DxO Mark and the Compact Full-Frame Sony RX1

DxO Mark and the Compact Full-Frame Sony RX1

I was pleasantly surprised when I heard about the Sony RX1, a true, compact beast with a full-frame sensor. But I was less than impressed with its price, thinking there's no way this can really be as great as a high-end DSLR. Put up against the D800, the RX1 does surprisingly well in DxoMark's tests, however...

The RX1 scored almost identically to the Nikon D800 and D800E, with similar dynamic range, color depth, and ISO ratings. Of all, though, ISO is the one thing that doesn't quite measure up, as it performs at about 85-90% of the D800's ISO performance. Still, I'm extremely impressed. If I needed to be discrete in my picture-taking, I'd have no problem laying down the money for this project. And I can certainly imagine certain documentary environments in which this would be ideal. What do you think?

Posted In: 
Log in or register to post comments



$2,798.00 omg.....

Well if you compare it to a Leica x2 that's 2.000 dollar msrp it's not too bad. Still too much for me.

Adam's picture

I agree. I can't just go out and get it. I have to save a while. And even then, there are other systems for the money that I'd rather have first. But it scores better than the leica m9 (no results on the new leica m bodies yet). So if you really want to compare prices, there you go. All Sony needs to do now is remove the anti-aliasing filter (and charge more for less, since that's what everyone's doing), and you'll have an 'ultra-cheap' leica...

Ah yes, DxO, the physics-defying hardware testers.

The D800 has a dynamic range of 14.4 EV, but only a 14 bit ADC. This isn't normal in the real world, but on whatever drugs they're taking at DxO it's normal.
And the canon 28mm IS which had a T-stop of T/2.7, because fuck physics. But only on the 550D, because that makes sense.

And what does "Sports (Low-Light ISO)" even mean? From their website:
"To compensate for the lack of exposure, they have to increase the ISO setting, which means the SNR will decrease. How far can they go while keeping decent quality? Our low-light ISO metric will tell them."
Which anyone who knows anything about sensor technology knows is absolute bullshit. As long as you have the same exposure, the file with the highest ISO (with no highlight clipping, obviously) will have the best SNR. And ISO 2534 doesn't exist. Heck, ISO 2500 doesn't exist in any digital camera I know of. It's just ISO 3200 digitally pulled.

Let's rather see some proper image samples. What about dpreview's preview? Much more info there than this misleading score by DxO.

And as for the movie mode... Let's see a subway short. Too bad about that fixed lens and that they removed (!) focus peaking from the feature list.

Tobias Solem's picture

Someone is mad. 

Patryk M's picture

Does anyone else find DxO has lost there minds?

Patryk M's picture

Tests...tests...OKAY. Yes we all see things look great on paper. How about the "real world" You know where it counts! 

Robert's picture

No matter how beautifully executed the RX1 nay be it is a non starter not so much for the price but for the fixed lens. C'mon Sony!

Anto de Chav's picture

Lovely camera but the price is too high,when the price drops I will be very tempted to grab one,,

RUSS's picture

full frame compact?
Price for this new gadget? OH MY GOOSE!!!
it's about 2400 more than it should be :)

Sony please fix that error..
thank you...


3500 € just to be discrete & unsuspiciously. Well, to each their own.

You shouldn't rely on the overall score of  DxOMark tests. The overall score tends to increase year by year by a projected rate. But as this article shows
the progress is in reality nowhere near what is popularly thought. And the article is using DxOMark measurements, just not the overall score.

Many folks here seems to have not seen the Carl Zeiss 35mm F2 lens that comes in the RX1 "package".... If you work out the figures... Hmmmm....