Jump to content

Recommended Posts

My quest for lighter and more compact cameras has brought me to the Sony NEX's and Fuji X series cameras, all of which I am happy with, despite my occasional complaining of the Fuji X Trans sensor, which for most of my stuff is actually ok. A lot of my decisions are based on members findings and recommendations on this forum, which I find very useful.

 

Based on what I have read around here about the RX100, I took a flyer and bought the Sony RX100 II. Nice little camera, fits in my trouser pocket, helps me blend in with the tourists and does not draw attention. Never likely to be my main camera, but it certainly ticks some boxes.

 

Now, are you guys seriously telling me that the files this thing produces go through QC?

 

Ok, its not the original RX100 that has been discussed in other threads, but as far as I can see, it is the same camera, except for a couple of tweaks. Tilt screen, hot shoe, and supposedly an upgraded sensor with better high ISO performance, not that I use high ISO, or very rarely anyway.

 

I'm going to take it back to the shop. It could be a duff one, but I doubt it. There is no way I would send files from this thing to any of my clients, or indeed, Alamy QC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't tried either of these cameras, but I think that David Kilpatrick mentioned in another thread that images from the RX100 II might not be as good as those from the original RX100.

 

Sony is odd this way. For instance, their DSLRs can be very inconsistent. Sometimes the newer ones have poorer image quality than the ones they replace. However, I suppose this sometimes happens with other camera manufacturers as well.  In the long run, it seems that it's often more about marketing than anything else.

Edited by John Mitchell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have the RX100M2 here. OK, it's got some neat and wonderful improvements, but those do not include image quality as far as I can see so far. First of all, it's giving exposures which are between two and three times more than the original camera for the same nominal ISO setting (which rather screws up all considerations of improved noise levels) and secondly, it's slightly softer overall and the lens on my test sample is squiffy towards the entire right-hand end of the image.

 

I'm probably sticking with my Mk I which has produced many QC viable pictures equal in quality, objectively, to any decent DSLR with a comparable zoom lens. I have two or three more days of testing to decide if I am mistaken.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mk?

 

Paulette

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mk?

 

Paulette

Mark 1 version as opposed to the Mark 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have the RX100M2 here. OK, it's got some neat and wonderful improvements, but those do not include image quality as far as I can see so far. First of all, it's giving exposures which are between two and three times more than the original camera for the same nominal ISO setting (which rather screws up all considerations of improved noise levels) and secondly, it's slightly softer overall and the lens on my test sample is squiffy towards the entire right-hand end of the image.

 

I'm probably sticking with my Mk I which has produced many QC viable pictures equal in quality, objectively, to any decent DSLR with a comparable zoom lens. I have two or three more days of testing to decide if I am mistaken.

 

 

That's a bit worrying and slightly disappointing. I was going to get the Mk II as my carry round camera.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting observation David. I cant say whether my version has a soft bias right or left with what I have done, but for sure, it is excessively soft toward the outsides of the frame. That said, it seems pretty good at maximum aperture at the wide end.

 

I would like to try the original RX as a comparison, but probably wont get the opportunity. I reckon, looking at the results from the II, I would be in for an SOLD award from QC, so I'm going to bale out of this one for the moment and stick with good old APS-C.

 

From what people are saying, the original version would seem to be somewhat better. Strange, one might be forgiven for thinking that there might be an advantage with an updated version, not so in this case it would seem. It would be nice to hear from anyone who has tried the II.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have the RX100M2 here. OK, it's got some neat and wonderful improvements, but those do not include image quality as far as I can see so far. First of all, it's giving exposures which are between two and three times more than the original camera for the same nominal ISO setting (which rather screws up all considerations of improved noise levels) and secondly, it's slightly softer overall and the lens on my test sample is squiffy towards the entire right-hand end of the image.

 

I'm probably sticking with my Mk I which has produced many QC viable pictures equal in quality, objectively, to any decent DSLR with a comparable zoom lens. I have two or three more days of testing to decide if I am mistaken.

David,

 

What you describe about the lens "squiffy towards the entire right-hand end of the image" is exactly what I had with my RX100 Mk 1.  As we discussed elsewhere, Sony fixed this under warranty ( leaving it just slightly squiffy all round). 

 

I thought mine was a rare exception so interesting that you have the same problem with the Mk2.   What is Sony QC dept. up to?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Click on my image #, and most of the images you see on the first page and next are from the RX100, with the exception of a few, like the restaurants.  I find this camera extremely sharp and absolutely love it. Forget about the new version and get the 100.  Look at the images shot inside of a doctor's office.  I sat in a corner while my sister's eyes were being examined, and put the camera on auto.  No flash. Auto ISO, I think the upper limit was set on 800 ISO.  There is no way I could have lugged my big DSLR around, getting shots like this, without attracting undue attention.

 

Any noise looked like film grain, not color noise.  Very pleasing.  I have not had an image rejected from this camera.  It's amazing.  I'm also shooting with a Nikon D800, so I know what a good image looks like.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with Betty LaRue

 

Look at the first 6 pages of my portfolio (set at 120 per page) - all but a couple of older images were taken with my 2 RX100s set on full auto.  To me it's the ultimate pocket p&s stock camera.

 

It's disappointing to read David's comment about the MK2 IQ - the fold out screen was a very tempting addition.  Will be interesting to hear of any updates on this issue.

 

JW

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was hoping David would come through with his final results on the RX100 MkII by now. The images on your page John look very sharp with the RX100 Mk I. Perhaps that's the way I will have to go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I got a full refund on the II. From what people are saying about the original RX100 I might be tempted to try it later on.

 

We tried another II that was in stock at the shop and the result was the same unfortunately. For reasons best known to themselves, Sony would appear to have cocked up what was otherwise a good model.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have just had accepted my first images from the Mk1, purchase about 10 days ago. Corners leave a bit to be desired but downsized them a little, passed QC no problem. I'm happy, which is rare ask my wife!  :angry:

 

This was only meant to be an additional camera, no plans to sell my D700.

Edited by Trevor Chriss

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting review John. I think from a point and shoot perspective its probably very acceptable. From a serious Alamy standard camera, it falls way short.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just looked and my last ten sales were all taken with my SONY RX-100 instead of my neck breaking Canon (nicknamed 'Big Boy').  A couple of decent sales too, $200 two weeks ago and one today for $165. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lisa, thats both interesting and encouraging. Your post might make me look at the RX100 (original version) Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lisa, if SONY RX-100's small size helped you capture your photos, especially after earliest page, that's a definite plus - strikes me mainly as a good example of how a photographer who gets to STRONG (news) situations, and uses STRONG skills to effectively capture the scenes, can make STRONG sales - even when using a basically adequate camera.

 

I just looked and my last ten sales were all taken with my SONY RX-100 instead of my neck breaking Canon (nicknamed 'Big Boy').  A couple of decent sales too, $200 two weeks ago and one today for $165. 

Edited by ann

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've had plenty of time with the RX100II and my conclusion is that sample variations are mostly responsible for opinions on the camera. It definitely works better in low light but due to the way its exposure metering has been changed from Mk 1, the actual gain is between 1/3 and 2/3 stop (as you would expect from the change to back-illuminated CMOS). The additional softness is also just what would be expected from large sensel wells, and not significant (it reduces colour moiré more than it does sharpness); the lens on my II mainly suffered from a soft right hand side at wide-angle only, and is actually much better than my Mk1 at the tele end (in fact, so good at the tele end I would prefer it any day over a Canon 24-105mm L used at f/8 on a 6D at 105mm).

 

So - I have a Mk1, I'm happy, I work mainly at wide-angle, mine's fine. I would not buy a MkII unless I wanted to use the iPhone remote viewing and control, and for that reason, I am considering it. I could sell my 7 inch monitor and HDMI cables and all that stuff, and just use my iPad and a MkII. You can even zoom the lens wirelessly while viewing the image and shooting, from a camera over 10 metres away (e.g. on a pole). So some thought is needed, but I like both these cameras enough to consider even owning two. Sounds pointless and might indeed be. The WiFi is FAR easier to use than the 6D and it really works fast and easily on iPad or iPhone. You could shoot and send pix from a demonstration for example using a 15-20ft pole (about the longest it's easy to handle). Gary Friedman sent me a brillliant joke shot of himself using this rig to er, look though an upstairs bathroom window...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks David for the précis. So..... What I sort of gather is the Mk II is going to be OK for shooting just about most things stock wise? Especially tele photos.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

DWI have the old model for sale new on eBay or their home page for $565 AU. They also have the MK11 for sale at $805 AU. I got all my gear from them. I tend to leave the Nikon 800E and all its lenses purchased this year at home. The RX100 MK1 camera is just so convenient  for a 70 year old retired man. I do still use the Nikon at home in a studio situation. I look upon the Nikon now as like my previously owned large and medium format cameras and treat it with the same shooting techniques. Not good news about the MK11 model, I was going to get one for my partner :( maybe time to wait for the MK111

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just received the Sony RX100II today.I've not had a chance to give it a workout but did notice on a few snaps at home that the jpegs SOOC  look amazing.I shot RAW and jpeg and loaded the RAW images into Lightroom and was not that impressed. I went back to the folder and reviewed the jpegs and I think I may like this cute little camera.I like the fact it has a hot shoe. I had the original Sony RX100 and didn't like that it did not have one. I always carry my remotes and a small flash when I venture out.

The camera is quick and quiet and the bonus is that it really does fit in a pocket.

 

I may sell off the Fuji X-Pro 1 system. I just don't care for being so invested in 2 different systems. For work I am using the Canon 6D and 60D as a back up for events.

 

L

Edited by Linda
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am going into my local city centre today to look at one for the first time. Lots of helpful, albeit slightly conflicting reports so far.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I must have a bad one. I brought the Sony RX100II with me when I ran errands and everything,jpeg and raw looks soft and pretty noisy even at iso 160 in good light.

 

This was used from Amazon Warehouse so perhaps it was just rebundled after a return and not sent to Sony to check out.

 

I found the folder of images I had from the Sony RX100 back in May and those images are very sharp.

However,I do like the wifi and hot shoe and allegedly better low light capability of the RX100II.

 

I think I've played with every small camera out there.

So far,fave image quality wise was the Sony RX1.Focus was not reliable though,at least on my copy and the macro was not good and I returned it.

 

L

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It should not be soft. You must have something seriously wrong. Also, noise should not be present at all at 160. That's not possible to explain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.