Got it today and I'm very impressed so far.|
AF is as fast as my old E-P3 but not as solid as the Nikon J1 for moving subjects.
DoF is remarkably good thanks to the bright lens. Easily as nice as any kit zoom I have used up to APS-C size. Much, much better than the J1. I think that's why I never really loved that camera; no 3D effect from any of its pictures.
Not taken hundreds of shots but so far the quality is great up to ISO 1600, even when viewing at full-size on a 24" monitor. Compared to some old NEX 5N images, it is hard to tell the difference. Even the "Clear Shot" multiplier (clever digital zoom) seems to produce very good results, effectively doubling the range if absolute quality is not the primary concern.
Loads of fun filters and effects too, the illustration in particular is rather good. Makes everything look like it's a screenshot from Borderlands
Every review I read said that unless you want to buy extra lenses, the RX100 may be a better choice than a DSLR/Mirrorless with kit lens. Have to agree with that so far. Time will tell if I will miss the NEX 5N but already today I took this little thing out with me when I know I would not have been bothered trying to find somewhere to stow the larger kit.
Compact backup cam recommendations • Page 13
I'm interested. How big is the sensor compared with 4/3?
From DPreview. It's the same size as the Nikon 1 sensor. Still a bit smaller than M4/3 but the lens makes up for it.
God knows if that shows up for anyone, here is the direct link:
Edited by TheRealBadabing at 23:35:54 24-08-2012
The lens isn't that bright though, is it? It's a pitiful f/4.9 at 100mm, although it does rise to f/1.8 at 28mm equivalent. What wins it IQ is the 1" sensor which with a focal length multiplier of about 3x is only half as big as an APS-C sensor, it's still well over double the diagonal of most decent compacts. The XZ-1, the only compact with the optics to compete IMO has a 1/1.7" sensor which is a big bigger than half as big as the RX-100, having a 5x multiplier, but the impressive thing about it is it can still do f/2ish at 100mm which, in numbers at least is the same as f/3.3 on the RX100's sensor. Granted, 100mm is not an everyday length, but it's a good length for portraits.
It's not all in the lens though, and the RX-100 is certainly one of the most impressive cameras out there at the moment. What's it feel like in the hand? I'd assume with all that glass in there it's going to feel pretty solid. How does it feel with those smooth sides? I note Richard Franiec's got another of his grips out for it. One thing I didn't realise until I just checked is that it's actually smaller than the XZ-1, which is even more impressive, and does help to excuse that missing third of a stop at the long end.
Anyway, let us know when you've uploaded some shots from it. I'm particularly interested in how it handles low light.
To be fair f4.9 is probably better than most kit lenses at that focal length.
I don't think sensor size affects the f-stop by the way, f2 is just f2 no matter the sensoe size. Of course, it does affect the bokeh but that's a diffwrent story.
Compromises were definitely made but overall it's a cracking bit of kit. I would have loved a XZ-2 with a better sensor and a LOT faster AF etc. Loved some of the shots I got from my old XZ-1, Olympus seem to have some sort of magic when it comes to skin tones.
Who knows, maybe that will appear soon but there are only so many laws of physics that can be bent to fit all this into such a small frame.
In the meantime, here is a small set I did just now. Bored of a certain stompy walking tank game now so I might as well put my insomnia to good use
Basic low light stuff
Edit: tags describe the basic setup
Edited by TheRealBadabing at 00:27:08 25-08-2012
No, you're quite right. The aperture is just the focal length divided by the f number, and nothing to do with anything else. Thing is, the ratio of the real focal length to its 35mm equivalent is directly proportional to the sensor diagonal. So you can apply focal length multipliers to f-numbers in just the same was as you can focal lengths as you map between the real numbers and the 35mm equivalents, so the FX-1's f/2.0 at 100mm is the same aperture as f/10.0 on a real 100mm, while the RX-100's f/4.9 is f/14.7 on a real full-frame SLR.
Funny how compact camera makers love to point out the 35mm equivalent focal lengths, but never the 35mm equivalent apertures.
That's mighty impresive for ISO 3200!
Edited by mal at 00:28:49 25-08-2012
I think that's just depthof field though, brightness wise f2 is the same for any sensor size I believe.
@AaronTurner Yes, sorry, that's right. It's only for DoF. Brightness wise I'm pretty sure you're right, but I'll need to get my head around the maths to be sure
Added a couple more low light shots showing the difference in DoF from the same position, with different zoom levels (and therefore the extremes of aperture). Would be a lot more clear if lighting was better but you should get the basic idea.
Cheers. I reckon you'll get best DoF somewhere in the middle of the zoom range, since the actual aperture increases as the zoom increases for a constant f stop, while the f number tightens up as you zoom in with most lenses. At some point there's a sweet spot where the focal length is quite long but the f number is still quite close to f/1.8, hopefully.
Still, probably a challenge for tomorrow. Or the day after etc.
Even if I usually have the 5N with me, there's still days when it's at home and I only have the bloody iphone with me... so for those situations, the RX would be ideal. I just don't think I can justify spending the money though.
I've said it before, I'm really impressed with sensor technology later. It seems physical size becomes less and less important. Can't wait to see how the next-gen NEX cameras perform in low light!
Eh... Anyone getting the Sony RX1 as a back up cam?
I'm considering picking up a bridge camera for the convenience of the zoom range, I want one with manual zoo,m though. Is it only Fiji that makes manual zoom bridge cameras? Anyone had experience with them?
OK, Compact Cam recommendations up to £150 please! Front runners seem to be the Nikon Coolpix S8200 and the Panasonic DMC-FS45EG or SZ-1EK B. Really is only point and click stuff, hence the price point.
Nth 3,138 posts
Seen 2 weeks ago
Registered 9 years ago
I'd go for a Lumix at that price point, Nikon compacts are usually shit.
DP review review of the Ricoh GR is up (review review review). Always nice to see another entrant into the prime large(r) format compact category. This time it's another 28mm APS-C compact, but the interesting thing about it is it's from Ricoh, and I've always fancied a modern enthusiast Ricoh (for a number of reasons, which I'll not reproduce here as the review's pretty comprehensive).
It's a bit pricey (launching at £600), but that's still 400 quid cheaper than the ludicrously priced Nikon version, and a couple hundred less than combining the GXR with it's slightly wider 28mm APS-C module. Just a shame there never seems to be a price war over Ricoh cameras, so price drops are erratic.
I've always liked the look of Ricoh cameras, and this little beaut is no exception. The lens on it also looks very tasty indeed. Movie mode's apparently a bit shit, but given I don't think I've ever shot a movie sober, operational limitations are probably the least of my concerns when filming.
Lukus 21,197 posts
Seen 3 hours ago
Registered 13 years ago
mal wrote:Seriously? It's about as plain an uninspired looking as cameras get.
DP review review of the Ricoh GR is up (review review review).
I've always liked the look of Ricoh cameras, and this little beaut is no exception.
I like to think of it as sleek
I guess I've just never seen the point of camera bling. The point of taking a picture is that the focus of the entertainment is whatever you're pointing the camera at, not the camera itself.
Sometimes posts may contain links to online retail stores. If you click on one and make a purchase we may receive a small commission. For more information, go here.