The Online Photographer

With a name starting with RX this device could well be a doctor's prescription.

Mind not having a viewfinder could be a problem on bright sunny days, as
Mike has suggested.

QUOTE It has a 1"-size sensor (8.8x13.2 mm) UNQUOTE

If the 1" designation means one inch, how can the sensor size be described so if its size is 8.8x13.2 mm?

So, basically, some of us were looking for more substance than was really there -- more than we should have expected, really, given the source. He was making a big deal and acting secretive about a product that had already been announced, and acting like it was going to be an incredible breakthrough when it's really just a small-sensor digicam that's better than most.

I like the Freudian undertones in your remarks on the Nikon CX cameras: "to woo... female(s)... without going 'all the way'..."

On a somewhat off-topic note, I think it would've been better phrased as "(mostly female) non-enthusiasts" than the other way around, to avoid any unfortunate implication.

Anyways, one thing you didn't mention is that the camera is just so... sexy. Subjective, I know, but it has always amazed me how Sony can make cameras that look classical and modern at the same time, something I also saw in the NEX-7 and A77. Sure, most of it is borrowed from the Canon S100, but there's myriad of differences in the details and in design, details do matter.

Christer and Andrew,
See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_sensor_format#Table_of_sensor_formats_and_sizes

Mike

Just ordered my RX100 through your site to B&H. I like my NEX7 so much that I want this for my shirt or coat pocket camera. The NEX7 and this new camera are the first cameras I have purchased sight unseen in my 50 years of being a equipment geek. I like Sony cameras and trust B&H to take it back if I feel differently upon handling and using this new model. Great Web Site Mike, keep up the great work. Don

I'd wish they give up the sensor type size that makes absolutely no sense and difficult to compare between them. A much better measure would simply be the surface in mm². Ex: 220mm². A good analogy is a car cylinder.

Otherwise the RX100 doesn't interest me too much. No EVF no buy. I'm getting old and I don't want to wear glasses just to take a picture.

And in a way they could make an even smaller camera with an EVF and a 2" LCD. The giant back LCD wouldn't be needed anymore and that would leave more space for real controls.

This is what this sensor size makes sense for IMHO. The Nikon J1/V1 don't make sense to me, the RX100 does.

Can I infer from this that Sony thinks like me, or that I think like Sony?

And are either of these options something I should brag about?

Will I retire my Canon S90 in favour of the RX100? Maybe that's the next mystery TOP readers can solve.

I grabbed my chest when I wrote the check for my S95 and now this comes along for $250 more?
For that kind of dough I could buy a D3200, dust off my bag of pre AI nikkors and have all kinds of sick fun.

From the Wikipedia article: "David Pogue of the New York Times states that "the actual sensor size is much smaller than what the camera companies publish – about one-third smaller"."

It's a guy thing.

Clearly, there are at least two camps on LCDs and direct sunlight.

I am more than content with LCD alone, if it is well done. I would be happier with my Canon G11 without the extra size, weight and cost of the optical viewfinder. I'd guess I've looked through it maybe 3 or 4 times in over three years of regular use, just for curiosity. I don't recall using it to take a shot. Mostly, I simply forget it is there. Of course, the articulated screen makes finding a good angle easier.

In my experience and testing, the fixed LCD of the S100 is visible enough to easily see and frame the shot, with brightness turned up, at any angle but where the sun reflects directly off the surface of the protective cover. Then, the shade of my hand makes it work fine. It only takes one hand to take a shot with it, especially in bright sun, with the resultant high shutter speeds.

Obviously, there are those whose less than first rate vision will make an optical viewfinder of EVF necessary, or who will simply prefer them. I am bothered by those who complain about the need to hold an LCD at arm's length. That is a reflection of individual vision. Young people, with flexible lenses in their eyes, have no such problem. Old folks like me with good varifocal glasses shouldn't have a problem with holding them closer. Other folks like me with nearsightedness in their viewing eye can look over or under their glasses and see the LCD clearly very close up.

To generalize about LCD problems in the sun is too simplistic, and may mislead those who would be more than happy without other means of viewing/framing. To so comment, without qualification, starts to slip into the common reviewer's trap of falling back on a list of standard features, without consideration of their details and how they relate to the overall intent and usefulness of the camera.

An S100 with optical or EVF viewfinder would simply lose some of its most attractive qualities. The same is likely true of the RX100

Moose

"To generalize about LCD problems in the sun is too simplistic, and may mislead those who would be more than happy without other means of viewing/framing."

Moose,
So you think the sentence "I've never seen the camera, and haven't used it, but it will have no EVF available (significant because viewing-screen-only viewfinding can be tough in bright sunlight)" needs still more qualification? That people can't deduce for themselves from that that the lack of an EVF only MIGHT be a problem?

Mike

Big build-up, lousy finish. But then if you're only trying to woo unenthusiastic females, then Bob's your uncle I guess.
Personally, as a female, I've become very enthusiastic about the Olympus OM-D just from reading your posts and the enticing comments from so many other readers.
Haven't taken a bite of that apple yet, but tempting, very tempting.
I'll take Mike Johnston and TOP readers' comments over Pogue any day as far as camera gear goes.

Those advanced compacts may be designed for "non-enthusiast females" but end up serving mainly enthusiast males (at least in Europe and North America they do). What a tragedy.

To Mike,

I was the way you stated it.

I would be very attracted to that RX100 if I was not already a Canon Powershot S Zen Master with my S95. The S90, and now the S95, has been my pocket camera since 2009. Because I call upon it to do damn near anything, usually unexpectedly, I devoted myself to really mastering its usage and attributes. This devotion has really paid dividends over the years. Today a significant number of the images I prize most highly would not exist if I'd not invested to time to master that terrific little camera.

So the Sony may have a bigger sensor in a similarly-sized package but I am not remotely tempted to jump on a new pocket platform without much more extraordinary provocation. (Gee, sounds like a statement that could easily be re-purposed with minor edits,eh?)

By the way, as someone who has roundly criticized Sony for the really poor menu system on NEX (I dislike using my NEX-5 except in Auto mode) I was encouraged to see that Sony ditched that menu system and went to one similar to that used on the SLTs (my newest Sony, other than a compact, is the A700, but I've tried a couple of SLT models and find the menu systems similar and still quite good). And they've apparently made it quite customizable. It appears that either (a) Sony thinks more highly of RX100 buyers than NEX buyers or (b) they're finally listening to the criticism and maybe we'll see them dump the cell phone menu from NEX in the future. (Now if only they'd add the ability to set ISO to Auto in M mode).

Dear Emmanuel,

I totally agree that the old video tube definitions are confusing in the extreme, which is why I never put them in my articles, but only refer to sensor linear dimension-- usually as scaled relative to full-frame 35mm, i.e., this is a 1/3-scale sensor.

This doesn't require extreme precision-- nobody really needs to know if it's 1/3.2 or 1/2.8 scale.

Describing sensors in terms of their areal dimension, though, is a bad idea because almost all metrics of image quality scale with the linear dimension, not the area. Using area as a measure exaggerates differences in a misleading way.

Regardless, I promise that you will never, ever see me referring to a '1"' or whatever sensor unless its physical dimension is 1". Should I fail to keep that promise, you have permission to bludgeon me severely.

pax / Ctein

Dpreview has published a preview of the RX100. Sample images are astonishingly poor even by Dpreview standards (where the photographer not the camera often comes up short), and they were made with a production model. The sample images appear uncharacteristically low in contrast and color saturation for typical Sony jpeg rendering aimpoints, and after taking a couple of files into PS5 to try additional color and tone corrections, I concluded the files need a lot of PP work to get even close to being OK on color and tone quality. Maybe RAW files will be a better starting point from this camera. Additionally, for a 20MP camera, fine details are real mush, so all in all, the hype on this new camera far exceeds the reality of the output quality as far as I can tell.

On the 1 inch sensor thing - I wish all of the camera companies would just dispense with all of that old time CCD referencing and just state dimensions in mm. That way anyone who actually would dare venture to a spec sheet could see what pieces of crap some of the point & shoots really are.

For this Sony, may be nice for my parents, but no hot shoe or sync terminal is an automatic lose for me. On the point & pray cameras, while I may not use them often, I do use them.

@ Jeff Wilson: "The Canon S95 becomes useless with sunlight falling on the screen."

Ah, you are but a grasshopper my son. You must learn to see what you cannot see.
-- S95 Z-Master

Ken the Zen Master,

I heartily agree. I am in the process of reaching for that state with my S100.

I don't know if this would be true of the different sensor and processor of the S95, but I have found that Focus Magic appears to have been made especially for the S100. Out Of Focus correction, radius two, even on the most perfectly focused images, is like a magic window cleaner, clarifying detail without side effects.

Moose

I own the LX5 which takes good pictures but in the end it is not truly pocketable ... and this is with a sensor about 4x the size .... amazing! However my beef about the LX5 is taking a photo this way . no good for me I'm afraid. An OVF/EVf is not part of the from factor but an articulating screen could be and for me thats fine as photos from the waist feel comfortable , are more stable and remind me of DLR .... so i await for someone to provide me with one !!!

@Kenneth Tanaka: "Ah, you are but a grasshopper my son. You must learn to see what you cannot see."

That sounds suspiciously like an admission that you can't see the screen in full sunlight. No thanks, I'll use a DSLR in those circumstances.

Jeff

Even though I have an DSLR, a m43 system, and an X10, I've pre-ordered this camera obviously sight unseen. The sample images I've downloaded (not the DPReview images), but real RAW files from TechRadar, as well as the samples from Sony's Japan, almost look like they could have come from a DSLR. And as I've learned from my D800, Sony really is the king right now for sensor technology. I expect the RX100 to have typically good DR and color depth. And I shoot a lot of video, so the manual video at 1080 60p (Progressive) with hopefully image stabilization that's on par with their excellent HX9v. Love my X10, but it's almost a camera bag P&S, while the RX100 can go with me everywhere. Great blog, that I read often.

Almost forgot, for shielding and LCD, Delkin makes an excellent pop-up sun shade/screen protector that I used on my GRD and it works wonders. Cheers.