Sony RX100 tested by dpreview (gets a Silver award)
Again a Sony RX100 news 
Dpreview (Click here) The biggest camera review site on earth (and known universe) posted the full Sony RX100 test results: “Overall, it’s flexible and dependable tool that lets you take as much or as little control as you want. It’s not a perfect camera, but it’s hard to think of another that includes so much capability and yet still fits in your pocket. Not to be underestimated.”
—
Some links to yesterdays RX100 news:
The many RX100 owners may be happy to know that Adobe (Click here) now supports the RX1oo (link via Outbackphoto). The RX100 popularity can be also notice by reading the huge amount of user reviews on Amazon (Click here to see the list). A good deal is available via Beach Camera (lot of extras!). First impressions at ThePhoBlographer. And don’t forget that there is a new RX100 filter adapter (Click here)
LEdgars
9 months ago |For 6% better than Canon PowerShot S100 in dpr rating system.
Ryan
9 months ago |The camera is not on the same level as the S100 in the rating system. It’s a large sensors compact camera. So its only compared to 2 other cameras, the X100 and G1X.
LEdgars
9 months ago |It is what I mean. Both cameras are in different classes. RX100 is in class of its own and therefore deserved gold. Of course even mirrorless cameras have better IQ, but in compact class RX IQ is very best to date.
physica
9 months ago |In my view….. This camer should be GOLD award instead of Silver one………. It’s too good and I think it’s the best compact camera at the day….
(I’m not a sony fanboy…. I’m a Canon user….just said what I think….)
Weakling
9 months ago |“Cons: no official option to fit filters” Oh come on! This is a compact camera. None of these type of cameras can fit filters. Without that negative point it would have been a gold award.
Ryan
9 months ago |They should have given it a built in ND filter…..most of these types of cameras have them.
Weakling
9 months ago |I agree with a built in ND filter, but screw on filters: no. Yes they could be usefull, but this is not the kind of camera that tends to have filters.
M2
9 months ago |and also another Con that is stupid : “In-camera raw conversion would add flexibility” .
What other ultra compact has that feature ?
Paul Hedderly
9 months ago |If you dont want to state the obvious (for some reason not stated) then you have to invent excuses. Don’t be surprised…
Oh you though DPR was unbiased? It’s impossible to be completely unbiased.
Dair
9 months ago |Olympus XZ-1, Fujifilm x10, Fujifilm X100… probably some other.
I thought that RX100 might get the golden award but the reservations in the review seems quite valid. The camera still got pretty high rating. Best in it’s (three-cameras-so-far
) category.
You can’t compare it with the compacts that costs the fraction of RX100′s price without increasing the requirements a little.
Dair
9 months ago |Given the price tag of the RX100 I’d rather agree with having little higher requirements. Some other (cheaper) compacts have the ND built-in but it is not necessary if you have the option to use the screw-ons. The camera is otherwise so capable that there definitely would be a lot of uses for filters.
Francisco G.
9 months ago |Dpreview hating on Sony as usual.
Anfernee Cheang
9 months ago |I think it’s really a pity that RX100 uses 20MP 1″ sensor. If that’s a 12~14MP sensor in the same size, it will gain more usable high ISO images.
I don’t mean it’s bad now, but it can be better.
Sky_walker
9 months ago |Perhaps. But even with 20 MPx it still offers higher image quality then Nikon 1. So IMHO it’s a win-win scenario – you get best sensor in it’s class, and and option to crop (which is quite important considering the fact that camera lens doesn’t offer much of a zoom range).
Anfernee Cheang
9 months ago |Thousands of people, especially travelers, use Auto ISO during their trip because they rapidly go indoor and outdoor. High ISO image quality is pretty much essential. But only small part among them will crop images because of the insufficient zoom power. For example, a single trip may produce 1000 photos, 500 in bright scenes and 500 in dark scenes. But among those 1000 photos, you may only crop 20 in order to zoom in. From my point of view, it may be more balance if it equips a 12MP sensor.
RX100 is a great camera that absolutely deserves the silver award. But definitely it can be better. Balance is the most important point to most of the users. G1X is not a great camera although it has the best image in the class. Its weight and size, its slow operation and performance kills.
Sky_walker
9 months ago |Well, that’s one of the reasons why they included f/1.8 lens – so you wouldn’t be forced to push ISOs so hard.
Oh, and I did some travel photography – never happen for me to have 50% shots made under poor light conditions. On the other hand though – I have ~70% of my shots cropped in some way (usually very slight, but I use heavy crops as well, especially when happen to run without my 70-300
)
Personally I’d love a camera that rules the world in High ISOs and at the same time offers high resolution, but… well, sometimes we have to live with what’s available (or not buy anything at all – that’s always an option).
Carlo
9 months ago |After using the RX100 for a while, I find the 20MP to be a very good compromise. You can crop images when the zoom is too short but still get very acceptable shots up to ISO3200 (for my taste). The High ISO IQ looks better than my a33, even though it has 14MP on a APS-C sensor!
Ragnarok
9 months ago |Sorry but not, it doesn’t matter if you have 12 or 20, what is important here is sensor size. In fact, with more pixels you have more sampling data (oh, and you can always downsize the images).
That is why every new camera can have more pixels yet improve results at high ISOs… providing the sensor size is the same. Just look for example at how Nikon DX cameras have progressed: 6 MP -> 10 MP -> 12 MP -> 16 MP. Or look at the latest Olympus, the 16 MP EM-5, compared with say, the old 5 MP E-1 (sane sensor size). Those with 16 MP now give better results that those with 6 or 5 MP back them, so up to a limit, that we are far from, the problem is not the number of pixels.
Caterpillar
9 months ago |That is a common mistake many make with this camera. Even more so when not accounting for the relatively large size of a 1″ vs 1/2.33″. 1″ is really big compared to a 1/2.33″ sensor or even 1/1.7″. It’s like the difference between a 35ff and a 4/3. Just about.
Making the RX100 12-14mp is not going to give it a higher ISO performance. At most maybe you get a 1/2 or 2/3″ stop advantage. If you look at it’s ISO 3200, it’s pretty good. Of course, you probably will not print any 8×10′s on those, but 4×5, even 5×7, as long as you don’t have many deep shadows will stand up pretty well. If you were talking of 1/1.7″ sensor, yes, making it 12 or 14mp does affect low light performance. But at 1″, that’ pretty big. If you look at dpreview’s graphic representation of how big 1″ vs 1/1.7″ or 1/2.3″ you’ll understand why the RX100 holds up well. It is really a large sensor relative to the small ones. It is closer to the 4/3 and aps-c than most than what most are thinking which are the smaller sensors.
20mp is just all right for the rx100. You get the benefits of a high pixel count, and low light. A good balance. Add that the size, and good video, etc and that is why the RX100 is a slam dunk winner. As far as pixel count goes, 20mp is as good as it goes. Making it less will not improve low light performance by a margin.
Matt
9 months ago |I believe it didn’t get gold mostly due to price, that not being a factor it would have easily achieved gold.
Rooru S.
9 months ago |It didn’t get gold because DPR is a little biased.. For example, they posted many Canon Video cameras news there, and when Sony released a video camera, no news, no note, no nothing. They’re biased.
passer-by
9 months ago |Agree, price is a bit high.
ArnikFFM
9 months ago |They tried hard to get the rating down!
Which pocket size has …..
… built-in ND filters (many DSLRs don’t)
… has RAW at all, never mind internal conversion
… have screw-on filters
Besides they may have overlooked the menu-setting of the LCD screen for sunlight ….
There are also magnetic filters avail – more to come ….
Battery chargers will be available soon ….
They just did not want to issue a Gold-Award to Sony!
Dirk
9 months ago |Neither sites are unbiased at all. Why no Gold award – I give a damn.
Mostly because they are a little bit Canon oriented…
What’s ok for DPR is most of the testing although it is mostly laboratory condition they’re testing…
Regarding missing ND or Sony own adapter – they’re objectively correct. If you wanna go with large aperture in bright light you’re indeed limited.
But to be honest – if I want to play with shallow DOF I just take my a900 or a77.
And as Arnik mentioned they seemingly did not use the screen option for sunlight. For me its sufficient.
I personally don’t like two things with my RX100:
It is steep not to give a batterie charging cradle for such price (and the in-camera connection is somewhat annoying fiddly…)
Secondly, and I don’t mention this do to SDOF wishes, I’d be more happy with a min. shutter speed of 1/4000s.
Dair
9 months ago |I’m not an expert but:
built-in ND … Olympus XZ-1 (cca 300 USD!), Fujifilm X10 and others
has RAW at all, never mind internal conversion … Oly XZ-1, Fujifilm X10 and others (including the in camera conversion)
have screw-on filters … Fuji X10, X100 (don’t know about XZ-1) and probably others (usually via adapters)
Last 10 dpreview goldens:
Sony SLT A65 – golden award
Sony NEX 7 – golden award
Sony NEX 5N – golden award
… does not seem terribly biassed against Sony.
Every review is always subjective but I prefer the critical ones. Better than “i won’t criticise cause you pay the adds on my site” type of reviews… RX100′s review was very positive and the score pretty high.
Dair
9 months ago |this was a repply for ArnikFFM
Pablo
9 months ago |Hmmm. Just saw the samples on the comparometer. When compared to the Oly XZ-1, the pixel level sharpness is really crappy. They should’ve made it 16 or 12 – 10 MPIX rather than 20.
Yes, the sensor performance is nice in terms of ISO noise and DR, but… Sorry… its just not for me. I like SHARPNESS much more than a huge load of interpolated soft pixels. I like good optics more than just OK optics. And seems that this is not the case. A pity for the good sensor…
Gadge
9 months ago |Ahahaha the silver award, now we get hear all the whining “why no gold?” what bunch of chumps!
travelshots
9 months ago |I already wrote it at Dpreview:
I don’t agree with Dpreview’s complaints about the clickless front wheel. This is perfect for focus and zoom operation. If you assign other functions to the front wheel, you still have the display to control the values. If you want to have clicks, simply use the back wheel. I am very satisfied (in practice) with Sony’s design decision and would hate if Sony would have built the camera the way Dpreview obviously likes.
According display in sunlight: Did you turn the display to sunny mode (not automatic)? In sunny mode the display is much brighter and I haven’t encountered any situation when I could not use the display (in opposite to previous compacts I have had).
By the way: If there is any Sony camera (including DSLRs and SLTs) that deservs a gold medal, it is RX100.
Joe
9 months ago |FYI, Digitalrev just released a RX100 review, very good remarks. No negatives other than possibly the cost.
ronin
9 months ago |Dpreview presented as a ‘con’ the fact that the Nikon P7100 had a smallish and partially accurate optical viewfinder.
To be consistent dpreview should have presented a ‘pro’ to the RX100 that it has no optical viewfinder, or else a ‘con’ that it has no optical viewfinder.
But that would be to expect consistency from a dpreview.