Sony's RX100 Looks Amazing, But Do You Care?

Sony's RX100 Looks Amazing, But Do You Care?

I've been looking at the Sony Cyber-Shot DSC-RX100 for a couple weeks now, and as awesome as the specs look on paper, I'm somehow still in a fog of "meh." The compact point-and-shoot camera used to be relevant, but I haven't felt that to be the case for some time now. These days, the compact camera market belongs to the cell phone, and for anything else I'll just pick up a DSLR or a mirrorless. So what do you think? Do you care this camera exists?




I mean it LOOKS pretty sweet...

  • 20.2MP 1" Exmor CMOS Low-Light Sensor
  • Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T Lens
  • Xtra Fine 3" LCD Display with WhiteMagic
  • Optical 3.6x Zoom & Digital 7.2x Zoom
  • Optical & Electronic Image Stabilization
  • Full HD 1080/60p Video Capture
  • Ultra-Fast 0.13 Sec High-Speed AF
  • Face Detection & 10 fps Burst Mode
  • Record Stills Using JPEG, RAW, or Both
  • Aluminum Body with Built-In Pop Up Flash


I wish some of that was on my DSLR honestly. And yet, two weeks ago I glanced at this and then forgot it existed. Not out of spite, I just had other things on my mind. The camera's announcement just didn't stick.

Today a friend reminded me of it, and I read David Pogue's review. Pogue's lust and desire for this camera is so strong, he verbally removes the lens from the RX100, as one would undress a mistress, before proceeding to violently thrust himself into the cavity. Never thought I would be writing in such a Penthouse Forum style, but that's the best way for me to summarize his well written review (love you Pogue!).

So my feelings aside, what do you all think? Do you want this camera? Is it worth the hefty $650 price tag?

Log in or register to post comments


Nice little compact, I'll be sticking with my 5D Mk III for the foreseeable future though. ^_^

I don't and I expect the vast majority don't either.  The best camera is the one you have with you. That's the cell phone for most people.
I do have a Canon s95 for compact but "I kind of want to create art" shots, and a DSLR for "I really want to be deliberate about this" work.  But the problem with cameras now is they don't have the functionality that people are expecting from their devices now.

Thom Hogan does talk about this fairly frequently. Most people take a photo and want to be able to tweet it or send it to friends. With a cell phone you can do that instantly.  With a camera or DSLR? Not so much.  I'm not big on constantly tweeting my activities but many people are and the compact/DSLR market is just not keeping up.

i don't know why anyone would want to upload to fb/twitter/tumblr etc from your DSLR... yes there are people who want to get everything down in camera, but it seems vast majority want to post process a lot of their work... so technically there wouldn't be a point in uploading from your DSLR.

if they allow point and shoots to upload that would be cool, but pointless in my opinion for a DSLR to do.

No viewfinder... sensor still to small to render the way I like at wide or normal and reasonable distances to people, no viewfinder, DR not seriously different than other digital, 

agreed = meh who cares....

The video quality is pretty amazing

In truth, I feel the camera is incredibly overpriced, then again, any brand-spankin'-new technology is.  I am a proud owner of a 5DMk3 and some very high-end lenses, but I HATE taking all that gear, or even select gear out and about with me when I'm just relaxing out in San Francisco.  However, my iPhone 4S is not suitable to the sort of photos I would like to know I can take at a moments notice.

As a result, I have pre-ordered the Sony RX100 and am excited to try it out!  I'm more in it for the [relatively] large sensor for such a small body.  I really want to be able to put that thing in my pocket, or my very small day bag vs lugging around a DSLR, even if it's with a small lens.

I am also excited because Sony makes VERY good-quality products.  A high megapixel/low-noise camera with a giant screen, that shoots RAW and allows for full manual control is EXACTLY what I need.  If it's from a good brand then that's the icing on the cake.  Other than the price, I'm SOLD (but I'm sold anyhow haha!)

you are an 5D MK3 owner and complain about overprized gear?  lol..... that was a good one!!!


Absolutely. This is a perfect camera to throw in my bag no matter where I'm going, even if it's not photography related. I hate lugging around a full DSLR + Lens(es) + Flash when I go anywhere. 

I've never seen a more glowing interview then the one linked. I wonder how much Sony paid him? Or I guess they just let him keep it

maybe you should test it yourself before making such a assumption?

are you paid by the competition maybe?
you got money from panasonic to write such things on websites?

Meh...   a compact at a dSLR price point offering half the performance of a dSLR.  Just because it's better than other compacts doesn't mean it's good.   I would rather have a cheap compact that offers worse performance because ultimately all P&S suck and this one is no different - might as well have one that is cheap.  

And if they want to impress me with video performance, show me how it does in doors and in lower light situations. I can get great video from my Iphone shooting outside in perfect light.

David Raco's picture

I've got an Canon S90. It was the *best* manual compact camera at the time.
Today this beats the Canon S100. Probably would be my choice, in terms of specs, but with the price bigger than $600 doesn't compel me...

Adam's picture

I have my DSLR and my iPhone. Buying a point-and-shoot just doesn't make sense -- especially one like this that's AS MUCH as an iPhone... I do have a Nikon AW100, too, though. But that just fills a small gap when I'm traveling or at the beach and don't want to think twice about whether I put it in a padded pocket of my backpack or left it in my swim trunk pocket...

I have one on order.  This camera shouldn't be looked at as the high end of the consumer cameras but as a small professional camera.  Even DxO labs is including it as a camera they will review (see link below). I have a Nikon D90 with a variety of lenses that I use to cover a variety of professional situations, and a Sony DSC-HX10 that is a wonderful "take anywhere" camera.  But the HX10 is not user-friendly when it comes to trying to manually adjust things like focus or aperture.  The RX100 has most of the automatic features of the HX0 but adds those dSLR-type modes of aperture and shutter priority, plus the ability to easily manually focus using the lens ring, similar to the Canon S95/S100.  But the RX100 has a large enough sensor (1" vs 1/2.3" for the HX10) and max aperture (f1.8) to have a "useably small" DOF when needed.  There's no flash shoe so there's no attaching an viewfinder but I find that a small price to pay for its small size - actually smaller than my HX10. 

I'm really looking forward to it replacing my HX10 as my "go anywhere" camera.  It costs more than $200 more than the HX10 (which a great little camera) but the "pro" type features makes it worthwhile to me.

DxOMark preliminary review page:

PS - I have no connection to Sony other than as satisfied user of their camera products

I don't always like to carry my DSLR. It's big and heavy. Sometimes i just need a small camera with a lot of power. Cell phones don't cut it for me, they just don't have the quality, speed and reliability of a dedicated camera.  i have the S90 which is not bad, but it still can't compare with a DSLR. Point and shoots are still a necessity when DSLR's are not allowed, or when using a large camera attracts too much attention.

So this camera sounds great. But i think no point and shoot should cost more than a basic DSLR kit. That's just greed. You can get a new D3200 kit for a little over this price, and a bit older D3100 for less than $600, why on earth would i spend this much money on a point and shoot? it should be priced way below DSLR's to make them attractive to anyone. Pro/Semi-pro photographers will rather spend this money on lenses or accessories, and amateur photographers will probably just get a simpler automatic camera. I'd pay $300-400 for it, no more.

Dave Alberto's picture

You can definitely buy a entry level DSLR body at that price point. But have you considered the lens it comes with? The equivalent Sony 24-70 2.8 Carl Zeiss lens will cost you a couple thousand dollars.

 If I were in the market for a compact camera at the moment, I might take note. Under the circumstances, though, I couldn't care less.

That's a great headline, by the way. You got my attention.

Pinky 5's picture

ANY camera without a viewfinder is trumped by a phone.

 I say this because the idea of using an LCD to compose an image (ESPECIALLY in sunlight) is an exercise in futility or an act of desperation. Thus the image that needs to be captured by such a compromised device is, by default, an emergency image.

Vladimir Byazrov's picture

Sony always has great specs and wonderful bloggers support, when you leave it just a reading it's cool, but when you buy those cameras you find out how greater the marketing department of Sony is. They can talk you into buying anything, but the quality is always limited by the price. Don't forget it neither with this one, no with nex c3, f3... they are cheap and they shoot this way, no matter what specs promise. 

all bad photographers i know complain about the cameras....pretty lousy excuse these days.

Vladimir Byazrov's picture

So basically you say you have no sex in your life and by insulting random people you somehow satisfy your pervert self?

 It seems that Sony has some forums police officers trying to shut up free opinions. What a waste of resources!

Alex's picture

I'm quite happy with my Fuji X10 so, no . . . I don't care about the RX100.

well i guess this camera would be the better choice for all the m43 or NEX buyer who only have a kit lens anyway. there are millions of customers out there who never visit website like this one or care that much about photography. this would be the perfect camera for them.

i know a lot of people who bought a m43 to have a bigger sensor but they don´t have nor want extra lenses. they are fine with a kit lens.

this camera delivers great quality in a better sized package then m43.

the price is a bit high. but i would buy it as second camera.

A side system for me..I want a small camera with power, the Nex doesn't cut it for me, if I have to carry around a Nex I prefer the alpha instead, so this is the compact camera that I was waiting for...

If this was about half the price, this would definitely be in my kit. The video quality truly blew me away, but I wouldn't pay $600+ for it.

I wish it had 24FPS because I originally bought a Sony DSC-HX9V last year and that camera's 1080P/60P didn't mix well aesthetically with the Canon 60D's 1080P/24FPS.