Sony RX100 II review

igvk

New Member
Jun 28, 2013
Here are enlarged crops from the Imaging Resource test images.
I see that the colors are somewhat different, and that too seems to make the image from mk2 softer.
Is this due to problems with BI sensor?
Possibly some sharpening or color correction could improve the image.

RX100:


RX100Mk2:


RX100:


RX100Mk2:
 

igvk

New Member
Jun 28, 2013
According to these test samples, the image from RX100Mk2 has lower dynamic range when captured at low ISO (and good lighting).
Also the colors are somewhat faded, and black text may be seen as somewhat reddish-grey.
Can anyone comment on this?
 

elandel

Regular
Sep 5, 2012
According form these test samples, the image from RX100Mk2 has lower dynamic range when captured at low ISO (and good lighting).
Also the colors are somewhat faded, and black text may be seen as somewhat reddish-grey.
Can anyone comment on this?
I should also like to understand this strange behaviour of this new sensor, if true.
 

nippa

Top Veteran
Aug 7, 2010
Cheshire UK
Dennis
Is this showing "crosstalk" where pixels bleed into each other - a feature of BSI sensors and the price you pay for higher sensitivity?
 

igvk

New Member
Jun 28, 2013
It could be crosstalk.
But does it make picture look not only less sharp, but also less saturated?
 

wt21

Hall of Famer
Aug 15, 2010
Decided today I'm going to get the mkII. I'll keep an eye on this IQ question, but if it's at least as good, the tilt screen, wifi, and magnetic filter ring will all be a nice upgrade.
 

elandel

Regular
Sep 5, 2012
Decided today I'm going to get the mkII. I'll keep an eye on this IQ question, but if it's at least as good, the tilt screen, wifi, and magnetic filter ring will all be a nice upgrade.
I also made that decision. I'm not in a hurry and can wait.
 

BBW

Legend
Jul 7, 2010
betwixt and between
BB
Well, I'll be very interested to hear your take on it. As I've been saying elsewhere, I'm really not in the market but that said the idea of a truly small camera with a useful lens and what appears to be great IQ plus the tilt screen and wifi...well, it is lookin' good. "Christmas is coming!" right?:daz:
 

jnewell

Regular
Jun 25, 2011
Looking at the detailed graphs the only real difference seems to be at ISO3200 and lower. Makes me feel better about staying with the mk1 :)
Yes, very much so. I took a look at their charts comparing the two sensors and really don't see much difference. If the other changes don't feel important, this doesn't seem like an important upgrade. Time will tell as more user feedback and, especially, photos start appearing.
 

wt21

Hall of Famer
Aug 15, 2010
Based on what I reviewed in the comparometer, it seems IQ differences are thus:

In JPG, the mkII has a much improved jpg engine getting out 11EVs in low ISO, whereas the mkI could only get out 9. That's a marked improvement, as I've been forced to shoot RAW in bright light, so I could get some of that headroom out.

In terms of clean ISO, the mkII is much better at high ISO than the mkI. That's marginally useful to me, as I generally shoot in good light. I'd say only 10% of my shots come at ISO1600 or higher.

However, the MKII takes a step backwards in low ISO, with ISO100 being far less cleaner, and therefore a little less sharp, and I think 200 is also weaker, or maybe just even with the mkI.

So, it seems like pick-your-poison on IQ.

Then the other trade off is tilty screen, wifi and hotshoe (mkII) vs. smaller, lighter and cheaper (mkI)
 

elandel

Regular
Sep 5, 2012
Here's a crazy thought -- you can sell your OMD and AND $50-100 and get an RX100 mkII!
Really crazy but just think I was thinking about selling my K-30 18-135 kit for this one. Problem: can't decide if MKI or MKII. I shoot jpg and there little less IQ at lower iso could be important for me, so naybe MKI should be the choice BUT tiltimg screen - hotshoe and VF would be important.
 

wt21

Hall of Famer
Aug 15, 2010
If you shoot low ISO jpgs but need DR, the mkII gets about 2 stops more in their jpg processing, based on the reviews I've seen. So -- which is more important in shooting jpgs: DR (mkII is reporting an edge) or sharpness/color saturation (mkI seems to have an edge).

This is all early reports, of course. Real world differences will come to light as more users get to run them through their paces.

if the mkI didn't exist, you would STILL be blown away by the mkII. Low ISO IQ is still better than any other compact it's size, except the mkI.
 

Luckypenguin

Hall of Famer
Dec 24, 2010
Brisbane, Australia
Nic
Could it be simply that the extended DR of the MkII images is leading to images with lower pixel level detail? Extended DR jpeg modes tend to produce images that don't look so nice on a pixel level because of the underexposure and subsequent pushing of the file, combined with adjustments such as noise reduction, sharpening, clarity, and tone curves that are applied according to a set formula rather than being tweaked to suit each individual image.

Maybe selecting a higher contrast, lower DR jpeg mode on the RX100 MkII might bring back some of the pixel level image quality.
 

Latest threads

Top Bottom