# Sony RX100



## flashfan (Oct 1, 2015)

I am NOT a photographer/photography buff, but am looking for a camera that offers a little more than your basic point and shoot. I would like to be able to "play" a bit with aperture settings and shutter speeds

One other, very important criteria–the camera needs to be small. Oh, and preferably less than $500. The Sony RX100 (I, II, III) and a few other Sony models seem to fit the bill, but are there other cameras to look at? IIRC, I read somewhere that Canon offers a similar (better?) camera.

Thanks in advance for any advice, opinions, knowledge and/or experience with the RX100 or similar cameras.


----------



## SCEMan (Oct 1, 2015)

I bought a mint RX100 for my med cruise vacation last summer to pair with my Pany FZ200. After reading the forums for best settings and some testing I settled upon the best config for my needs. My research was well rewarded and the RX100 produced some great images. The RX100's size allowed it to travel everywhere in my pant pockets. There is a steep learning curve to get the very best results however.


----------



## StarHalo (Oct 1, 2015)

Couldn't be happier with my RX100; a $3000 DSLR would not be able to keep up with this camera when shooting kids and near-field sports/action. Be aware that most of your money for this camera is going towards some serious pro features, so unless you plan on upping your photography game (I know of a very good book), you could go cheaper for simpler.


----------



## monkeyboy (Oct 2, 2015)

StarHalo said:


> a $3000 DSLR would not be able to keep up with this camera when shooting kids and near-field sports/action.



Sorry, but that's just not true. I also own the RX100 (mkI) and the AF is the weak point of this camera. It can't even come close to the cheapest DSLR in terms of AF performance. It's still a very good camera though, for other purposes but not for sports.


----------



## SCEMan (Oct 2, 2015)

monkeyboy said:


> Sorry, but that's just not true. I also own the RX100 (mkI) and the AF is the weak point of this camera. It can't even come close to the cheapest DSLR in terms of AF performance. It's still a very good camera though, for other purposes but not for sports.



Very true. Although I refer to the RX100 as my "pocket DSLR", it excels at low light and indoor scenes due to its fast lens. However this also makes accurate AF problematic when shooting fast action "wide open".


----------



## StarHalo (Oct 2, 2015)

monkeyboy said:


> Sorry, but that's just not true. I also own the RX100 (mkI) and the AF is the weak point of this camera. It can't even come close to the cheapest DSLR in terms of AF performance. It's still a very good camera though, for other purposes but not for sports.



Indoors in low light maybe; once it has lock, hold down the button for 10fps for up to half a minute before it slows. You have several hundred images to choose from, DSLR guy got maybe a couple dozen..


----------



## monkeyboy (Oct 2, 2015)

StarHalo said:


> Indoors in low light maybe; once it has lock, hold down the button for 10fps for up to half a minute before it slows. You have several hundred images to choose from, DSLR guy got maybe a couple dozen..



You'll have several hundred images to chose from and every single one of them will be out of focus.

The Sony A6000 is a camera that can also do very high FPS but can also track AF much better than the RX100, but even that can't beat a cheap DSLR for sports according to Tony Northrup (The author of your book).


----------



## Overclocker (Oct 2, 2015)

RX100 is nice and compact. sensor size is 1-inch so is a lot better tha point and shoots but is still quite small even compared to micro-4/3 or aps-c. that's a 2.7 crop factor same as nikon 1 cameras, needless to say won't give you tons of bokeh

take note the max aperture f/1.8 only happens when you're zoomed all the way out

no lens interchangeability

no IR remotes


----------



## flashfan (Oct 2, 2015)

Thank you for all of the replies. Some of it is way over my head. Any comments on the pros/cons of the different "generations" of the RX 100 (orig. II, III and even IV)? The IV is way over my price limit...but could it really be worth the extra cost?

by Overclocker: "take note the max aperture f/1.8 only happens when you're zoomed all the way out" Yes, this is one of the things I noticed about these cameras--the max aperture settings are so/too low. I think my old SLR camera from many years ago, had a standard lens with max f16.

Lens interchangeability and IR remotes aren't features I'm looking for (at least right now). I was originally looking for a a really small, inexpensive camera to always carry around, but started re-thinking upon noting the "limitations" of those cameras...


----------



## StarHalo (Oct 2, 2015)

flashfan said:


> Any comments on the pros/cons of the different "generations" of the RX 100 (orig. II, III and even IV)? The IV is way over my price limit...but could it really be worth the extra cost?
> 
> by Overclocker: "take note the max aperture f/1.8 only happens when you're zoomed all the way out"



My only experience is with the III and IV; I prefer the III as it gets better battery life, but the IV does 4K video if that's your thing. Expect to pay ~$800 as everyone knows what it's worth (but this is still cheaper than a new interchangeable lens camera kit.)

Lower aperture number is "better", check out that book above if you want to read up on it.


----------



## SCEMan (Oct 2, 2015)

flashfan said:


> Thank you for all of the replies. Some of it is way over my head. Any comments on the pros/cons of the different "generations" of the RX 100 (orig. II, III and even IV)? The IV is way over my price limit...but could it really be worth the extra cost?
> 
> by Overclocker: "take note the max aperture f/1.8 only happens when you're zoomed all the way out" Yes, this is one of the things I noticed about these cameras--the max aperture settings are so/too low. I think my old SLR camera from many years ago, had a standard lens with max f16.
> 
> Lens interchangeability and IR remotes aren't features I'm looking for (at least right now). I was originally looking for a a really small, inexpensive camera to always carry around, but started re-thinking upon noting the "limitations" of those cameras...



I don't believe you'll find any cameras the size of the RX100 with an f1.8 aperture at anything other than WA. Or IR remotes or interchangeable lenses either. I certainly wouldn't want to deal with the dust issues of interchangeable lenses on a pocket camera. The RX100 is a worthwhile upgrade from the ever improving smartphone cameras and allows (with simple mods) the ability to easily add filters if desired. I've captured many nice shots using a C-PL.


----------



## Overclocker (Oct 3, 2015)

SCEMan said:


> I don't believe you'll find any cameras the size of the RX100 with an f1.8 aperture at anything other than WA. Or IR remotes or interchangeable lenses either. I certainly wouldn't want to deal with the dust issues of interchangeable lenses on a pocket camera. The RX100 is a worthwhile upgrade from the ever improving smartphone cameras and allows (with simple mods) the ability to easily add filters if desired. I've captured many nice shots using a C-PL.




well we don't know if the OP really needs the cam to be rx100-small. personally i travel w/ nikon j1. definitely not as small as rx100 but it's small enough for me. has IR remote (extremely useful). uses nikon 1 lenses. i got the 50mm equiv f/1.8 prime lens which i use 90% of the time

but if there's a way for a remote shutter release on the rx100 using smartphone app then i might consider it


----------



## SCEMan (Oct 3, 2015)

Overclocker said:


> well we don't know if the OP really needs the cam to be rx100-small.


Good point. But he didn't mention a desire for lens interchangeability or IR remotes either.


----------



## StarHalo (Oct 3, 2015)

Overclocker said:


> but if there's a way for a remote shutter release on the rx100 using smartphone app then i might consider it



Yes, the RX100 has a phone app that shows you the live view on your phone, allows you to tap to change the major parameters of the mode you're in (ISO/aperture/shutter/exposure/etc,) I've played with it a few times, it's certainly better than your basic garage door clicker remote. Another app allows you to fire the shutter by waving your hand by the back of the camera, haven't tried that one yet.


----------



## Overclocker (Oct 4, 2015)

SCEMan said:


> Good point. But he didn't mention a desire for lens interchangeability or IR remotes either.



yep. but now he might be! LOL. he said: "I was originally looking for a a really small, inexpensive camera to always carry around, but started re-thinking upon noting the "limitations" of those cameras..."

to me that sounds like a phone camera. back when phones cams weren't good enough i carried this casio S600 literally everywhere. but now the integrated cams are good enough


----------



## StarHalo (Oct 4, 2015)

Overclocker said:


> "I was originally looking for a a really small, inexpensive camera to always carry around, but started re-thinking upon noting the "limitations" of those cameras..."
> 
> to me that sounds like a phone camera.



There's some validity to that; it's been estimated before that your typical film SLR camera with store-shelf Kodachrome film was good for an equivalent 6 megapixels of detail. The 8 megapixels of the iPhone camera can in some ways compare to that in some situations, and you can even download free apps that allow you to do manual settings (what there is to control, there's no aperture to adjust for example.) The camera phone is definitely the best deal going for anyone who wants full-auto point-and-click photography, but once you start getting concerned about "limitations", it's time to invest in something more serious. 

For almost 20 years now when I've gone shopping for a camera, my criteria is to get as close to the professional SLR feature set as possible in a compact format; the Sony RX was the natural choice this time around, and it's really paid off, this camera has actually made me a better photographer..


----------



## StarHalo (Oct 12, 2015)

Still getting great results from mine..


----------



## SCEMan (Oct 12, 2015)

Although impressive for a phone, my iPhone 6 can't replicate this RX100 shot:


----------



## Overclocker (Oct 13, 2015)

StarHalo said:


> Yes, the RX100 has a phone app that shows you the live view on your phone, allows you to tap to change the major parameters of the mode you're in (ISO/aperture/shutter/exposure/etc,) I've played with it a few times, it's certainly better than your basic garage door clicker remote. Another app allows you to fire the shutter by waving your hand by the back of the camera, haven't tried that one yet.




nice. i'm just a little concerned about the speed and convenience of the whole process

with a simple IR remote you just set the cam then you press the remote. quick and easy. no need to take out your phone, load the app, establish connection w/ the camera, fiddle w/ the settings, etc


----------



## StarHalo (Oct 13, 2015)

That's true, it's obviously not going to be as fast as a simple button remote, but it's also not an extra thing you have to carry. My leather cover case over my shoulder is the entire camera setup, and I'll have the phone in another pocket; I'll transfer a good image to the phone, process it in Pixelmator, then mail it, post it here, etc. No wires, no "docking", no waiting until I'm at a PC, it's a complete self-contained studio. The picture linked in post #17 was shot, processed, then posted here in a few minutes using this system.

Don't forget creative uses for the remote; put the camera in a safe place in a room with kids, or outdoors with wildlife, then go elsewhere and have a seat, relax, watch the action and snap at your leisure..


----------



## mattheww50 (Oct 13, 2015)

StarHalo said:


> There's some validity to that; it's been estimated before that your typical film SLR camera with store-shelf Kodachrome film was good for an equivalent 6 megapixels of detail. The 8 megapixels of the iPhone camera can in some ways compare to that in some situations, and you can even download free apps that allow you to do manual settings (what there is to control, there's no aperture to adjust for example.) The camera phone is definitely the best deal going for anyone who wants full-auto point-and-click photography, but once you start getting concerned about "limitations", it's time to invest in something more serious.
> 
> For almost 20 years now when I've gone shopping for a camera, my criteria is to get as close to the professional SLR feature set as possible in a compact format; the Sony RX was the natural choice this time around, and it's really paid off, this camera has actually made me a better photographer..


In my experience from digitizing almost 10,000 Kodachrome® 35mm slides, I think the resolution is a little better than 6 megapixels, but not much. Definitely less than 8 megapixels. That's the point at which the pixel size pretty much matches up to the grain size in Kodachrome I/II/25. While 8 megapixels in the Iphone® sounds great, the reality is the optical system limits the useful resolution to something considerably less than 8 megapixels. You can calculate the Dawes diffraction limit from the diameter of the lens, and because of physical constraints on the size of image sensor and the size of the optical system, it is very difficult to get the resolution above about 5 megapixels. The Pixel size is smaller than the diffraction limit, so you end up resolution considerably smaller that the number of pixels would indicate. By contrast the Sony RX100 has a very large sensor for a point and shoot , and in fact the pixel size in the sensor is about 3 times the area of a pixel the typical phone and low to mid range point in shoot camera. You can apply the Dawes diffraction limit to the Sony's optical system, and it really can delivery a 20 megapixel image in many circumstances. the larger sensor also tends to improve the signal to noise ratio in the images, which has a profound effect in very low light situations. The difference is further impacted by the relatively high powered DSP in the Sony that among other things is able to correct for certain types of optical aberrations in the optical system. 

It is kind of like the difference between the GPS chip in many smart phones (it works, but you don't need, and aren't likely to get 2-3 meter accuracy), and a dedicated GPS device which with WAAS often can achieve 2-3 meter accuracy.


----------



## Esko (Oct 14, 2015)

DxO Mark measures an average sharpness of 6Mpix for RX100 II lens across the whole zoom range, which (I believe?) should be decent for this kind of camera.

http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Sony/Sony-Cyber-shot-DSC-RX100-II-Lens
http://www.dxomark.com/About/Lens-scores/Metric-Scores


----------



## Lumiture (Nov 1, 2015)

I think the Sony A6000 or A5000 would be good. It is compact and has interchangeable lenses.


----------



## StarHalo (Nov 2, 2015)

Lumiture said:


> I think the Sony A6000 or A5000 would be good. It is compact and has interchangeable lenses.



Totally dig the interchangeable lens systems, with the caveat that mass and price at least double. I'd kill for a Nikon 1 J5 with the universally lauded 32mm f/1.2 lens, but that's a single focal length camera for $1500. Add another lens, now the price continues skyward, you need a way to carry more than one lens, etc.


----------



## NoNotAgain (Nov 3, 2015)

mattheww50 said:


> In my experience from digitizing almost 10,000 Kodachrome® 35mm slides, I think the resolution is a little better than 6 megapixels, but not much. Definitely less than 8 megapixels. That's the point at which the pixel size pretty much matches up to the grain size in Kodachrome I/II/25. While 8 megapixels in the Iphone® sounds great, the reality is the optical system limits the useful resolution to something considerably less than 8 megapixels. You can calculate the Dawes diffraction limit from the diameter of the lens, and because of physical constraints on the size of image sensor and the size of the optical system, it is very difficult to get the resolution above about 5 megapixels. The Pixel size is smaller than the diffraction limit, so you end up resolution considerably smaller that the number of pixels would indicate. By contrast the Sony RX100 has a very large sensor for a point and shoot , and in fact the pixel size in the sensor is about 3 times the area of a pixel the typical phone and low to mid range point in shoot camera. You can apply the Dawes diffraction limit to the Sony's optical system, and it really can delivery a 20 megapixel image in many circumstances. .



If you scan film that has a fine grain structure like Fuji Velvia at a rate of 300 DPI or better you can get an image better than most pro DSLR cameras made today.

We're attempting to equate lines per millimeter that is discernible with pixels, Not and Apples Apples comparison.

Like you, I had tens of thousands of slides that I needed to do something with. My old Leaf 45 scanner was too slow for bulk 35mm scans. I ended up finding a Nikon scanner that has an automated strip film feature. Something to think about if you have a large number of slides or negatives to scan. OBTH, don't bother with a flat bed scanner unless you want it for line art, besides being slow, they frequently show rasterizing of the image.

My new iPhone 6s does well compared to the older cell phone cameras. I you need to use the flash though, it's slow to lok on and it holds the led light for a couple of seconds before the exposure happens.


----------



## StarHalo (Nov 3, 2015)

NoNotAgain said:


> If you scan film that has a fine grain structure like Fuji Velvia at a rate of 300 DPI or better you can get an image better than most pro DSLR cameras made today.



Bear in mind a pro full-frame camera is now 40-50 megapixels..

Other news: The Sony RX100 at the pet shop; shooting through the glass, no flash or tripod, .jpg image with no processing - zoom on in there, plenty of detail:


----------



## NoNotAgain (Nov 3, 2015)

StarHalo said:


> Bear in mind a pro full-frame camera is now 40-50 megapixels..
> 
> Other news: The Sony RX100 at the pet shop; shooting through the glass, no flash or tripod, .jpg image with no processing - zoom on in there, plenty of detail:



Nice picture. 

Canon offers two different 50 MP cameras. Until you get to the medium format camera/backs, there aren't any higher pixel available.

The Nikon D810 I've got is 36 MP, along with a couple of DX format D3200's (24 MP). Depending on what I'm shooting, I may shoot in RAW or a mix of RAW and jpeg. Cheaper cameras typically don't give you the option of recording both at the same time. 

The digital back for my studio camera is 40MP but needs to be connected to a computer and is only suitable for still life work due to using a raster scan for the three colors.

There are times that a compact camera is neat to have. For me, if I go to an airshow, i need the high frame rate, fast auto-focus. I get vendor VIP tickets and in return they usually want to have a usable image for showing their management what sponsorship is paying for.


----------



## StarHalo (Nov 3, 2015)

Gotta have telephoto for the air show. The D810 sat on my wish list until the a7R II came out, one of these days..


----------



## StarHalo (Nov 9, 2015)




----------



## StarHalo (Nov 24, 2015)

Playing with exposure bracketing/HDR with the Sony RX100; the key to photographing Christmas lights is to do it at that moment of sundown when the lights are just on but the environment is still visible. But if you've got a good camera, you can get the same results in the dead of night - this pic isn't much to look at composition-wise, but note that you can see individual colors of light spilling out from the string, the exposure is low enough that nothing is washed out to white, yet everything in the setting is plainly visible, and _you can still see the stars in the sky_. No noise, no gradients, just a clean picture like any other day, even though it's night. That this comes out of a sub-$1,000 camera the size of a deck of cards just doesn't even fit in my head..


----------



## RBR (Nov 24, 2015)

.....


----------

