#
you're reading...
Reviews, Tech Talk

Sony Cyber-shot RX100 II vs. RX100: Comparison


Sony RX100 II vs. RX100: ComparisonA few months back, when doing my First Look at the Sony RX100 II, I promised a full review of the camera. Unfortunately, I wasn’t able to get hands-on time with it till very recently, and even when I did, I was not given a lot of freedom with it – to take my usual sample shots, crops, the works – nor was I able to analyze the results as I usually do – so instead of waiting even longer to do my standard review, and considering how similar this camera is to the already-reviewed RX100, I decided to do this comparison instead. It’s basically my usual review, but as I wasn’t able to examine the shots I took with this camera, there will be no full sample gallery, image quality gallery etc. I just may do a full review of the RX100 II in the future, but for now, this will have to do!

UPDATE: Having bought the RX100 II for my own use as a compact camera, I have reviewed it in full, check it out for more detailed image tests and more: Sony RX100 II Review

And when I say these cameras are so similar, I don’t mean that in a bad way. It’s just how it is. They’re different in some ways, they have a few different features – but the basic camera is the same. So much so that Sony is actually going to be selling these side-by-side, with the RX100 II being a sort of variant of the original, for those who want the specific features found only on the more expensive Mk II. So it really makes sense, I guess, to talk about the new model while also comparing it alongside the original RX100

Image from Amazon

Image from Amazon

I’ve not done this sort of post before – comparing one model to its own upgraded version – so I’m not really sure where to start. But let me just get started and see where it leads. Alright, here we go!

Let’s start from the beginning: The Sony RX100 (Mk I), released around June or July 2012, was a revolutionary camera. It was tiny, it was powerful, it packed a sensor twice the size of anything ever seen before in a compact, and it was wonderful. It still is. Some of my best photographs have been taken on the RX100 – I used it for around a year – and while they say that a good photographer can take good photographs using any camera, having a good camera always helps, and the RX100 definitely helped me. It’s a fantastic piece of technology

Like any device, however, the RX100 was not perfect. No one expected it to be. But it was really, really good. It’s flaws lay in the control layout of the camera, which wasn’t great – and wasn’t as customizable as I would’ve liked – as well as in the poorly implemented control ring. However, considering the power and quality of the camera, no one who used one of these actually talked much about these minor issues. It was really that good

A year later comes the Sony RX100 II – confusingly also known as the RX100M2 and RX100 Mk II – and while at first glance, it doesn’t really appear to target the issues of the original (control layout etc.), there’s definite change in there.  You see, instead of taking the original and fixing its flaws, like most manufacturers would try to do, Sony seems to have decided to take the original and enhance its positives, thereby trying to make us forget the existing flaws almost completely. Well, that’s what it seems like to me, at least. And while I’m not sure that philosophy is the best – I hope other camera makers don’t try doing things this way – the RX100 was such a game-changer, and such a wonderful camera, really, that Sony could do almost anything with its upgrade, providing it still had the original in its core. And that’s what the RX100 II is. And it’s impressive

In this comparison post today, I’ll go through all that I know about the RX100 II and my experience of using one, comparing it all the way with the original RX. I hope you enjoy it

Ordering Links: Buy your RX100 or RX100 II from Amazon or from B&H Photo

If you’re buying yourself one of these awesome cameras, please use my links posted above (and at the end). And thanks to all of you who actually use these links – really makes my day!

Specifications You Would Want To Know

These are the specs of the RX100 II – but where applicable, I’ll mention how it differs from the original RX100 as well

  • Body: Compact, aluminum
  • Resolution: 20.2 mega pixels (same as RX100)
  • Sensor Size: 1” (same)
  • Sensor Type: Back-illuminated EXMOR R CMOS (the single biggest change in the Mk II)
  • Processor: Sony BIONZ (I’m pretty sure it’s the same one the RX100 has)
  • Lens: Zeiss 10.4-37.1mm f1.8-4.9 (28-100mm equivalent) (same)
  • Image Stabilization: Yes (SteadyShot)
  • Shutter Speed: Max 1/2000 sec, Min 30 sec (same)
  • ISO Range: 160-12800 (expandable to 100-25600) (similar to RX100)
  • Video: 1080p @60fps (addition of 24fps – something the RX100 didn’t have)
  • Video Format: AVCHD, MPEG-4
  • Metering Modes: Multi Area, Center Weighted, Spot
  • Exposure Modes: P, A, S, M, Intelligent Auto, Superior Auto, Panorama, Scene, Memory Recall
  • Built-in Flash: Yes, pop-up (same as RX100)
  • Flash Modes: Auto, Forced, Slow Sync, Rear Sync, Off
  • Hot-Shoe: Yes (the RX100 had no hot-shoe)
  • Autofocus: Contrast Detect (same as RX100)
  • AF Modes: Multi-Area, Center-Area, Flexible Single Spot, Tracking, Face Detection
  • Number of AF points: 25 (same as RX100)
  • Manual Focus: Yes
  • Macro Range: 5cm, at the wide angle end of the lens (same as RX100)
  • Screen: WhiteMagic 3.0” LCD (1,228,000 dots) (same as RX100)
  • Articulated: Yes, tilt (RX100 didn’t have any articulation)
  • Touchscreen: No
  • Optical/Electronic Viewfinder: No (EVF can be attached via hot-shoe)
  • Max Drive Speed: 10fps (same as RX100) and buffers 12 JPEGs or 13 RAW files
  • File Formats: JPEG, RAW
  • Connections: USB 2.0, microHDMI, WiFi/NFC (WiFi/NFC is new on the Mk II)
  • Memory Card Types: SD/SDHC/SDXC, Memory Stick Duo/Pro Duo/Pro-HG Duo
  • Dimensions: 102 x 58 x 38mm (compared to RX100’s 102 x 59 x 36mm)
  • Weight: 281g (including batteries, compared to RX100’s 240g)

Sony RX100 vs. RX100 II: The Comparison

As this isn’t my typical review, there will be no First Thoughts and the usual. I’ll go through each element of what makes these cameras so awesome, and what I thought about the RX100 II in that particular area, before comparing it to the original RX100. Sound good?

RX100 II vs. RX100. Images from Amazon

RX100 II vs. RX100. Images from Amazon

NOTE: When I said earlier that I didn’t get much time with it, and that I couldn’t examine my sample images and do my usual tests etc. it was because I was just given a short while with it by Sony, AT Sony! So no walkabout shooting and all that – but I still have a reasonably good idea of how it performs. Read on!

New Features of the RX100 II

I think it’ll make sense to start off with what’s new in the RX100 II – stuff the RX100 doesn’t have – so we all have an idea of what each camera is capable of. Can’t do much of a comparison if you don’t know what each can do, right? Yeah, so I’ll start off here, and then move on to the rest of the stuff that you can see below

EXMOR R CMOS Sensor: This new sensor is the heart of the RX100 II, really. It’s the single biggest difference between this model and the original RX100, and to be honest, it’s pretty impressive. It’s a back-illuminated sensor – it’s rather complex to explain what that is here so I won’t, Google it if you want to know more – and it’s the first of its kind to be made in a size as large as 1”. What it claims to do is simple: provide even better low light performance by being more sensitive – up to 40% more, in fact – to light. Impressive indeed. This means better noise performance at higher sensitivities as well as better autofocusing in low light. Mind you, the original RX100 was excellent at high ISO settings, and its AF system was excellent, even in low light – so this being improved further is rather exciting, isn’t it?

Multi-Interface Hot-shoe: The original RX100 lacks a hot-shoe of any kind. The RX100 II fixes this by including one. On top of being a standard hot-shoe, it also doubles up as what Sony is calling a Multi-Interface shoe, which accepts all proprietary Sony accessories such as their external EVF, flash units and so on. I’m not sure I’d pop in a large external flash on top of this tiny camera, but the EVF might be nice – even if it’s rather ridiculously priced at the moment

Image from Amazon

Image from Amazon

Built-in WiFi/NFC Connectivity: Not much to say here. The RX100 II has WiFi connectivity built into it, while the original RX100 didn’t. This means you can connect your smartphone or tablet to it, wirelessly – using NFC, all it takes is a tap – then shoot and transfer your images onto your device very easily, using the Sony app. I wasn’t able to try this out, but I hear it works pretty seamlessly. I don’t consider WiFi a must-have in any camera, but it’s one of those features, like an articulated screen, that is really nice to have anyway

Articulated LCD: And talking about articulated screens, the RX100 II’s LCD can be tilted up and down. It’s the same WhiteMagic screen (with the same res) that the RX100 had, but while that one couldn’t be tilted, the RX100 II’s LCD can be

Image from Amazon

Image from Amazon

Redesigned Control Ring: Something that I found disappointing on the RX100 was the poorly designed control ring. It’s not just that it’s a seamless, un-indented, smooth kind of ring – no, that’s fine. It’s just that it never worked well. It simply wasn’t sensitive enough, taking a bit of ‘turn’ for it to register as movement, and taking too much ‘turn’ to adjust any setting by even a little bit. And sadly, while the setting it controlled could be customized, the sensitivity of the ring cannot be modified by the user. The RX100 Mk II doesn’t change a lot to the ring – physically its identical to the Mk I – but if you use it as a zoom ring, like I did (even though I rarely used the ring at all) you can now set it to jump between five pre-programmed focal lengths: 28mm, 35mm, 50mm, 70mm, and 100mm. So, with a slight twist, it’ll automatically zoom from the first preset to the next i.e. 28mm to 35mm. Twist back, and it’ll return to the previous one. Twist it twice, quickly, and it’ll go from 28mm to 50mm. You get the idea. It works rather well in practice – and it’s nicer to use than the RX100’s. Still not perfect, though

And that’s about it for new features. Like I said, it has taken the good bits of the RX100 and made them even better, while leaving the slight flaws as they were. The flaws include things like the not-so-easy-to-use control ring, and the not-so-great control layout. That’s about it. I wish they addressed these issues, but I can’t complain. This isn’t really an upgrade as it is a second version of the RX100, if that makes sense – maybe the RX200 will be the real upgrade, fixing all these little issues – so I guess we shouldn’t have expected too much of a change here. Either way, you now know (if you didn’t already) what the RX100 II is capable of, and what’s new compared to the original. Now we can move on

Build Quality

The RX100 was built extremely solidly, all-metal (aluminum), and the Mk II is no different. In fact, it’s about 30g heavier, so you would think it’s even better built. I actually can’t say I noticed much different when handling the Mk II – it didn’t feel heavier – nor did it feel larger, even though, if you look at the specs, it is. But yeah, build quality is excellent: solid, with very nice buttons and dial

Controls & Handling

Being very compact, the RX100 II (identical in handling to the RX100) handles really well. The control ring demands two-handed operation, but as with the RX100, I prefer just bypassing the control ring altogether and shooting in a typical one-handed point-n-shoot fashion. Its weight is fine for this, and the controls are nicely placed to access with your thumb (or left hand)

The controls themselves are identical to the ones on the RX100. No change whatsoever. On top you have the power button, the shutter button (with zoom rocker switch around it) and the mode dial. All these are easily within reach of your first finger, with your right hand gripping the camera (with the wrist strap on). What’s new on top is the hot-shoe in the middle of the top panel –flash still pops up from the left

Sony RX100 Top. Image from Amazon

Sony RX100 II Top. Image from Amazon

On the back, there’s the large LCD, with all the controls on the right side of it: a dedicated Movie record button, Fn, Menu, Playback, and Help/Delete. There’s also the four-way directional pad, which doubles as a control dial. The four directional buttons control Display, Flash, Exposure Compensation, and Drive/Self Timer. The left, right, and down buttons are customizable. And there’s the Select button in the middle – which can be used to initiate tracking focus OR toggle AF/MF OR as an AE lock. That’s about it. Oh, and I should mention that, as the screen is now a tilt-LCD, it bulges out ever so slightly compared to the RX100

Sony RX100 Rear. Image from Amazon

Sony RX100 II Rear. Image from Amazon

As I mentioned in my First Look at the RX100 II, I wish they did away with the rather meaningless Help/Delete button, and put in a Q menu instead – using one of the other buttons to double as the Delete key. It would’ve been so much better that way. Oh well. It’s still a decent control system, and even better if you can get yourself to use the control ring too, but it could’ve been improved rather easily, I feel

The Fn button is the only reason the RX100 and the Mk II work as well as they do. Instead of just accessing one setting by pressing this button, the Fn button actually opens up a mini menu instead, allowing you to quickly access not one but seven different settings. That’s really nice. Still, a separate Q menu would’ve gone a long way, especially since there’s room for it. A dedicated AE lock/AF lock button would’ve been nice as well

So yeah, the identical RX100 control layout is found here, and to be honest, that’s a bit disappointing. I loved the RX100, but the controls were lacking a bit – I really wish they changed things up just a bit, at least

Anyway, if you were comfortable with the RX100 – I actually got around with it rather well after a while – you will be right at home with the RX100 II. And if you’ve never used a Sony RX100 before, you might still be alright. It depends on what you expect from it. It’s small, so don’t expect the level of dedicated controls that the Fujifilm X20 has, for example. Keep your expectations fair and you might be pleasantly surprised!

Features

In my regular reviews, in this section I talk about the special little features found on these new products – not only the major features but little one as well, some that are advertised and some that I just happened to discover. In this case, however, there’s not much to write about. Well, there is, but I’d just be repeating myself. You see, the RX100 II doesn’t have anything new in this area, compared to the RX100, apart from the major features, which I’ve already covered in detail. So it’s not like this camera has no interesting little features hidden inside – it’s just the same as on the RX100. Maybe there are a few new goodies that I missed out on, as I didn’t get to play around with it as long as I would’ve liked to have, but from what I could tell, the stuff that I usually would write about in this section is unchanged from the RX100, so again: check out the RX100 review. It’s Features section should cover this bit.


Performance

The RX100 was a fast performer in every way. The RX100 II is as good and better. That sums up performance in a line or two. It’s really fast. Power-on is nearly instant. No joke. And the lack of an external lens cap (which I love in a compact camera, by the way) means you can hit the power button and be ready to shoot by the time you lift the camera up to subject level. Fantastic

AF performance of the RX100 II is around the same as the original. Which means its fast. In daylight, I really can’t say if it’s got faster, because both models are very snappy to lock focus. In low light, the RX100 II feels a bit faster than the RX100 – maybe I’m imagining as the new sensor is expected to do better in low light – but I think it did fare better. Then again, I wasn’t able to do my usual tests with this camera given the shot amount of time I had with it – but I was impressed nonetheless

Burst shooting speeds are the same as the RX100. 10fps. Very fast. It shoots for over a second, capturing 12 JPEGs (or 13 RAW files) before it slows down to write. Shot-to-shot speed is also excellent – again, around the same as the original, maybe a tad faster

Yeah, so the new model just seems snappier than the old one. Sounds right, doesn’t it? It’s not a reason to upgrade, nor is it a reason to spend the extra $100 to get the newer one, but if you get the new model for any other reason, know that you’re getting a faster camera, and that’s nice

Sony RX100 II: Image Quality

Yeah, image quality is key. Always. You don’t need to be smart to know that if a camera doesn’t take good pictures, it’s not a good camera. That’s rather obvious. Anyway, the RX100 took amazing photographs. Stunning shots, really. And the RX100 II?

Well, it’s as good, for sure. No doubt about that. The superb Zeiss lens paired with the awesome 1” EXMOR CMOS sensor creates fantastic images. Rich, colorful, sharp images, with excellent noise control and loads of detail. To get this sort of image quality from a compact is stunning. Yes, we’ve been using the RX100 for over a year now, so it’s nothing new, but it’s still quite amazing to see a tiny camera like this produce such good images

But does the RX100 II do anything BETTER? Better than the RX100. We’re talking about an upgrade here, right? Or at least a newer model that costs quite a bit more. Shouldn’t it be better? Yeah, it should. And it’s supposed to be. But is it?

Well, like I said, I didn’t get a LOT of time with it, nor was I able to shoot TOO many images with it, and I wasn’t able to analyze them as closely as I would’ve liked, but from what I can tell, the quality of images produced by both cameras are pretty similar. In daylight, I really can’t tell a difference. But at night, where the back-illuminated sensor is supposed to shine, the quality is still similar. It’s possibly a bit better – like I said, I didn’t (and couldn’t) do my usual analysis here – so don’t quote me on this. But I felt, especially if you’re a potential upgrader (from the RX100), you’d want this improvement in image quality to be more obvious. And that, to me, it wasn’t

Disappointing? Not really. The photographs that this new sensor creates are still fantastic, of course. It just didn’t do anything significantly different from the older one. Maybe I was wrong to expect something that much better from something that was already amazing. But there you have it: the RX100 Mk II image quality is equal or possibly very slightly better (and even then only in low light) than the RX100 Mk I

But putting comparison aside, and giving the RX100 II some praise in its own right, the photographs that I took (and quickly went through afterwards) were gorgeous: colorful, punchy, sharp, and clean even at high ISOs. Truly excellent. Class-leading? No. More like in a class of its own. Just magnificent

UPDATE: I have now reviewed the RX100 II in a separate post, in my usual reviewing style, with all the usual tests for sharpness and noise and all that, so check it out if you want. I’ve also uploaded the same sample image gallery here as well, but I’m not going to repeat the image quality tests…check out the Sony RX100 II Review for that!

Product Images

Sample Images

What I liked/didn’t like

Positives (many borrowed from the original RX100):

  • Outstanding image quality – not just the best in its class, but in a class of its own
  • Superb high ISO noise performance
  • True compact body size
  • Terrific, fast Zeiss lens
  • Fast, accurate AF system
  • Snappy overall performance
  • Excellent burst shooting capabilities
  • Good control layout, even though it wasn’t upgraded or improved
  • Good level of customization options available for some of the controls
  • Useful Fn button
  • Hot-shoe for flash units, EVF, or other accessories (Sony or third-party ones)
  • Built-in WiFi/NFC connectivity
  • Beautiful high-res LCD display – and it’s now articulated
  • Excellent manual focusing system with control ring and focus peaking
  • Very useful pop-up flash with flexible head – I wish all compacts had this sort of flash
  • Very good movie mode, with lots of manual control available
  • Superb build quality 

NOTE: Very few of these positives are new, meaning they’re not unique to the Mk II but apply to the original RX100 as well

Negatives (again, many from the original RX100’s con list):

  • New sensor is excellent but doesn’t seem to be much different in terms of IQ
  • Control layout hasn’t been improved – it’s remained identical to the RX100
  • A few more buttons or dials would’ve been nice
  • Control ring is still not very useful – even with the slight redesign of functionality
  • Menu system, something that wasn’t great on the RX100, is still the same
  • I didn’t get this in the box, but I’m assuming the charger is the same – and that there’s no full instruction manual – things I didn’t love about the original
  • It’s expensive
  • Primary con: It costs more, while not doing much new in comparison to its predecessor

Conclusion

Well, maybe you’re starting to see why I didn’t bother doing a full review of the Sony RX100 II yet. Firstly, I wasn’t able to – but secondly, it doesn’t really seem to need one. Because, quite frankly, it’s the RX100 with a hot-shoe and WiFi. And it operates a bit faster. That’s it

Quickly discussing the new features of the RX100 II in comparison with the RX100 in conclusion, now that we’ve gone through them in detail, they seem slightly less impressive:

New Sensor: It takes amazing pictures. But is it better than the original? I can’t say so. Not definitely. In low light, it’s possibly a bit better – a slight improvement – but this isn’t easily noticed. It isn’t as obvious as you’d expect it to be. It’s still in a class of its own though. But that class also includes the older RX100 sensor, don’t forget

AF performance in low light is definitely better. Not by a lot, but I feel it to be so. In daylight, it’s the same, but at night, where it really can get tough, the more-sensitive-to-light sensor makes a difference in AF speed

Hot-Shoe: This is a great feature to have added to the Mk II. However, I wouldn’t want to add a large flash on top of this tiny little camera. Would you? A large flash unit on top of this compact camera would make handling very awkward. The pop-up flash works great, even though it’s not really powerful. I wouldn’t use the hot-shoe for a flash

The EVF would be awesome, and it’d work great, if it actually were affordable. But it costs nearly as much as the camera. Who would spend that much for an accessory? Not me

Built-in WiFi: This feature is really useful, and works very well in practice. It’s not something you will find impossible to live without, but it can make things easier for sure

Articulated LCD: Again, not something you cannot live without, but it makes things easier – and it does the job

Redesigned Control Ring: This makes the rather useless control ring of the RX100 slightly less useless. I don’t know, this is just my personal opinion on this topic – maybe you love the RX100’s ring and find this even better – but I just don’t feel it when shooting

As you can see, hardly any of these features really make much of an impact. It’s more like they just slightly enhance the experience of using the RX100, while not really changing much. That’s what it this new model is, really

Image from Amazon

Image from Amazon

No, I can’t say I’m disappointed with this upgrade. Mainly because it’s not really an upgrade, but more of a variant of the original. I’m just trying to figure out why people would get the Mk II when the MK I is still available. I mean, if you’ve got the extra money and you can freely spend it, then by all means get the Mk II – it’s equal in every way to the Mk I, and better in some ways. It possibly takes better low light images. You also get built-in WiFi, a hot-shoe. And it’s faster

The Mk II is also a good option if you find one of the specific features mentioned above to be something you really NEED – the hot-shoe or WiFi for example – and you don’t mind spending the extra cash on it

And of course, it’s the best option to get if you’re the type who needs nothing but the latest gear

But if you’re on a budget – or even if you have the cash but you don’t want to waste it – and you don’t really need WiFi or the hot-shoe, why bother with the Mk II? The original RX100 is a beauty, and for the price – it isn’t cheap, but it costs less than the RX100 II – it’s a fantastic option. It’s as good as the Mk II in many (or nearly all) ways. In terms of bang for buck, I’d say the original wins


So yeah, in conclusion, get the RX100 II if you’re really excited about some specific feature like the hot-shoe or the WiFi. I’m pretty sure you will not notice much difference in the image quality brought upon by the new sensor. You might notice faster speeds in everything, but the RX100 is very close here too. So it’s basically about the few other standout features  that make the difference. If you’re ok with the hot-shoe-less, WiFi-less RX100, save yourself some money and get that instead. That’s what I’d do

For upgraders, wait for the RX200, if that’s what they call it. It might be more of what you’d expect from an upgrade. Then again, it’s up to you, as always

Ordering Links: Buy your RX100 or RX100 II from Amazon or from B&H Photo

And that’s about it, for this conclusion – my longest conclusion ever, I know – and for this post. I hope it’s been helpful. I know it’s been a long time coming, but yeah, here it is. Leave a comment if you have anything to add, anything to ask, or anything to say, really. Thanks for reading. Please use my links if you’re buying the RX, or anything else, for that matter! Until next time

By Heshan Jayakody
All content in this post is my own. All images from Sony (cover image) and Amazon (all other images)
Enhanced by Zemanta

Discussion

39 Responses to “Sony Cyber-shot RX100 II vs. RX100: Comparison”

  1. that was an interesting read!! i thought the RX100 was more of an upgrade than that. you’re right, the sensor is th ebiggest improvement, although the hot-shoe is nice too (and wifi) so if IQ isnt hugely improved, it might not be a good idea to spend like $100 or more bucks for the new model

    Posted by Bree | October 30, 2013, 21:11
  2. Well that’s a bit disappointing, no? I agree that this isn’t an upgrade as much as it is a new model in the RX line but I was still expecting something significant

    Posted by Nate | October 31, 2013, 06:41
    • Yeah, if you were expecting something a whole lot better than the RX100, you won’t be too pleased. Wait for the RX200 or whatever the real upgrade is going to be called. That’s what you’re waiting for!

      Posted by pixelogist | October 31, 2013, 20:11
  3. That’s a very practical unbiased look at this camear. THanks for sharing! :)) Very helpful wow

    Posted by Kade | October 31, 2013, 17:16
  4. Wow, not what i expected. Then again, it makes sense. I’m a bit disappointed, though. Was expecting something that would do better

    Posted by Meir | November 3, 2013, 07:47
    • Haha yeah, some people expected more. I did too. But it’s a terrific camera, and a bit better in some ways – in addition to the newer hardware – than the older model

      Posted by pixelogist | November 3, 2013, 08:04
  5. if i am buying a compact camera today, which do you recommend? do you stil recommend rx100 or rx100 ii, or something else altogether now?

    i am a bit confused, i thought this one is the best. it still seems the best, but not so good? please help. i love the sony cameras

    Posted by Antony | November 4, 2013, 21:09
    • Oh don’t get me wrong. I’d still recommend the RX100 – or if you can afford it, the RX100 II – without hesitation. They’re by far the best compact cameras in todays market. In this post, what I was saying was that the RX100 II isn’t THAT much better than the RX100. So get the RX100 Mk II only if you can afford it, or if you need the special features it has like WiFi or the hot-shoe. If not, the RX100 is 99% as good. And they’re both miles ahead of other compact cameras

      Posted by pixelogist | November 5, 2013, 11:49
  6. Great post. I was also of the opinion that the RX100 II is a good camera, but nothing spectacular compared to the older model. The sensor had to show a lot of improvement if it was going to be worth it. That didn’t happen. Still a great camera but the old model at a cheaper price is a better bet

    Posted by Carl Olsen | November 12, 2013, 15:45
    • Thanks! Glad to hear you agree with me on this point. Both are terrific cameras, really – but the Mk II isn’t a HUGE improvement at all. It’s an improvement, and a variation, for sure, like I said – but is it worth the extra cash? That’s a personal thing! If you got the cash, go for the Mk II. If you’re on a budget, the RX100 I is equal in nearly every ways

      Posted by pixelogist | November 12, 2013, 16:41
  7. I’m one of those who sold his 6 week old RX100 for the RX100M2. Why? The hot-shoe. I bought their smallest flash for 2 reason’s.
    More light, longer range when zooming.
    Now the biggest reason. RED EYE.
    The popup flash when used in a not so bright room I have some many photo’s that need post processing removal of red eye.
    With the flash red eye is no-longer an issue.
    To bad the electronic viewfinder doesn’t have a hot-shoe for a flash.

    Posted by George | November 20, 2013, 21:19
  8. I was new in the market and went for the RX100 ii. I really can’t see myself using the hot-shoe,,, but WiFi is fun to use. And the thing takes amazing photographs. I haven’t used the Rx100 1 so I can’t compare, but I really really love this camera!!

    Posted by Kris | November 21, 2013, 15:14
    • No doubt, the RX100 II is an amazing camera. Good to hear you’re enjoying it :)

      Posted by pixelogist | November 21, 2013, 16:43
    • After you buy even the lowest priced SONY flash like I did you’ll appreciate the hot-shoe and wonder how could you not think it was necessary.
      I had so many problems with red eye and not enough in camera flash to fill a room.
      Beside the hot-shoe flash uses it’s own batteries and doesn’t use battery power from the camera’s battery.
      Get to take more pictures that way before having to swap out the camera’s battery.
      I recommend you buy SONY’s ac powered battery charger and a spare battery.
      Especially if you use the built in flash a lot.

      Posted by George | November 21, 2013, 22:32
      • Yeah, I agree that an external flash is a very useful tool. However, I actually love the popup flash of the RX100 (and the Mk II) and its ability to tilt. Indoor flash results looked extremely natural, and quite ‘professional’ if you know what I mean. No red-eye at all. I rarely used the flash outdoors, and I don’t use flash too often to begin with; so if you’re a heavy flash user, an external one will help. But seriously, the popup on the RX100 is one of the best available on a compact

        Posted by pixelogist | November 22, 2013, 06:53
  9. PIXELOGIST the difference in picture quality using the SONY HVL-F20M over the pop-up flash is huge.
    It’s their smallest flash, the other 2 flash’s SONY lists for this small camera look like my Nikon SB800. WAY to big.
    The F20M really does the job when you zoom out and quickly go from f/1.9 to f/4.9.
    Yes it can still have that flash look that we all try to avoid.
    I bought a ZEIKOS soft flash diffuser from Amazon.com for a whole big $10.00 shipped to my door.
    It fits over the flash like a sock and widens the flash output and softens the light and my pictures come out so natural looking.
    It’s so good SONY should consider adding in the F20M box.
    What a combo.

    Posted by George | December 1, 2013, 04:50
    • I’m sure it is :) Like I said, if you’re into flash photography, an external flash like the one you have would be nice. But for most of us, in most circumstances, the pop-up flash does just fine – especially since the RX100 comes with quite a nice one

      And I’m glad the RX100 doesn’t come with an external flash in the box, or the price would be even higher. Haha

      Posted by pixelogist | December 1, 2013, 09:42
  10. I really like your reviews…nothing fancy and straight to the point…if you can also start columns or tips/tricks for each camera you review, it would be nice also besides explaining the features…thanks and great job!

    Posted by Mike | December 5, 2013, 05:19
    • Thanks Mike! Appreiciate the kind words :) That’s a good idea, I’ll think about it! Problem is, I only have these cameras for a short time so I don’t get to play around with it too much and have time to do a post like you mention – but I’ll try :) Cheers!

      Posted by pixelogist | December 6, 2013, 08:58
  11. True points you make here…I too feel the sensor is very similar and difficult to differentiate with the RX100 sensor. So not much new. Maybe a bit bulkier too. Hefty price tag as well. The RX100 at $549 is a good bet

    Posted by Dina | December 5, 2013, 20:21
    • Yeah, that’s right. The thing is, if I have the money to go for the Mk II, that’s what I’d probably get. I’d get the Mk I only if I was on a tighter budget. Simply because the Mk II, while very similar to the Mk I, is just a bit better in some ways, and when you’re buying a new camera, you’re always looking for the best you can get for your money!

      Posted by pixelogist | December 6, 2013, 08:59
  12. just got the RX100 II and I love it. can’t compare it to the Mk i but hey its awesome as it is. the flip-screen is super-useful – thought i’d say that!

    Posted by Ken | January 10, 2014, 15:40
  13. I get where you’re coming from regarding the similarity between models. I guess that’s why they’re both being sold side by side. Different models to choose from. Bt you already said that!

    Posted by Julliard | January 12, 2014, 20:12
  14. Great and convincing post :) I’ve pretty much made up my mind to skip this one and go for the Mk I, which is going for an incredibly good price of 449 in my area, at the moment! Thanks for helping me make up my mind!

    Posted by BH. | January 13, 2014, 07:49
  15. Heshan ! Great Article and best comparison . I am going for the RX100. I dont think I will need the Wi-Fi or Hot-Shoe external flash. i did read that back-illuminated sensor is the future, but is it worth spending an additional $150-$200 for the RXII, I am not sure as a novice photographer. I will settle for RX100 for $550.

    Posted by Srini | February 6, 2014, 01:23
    • Thanks! :) Good call. A lot of people just want to go for the latest tech and needlessly spend more for essentially the same camera. The back-illuminated sensor IS the future, I guess – but right now, compared to the original RX100 sensor, there’s not much discernible difference, and that’s the whole idea, isn’t it? Enjoy your RX100!

      Posted by pixelogist | February 6, 2014, 08:20
  16. great comparision friend..gud job..rx 100 rocks

    Posted by Pranjal Naik | June 7, 2014, 23:41

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. Pingback: Sony Cyber-shot RX100 II: First Look | pixelogist.me - November 3, 2013

Share your thoughts...leave a comment!

Follow Me on Pinterest

Categories

Feeling Generous?