NEW Sony RX100 - pocket P&S, 1" Sensor, f/1.8-4.9, 20Mp

[bosoxfanx1]

also, being able to put into a pants pocket is nice. but if you are paying over $700 for a camera, it is likely that you would want to do more than just taking it out when you go to restaurants... and when you DO want to get into some kind of photography-hobbyst type situations, you normally wouldn't mind carrying a little bigger right? NEX and M4/3 cameras can easily fit inside a purse or a packpack..

again, I am just saying people want P&S pocketables for one reason, and people out there want to take better pictures (and in low-light situations, or moving objects like kids). if you are willing to spend that much, you need to get the best possible value and the best IQ

[retroman80s]

where can I pre-order this in Canada? Buy from B&H = no warranty.

Aden camera over at Pacific mall has one on display. The build quality is solid, there was no battery so I didn't get to snap a few pics

[nosnoop]

lol 20MP is there to trick people into paying that much for a tiny sensor camera.. anyone who knows anything about cameras can tell you the problem of squeezing 20MP in a tiny little sensor... I am laughing at how they are trying to trick people into comparing cameras with a number (OMG 20MP vs 12!)

This is one of the most common misconception about pixel count. So don't trust "anyone who knows anything about cameras"...
The high number of pixel is not a problem at all, it is the sensor size which counts. So a 12MP 1" sensor would not be any better than a 20MP 1" sensor (i.e. same size, assuming similar sensor technology).
In actual fact, RX100's 20MP 1" sensor is performing better than Nikon's V1/J1's 10MP 1" sensor! Less noise, higher resolution - an all around better sensor.

I am also saying that if you go out right now and buy a used canon xsi for $200 or sony nex 3 for $250 or panasonic gf1 for $160, the price of that camera wont go much lower than what you paid for, as long as you take care of it.. right now if you buy a new $650 camera you will instantly loose 13% tax that you wont get back. so in that way the value of these will go lower alot faster

Using the latest technology would cost you more, for sure. In that case, would you not buy any new cameras, new computers, new notebook, new cars.... etc? All of them would depreciate the moment you walk out of the store.

also, being able to put into a pants pocket is nice. but if you are paying over $700 for a camera, it is likely that you would want to do more than just taking it out when you go to restaurants... and when you DO want to get into some kind of photography-hobbyst type situations, you normally wouldn't mind carrying a little bigger right? NEX and M4/3 cameras can easily fit inside a purse or a packpack..

But that's the point! With NEX and m4/3, you simply have to use a camera bag. And it is totally different from carrying a compact like RX100.

again, I am just saying people want P&S pocketables for one reason, and people out there want to take better pictures (and in low-light situations, or moving objects like kids). if you are willing to spend that much, you need to get the best possible value and the best IQ

You really have not seen pictures taken by the RX100, have you? You are dismissing it just because you think it has a "tiny sensor"?
Actually, the sensor is 4x the size of your average "P&S". Go and check some of the images taken by the RX100 and read some reviews.
I would say it works quite well in low-light situations; and it has the best IQ for its class. As to whether it is the best possible value, each has to judge. And in my case, yes.

[bosoxfanx1]

lol if you think new technology and more pixels will have better handle noise? try compare the new 24MP Nikon's D3200 to my 4 years old D700...

there will be people out there who has the cash to spend on this awesome camera. to them this is the best choice for compact camera. My message is relevant to the bargain hunting photography enthusiasts who want the best bang for their buck..

[Circuit]

lol if you think new technology and more pixels will have better handle noise? try compare the new 24MP Nikon's D3200 to my 4 years old D700...

there will be people out there who has the cash to spend on this awesome camera. to them this is the best choice for compact camera. My message is relevant to the bargain hunting photography enthusiasts who want the best bang for their buck..

Ok, I'll bite

D800 vs D700

[bosoxfanx1]

Ok, I'll bite

D800 vs D700

I am comparing newer more MP but smaller sensor to old less MP but larger sensors..

of course d800 's 36MP FX crushes everything in its class lol..

I think people will agree that aside from everything else, lenses are way more important than body. and at portrait focal lengths somethig like f3 doesn't offer good subject isolation on a 1" sensor.. I would have preferred if this camera is interchangeable lens

[nosnoop]

lol if you think new technology and more pixels will have better handle noise? try compare the new 24MP Nikon's D3200 to my 4 years old D700...

Why are you comparing a APS-C sensor with a full frame one????
Did you read what I wrote that sensor size being the most important factor?

there will be people out there who has the cash to spend on this awesome camera. to them this is the best choice for compact camera. My message is relevant to the bargain hunting photography enthusiasts who want the best bang for their buck..

Well, that's not what you wrote though, and I quote:

"LOL 20MP... spending any money on this camera is like throwing your money away"

[bosoxfanx1]

Why are you comparing a APS-C sensor with a full frame one????
Did you read what I wrote that sensor size being the most important factor?



Well, that's not what you wrote though, and I quote:

"LOL 20MP... spending any money on this camera is like throwing your money away"

Sorry, I thought you were comparing RX100 with m4/3 and NEX's bigger sensors...

I meant throwing money away with target audience being bargain hunters with low budget. I don't judge people with means to get the RX100 easily, that's cool too... Just for some of us this would not be a good investment.

[hoodlum]

MP have nothing to do with final IQ unless you are printing huge. A 20mp 1" sensor image scales back to a 10mp image will give you the same result as a 10mp 1" sensor image, assuming the same technology was used for the sensor.

The final image quality is based on a combination of sensor size, sensor technology, processing and lens quality/speed. Yes, an DSLR has a larger sensor but the RX100 has a faster lens. So while you may be required to shoot ISO1600 on a DSLR you will be able to away with a lower ISO on the RX100.

Here is a low light example of the A37 16mp DSLR with 16-80mm non-kit lens vs the RX100 at ISO1600.

A37 ISO1600
http://www.abload.de/image.php?img=1...0142365jlt.jpg

RX100 ISO1600
http://www.abload.de/image.php?img=1...01450fgkfo.jpg

The RX100 does show more noise but it shows more detail as well. I actually prefer the output from the RX100 in this example. The kit lenses that come with DSLRs are not that great. Yes, you can get better zooms but then you are going over $1k for the camera. Considering that most people buying DSLRs never go beyond the kit lens, they would be better served with something like the RX100 that gives output very close to the kit DSLR.

And remember that the RX100 can be used at a lower ISO compared to Kit lenses due to the faster lens of the RX100. Here is an ISO800 image of the same scene for the RX100. Now compare this to the ISO1600 from the A37 which uses the best APS-C sensor available today.

RX100 ISO800
http://www.abload.de/image.php?img=800dsc01447l3j0f.jpg

As a total package the RX100 is very competive with DSLRs and it comes in a much smaller size. Yes, it will drop in price over time but so will all cameras.

[bosoxfanx1]

Correct me if I am wrong, but that lens zoomed to 20mm (about 53mm equivalent, RX100 is a 2.6x crop), it's max f is already at f3.5.. Nikon sells a 35mm f1.8 lens (53mm equiv too) for $200.

professionals dont zoom around, they generally prefer prime lenses for a reason, and they compose their pictures with their feet.

Also I believe DSLR kit lenses go from 3.5-5.6 on a 18-55mm range, so I wonder how much useful is it if the RX100 lens stops down so quickly like that.. Don't be misled...

[bosoxfanx1]

Again, I think RX100 is a decent pocketable camera, too expensive at the moment in my opinion

And anyone doing any kind of actual photography will out grow it very very quickly, instead go find a Panasonic Gf1/Gf2 body for $150 and a 20mm 1.7 lens for $400. Use it for a year, I can assure you that you can sell it back out again for $550.

[hoodlum]

Yes, you can go with primes but then it will end up costing more as you end up with multiple lenses. And most people looking at entry level DSLRs are not interested in primes or switching lenses.

I agree about using your feet. I have been doing that with all my compacts zooms, even back to my film days due to the faster aperture at the wide end. AF is also quicker at the wide end.

[bosoxfanx1]

Yes, you can go with primes but then it will end up costing more as you end up with multiple lenses. And most people looking at entry level DSLRs are not interested in primes or switching lenses.

I agree about using your feet. I have been doing that with all my compacts zooms, even back to my film days due to the faster aperture at the wide end. AF is also quicker at the wide end.

35mm 1.8 is $200, and 50mm 1.8 is even cheaper at $100. Your right, it will add up, but some of the legendary photographers stick to only 1 or sometimes 2 lenses max. Something like a 35mm is an extremely useful "normal" range lens.

Also a note on your comment about AF. It is quicker on the wide end because you have a much bigger depth of field, so many more things are in focus, so AF system has to work less. That's why some of these cameras will boast ultra fast focus, because pretty much all the subjects in the picture on these smaller sensors are in focus. Of course that is not what you would want when taking portraits of people, but it's almost impossible to isolate anything with these cams.

[nosnoop]

professionals dont zoom around, they generally prefer prime lenses for a reason, and they compose their pictures with their feet.
.......but some of the legendary photographers stick to only 1 or sometimes 2 lenses max. Something like a 35mm is an extremely useful "normal" range lens.

You are funny, first you talked from the point of view of a "bargain hunter with low budget"; and now you are talking about professional and "legendary photographers"???

Well, obviously, RX100's target audience is neither "bargain hunter with low budget" nor "legendary photographers"....

[bosoxfanx1]

You are funny, first you talked from the point of view of a "bargain hunter with low budget"; and now you are talking about professional and "legendary photographers"???

Well, obviously, RX100's target audience is neither "bargain hunter with low budget" nor "legendary photographers"....

lol I thought people who are buying this want to learn to be a photographer.. thats ok, nvm then, your target is clearly people who has the dough for a $700 point and shoot