Thread: RX100 owners: still loving it?

Originally Posted by BruPri

Had it for a few weeks and traded it in for some fast Zeiss glass for my X-Pro1. Worked flawlessly but it was not particularly inspiring or fun to shoot. I'm not sure why but I've traded away more Sony gear than anything else, NEX C3, NEX 5, NEX 7, all with adapted lenses and the RX-100 w/Franiec grip . They were all cutting edge technology at the time but ultimately left me "eh" I get more keepers and have more fun with this used Leica X1 I picked up for a song after the X2 came out. All the images that the Sony gear I've owned were technically good, but flat for lack of a better word. I didn't feel emotionally connected to images that I specifically shot for that connection.

Althoug I have very good results with my nex5n+zeiss combo I somehow miss the x1... Not rational I know but here it is, I'm a very intellectual person, I analyze everything but still something isn't quite complete.

For other readers, never trx the x series because it is so simple and beautiful that you'll miss it afterwards, well of course I should not generalize...

Originally Posted by KianO

Take a look at these shots taken in two museums where it is forbidden to take pictures:

Flickr: couleurnoire's Photostream

It has many drawbacks, blocked shadows and blown highlights but it sure is a cool snapshot camera! The wide angle ones were taken with the omd+7-14 BTW.

Here is one I could not have taken without a handy zoom cam:

-Pls ignore... responded to wrong poster...

Originally Posted by Boid

Do give people on this forum the benefit of doubt, that they actually might know what they're talking about. Most users on this forum are camera-holics for want of a better word, and first time adopters who have used a variety of equipment. Their perspective on the RX100 might be one arrived at after having tested and used many different compact cameras.

What might be acceptable as "great detail" might not be true for another user of the camera. I for one think that the RX100 does not put out files that have very good pixel level resolution. I think Sony would have done better to not cram 24mp into this sensor.

I also stand by the fact that the files do not hold up well in post. Minor adjustments have too large an impact on the image, which is not acceptable.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, possibly due to a preset algorithm (by Sony engineers) the camera smooths out and flattens skin tones, according to my tests, in ALL settings to different degrees. Which is great for a novice shooter but is an irritant to me, since I like control of my images.

If you're happy with the camera, that's great. And you're right of course, that at this level of pocket-ability it might be the best camera in the market. But it's not for me.

I'm attaching a 100% crop on an image taken at f11, 1/2000th of a second to highlight what is not acceptable in the camera for me, try shooting some landscapes and come to your own conclusions -

To be clear, I wasn't referring to people on this specific forum ... talking more about other forums where I spend time (I'm quite new to this specific site).

Also, I highlighted the possibility that there is some variation in production quality. Never suggested that users were imagining things.

Finally, I don't think it makes sense to compare the RX100 to larger cameras (APS-C, FF, etc.) It is what it is. A camera designed to fit in your pocket. What it should be compared to, for example, is the s100/s110. That used to be the king of compacts before the RX100 showed up. That said, I shoot with full-frame and several APS-C cameras, and I'm very happy with the detail and skin tones, etc, I get from my RX100. Did you look at my RX100 portraits here: Some portraits with the RX100 ? These are all natural/in-door lighting.

I agree the cropped image you show looks lousy. Now ask yourself why the camera does not stop down beyond f11. It's because diffraction effects make smaller apertures unusable. At f11, you're already hitting serious diffraction effects for a sensor of this size and density combined with a lens of this size. If you shoot the same scene at f8, it will be a completely different story [and you don't need to go up to f11 for landscapes with a sensor of this size in the first place]. Try out the diffraction calculator here: Digital Camera Sensor Sizes: How it Influences Your Photography

Originally Posted by Boid

I'm attaching a 100% crop on an image taken at f11, 1/2000th of a second to highlight what is not acceptable in the camera for me, try shooting some landscapes and come to your own conclusions -

I'm starting to think you have a (very) bad copy. Here's a comparison of f6.3 and f11 (click to size up). While you can see some diffraction in the form of reduced sharpness at f11, it's nowhere near as bad as your image.



And this is the edge of the f11 version.... not bad at all, I think.

Here's one I took at f6.3, you might be right. It has nowhere near the resolution that yours is throwing out

Yes, I can see the difference. If I were you, I'd take my camera back to the shop drop your memory card into another RX100, take some shots, then back in your own camera to take some similar shots. If you see differences--and I suspect you will--I'd be firmly requesting a replacement. It's not a cheap camera, so you deserve to get a good copy. Best of luck!

Originally Posted by Boid

If you're happy with the camera, that's great. And you're right of course, that at this level of pocket-ability it might be the best camera in the market. But it's not for me.

I'm attaching a 100% crop on an image taken at f11, 1/2000th of a second to highlight what is not acceptable in the camera for me, try shooting some landscapes and come to your own conclusions -

No level of pocket-ability would worth THAT! Did you really think that was anything other than a really bad copy of the camera? Man, that's terrible. I've got my share of criticisms of this camera and I haven't been shy about pointing them out, but sharpness and clarity are not among them. The image quality, at both high and low ISO, is the reason I kept this camera despite a number of other mis-givings.

You just got a REALLY BAD camera! Return / exchange it at once - the camera is WAY WAY WAY better than that!

BTW, I wouldn't be shooting at f11 with this little beast much either. F7.1 or F8 at the very smallest. But even f22, if it had it, shouldn't cause what you've got in that sample...

BTW, here's a full shot and a 100% crop taken from the lower right of it - f5.6. I've seen better, but not from a camera in this category. And the differences are meaningless at any reasonable viewing size or print...





-Ray

Thanks, I've written to the Sony blokes. Unfortunately I picked up the camera in London and am now back home, lets see what the process of exchanging it is going to be like.

Originally Posted by Boid

Do give people on this forum the benefit of doubt, that they actually might know what they're talking about. Most users on this forum are camera-holics for want of a better word, and first time adopters who have used a variety of equipment. Their perspective on the RX100 might be one arrived at after having tested and used many different compact cameras.

What might be acceptable as "great detail" might not be true for another user of the camera. I for one think that the RX100 does not put out files that have very good pixel level resolution. I think Sony would have done better to not cram 24mp into this sensor.

I also stand by the fact that the files do not hold up well in post. Minor adjustments have too large an impact on the image, which is not acceptable.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, possibly due to a preset algorithm (by Sony engineers) the camera smooths out and flattens skin tones, according to my tests, in ALL settings to different degrees. Which is great for a novice shooter but is an irritant to me, since I like control of my images.

If you're happy with the camera, that's great. And you're right of course, that at this level of pocket-ability it might be the best camera in the market. But it's not for me.

I'm attaching a 100% crop on an image taken at f11, 1/2000th of a second to highlight what is not acceptable in the camera for me, try shooting some landscapes and come to your own conclusions -

Is that a corner crop or center crop?

If center, then -- oh my! My RX100 is much better than that (edit -- I see others now have chimed in).

I think there's also a NR low setting -- maybe that would help???

Here are a few more captures from the camera, your opinions would be appreciated. SOOC

Full image


Detail at 100%


EXIF


---------------

Full image


Detail at 100%


EXIF



-------

Full image



Detail at 100%



EXIF