David Pogue (NYT) about the RX100: “No photos this good have ever come from a camera this small.”
Picture from CNET.
David Pogue from the New York Times (Click here) really likes the new Sony RX100 and writes: “And if you care at all about your photography, you’ll thank Sony for giving the camera industry a good hard shove into the future.“. I know David for a long time and I dont’ remember another such positive review of a camera!
RX100 Preorders at Amazon US, Adorama, BHphoto, Amazon Germany, Amazon France and Jessops.
Thanks OneGuy
jon
11 months ago |second!!
passer-by
11 months ago |Who’s first?
Sky_walker
11 months ago |I guess he just always feels a second-class citizen.
Richard Saunders
11 months ago |Nice but I’ll be getting a Nokia 808 PureView. Not perfect but impressive image quality (http://www.gsmarena.com/nokia_808_pureview-review-776p6.php just one of many comparisons where it holds up to more serious cameras) and as a phone it is something I’ll actually carry with me all the time.
Some people aren’t willing to live with Symbian, but tech like this will make its way to other phones; the days of dedicated compact cameras are numbered…
commsbloke
11 months ago |“You’ll appreciate that the RX100 has single-handedly smashed the rule that said, “You need a big camera for pro-quality photos.””
I believe that Victor Blackman said something very similar about the Olympus XA around 35 years ago.
Carl
11 months ago |Though the XA’s lens really isn’t as good as the rose coloured glasses of nostalgia might make it appear.
Chad
11 months ago |Funny, I was just looking at some of my XA scans this morning and you are correct, BUT the fact that they are on slide film and “FF” adds a dimension that just destroys anything digital from a similar sized camera.
commsbloke
11 months ago |The biggest problem, he wrote in his AP column, was that the people he was taking pictures of didn’t believe that a pro would be using such a small camera.
Ray oody
11 months ago |well.. lets just hope it really comes out on July 16 as bhphoto promises !!.. I have a vacation in early Aug. I really need that little camera with me !!!
Frank
11 months ago |Too expensive for me. Take a couple of hundred off it and I’d be tempted.
Vincent
11 months ago |Yeah me too. ridiculously expensive.
Poki
11 months ago |The price is just about right for what i it is. Especially compared to sth like the PowerShot G12.
RVN
11 months ago |it’s so damm expensive if you compare with XZ-1.
damm you sony, if you add build in ND filter, Bulb, macro and super macro mode like xz-1 , and hot shoe on this camera rx100 it will worthed to buy
Zstan
11 months ago |I love it when people compare prices of new cameras to those that are already more than 6 months old.
Amir Kh
11 months ago |RX100 will be crap if you add all these things (and keep 1″ sensor). It will be as big (or close enough) to G1X and just another crappy large camera.
What makes RX100 special is that’s S100 size with much larger sensor.
No thanks RVN
Vlad
11 months ago |@Amir Kh
Seriously? And how exactly a bulb mode or a hot shoe will make it as big as the G1x?
Boooe
11 months ago |@RVN
@Vlad
ND filter would eat space from the lens, “macro and super macro mode” would make lens much larger
both of that would make camera larger without anything useful to 95% of users. and 98% won’t ever think about a hotshoe.
but if you need one, you can attach external ND filter or macro adaptor.
That’s isn’t a camera for studio work.
Vlad
11 months ago |@Boooe
ND filter will hardly eat that much space, the Canon S100 has one. About the macro, I would tend to agree. Bulb mode and hot shoe, still don’t see a problem at all. Nobody says it needs to be a studio camera, but I also don’t see a reason not to add these features, especially bulb.
Am I being picky? Yes.
Robert Bell
11 months ago |Amir what are you on about? The g1x is massive! its the size of an entry level slr but with a shit viewfinder. Sony are about 5yrs ahead of Canon sensors. This 1″ sensor will probably match any canon aps-c iso performance.
Sahaja
11 months ago |@RVN
No macro?
It focuses to 2in. This may not be 1:1 – but it’s pretty close.
http://www.nytimes.com/slideshow/2012/06/28/technology/personaltech/20120628-pogue-2.html
RVN
11 months ago |@Zstan: don’t forget XZ-1 when first time come is really cheap price, about $350
@amir & BOE : xz-1 add those feature and the camera is still little pocket-able like rx100 so rx100 should can do that. all that feature i said is really use for any situation photography. with hot shoe you can use attach alternatif flash, trigger, viewfinder OLED EVL like XZ-1 concept. add build in macro n super macro like XZ-1 and X10 don’t make the lens bigger. with ND filter you can use that in the sunny day. how can you add something like ND filter or macro adapter on that lens? O_o use Scotch tape or rubber clamps? thats funny for camera price $640
damm sony, if sony add those thing i said before, i will buy this camera without thinking..
Pablo
11 months ago |A nice camera with a good sensor, but I have to pass.
Too expensive for me. I’ll stick to my XZ-1 as the pocketable quality camera solution. Besides that, when I don’t mind carrying the camera bag, its the 5N with some lenses…
For some 300 euro maximum, I would like to get the RX100. But not for more!< (I bought the XZ-1 used for 250 EURo…)
Sky_walker
11 months ago |So you bought used 10 MPx 1/1.63″ sensor compact for 250 euro and now you expect brand new 20 MPx 1″ sensor compact for 300 euro?
lol
Throw in free ice-creams and ‘ll get one with you.
RVN
11 months ago |xz-1 new is $350 man, with many use feature than rx100 in a half price, rx100 is over price if you compare with XZ-1
Sky_walker
11 months ago |Let’s not forget it works in both ways – RX100 got features XZ-1 doesn’t include in it’s own half of the RX price. Photo and video quality hitting headlines.
RVN
11 months ago |RX100 good in video quality and LCD resolution, but on image photo quality i think both camera is not difference, maybe just little. but for feature i think XZ-1 have advantage with hot shoe (can use EVL), Macro n super Macro mode lens, build in ND filter in the half price.
Amir Kh
11 months ago |XZ-1 MSRP price at launch date was $500. RX100 at $650 launch price is just about fair.
Vlad
11 months ago |+1
RVN
11 months ago |+1000000000000000
Laan
11 months ago |Any news on the pancake zoom? I am thinking of getting the zoom, OR the RX100..
I guess price will be similar.
crazydoctor
11 months ago |a very pocketable and nice looking camera. I’m sticking with my nex 7 for the moment. I miss sometimes my canon s95 for its size so maybe i ll buy this sony. Can’t wait for serious reviews on this camera.
Rooru S.
11 months ago |many people saying this camera is expensive…pffff they all compared cameras with lower sensor size, while the functionality and the lens in the RX100 seems to be quite acceptable for such a sensor and packed in a tiny body. The price to me seems to be about right. Maybe 50 USD it’s all I would cut from the original price to make it appealing, but the current price tag is good to me.
AtlDave
11 months ago |+.5
I pretty much agree but think the larger sensor should add about $100 compared to other premium compacts when they were first introduced. That would make the price about $500-$550.
For right now I think the price is OK since the camera really has no competition at this time. When other companies start selling similar cameras I expect the price to settle down to around $500. If Sony can sell all the RX100s they can make for the next few months the price is not too high. I would rather see Sony make a high profit margin as a reward for developing this camera than see it go to people that preorder several cameras just to scalp them on Ebay.
I am happy enough with the cameras I have now to wait until after Photokina to decide if I want to replace my S95 with the RX100, buy some as yet unannounced premium compact with the same size sensor or buy the 16-50mm lens for my NEX-5N. There are going to be a lot more options 6 months from now.
NEXfive
11 months ago |As much as I want to like this extremely beautiful camera as less I know what to do with it.
Usually I skip all cameras not offering a 24mm equivalent or wider, but at least f/1.8 sounds impressive – well, but at the long end, where one would really need that it’s f/4.9 only. So the main advantage seems to get much better image quality than with a cell phone, which means a camera to carry around in situations, where a NEX would be too much.
If the image stabilisation is as good as the HX9V/HX10V/HX20V or even better the RX100 might replace these for filming, especially since it offers 50p or 60p SlowMo.
But worst of all is the Megapixelrace again as if this wouldn’t cause diffraction problems on stopping down or 14, 16 or 18 Megapixels would heave brought an even better low light behaviour than 20. I’ll wait for advanced tests if this sensor does not challenge the lens like this problem occurs with the NEX-7…
Boooe
11 months ago |your statement about low light is just a fantasy.
NEX-7 sensor is just a DSLR sensor sticked into a mirrorless body. In RX100 sensor and lens were designed to work together so no problems here.
NEXfive
11 months ago |Well, 20 Megapixels on an one inch sensor against 16 or 18 Megapixels on APS-C is a big difference when it comes to low light and high ISO conditions. Blaming everything you don’t understand as a fantasy isn’t a trustworthy opinion and therefore I’m waiting for serious tests…
Steve Jones
11 months ago |“But worst of all is the Megapixelrace again as if this wouldn’t cause diffraction problems on stopping down or 14, 16 or 18 Megapixels would heave brought an even better low light behaviour than 20.”
A complete misunderstanding. High megapixel cameras do not cause diffraction problems. The diffraction is already there, as it’s simply a function of the aperture. Yes, that means that if you want the absolute highest resolution that the higher MP sensor offers, then you do need a slightly wider apperture. However, at no point will the higher MP sensor produce less resolution at than a lower MP one. However, the higher MP sensor will (lens allowing) outresolve the lower MP one at wider appertures.
Also low light performance is not significantly adversely affected by higher MP counts when using commong output sizes using sensors of similar technology. The primary issue is the sensor size. Of course if you compare at the native pixel level, then there will eb a difference – but then that’s equivalent to seeing a proportionately larger oputput size.
NEXfive
11 months ago |You’re aggressively creating misunderstandings yourself mate.
Of course diffraction starts at faster apertures the more pixels are compressed on the same sensor size, so you can’t stop down that much. That’s a simple fact – don’t give me your boring Vicky-Pollard-No-but-yeah, please. Same way you’re not really contradicting that e.g. 16MP with the same sensor size would bring a better low light and high ISO behaviour than 20MP, you’re simply trying to confuse saying nothing or simply rubbish like the primary issue would be the sensor size, when it is the pixel size itself.
Instead of celebrating your snottiness have you ever tried to understand somebody yourself?
Steve Jones
11 months ago |@NEXfive
Diffraction is manifestly nothing to do with the sensor. It’s purely a function of the aperture size (as a proportion of the focal length). Of course you won’t actually see the diffraction if there is insufficient resolution on the sensor, but the image from a higher MP sensor will always have at least as good resolution at the same F-stop, and usually it will be higher. Also, diffraction is not an all or nothing thing. It doesn’t suddenly arrive and cut off resolution at a certain level – it just gradually blurs, contrast on the finest detail starts to deteriorate. The higher MP camera at the margin will still resolve a bit more. So, yes, stop a 20MP camera down to F22 and you wuill not get all the resolution. But it will still be at least as high as (say) a 10MP sensor will achieve at the same stop.
My qualifications? A degree from this faculty – optics, information physics and semiconductor physics being appropriate to the the subject matter.
http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/physics
NEXfive
11 months ago |Diffraction has nothing to do with the sensor? And not with the resolution either? And you’re qualified to talk about that? Whow, so you’ve made career with aggressive snottiness instead of convincing arguments.
The main thing I’m talking about here is the only interesting aspect, when diffraction becomes visible on a picture. Of course depending on sensor size for every aperture there’s a resolution, when diffraction becomes visible. Nothing else is interesting here, and that’s what I’m talking about, while you’re contradicting with banalities. Even an advanced Diffraction Limit Calculator includes the Megapixels for calculating, so go out to argue there against their calculator instead of annoying me:
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/diffraction-photography.htm/
…or go on whining “complete misunderstanding” while only pretending to argue against one single argument when there were more of them – I don’t care, since I’m bored of you anyway. Good night.
Steve Jones
11 months ago |@NEXfive
Yup – I’m fully familiar with that Cambridgein Colour article, and unlike you I understand it. All it says is that at a sufficiently small aperture you gain no extra resolution from a higher MP camera. Exactly what I said. It also specifically states that diffraction is due to the aperture size relative to the focal length.
So, as I say, you won’t get a higher resolution picture at, say f16 or f22 using a 20MP camera versus a 10MP one of the same sensor size. However, it won’t be worse.
Perhaps you ought to read this verbatim extract :-
“Are smaller pixels somehow worse? Not necessarily. Just because the diffraction limit has been reached (with large pixels) does not necessarily mean an image is any worse than if smaller pixels had been used (and the limit was surpassed); both scenarios still have the same total resolution (even though the smaller pixels produce a larger file). On the other hand, when other factors such as noise and dynamic range are considered, the “small vs. large” pixels debate becomes more complicated…”
See it says “oth scenarios still have the same total resolution”.
Note the reduced DR noise issue is more complicated because, if you take common output size with a sensors of similar technology results tend to be very close. However, that’s nothing to do with aperture sizes or difraction.
No, Steve Jones
11 months ago |No, Steve Jones, by celebrating just your snottiness you understood NOTHING at all:
From a complex summary of aspects making me wait for serious tests, you picked out only one single and also quite minor aspect, that made you think you could win a fight, but for somebody claiming to be an expert your explanations are crap and your nothing but an pseudo-intellectual Vicky Pollard opening with a dramatic “No”, having to qualify your statements afterwards with of-courses usually proofing my statement right you’re pretending to argue against. But with all that crap you’ll never come to that point, where I already started, the reason why I’m waiting for serious reviews. You’ll never come to the all-aspects-in-one-addition: The Image Output.
And by the way: Nevertheless I understood diffraction as much as necessary to take photos and I think even a little more, possibly only to keep demagogues like you from arguing against stuff I never really said, I might have reason to improve my abilities to communicate this topic, but you’ve got nothing to learn from.
Sahaja
11 months ago |Steve is right. Diffraction has to to with the lens and its aperture.
You can put a piece of paper, a ground glass, a sheet of film, or a sensor of any number of mp behind that lens and diffraction sets in at the same point. The only thing higher resolution film or a higher mp sensor will do is resolve the effects of that diffraction better – along with resolving the overall image better too. A lower mp sensor will just mask (or blur) the diffraction more.
If you down sample a 20mp image to 10mp you won’t see any more diffraction than if you took the shot with a 10mp sensor in the first place.
NEXfive
11 months ago |Sahaja, of course diffraction is depending on the aperture – nobody doubted that here – but that’s why the maximal resolution is limited and lots of megapixels don’t make sense any more when stopping down, because they can’t show more details. This won’t cause much problems on the RX100′s wide end except a possible need of ND filters, but for the long end starting at f/4.9 I’m looking forward to serious reviews about stop-down behaviour, especially since diffraction is only one of many factors to Image Quality…
sergei
11 months ago |Give everyone a break. Print shots of the same size from both low and high MP cameras (with the same sensor size) and honestly tell me that you can tell there’s more noise or diffraction on the higher MP camera. But you CAN print bigger with higher mp camera and SEE MORE resolution.
NEXfive
11 months ago |I don’t have to give a break, since there’s one anyway until serious reviews will tell, when diffractions becomes visible and when it gets annoying, while I simply said I’m waiting for them while checking other aspects of this camera’s advantages for my personal use. You’ve got to ask Steve Jones, who only picked the diffraction aspect, for not filling this break with stupid fights.
usch
11 months ago |I must admit I am still tempted … but with the NEX-7 having just arrived and the A8x/A9x coming up next I’ll better skip this one. Three new cameras within one year would be a bit too much, even at my rate.
kevin
11 months ago |I was tempted by nex. but purposely I just need a big sensor and tiny body camera for easy walk around. nex with current lens line up still seems too much for me. so rx100 would be the beauty i want.
Matt
11 months ago |When these are available im 99% certain it will replace all of my mirror less cameras.
James
11 months ago |Strange that some of David Pogue’s photos in his RX100 gallery say “Sony F3″ in the EXIF info…
Mando
11 months ago |Just bought the A77 in January and love it. But really would like the RX100 to keep with me at all times. I am afraid I feel a divorce coming on.
AG
11 months ago |David’s review is spot on. He’s a good guy. Although its not in my budget for now as I have many “high-end” pocket cameras. Are the rumors of larger sensor xz-2 and lx-6 substantiated?
Rob
11 months ago |Steve
11 months ago |Taking a long nap?
Kylberg
11 months ago |The RX 100 is the first of a new level of compact cameras. Will be interesting to see IQ comparisons to Nikon 1. Same size sensor but 10 vs 20 mpix.
Who else will present 1″ compacts up to Photokina?
This is a type of camera I will buy!
E
11 months ago |Thinking in the same lines, how will this affect Nikon 1 sales?
How many “1″ buyers see removable lenses as a “pro”, and are willing to pay for it?
And what happens when more 1″ compacts arrives?
/E
Steve
11 months ago |The only real advantage for the Nikon 1 is PDAF. I have always said the 1″ sensor size was really made for a fixed lens camera.
Alpha Mark
11 months ago |How is this camera compare to NEX5n with kit lens?…they are similar pricing.
Ray oody
11 months ago |Image quality with the 5n is way better even with kitlens. But it’s not as pocketable as the RX100. It’s the same delimma i have now.. I want something to slip into my pocket and yet take amazing pictures. And RX100 is the most pocketable among them !!.
Bryan
11 months ago |At its price tag, I have to pass. By comparison, it’s not interesting at all.
lulu
11 months ago |hilarious: words words words and not a single photo to make his point
)))))))
Robert Bell
11 months ago |The retail price is comparable to all the other compacts mentioned above when launched. This will be priced in-line with the fuji x10 and g12 in a cople of months.
Sahaja
11 months ago |For it’s size, the camera is very expensive – but for what it delivers in such a small package, only a bit expensive.
When any new camera or other new gadget that is way ahead of its competitors, like this is, comes out the manufacturer will charge as much as they can.
However the price on compact cameras always seems to come down pretty quickly. Wait till after Christmas and it will probably be a bargain.
Anyway both the lens and sensor in this camera will have cost a lot more to produce than those in smaller sensor compacts.
Andre
11 months ago |http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/00-new-today.htm
” Sony DSC-RX100
Orderable now, the new Sony DSC-RX-100 is a $650 point-and-shoot with a small 2.7x sensor, 10.4-37.1mm f/1.8-4.9 zoom and a 3″ OLED screen.
This sensor is much smaller than micro 4/3 or a DSLR, but bigger than most point-and-shoots.
Sony is deceptive when claiming a “1 inch” sensor. Its image area is only 8.8 x 13.2 millimeters (0.34″ x 0.52″), so where is the FTC when you need them to stop this baloney?
It’s probably a great point-and-shoot, but Sony is being deliberately deceptive by representing anything about its sensor as being “one inch.” The “one inch” baloney comes from the 1940s when television engineers specified image pick-up tubes by the outside diameters of the much, much larger vacuum tubes which held the much, much smaller imagers. There aren’t any tubes in the DSC-RX100.
If the DSC-RX100 has a one-inch sensor, then I’m 18 feet tall.”