28mm versus 24mm? Look at the sensor shape and it's a pity they made it a 3:2 because when they quoted 28mm on squarer format sensors, it usually turned out that the lens was equivalent to a 24mm for an A4 full page crop.

This one has no such benefit and works out at 28.3mm not even a true 28mm - but I could live with that.

David

Are you also planing to get one, David?

I don't have a problem with 28mm I would say that would be close to my normal landscape type shot focal length. Not always but most of the time 28-35mm is where I go.
As for 3:2 again I prefer it over 4:3. My Fuji stays on 3:2 most of the time.
Panasonic are know to be goofing around with multi aspect ratio sensors, but the problem was you only got the "width" of the image as wide as indicated with the nice for web, not great for print 16:9 aspect ratio.

It's a relatively minor points of discussion though.
Price is a bit on the high side. Nobody is going to convince me it costs more to make a compact than it does a DSLR
The premium compact models are a bit of a cash cow for makers, relatively simple quick build time (v a DSLR) and less parts higher price!

Still I hope it marks the start or real compacts with decent sized sensors. Eventually this can filter down to the mid range models too. We've been crying out for half decent IQ in this area for years. This could be a way to "fend off" the ILC attack and it might work too.

Sony claims a 24mm equivalent wide angle... http://modules.cyberscholar.com/39025/p ... atures.pdf

Ah, but Sony's technical specs claim 28mm in 35mm language as wide starting point. http://www.sony.co.uk/product/dsc-r-ser ... nicalSpecs

Anyway help may be just round the corner as 4/3 Rumors are predicting a Panasonic LX7 shortly, possibly with a 1" sensor (speculation). I would be surprised if Panasonic give up on their 24mm starting point wide open. That might then be the camera for me if I wanted to replace my LX5. I doubt that though as Barry Fitzgerald is probably right in stating that the manufacturers are over pricing these premium compacts.

OK, I have some confusion here. I just looked at Pako's and alphaomega's two links and the cyberscholar page says "newly developed" 24mm while the Sony Make Believe page says 28-100mm. The Sony page gives resolution and megapixel breakdowns and shows 20MP image size as 5472×3648 at 3:2 but the 4:3 mode is 18MP at 4864×3648. Both are the same height at 3648 which tells me that a total of 608 has been chopped off both ends to achieve the 4:3 ratio which would seem to affect equivalent focal range.

So what's the deal here? Is it 24mm at 3:2 and 28mm at 4:3 or is it 28mm at 3:2 and even less wide at 4:3? Or am I missing something else?

One of the reasons I went from the S95 to the S100 was to get the wider 24mm but I preordered the RX100 even with the 28mm because it is such a game changer figuring I would just put up with 28mm, but if it truly is 24mm at 3:2, that would just be a bonus.

Ed

It's definitely a 28mm equivalent not a 24mm. However, no details are yet known about the focus mechanism. If the focus is internal, it may reduce the focal length as you approach the 5cm close focus limit. That could make the lens behave like a conventional 24mm when used for extreme foreground-background stuff.

I'm no longer so concerned about 24mm as an ideal focal length; Photoshop is so very powerful now that even without a lens profile, you can fire a couple of quick shot and stitch then with very full corrections. For interiors, etc, this can even work better than having a wide angle lens.

David

I can get by with 28mm and have done the same thing in the past, even stitching with Microsoft ICE for quite a while before PS got better at it. About the only time I really need 24mm on a compact is when in indoors taking quick shots of people or a small group where I couldn't back up any farther. And stitching is not ideal when people won't freeze into position long enough for more than one shot. But it's not that often that I run into this, just nice to have when you do. It certainly wasn't a deal-breaker for the RX100.

BTW, I checked with Lensmate a couple of weeks ago and they're going to come up with a filter adapter for the RX100, like their one for the S95/S100. Can't live without that...

Thanks for the input.

Ed

Gentlemen,
As usual it is "horses for courses" and I understand that 28mm max wide is fine for many of you but not for me. The thought of having to stitch to achieve below 28mm would turn me to the bottle. Fortunately I have my Panasonic LX5 and David Kilpatrick with his comments on the NEX-7 article inspired me to look for a NEX-5N. Got a new one for £349 minus £50 cash back. So I can have the NEX-5 with 16mm pancake & W/A converter as required and NEX-5N with either 18-55 or 55-210 zoom still in a small light bag. Additionally RAW files from both cameras can be converted in LR3.6 so no need to purchase a new computer with Windows 7 either to accommodate LR4.

Another bonus - I have mentioned that with A77 and NEX-7 producing such large raw files, my 16GB RAM iMac Quad Core i7 is struggling - ACR is very slow. The 16 megapixel files in contrast don't cause the same slowdown.

But I'll bet the RX100 20 megapixel files are slow to process when raw comes through...

David

owner's manual:
http://esupport.sony.com/docs/dvimag/DS ... index.html
http://www.docs.sony.com/release/DSCRX100_EN_ES.pdf
Marketing info:
http://www.docs.sony.com/release/specs/ ... B_mksp.pdf
Yes: it is a 28mm equivalent...
and yes: it looks good

RX100 has arrived, slightly worried by lack of cards/warranty in the package though the camera is completely new and on frame 1 (but that can be reset) and had all cover foils and stickers intact.

This is a VERY small camera - the body is about the same shape as the Nikon V1 but smaller all round. I've made a few simple enough findings already which I need to confirm, but it looks as if the lens is at least better than similar Canon G or Fuji F-series lenses, if not a match for G1-X or X-10.

Also, it's a camera which can do things beyond the scope of DSLRs or NEX - like the first shot taken with apart from chcking it works:

10.4mm, f9, iso80m hand-held with stabilisation in room light with a little late window light.

David

I'm envious! Mine is still a month away.

Can't wait to hear your "personal slants," I mean review, on the Rx100. (I read the DPR thread )

Ed

Edit update: Well, just received an email update. Instead of a month away, it's now a iittle over a week away. I won't have to be envious for so long now.

I was intrigued by David Kilpatrick's comments above
Perhaps, in view of the spec. quoted by pakodominguez above Sony might have emulated Panasonic with their LX5 and provided several formats such as 1:1, 4:3, 3:2 and 16:9, where 16:9 might have been 24-100 and 3:2 28-100 or whatever. The fact that the Mp rating of the sensor would reduce should be of no consequence as the starting point of 20Mp is so large as to be in excess of what most users require.
Just a thought.

I'm still investigating the lens. It is not clear whether Sony has adjusted the stated focal lengths to allow for the in-camera correction, which is very strong.

Certainly the impression you get when using it, especially close up, is of something wider than 28mm due to the very short actual focal length.

David