Sony RX100 is a very interesting camera. It is very compact but it is build around 1" sensor, The 1" sensor is twice bigger than the sensors used in Fuji X10 or X20. Nikon 1 cameras are also build around 1" sensors. Most other compact cameras have smaller sensors.
Does the sensor size matter? The answer is Yes and No. Yes, because big sensors have more pixels with the same technology (aka pitch size), so the resolution can be higher. No, because the sensor technology is evolving very fast, so sensors can have higher pixel density with litre or no sacrifice in quality. Subject separation, aka depth of field depends on sensor size, too. That is why in compact cameras everything is in focus while full frame DSLRs such as Nikon D800 with proper lens creates a nicely blurred background. The narrow depth of field is a big problem in "nature macro" photography because objects (flowers, bugs etc) are big, and generally some parts are out of focus. This is why advanced compact cameras are very popular for the macro photography. On other hand, image quality on cameras with a small sensor is not as good as on a DSLR, especially in low contrast areas.
Enter Sony RX100. The sensor is at least twice bigger than in most other compact cameras. The camera is smaller and lighter than any Nikon 1 camera with zoom lens. There is no other compact camera with such specification at the moment. The result? Sony RX100 announced in June 2012 is still priced at ~$650 in the US and ~$700 here in Australia. At the time of writing it is the most expensive model among 20 most popular compact cameras on Amazon. Well done, Sony! It is an innovative product, and people do pay for this type of things.
Does the sensor size matter? The answer is Yes and No. Yes, because big sensors have more pixels with the same technology (aka pitch size), so the resolution can be higher. No, because the sensor technology is evolving very fast, so sensors can have higher pixel density with litre or no sacrifice in quality. Subject separation, aka depth of field depends on sensor size, too. That is why in compact cameras everything is in focus while full frame DSLRs such as Nikon D800 with proper lens creates a nicely blurred background. The narrow depth of field is a big problem in "nature macro" photography because objects (flowers, bugs etc) are big, and generally some parts are out of focus. This is why advanced compact cameras are very popular for the macro photography. On other hand, image quality on cameras with a small sensor is not as good as on a DSLR, especially in low contrast areas.
Enter Sony RX100. The sensor is at least twice bigger than in most other compact cameras. The camera is smaller and lighter than any Nikon 1 camera with zoom lens. There is no other compact camera with such specification at the moment. The result? Sony RX100 announced in June 2012 is still priced at ~$650 in the US and ~$700 here in Australia. At the time of writing it is the most expensive model among 20 most popular compact cameras on Amazon. Well done, Sony! It is an innovative product, and people do pay for this type of things.
The RX100 was build as compact as possible. The sacrifices: the lens is a bit slow at the tele end, the distortion is very pronounced but it is corrected automatically. It has no viewfinder. In some sense the design of RX100 is opposite to Fuji X10 or X20. Fuji models have very good lens, amazing camera controls aimed on enthusiast photographers, and a viewfinder, but the cameras are relatively big. It is good to have choice. I've got the X10.
Now with all these rumors about a premium Sony camera build around 1" sensor (link to my post on RX200), I am on the fence again. I do not upgrade my cameras very often. I do like X20 slightly more than X10 (based on specs) but for me the difference is not big enough to justify $600+. However, high end 1" compact camera is one of the thing I am dreaming of.
No comments:
Post a Comment