Sony DSC RX100 - Yes!

Joey Wilson

Regular
Mar 19, 2012
While I'm glad to see this size sensor migrating downwards to a compact like this, it's still a brick with a can sticking out of it: Is this sort of thing the best that the massive companies can do design-wise? I am certainly not in any hurry to shoot pictures with this thing, or anything else that looks like it, but I'm sure that's not really the point. Cameras for picture-takers are going away faster than Big Gulps and Smoking Rooms in NYC. I guess if I'd surrender to this, and learn to shoot GPS'd HD Video to uplink to my FaceBook page, I'd get over my curmudgeonly grumpiness . . . . . nope, I just want to shoot pictures with some device that resembles a camera. I'm a Turner Classic Movies guy in a YouTube world . . . . .

Joey Wilson
 

Joey Wilson

Regular
Mar 19, 2012
Well, I'm not sure there's such a thing as a 'proper' camera, but for me, did I miss the memo that cameras just aren't going to have viewfinders anymore? This is all very subjective, of course, but for me, I'm just worn out to these plastic bricks with plastic lens assemblies (utterly guaranteed to be drop-it-once-only devices) and this arms-out shooting posture. I suppose in a few years, top-shelf pro Nikons and Canons (maybe the next-gen M-Leicas) will only have that screen on the back. Can't wait to see broadcast TV cameras at the Super Bowl or Indy on their great pedestal tripods and the camera operator is at arm's length looking at a plasma screen on the back, instead of a viewfinder. Ain't gonna happen (but then, who really knows . . .).

My age is showing . . . . . excuse the vent.

Joey Wilson
 

kevenv

Regular
Apr 28, 2011
This is certainly going to be a strong contender for another camera in my house! My wife wants something she doesn't have to learn and the X100 definitely isn't that! I have been reading everything I can about this camera and I have come up with a question based on a remark I saw on another site. There is some concern by some people about the 20MP on a sensor this size. Now I don't profess to have a clue when it comes to understanding the relationship so if this is a silly question I apologize.

If you set the cameras resolution to something less than 20MP, say 12MP, are you in fact then using a 12MP sensor? Would this make any difference to the quality of the pics?

That was two question, sorry lol. Thanks in advance for your help.
 

Armanius

Bring Jack back!
Jan 11, 2011
Houston, Texas
Jack
I don't think so. The photos will just be smaller. But by making it smaller, at high ISO, the photos will likely look less noisy. Hopefully someone with more know how will chime in.
 

EyeForget

Rookie
Jun 1, 2012
Every lens I know is soft wide open in the corners of the frame, including lenses that cost 2-3 times as much as the camera in question.
You could probably be safe with a 4-6 times range. There aren't many <f2 lenses that are sharp wide open. Those that are, cost.
 

bartjeej

Hall of Famer
Nov 12, 2010
bart
This is certainly going to be a strong contender for another camera in my house! My wife wants something she doesn't have to learn and the X100 definitely isn't that! I have been reading everything I can about this camera and I have come up with a question based on a remark I saw on another site. There is some concern by some people about the 20MP on a sensor this size. Now I don't profess to have a clue when it comes to understanding the relationship so if this is a silly question I apologize.

If you set the cameras resolution to something less than 20MP, say 12MP, are you in fact then using a 12MP sensor? Would this make any difference to the quality of the pics?

That was two question, sorry lol. Thanks in advance for your help.
For any given (fixed) output size (for instance as wallpaper on your desktop or as a print of a given size), it won't make any noticeable difference.

If you insist on viewing your photos at a given magnification (for instance 100%, with each photo pixel being represented by one screen pixel, or at for instance 200dpi), then more megapixels lead to more noise, but that's not how photos are normally viewed - you decide how large you want your photo to be displayed and then you view it at that size, so practically speaking, there's no noise penalty.

There might be a small penalty in dynamic range (difference between darkest and lightest light values that the sensor is capable of recognising) but it shouldn't be a huge downside. You might wonder if you ever need 20mp and if the lens is even good enough to transmit 20million individual "light beams", but even if these answers are No, that doesn't make the result for a given output size any less than a 12mp sensor. Only real downside is longer write times and more space being used on your memory card or harddisk.
 

pictor

All-Pro
Jul 14, 2010
If you insist on viewing your photos at a given magnification (for instance 100%, with each photo pixel being represented by one screen pixel, or at for instance 200dpi), then more megapixels lead to more noise
But only if the technology is the same. The Nikon D800 looks nearly equal to the D700 at 100%, although it has three times as many pixels.

There might be a small penalty in dynamic range (difference between darkest and lightest light values that the sensor is capable of recognising) but it shouldn't be a huge downside.
At the moment, the sensors offering the largest dynamic range are those with most pixels in their class. I am referring to the sensors of the Sony A77 and the Nikon D800. So there need not be any penalty in dynamic range. On the other hand, pixel density of the A77 and the D800 is not as big as that of the RX100.
 

bartjeej

Hall of Famer
Nov 12, 2010
bart
^ yup, all my comments were made assuming that, apart from pixel count, the technology was the same. Newer sensors often bring not only higher pixel counts but also more efficiency than previous sensors, so the net effect of using a newer generation could well be positive even in terms of dynamic range, despite the higher pixel count.
 

Latest posts

Latest threads

Top Bottom