Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

What are your thoughts on the Sony RX100mk2?

Sylon

Sylon

macrumors 68020
Original poster
Feb 26, 2012
2,033
80
Michigan/Ohio, USA
I've been thinking about getting the Sony RX100 for a long time now. But I've been waiting because I knew a new version was coming out, the RX100mk2. Looking at the new features on the mk2, it really had me interested. What's been bothering me is the lack of reviews. Seen a lot of hands-on, but not full reviews. I'm seeing a lot of good things about it, but I was wondering what you guys thought of it.

I already have a Nikon D200, but I would really like to have a smaller camera for travel that still gives me the flexibility of a DSLR. Sure I could go mirrorless like the NEX line, but those are not pocketable like the RX100. Having a smaller camera would help reduce the attention while out sight seeing in an unfamiliar place, unlike a DSLR. Plus, my DSLR doesn't have video capabilities. Figure this would knock out a couple birds with 1 stone. But I like to do as much research as I can before dropping that kind of money on a point and shoot.
 
Just comparing the I and II, I don't really see enough of a difference to warrant the upgrade in price.

WiFI, NFC and a tilt screen and I think a 1 stop gain in low-ISO performance. The tilt screen could be semi useful and low light ISO is always a plus but the other two are just a bit gimmicky when it comes to actually wanting to take photos.

I would look at a second hand RX100 or a new one considering they are still selling them!
 
Sylon said:
I've been thinking about getting the Sony RX100 for a long time now. But I've been waiting because I knew a new version was coming out, the RX100mk2. Looking at the new features on the mk2, it really had me interested. What's been bothering me is the lack of reviews. Seen a lot of hands-on, but not full reviews. I'm seeing a lot of good things about it, but I was wondering what you guys thought of it.

I already have a Nikon D200, but I would really like to have a smaller camera for travel that still gives me the flexibility of a DSLR.
Click to expand...

Impossible. All cameras are a tradeoff between flexibility and convenience/size. DSLRs err on the side of flexibility; the same camera can do ultra-wide to super telephoto to 1:1 macro and beyond. The cost of this is a reflex mirror and a relatively large body. Small cameras like the RX100 are far less flexible, but are much smaller and far more portable. Cameras like the NEX and Fuji X-series cameras are a bit bigger, and offer more features, but they're less pocketable (as you say), and still can't match a DSLR for flexibility.

This has been true since the dawn of photography, and is the entire reason small (read: 35mm) cameras were invented.

The question is whether the RX100 does what you need. What about the original model did you not like? Have those things been addressed in the mkII version?
 
I have really been considering this camera for myself as well. The only major complaint I have read about it is the audio quality when recording video. Other than that it seems to be a really great camera.

One thing that has me wanting to wait before I decide on this purchase is the new lens attachment Sony is releasing that will work with your phone. I am really excited to find out more about it. I know it will be using components from the rx100m2 camera. This might be something I go for instead of the full camera. Gotta wait for the official announcement for now. Here is a link to the story that was posted by macrumors earlier:

https://www.macrumors.com/2013/08/16/upcoming-iphone-compatible-sony-lens-attachment-detailed-in-leaked-manual/
 
acearchie said:
Just comparing the I and II, I don't really see enough of a difference to warrant the upgrade in price.

WiFI, NFC and a tilt screen and I think a 1 stop gain in low-ISO performance. The tilt screen could be semi useful and low light ISO is always a plus but the other two are just a bit gimmicky when it comes to actually wanting to take photos.

I would look at a second hand RX100 or a new one considering they are still selling them!
Click to expand...


Is the 1 stop gain from the new back-lit sensor?

As for the other stuff, the tilt-screen doesn't interest me. But the wifi and NFC does have my interest. I use the wifi connection and control from my GoPro all the time. But that might have to do with the fact that my GoPro doesn't have a rear screen. But my impatience does like the fact that I can take some photos, transfer them to my phone and upload them to wherever I want right away. I just think that's kinda cool.


Edge100 said:
Impossible. All cameras are a tradeoff between flexibility and convenience/size. DSLRs err on the side of flexibility; the same camera can do ultra-wide to super telephoto to 1:1 macro and beyond. The cost of this is a reflex mirror and a relatively large body. Small cameras like the RX100 are far less flexible, but are much smaller and far more portable. Cameras like the NEX and Fuji X-series cameras are a bit bigger, and offer more features, but they're less pocketable (as you say), and still can't match a DSLR for flexibility.

This has been true since the dawn of photography, and is the entire reason small (read: 35mm) cameras were invented.

The question is whether the RX100 does what you need. What about the original model did you not like? Have those things been addressed in the mkII version?
Click to expand...


I know that a point and shoot can't do everything a DSLR can. But I do have a DSLR, I just don't want the size sometimes. I would just like a really good camera with full manual controls without the heft.

There is nothing wrong with the RX100, I actually got to mess with one at the store for a good couple hours and thought it was pretty awesome. I just have to decide if the added features, back-lit sensor and new video recording capabilities are worth the added $100 ($150 now considering the RX100 is on sale now).
 
Sylon said:
I've been thinking about getting the Sony RX100 for a long time now. But I've been waiting because I knew a new version was coming out, the RX100mk2. Looking at the new features on the mk2, it really had me interested. What's been bothering me is the lack of reviews. Seen a lot of hands-on, but not full reviews. I'm seeing a lot of good things about it, but I was wondering what you guys thought of it.

I already have a Nikon D200, but I would really like to have a smaller camera for travel that still gives me the flexibility of a DSLR. Sure I could go mirrorless like the NEX line, but those are not pocketable like the RX100. Having a smaller camera would help reduce the attention while out sight seeing in an unfamiliar place, unlike a DSLR. Plus, my DSLR doesn't have video capabilities. Figure this would knock out a couple birds with 1 stone. But I like to do as much research as I can before dropping that kind of money on a point and shoot.
Click to expand...

The NEX-3N can easily fit in a jacket pocket with the 16-50mm lens it comes with or either of the two pancake primes.

http://camerasize.com/compare/#442,467 to see size difference from the RX100 II.

I bought a 3N the other day, and I'm having a lot of fun with it.
 
I had the rx100, my 2 cents would be great little camera, however:

1) I found it difficult to use, a bit to fiddly, no doubt some of this was down to its small size, it seemed to want to be in full auto mode. Wasnt very intuitive to change shutter/aperture etc

2) Speed, great aperture on the wide end, but pretty slow on the long end.

3) barrel distortion, I shot some architecture and there was some pretty big distortion.

But remember the price and the size, to get so much into such a small camera for the price is a great achievement.

I was disappointed by the mk2 big jump in price for little return in feature. I'd much rather they focused on improving the lens to make it faster throughout.

Ive changed to a x100s for my compact carry around now
 
Last edited:
Sylon said:
I already have a Nikon D200, but I would really like to have a smaller camera for travel that still gives me the flexibility of a DSLR. Sure I could go mirrorless like the NEX line, but those are not pocketable like the RX100. Having a smaller camera would help reduce the attention while out sight seeing in an unfamiliar place, unlike a DSLR. Plus, my DSLR doesn't have video capabilities. Figure this would knock out a couple birds with 1 stone. But I like to do as much research as I can before dropping that kind of money on a point and shoot.
Click to expand...

Buy the RX100 II, it's perfect for what you are looking in a camera; absolutely best IQ in a pocketable camera. I've had an RX100 for over a year and shot 10k+ images with it so I have a bit of first hand experience. It's an outstanding travel camera so long as 28-100mm equiv is OK for what you like to shoot. I would buy the II over the I if you have the money, I think the upgrades are worth it.

Here's some of my travel shots taken with it to give you an idea of the IQ (ignor my poor photography skills) http://www.flickr.com/photos/twitchphoto/sets/72157630996596478/

My flickr stream mixes RX100 shots with Pentax K-5 shots (in theory better IQ than your D200), take a look if you like and see if you can spot which is which because IMHO there's barely any difference.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/twitchphoto/

Good luck.
 
twitch31 said:
Buy the RX100 II, it's perfect for what you are looking in a camera; absolutely best IQ in a pocketable camera. I've had an RX100 for over a year and shot 10k+ images with it so I have a bit of first hand experience. It's an outstanding travel camera so long as 28-100mm equiv is OK for what you like to shoot. I would buy the II over the I if you have the money, I think the upgrades are worth it.

Here's some of my travel shots taken with it to give you an idea of the IQ (ignor my poor photography skills) http://www.flickr.com/photos/twitchphoto/sets/72157630996596478/

My flickr stream mixes RX100 shots with Pentax K-5 shots (in theory better IQ than your D200), take a look if you like and see if you can spot which is which because IMHO there's barely any difference.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/twitchphoto/

Good luck.
Click to expand...

Thanks for your advice and thanks for the example shots, nice work there. Yeah my D200 is getting pretty old, but it does the job. I just want the control of a DSLR in a pocketable camera. I know that's almost impossible, but I think the RX100 can pull it off. I felt fine lugging my D200 around the track at Le Mans a couple years ago (well not the second day, at that point I was hurtin, lol) but I would feel nervous lugging a camera that size in a downtown city like Las Vegas or LA, and never in my hometown of Detroit. Something smaller than I can conceal, but still capable of taking incredible photos, would give me better peace of mind. I think the RX100 is unassuming to those without knowledge of the camera. To the regular joe, it would look like any old point and shoot.
 
You are paying a premium in the RX100 for a truely pocketable camera. A mirrorless ILC is more flexible and has more DSLR-like control, but they are not (jeans) pocketable even with one of the pancake primes. If you want the best possible IQ in your pocket then RX100 is the answer.

For me, I think the premium is well worth it. It's really nice when you are travelling and on the occasions when you don't want to carry a separate camera (eg going out to dinner), to be able to slip a camera in your pocket just in case.
 
Last edited:
Ended up buying the RX100m2. So far I like it, very versatile. This one is going to take a little while to get used to, but as soon as I get the hang of it I think I'm going to like this camera. Finding one turned out to be a gigantic pain in the ass. Well, finding one at a Best Buy was. I wanted to get it from there because I had reward certificates to help cut down on the costs. But turns out 1 store within 100 miles had one, and just one, in stock.

Now I would like to get the grip for it, if I can find the damn thing.
 
I have the MK1 and really like it. I much prefer to use a viewfinder but a view finder on the mk2 is an extra $500 or so. And it would really add to the size.

Get a grip for it through the Sony store, otherwise they are just too slippery and awkward to hold.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back