Sony RX100 - getting started

[ZoranC]

So young, and yet so cynical

There was nothing young nor cynical in what I just posted

I have to say, I wasn't really discussing the lens on the RX100, ...

What were you discussing then?

but even if I had been, I guess that they are aiming this camera at slightly more discerning users.

With "the best compact camera ever made" marketing they are obviously aiming at very discerning users, aren't they? Then it shouldn't be surprise they will get discerning users.

there's nothing terribly clinical about this lens (how could there be at this size, this price and this zoom range).

So you are saying $700 is small peas and not to expect anything for that measly pocket change? Good to know that even in this economy some people are so rich that they don't care what they get for $700. Me, I am having higher expectations.

(yeah, I agree I would have preferred better and faster lens even if it means less zoom but nobody was holding gun to their head, they had their own choice and made their own bed)

On the other hand I don't think your 'clinical' necessarily excludes a 'glow' - I'd put up my lovely 75 mm APO summicron as an example of a lens which can provide both. Trouble of course is putting down a decent definition of 'clinical' and 'glow'

It doesn't exclude it? We are not talking you here, we are talking typical consumers. And thus line of distinguishment is very simple to draw. If typical consumer sees his shots are not having "glow" while ones from his old XZ1 are not they will not say "Ahhh, that's OK because jonoslack's summicron does same" they will say "What the ...! What is this?! Shots from my XZ1 are not having this weird glow, if Olympus can do it for half of the money that my RX100 cost why Sony can't?" And more typical consumers returns RX100 because of color shifts, spherical abberations, lens misalignments, harder it will be for RX200 to come out. And we don't want that to happen, do we? Do you?

 

[ZoranC]

>I feel if we gave camera phone in same hands and didn't say it we would still end up with same awe reactions.

Show me a phone that has this kind of lens.

Then show me the photos that show off this lens instead of heavily processed shots in sizes not bigger than cell phone shots.

 

[ZoranC]

However, if the camera allow us to create an image that we can be proud of, then hasn't it done its job?

Bingo! And by that token camera that has gotten in your way of creating an image that you can be proud of hasn't done it's job. Thus if you take a picture of distant archictectual object and upper right corner is noticably softer due to lens misalignment did camera do it's job or it got in your way? If you want to take a picture where color shift is showing up did camera do it's job or stepped on your toes?

 

[jonoslack]

Then show me the photos that show off this lens instead of heavily processed shots in sizes not bigger than cell phone shots.

Well, you could start by looking on Uwe's website at his images (they really are very good you know!)

all the best

 

[Streetshooter]

Zoran,
May I ask a personal question?
Do you consider yourself a consumer or a photographer?

 

[ZoranC]

What I'm saying is that it's unfair to expect a 4 times zoom lens in a compact camera body for $700 to compete with a 3 time zoom an a 1.5kg Nikon lens or a Leica prime for $3000.

... and nobody here compared it to $3K gear. At least I didn't. But I did compare it to XZ1, which is half of it's price. And doesn't have "glow".

I think we have a different definition of 'glow' which kind of negates the premise of the discussion . ..

Even if there was such a thing as "different definitions of glow" (I don't know how that could be when glow is a glow is a glow) debate here is not what kind of glow it is nor how much it glows, it is about a fact that there is a glow when many people expect there shouldn't be any.

so that although it's been interesting I'd rather take a step back and enjoy some more of Gandolfi's Fokking excellent shots! . . . and we do agree that they're good.

Yes, they are excellent even though they don't say anything about camera.

 

[ZoranC]

Well, you could start by looking on Uwe's website at his images (they really are very good you know!)

Yes, they are excellent. Which reminds me, wasn't Uwe one of persons that had concerns about color shifts he has experienced? Or my memory is wrong?

 

[Hosermage]

Bingo! And by that token camera that has gotten in your way of creating an image that you can be proud of hasn't done it's job. Thus if you take a picture of distant archictectual object and upper right corner is noticably softer due to lens misalignment did camera do it's job or it got in your way? If you want to take a picture where color shift is showing up did camera do it's job or stepped on your toes?

I see, so you do have several bones to pick with the image quality of this camera. I don't think anyone is saying that this camera produce perfect images so that you can replace your DSLR/RF/M43/NEX camera with it. Personally, I haven't looked that deep into the pictures from this camera. I expected it to perform like a P&S camera, which is just slightly better than cellphones. However, what surprised me was I think I got something better than a normal P&S camera. I think you have a much higher expectation for this camera than I do, which is fine, but I just hope that you didn't actually buy it since you'll be disappointed.

 

[ZoranC]

We obviously do have a different definition of 'glow' because the one I'm talking about is something that everyone wants . . . not something they don't want.

Then why reply on post about spherical abberations?

 

[ZoranC]

Zoran,
May I ask a personal question?
Do you consider yourself a consumer or a photographer?

That is irrelevant. And if it was relevant I would answer with "person that doesn't like spherical abberations or color shifts in his expensive gear when his cheaper gear is not producing any".

 

[ZoranC]

I don't think anyone is saying that this camera produce perfect images so that you can replace your DSLR/RF/M43/NEX camera with it.

Funny you say that because, IIRC, Sony's team that is responsible for RX100 themselves said they developed it to replace DSLR for number of people and are urging you to consider doing that (check out interview with them on Sony Singapore site).

Personally, I haven't looked that deep into the pictures from this camera. I expected it to perform like a P&S camera ...

I too expect it to perform like P&S camera. And thus if other P&S camera is not showing color shifts or spherical aberrations I expect RX100 to perform at least like that, with no color shifts and spherical aberrations. I say "at least" because it should perform better, as it costs quite a bit more than other P&S cameras.

However, what surprised me was I think I got something better than a normal P&S camera.

Can you please elaborate in which areas exactly it performs better?

I think you have a much higher expectation for this camera than I do, which is fine, but I just hope that you didn't actually buy it since you'll be disappointed.

So only way to not be disappointed by RX100 is if I lower my expectations? That's IMO wrong approach as my expectations are not arbitrarily made up, they are based on my experience with number of other cameras in same class. I wasn't getting "glow" when I was shooting my S90 wide open at wide angle, nor was I getting optical misalignment when shooting it at tele, nor was I getting color shift from it. Nor was I getting that from XZ1. Is that too high of an expectation, or that is normal for one to expect?

 

[ZoranC]

I see, so you do have several bones to pick with the image quality of this camera.

Oh, yeah, you still didn't answer my question is camera that does such things letting people create images that they can be proud of and thus it has done it's job or it has gotten in a way, stepped on the toes, and thus it has failed in doing job it has been "hired" for? Which one of these two it exactly did: delivered as it should or ruined the shot?

 

[ustein]

>Which reminds me, wasn't Uwe one of persons that had concerns about color shifts he has experienced? Or my memory is wrong?

Yes, this was me and it is not great to say at least. We have now found it with 3 different cameras. But it shows only if there are bright colors left and right. I have sent pictures to Sony and wait for a reply. Still I live with this flaw.

The XZ1 is a nice camera but I prefer the handling and video of the RX100 over the XZ1. Also likely a lot more noise at higher ISO with the XZ1.

 

[ZoranC]

>Which reminds me, wasn't Uwe one of persons that had concerns about color shifts he has experienced? Or my memory is wrong?

Yes, this was me and it is not great to say at least. We have now found it with 3 different cameras. But it shows only if there are bright colors left and right. I have sent pictures to Sony and wait for a reply. Still I live with this flaw.

Make that 5, if not 6. One I returned because of horrible misalignment at tele had a color shift at edges, and so does one I have in hands now. I think Imaging Resource also reported color shift in their review.

The XZ1 is a nice camera but I prefer the handling and video of the RX100 over the XZ1. Also likely a lot more noise at higher ISO with the XZ1.

I too prefer RX100 when lens misalignment, color shift, and "glow" are not getting in my way. Unfortunately for me I like to shoot both at wide and tele end of the zoom, objects that are both close and distant, and at apertures other than just F8. I guess that excludes majority of situations this camera should be able to cover for me.

 

[Hosermage]

ZoranC, obviously you don't like the camera, so don't buy it. Problem solved. There are others who like the output from this camera, so we'll keep using it.

I will not have enough time to enjoy my life if I had to go to each other camera threads to convince others why that camera is not for me, nor do I have time to convince everyone that they should like all the cameras that I like.

Edit: ah... I see you do own it... that's too bad, and perhaps explains why you're here. I hope you can return it and get something else that you like better.

 

[ZoranC]

ZoranC, obviously you don't like the camera, so don't buy it. Problem solved. There are others who like the output from this camera, so we'll keep using it.

I will not have enough time to enjoy my life if I had to go to each other camera threads to convince others why that camera is not for me, nor do I have time to convince everyone that they should like all the cameras that I like.

Edit: ah... I see you do own it... that's too bad, and perhaps explains why you're here. I hope you can return it and get something else that you like better.

Manufacturers love consumers that just take whatever is thrown their way. Let me ask you this: Do you accept from your car manufacturer what you accept from your camera manufacturer? Do you pay "Lexus" price and are OK if it performs worse than Yugo (Yugo didn't have sudden acceleration reports that I know of)?

Yes, I know I am exaggerating but I hope it's helping in getting a point across. If nobody says a word publicly, if we don't hold manufacturer's feet to a fire and we all go with "thank you Sir, may I get another slap please" attitude then we will all get what we deserve, more and more products delivering less and less than they should.

 

[ZoranC]

Because I was trying to trap you into being aggressive about the definition of 'glow'

Seems like I succeeded admirably. Still, it was an unworthy trick, so I do apologise.

Sounds to me that only thing you succeeded in is show you are being incoherrent and silly.

 

[ZoranC]

That was certainly my intent.

Thanks for contributing. Whatever your contribution might have been.

 

[Hosermage]

ZoranC, thank you for being diligent on running all sorts of tests and finding all the faults of the camera, and I hope you will report your findings to Sony so RX200 will be that much better. I'm a lost cause, I'm afraid, because I have not even noticed any problems before you reported them, and I don't think I will tomorrow because I'm simply not that critical of it.

To me, the camera has a combination of traits that I like:
- small, pocketable, take anywhere
- acceptable zoom range to cover basic wide and tele
- fast enough to create some bokeh when I want it
- fast enough auto-focus

You'll see none of them require the RX100 to be the best in that category, and I'm willing to accept some faults if it means that all my requests are served. I will not be looking at these pictures in 100% pixels, I will not be printing them big for a gallery, I'll probably continue to accept JPGs instead of RAWs, I'll play with silly effects/modes, and you know what, I'll be happy, too.

 

[ZoranC]

it's like going to a restaurant and complaining loudly about the meal, it kind of poisons the atmosphere for everyone else. If it was really bad, complain privately, otherwise just resolve not to go there again.

Never went to a restaurant and later said "Man, that was so bad, I wish I knew in advance, I would have never went there"? Congratulations, you just discovered why reviews, guides, stars, Better Business Bureau, etc, exist for. Businesses like matter handled privately, it allows them to stay in business by never having to improve, there will always be another sucker.

I don't think it's ever useful to hold a manufacturer's feet to a fire; what they're interested in is whether you bought the camera, and in this case you did. The only thing you can do to redress this situation is to take it back and get your money back. If enough people do this, they'll be impressed. Unless of course there is a fault (like a de-centered lens) in which case I'm sure they'll fix/replace it for you.

Congratulations, you just discovered why businesses love uneducated consumers and handling things privately. Many people don't know they should check something until somebody tells them there might be an issue and how to check for it.

Being argumentative here, and picking up and arguing against every remark anyone cares to offer, whether it be perceptive or silly isn't going to get anyone anywhere.

... and offering wine/winemaker influenced posts is getting whom where exactly?