This is a real pockable camera .

http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/06/06/Sony-DSC-RX100-preview-with-sample-images

An full image :

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/sony-rx100/sony-rx100A7.HTM

This will be my next camera to recommend to people not looking to swap the lens...

Yeah, I'm impressed.

Said this years ago Sony should do a proper compact premium model. Good to see it's turned up..20mp not sure about that, price a bit heavy but it's good to see the coma is over at cyber shot division!

Looks good and even RAW shooting, but the lens range is not to my liking. 28-100 may be fine for most folks, but I would prefer the R1 24-120 or even 24-90 if 24-120 was not possible in the envelope provided. So I will stay with my LX5 and 24-90mm.

Looks great to me (even though I prefer to have a vf, obviously not poss at this size). Except, and it's a big Except, the battery has to be charged in-situ via a USB charger. So once the battery is exhausted the camera is out of action until it has been charged again. Not a deal-breaker for an occasional, opportunistic camera but not ideal either, particularly given the target user.

Ah Artington, you have not looked at the details. You get an extra battery within the $650 price, so that is 660 images in the box. That is the reason for the premium on such a little thing. And in next to no time you will be able to pick up spare batteries on ebay for $10-15, but they won't show the remaining charge - unfortunately.
A real shame about the lens reach starting at 28mm.

There is no mention of a second battery in the UK spec.

http://www.wexphotographic.com/buy-sony ... 58#details

However, assuming this is the case, the problem remains that when both are exhausted you will still have to recharge each in the camera. Hopefully this will not be a 4 hour process per battery as it is with the NEX!

Artington wrote


Maybe I was mistaken in my understanding of this paragraph at the end of Sony's press release:


Maybe you have to pay extra for the spare battery and even a battery charger. Not sure what means!?
Interesting to see the graphic presentation of different sensor sizes here
http://www.dpreview.com/previews/sony-dsc-rx100/
Could be that the Nikon 1 uses the same Sony made sensor as this RX100.

Definitely sold separately.

I have to wonder why we bemoan the use of USB charging, or "in-camera" charging. Most other devices do it. Imagine taking the battery out of your phone to charge it! I'm glad to see this feature working it's way into more Sony cameras because it decreases the clutter of chargers I have to travel with, and it means I can charge a camera up from my laptop if need be, and maybe I'll invest in a solar-powered USB charging device for my next camping trip.

The sensor of the RX100 is NOT an Exmor R BSI CMOS sensor. The following is in error due to a typo on Sony's site:
Concerning the 20MP sensor; this Exmor R CMOS sensor is roughly four times the area of the first 10MP Exmor R sensors from Sony, and with only twice the resolution. Unless I am mistaken and there are some other back-lit sensors out there which aren't touting their special architecture, the RX100 has the largest back-lit photo-sites in the business, and with raw output, to boot.

But the photo-sites are still twice as large as any Cyber-Shot's that were introduced in the few years.

I'm not a fan of USB charging it's fine as a choice but not as the only option. If you want to charge multiple batteries you have to use the camera seems a bit dumb to me.
I'd wager it's yet another cost cutting measure to save a few pennies and boost margins.

Imagine that! A company that sells stuff trying to boost their margins!

As clearly stated already, USB charging is not the only choice, but it gives the greater benefit to the majority of buyers who will only ever use the one battery that came with the camera. For the photographer anticipating needing an extra battery--and using the camera at such a pace that they need the one battery charging while the other is being used--an extra battery charger is a fairly small investment anyway.

I gather a charger will shortly be on sale in the UK.

BTW, I took the RX100 on a recent weekend trip to Berlin. The IQ is incredible for such a small camera - it was an absolute joy to use too, and very discrete for street stuff.

As of today I have the RX100 to replace my whole NEX system. The NEX system is good, but not as portable as I had hoped for. I was lucky enough to sell most of my NEX stuff, so I could get the RX100 without loosing to much money.

Although I can't comment on the IQ yet, the camera is a joy to use. The fact that it's compact, has good image quality considering it's size and I can configure it how I want to use it is great! The addition of the wheel around the lens which can be used to manual focus is a real bonus too. Can't wait to get out and use it.

And finally, FINALLY Sony made a neck strap that actually doesn't rip the skin of your flesh when using it! I bought the Sony LCJ-RXA case with it and the strap is great. Nice case too!

Mark

I was "silly" enough to offer my son my Panasonic LX5 at silly prices and now would like to purchase a quality replacement with a larger sensor. I wonder if any of the current RX100 users would care to update their experience of using this camera. I have read through David Kilpatrick's review again and also other reviews and I am so tempted to purchase one before 31/12 to benefit from Sony's cash-back offer of £50. That would give me a net price of £427 here in UK. I am concerned about corner sharpness, distortion and CA. I have always tried to get a compact starting at 24mm equivalent. I gather from David's review that Jpeg corrections deliver 28mm at wide end whereas uncorrected RAWs are wider at 24.8mm. I think I can live with that.

The RX100 can be summed up in one word - "Amazing"!. My previous compact was an LX3, which was a superb piece of kit. The IQ of the RX100 blows it away. The images have a depth to them which its difficult to describe. I'm biased, (as I own one!) but I have no hesitation in saying "Buy One". I have met several people who own one and they have all raved about it.

Yes, RAW images are slightly wider than the JPEG, because the in-camera correction applies some slight cropping. There is quite noticeable distortion on the uncorrected RAW file however, and most RAW processors will probably apply correction to it (unless instructed not to!)

I have had no issues with corner sharpness and CA.