Sony How would you best describe the Rx100's IQ?

eye2i

New Member
Aug 28, 2013
3
Hi guys! I'm fairly new in this forum. I had a Sony RX1 but due to practicality and budget, I had to let that amazing camera go. I love everything about that camera, particularly the colors, contrast of the image. I want to get another Sony system and the RX100 is really appealing based on features, size and cost.


I'm just curious about its IQ, how would you guys rate the RX100? Is it similar to most APS-C sensor DSLR's or better? How about to a Fuji X100?

Thanks,
 

Yeats

All-Pro
Jul 31, 2012
123
New Jersey, USA
Chris
The RX100 is great for a compact, but not up to current APS-C standards. Modern m4/3 cameras beat it, too.

Of course, none of that means you can't take great photos, because the camera is clearly capable of that.
 

lenshoarder

Veteran
Mar 7, 2012
43
Take a NEX and subtract 2 stops of ISO performance. Or take a Sony sensored M43 camera and subtract 1 stop of ISO performance. I consider it the equal of a modern Panasonic sensored M43 camera.
 

retow

All-Pro
Jul 24, 2010
123
Take a NEX and subtract 2 stops of ISO performance. Or take a Sony sensored M43 camera and subtract 1 stop of ISO performance. I consider it the equal of a modern Panasonic sensored M43 camera.
Having owned the NEX 7 and now the RX100II, I`d say the small one beats its older sibling. And compared to NEX with a newer sensor I`d be surprised if it was really 2 full stops of a difference. For using the full potential of the RX100II raw format shooting is necessary.
 

porchard

Veteran
Feb 3, 2013
43
Devon, UK
I'm just curious about its IQ, how would you guys rate the RX100? Is it similar to most APS-C sensor DSLR's or better? How about to a Fuji X100?
I have both, and I find that the RX100's output is surprisingly close to the x100. In some conditions, it is amazingly close to the x100. I would say that, particularly if pixel-peeping, the x100 does have 'better' IQ, but in practice, it really depends on which aspects of IQ you're looking at (DoF, sharpness, colour, etc.). Also, even if you prefer the output of the x100, the Fuji doesn't fit comfortably (or even UNcomfortably!) into a jeans pocket.

I'm not aware of any camera which matches the RX100's technical IQ, while offering the same degree of flexibility and compactness. It really is quite a feat of engineering.
 

Ray Sachs

Legend
Sep 21, 2010
123
Not too far from Philly
you should be able to figure it out...
Sony really packed an amazing amount into a VERY small package. It's lens has it's limitations (slow aperture as you move through the zoom range, a fair amount of distortion, though pretty well corrected) and it's interface is a matter of taste (I didn't like it and I'm not alone, but many do just fine with it), but it's sensor is really pretty incredible for its size, hitting far above it's weight. I'd say if you're ok with the interface and feel of the camera, you'll probably love it from an IQ standpoint as long as you're not too fussy about things like pixel peeping corner softness.

-Ray
 

serhan

All-Pro
May 7, 2011
124
NYC
I like it as it fits into my pocket so it goes everywhere. Sensor IQ is very good, as said better then/similar to older generation Panasonic sensor. I used it last year for street shooting with no problems. As Ray said it is well corrected lens, on the wide side -11.2% correction which stretches the corners:

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=pl&tl=en&u=http://www.optyczne.pl/193.1-Test_aparatu-Sony_DSC-RX100.html

Min shutter speed is 1/30 sec which causes motion blur to people walking but IS is good enough to keep it mostly steady. AF is fast even at night, however start up time is slow due to huge lens. There is no competition as a P&S zoom so far but if you are OK with 28mm, Ricoh GR or Nikon A might be a better choice, eg better sensor and better corrected lens and size wise more closer to RX100 and Fuji X100. Fuji X100 has the advantage of the nice viewfinder and a faster apsc lens.
 

porchard

Veteran
Feb 3, 2013
43
Devon, UK
I would echo Ray's comments above, particularly with regard to the slow aperture at longer focal lengths. If this had been improved in the MkII, no doubt I would have been very tempted.

Regarding the interface... I did find it a little difficult at first. It took a little time to a get in tune with it, but now I find it perfectly useable. Yes, it could be better, but it's certainly not a major stumbling block for me.
 

theoldsmithy

Hall of Famer
Jan 7, 2013
124
Cheshire, England
Martin Connolly
I would echo Ray's comments above, particularly with regard to the slow aperture at longer focal lengths. If this had been improved in the MkII, no doubt I would have been very tempted.

Regarding the interface... I did find it a little difficult at first. It took a little time to a get in tune with it, but now I find it perfectly useable. Yes, it could be better, but it's certainly not a major stumbling block for me.
It's not perfect, but the UI is a massive improvement on the NEX menus.
Having looked at my photos from Portugal, as usual the vast majority were taken at 28mm. But having the option for a bit of zoom makes this a very, very good travel cam.
 

porchard

Veteran
Feb 3, 2013
43
Devon, UK
It's not perfect, but the UI is a massive improvement on the NEX menus.
Having not used the NEX cameras (well, I handled a NEX-6 for about two minutes, in a shop, some time ago), I'm unable to make the comparison - so I'll take your word for it, with regard to the NEX UI. :)

Having looked at my photos from Portugal, as usual the vast majority were taken at 28mm. But having the option for a bit of zoom makes this a very, very good travel cam.
I tend to use the 28-50mm (equiv.) range a lot - mainly, of course, because I like this range, but also because of the dwindling aperture speed at the longer end.
 

lenshoarder

Veteran
Mar 7, 2012
43
At low ISO, yes. Once you get past 400 or so the difference becomes more noticeable. I'd actually give the low-ISO edge to the RX100, those older Panasonic sensors struggled with dynamic range.
I thought we were talking about the latest Panasonic sensors. Compared to the older Panasonic M43 sensors the RX100 devastates, particularly at high ISO. Those older Panasonic sensors are not very good by current standards.
 

Yeats

All-Pro
Jul 31, 2012
123
New Jersey, USA
Chris
I thought we were talking about the latest Panasonic sensors. Compared to the older Panasonic M43 sensors the RX100 devastates, particularly at high ISO. Those older Panasonic sensors are not very good by current standards.
Well, if "we were talking about the latest Panasonic sensors", I haven't seen enough of the GX7 to make a determination, although I'd bet it handily outguns the RX100's, especially at higher ISO. Heck, my little Oly EPM2, at 1/2 the price of the RX100, has better IQ... but you'd have to get a pancake to make it pocketable, and even then it wouldn't be nearly as such compared with the Sony.

I did say "older", like prev-gen Panny sensors.
 

lenshoarder

Veteran
Mar 7, 2012
43
Well, if "we were talking about the latest Panasonic sensors", I haven't seen enough of the GX7 to make a determination, although I'd bet it handily outguns the RX100's, especially at higher ISO. Heck, my little Oly EPM2, at 1/2 the price of the RX100, has better IQ... but you'd have to get a pancake to make it pocketable, and even then it wouldn't be nearly as such compared with the Sony.

I did say "older", like prev-gen Panny sensors.
I thought we were talking about Panasonic sensors. The Olympus E-PM2 uses a Sony sensor. I posted earlier that Sony sensored M43 cameras have a 1 stop advantage on the RX100. Otherwise, they are very similar with the RX100 having the advantage in resolution. DR wise the Sony sensored M43 cameras, like the E-PM2, and the RX100 are a wash.
 

Latest posts

Latest threads

Top Bottom