point and shoot looking camera with professional features.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vTzLtvHbk68

  • Barrie Smith July 28, 2012 09:02 am

    To Roger

    smaller pixels can mean an increase in noise.

    an excellent discussion on this matter can be found at

    www.clarkvision.com/articles/does.pixel.size.matter/#sensorconstant

  • HB July 28, 2012 08:55 am

    @roger
    more pixels on the same size sensor means each pixel is smaller. They can't capture as much light as larger pixels so the image is noisier. Any gain you get in resolution, you loose with noise at higher iso. This is why most P&S camera's perform so badly above iso200. Though I must say this camera seems to preform exeptionally well.

  • Fonk July 28, 2012 07:26 am

    It's hard to find an EVF on a P&S, though, unless you go for the likes of the Canon G1X or Nikon P7100, but then those aren't really compact anymore.

  • Jack Clarfelt July 28, 2012 07:17 am

    If only it had a EVF my hand would already be searching for my credit card. Am currently trying out a Delkin folding hood on my Canon s90 and if it cures the sun glare problem, I might be tempted by the Sony.

  • Fonk July 28, 2012 02:14 am

    I SO wish I had the money for this right now, as this looks to be an outstanding P&S. I'm very happy with my current Sony P&S, but I've been waiting for them to come out with a decent competitor to the S100, LX5, etc. - something that has a decent-sized sensor and the ability to shoot RAW. And the kick-ass Zeiss lens is the cherry on the cake!

  • Roger July 28, 2012 02:03 am

    "It gets stickier. The RX100 has 20.2 million effective pixels, while the Nikons offers only 10.1 million packed onto the sensor. Same space: smaller pixels. Not a good start!"

    Wouldn't that mean it's better ie. packing more pixels into the same sensor? More detail? Finer Detail?

    Not sure maybe I'm missing something but when pixels go up in the same size I thought that was a good thing.

  • Ozone51 July 28, 2012 01:55 am

    A compact camera that deliver usable photo taken at 6400 is more then a good performer. It's stunning! It got the size of a small Canon S100 with the performance of the much bigger Nikon J1. Wow!

    Must resist... Must not buy... Weak man I am...

Join Our Email Newsletter

Thanks for subscribing!


DPS offers a free weekly newsletter with: 
1. new photography tutorials and tips
2. latest photography assignments
3. photo competitions and prizes

Enter your email below to subscribe.
Email:
 
 
Get DAILY free tips, news and reviews via our RSS feed