Or it would seem so from the IR raw samples at ISO3200:

Here is the RX


Now here's the a77


Both files processed in RT 4.0.9.15 without any NR/sharpening. Mind also that the RX is not yet supported there, so I did some some very crude manual adjustments to the channels' curves which is not good for the RX sample noise appearance.

Then mind also that, the RX shot is done at f/5.6 1/800s, while the a77 one is f/8 1/500s. Assuming same lighting, the RX seems to be 0.3EV less sensitive. But, at the same time, the equivalent DoF for the RX would be reached at about f/4.5. And that, in turn, means that the RX is a much better low-light machine than an a77 coupled with any equivalent zoom lens in existence (and the same goes for any Nex combo).

And here's how the RX sample looks with some NR/sharpening in Lr4 -

I don't need that camera. I don't need that camera. I don't need that camera... (I think I'm condemned to buy that camera... unless I buy a second NEX7)

It's already too late for me. I preordered it right after I convinced myself that I didn't need it either. Goodbye, S100! It was fun, as were all the others.

Ed

I really need a small compact with decent quality raw at least at the middle of its zoom range.

That said, I used to own a G10 and then an Lx3. They both had very poor 8-bit raw. And I wasn't happy with their optical qualities either. So I gave them both away to the friends/relatives, each after about a year time of no use at all.

Then I looked into the XZ1, but was unable to convince myself that 10Mp is enough, simply because it's absolutely not.

So maybe this time... It really seems to be better than a DSLR with a travel zoom attached...
Or there's the same old option of giving it away to those who may enjoy it.

Pako, that's the wrong approach

The real question is if you need that lens, heavily taking into account that it fits in your pants pocket. The sensor/electronics coming with that lens already is good/small enough.

If you are already into the NEX system, owning many of these cameras, why will you "need" a smaller compact camera? that is the question I also ask to myself...

In my case, the question is: do I buy this camera, or I buy a second NEX7?

Pako, a Nex with any kind of zoom is huge compared to RX. The RX is something I can carry for 'just in case', and mostly have it forgotten till I really need to use it. If I carry a Nex with a zoom attached, it is rather limiting my freedom in doing other things.

So I cannot really understand how a Nex can be compared to RX; as beside its price and IQ, all the rest is totally beyond comparison.

The grain pattern is quite tight on the RX, more "splodge" on the A77.
When the 24mp SLT's came out I was very surprised by the high levels (very high) of chroma noise, it can be cleaned up..but it's far higher than I expected.

RX100 is another "fantastic" camera that is really of no use to me like products from CAN/NIK that are pocketable.
Why?
They start at 28mm (35mm equivalent).
When there is a new release of one of these "magic" cameras the first thing I look at is the lens focal length. 28mm start just puts me off in an instant. Sony, let's have an upgrade with a 24-90mm lens that will slip into a pocket. Considering the size of the sensor 24-80 would even be acceptable because of the cropping possibilities. In the meantime I will stay with my Pana LX5 (24-90mm equivalent) for pocket camera, NEX-5 for light weight use and A580 for fast focus and shooting situations.

Its what makes a market. Horses for courses, etc. When I think of the choice we have today compared with 10 years ago it makes me rejoice in what a marvellous photographic age we live in.

David Pogue publish his review of this camera early this week: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/28/techn ... .html?_r=2

"This is a review of the best pocket camera ever made. "

I, for one, welcome this focal length. I have a few compacts that start at the wide 24 or 25mm angle of view, and the first thing I do when I turn them on is zoom in a little, to their 35 or 50mm equivalents. The RX100 was designed for street-shooters, and the first lens most street-shooters want is a 28mm. Making the camera start there means they don't have to fiddle it into an angle of view that they're more familiar with.

Also, 28mm sweep panoramas!

As usual it is "horses for courses". I find the 28mm setting at max wide too restricting for my type of photography. Even the 18-55 on my NEX-5 is too "narrow" and switching to 24mm pancake is a pain. I look forward to the advent of the rumoured E16-50G zoom. If it is reasonably compact and live up to G billing I will buy it. Probably 90% of my Alpha photography was with my venerable CZ 16-80. By all accounts the RX100 is a fantastic camera and it bodes well for Sony's future releases. I have always had confidence in Sony since I bought the R1 and then the A700. It is not that "The future is Orange" it is more that "The future may be Sony" contrary to expectations, and some of the competitors are now in a chase the leader situation.

The 28mm eqv is the best compromise between WA and perceptive distortion. Step down to 25mm, and nobody is recognising even the most nearby cityscape. Step up to 30-35mm, and you lose too much FOV. The best option is a 28mm horizontal eqv with some barrel distortion to keep the faces truer to life, or else correct the barrel for architectural shots.