Sony RX100 $568 with trade-in for any old/broken camera YMMV

Quote from dogstar1 :Thanks OP. Nice deal if you are looking to buy. Reps!

In my dream world I'd love get this camera at a mid-400s price or so. I don't necessarily see it happening, but I think that's my trigger. Maybe I'll get lucky with a price mistake or an accidentally-combined-when-it-shouldn't-have-been sales price+trade in deal. Stranger things have happened.

Otherwise an s100 or LX7 in the $250 range is going to have to do.




just picked up the lx7 and it's probably the best compact I've used. Do you know if the s100 is better than the s110, as I hear more people talk about the s100.

Most people in this thread have no idea what the RX100 is, and why it's priced the way it is. The Nikon Series 1 cameras are far larger with the same size sensor (and offer less resolution).

My only hope is that if RX100 = 1" Sensor and RX1 = FF Sensor, then RX10 if it ever materializes will be a P&S w/APS-C sensor.

Just did a side by side test of lx7 and s100. I'm a canon fan but I have to say the lens on the lx7 destroyed the canon letting in much more natural light. Canon is easier to work with but I think I'll stick with the panasonic this time.

RX100 is very very pocketable.

Just did a side by side test of lx7 and s100. I'm a canon fan but I have to say the lens on the lx7 destroyed the canon letting in much more natural light. Canon is easier to work with but I think I'll stick with the panasonic this time.

I have a C3. That w/the 16mm pancake is my "going out at night" camera. It easily slips in my sport coat pocket and is unatrusive sitting at a dinner table or bar.

No, it won't fit in my jeans back pocket, but think you are pushing putting this in your back pocket at 1.40" thick.

Edit, I just checked a web site. The c3 w/16mm is not as thick as the rx100. Point? Neither are going in your jeans pocket. So again, while the RX100 gets great reviews and may very well be among the best pic quality in this type of camera, I'd have to really question where it fits in the real world. Again a mirrorless with a pancake lens gets pretty darn close.

The RX100 is very pocketable if your pockets are as loose as Santa Clause's gift bag. To me anything bigger than the S100 can't be considered pocketable.

You guys need to go and have a look at the RX100 (Best Buy has them)... It's very small and extremely light.

The RX100 is a terrific camera for an alternative to an SLR. I also have a Mark III and when I don't want to carry around a bulky camera, with a honking lens, the RX100 is amazing.

It all depends on what you are shooting. And whether or not you want to carry around some big heavy camera or just something that takes real good pictures, works great in low light, etc.

You'll get a great photo with either.

So if I want excellent quality pictures and do not want to lug around an SLR, is this the best option? Is the sensor size in the S100 comparable?

All I've learned from this thread so far is that there are a lot of people with very strong opinions and no idea what they're talking about.

Think what you want, but the RX100 is only 3mm thicker than a Nex-C3 without a lens: http://camerasize.com/compare/#118,332

No, it wasn't. You specifically spoke about gathering light. DoF is a completely separate matter--the other side of the coin. Cameras with smaller sensors are capable of creating DoF effects. Regarding Sensor size and DoF, it boils down to crop factors. Take an APS-H and FF body, same lens, crop the FF to match the FoV, and you've got the exact same DoF.

You can talk about the theoretical all you like, but I've actually compared the two and at the long end FLs the LX7 wins (in any case, it's close). Zooming the RX100 out and then cropping to match the FoV creates its own problems--LX7 wins this overall. Obviously, the RX100 wins at 28mm.

At last a technical review of lens distortions in the RX100 and LX7

Summary:

1. The LX7 has the same peak resolution as the worst the RX100 lens has at its fringes. You just can't beat those extra pixels in the Rx100 sensor.

2. By f2.8 the RX100 lens (full wide) has developed reasonably sharp edges, and has about 140% of the LX7 resolution across its image field.

3. The LX7 has a much more consistent lens, but the limited megapixels of the sensor limit its resolving power.

4. You don't want to use the LX7 at wide angle, f5.6

5. You don't want to use the RX100 fully open beyond f4

6. At full reach, the LX7 lens is very smooth indeed, with about 80% of the resolution of the RX100 at that reach (provided you stay below F5.6 by using the ND filter... (nice for portraits with bokeh, I think)

7. The RX100 is tiny...

Here is a translated copy of the review (it is in Spanish):
http://urlhasbeenblocked/LIdpzg

The Rx100 still has some rough edges in its manufacture which Sony needs to fix, but it is clearly a game changer.

My LX7 is coming tomorrow. I will probably keep it, now I have seen objective data on the competitive lenses. I need the LX7 for its better video, in any case.

beats me, counting DoF on the far end, poor man's DoF if you ask me.
RX100 - F4.9-13.4 (28-100mm) equivalent DMX-LX7 - F7.1-11.7 (24-90mm) equivalent (FF)
So at wide/mid focal lengths the Sony actually has the "wider apertures". When you take into account the far superior sensor on the RX100 then I think it becomes quite apparent what your extra $$ is getting you.

Sony's RGBW pixel arrangement makes the screen far easier to see in daylight. Pretty important when you don't have a viewfinder. Of course you can add a viewfinder to the Panasonic, but then it gets even bulkier.

The RX100 doesn't just have a bigger sensor, it has better sensor technology, a better lens, whilst at the same time being smaller, thinner and lighter.

If you have the extra $$ and want a compact, get the Sony. It is far superior in every regard.

Anyhow, read this, a nice comparison for who's obsessed or confused about lx7 vs. Rx100:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/post/42319011

Think what you want, but the RX100 is only 3mm thicker than a Nex-C3 without a lens: http://camerasize.com/compare/#118,332