• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Sony RX100 - 1-in Sensor

Eh, minimum zoom is 28mm with a 3:2 ration and 29mm with 16:9 - it claims that the 1:1 is 36mm. The f1.8 is nice, and particularly good at f4.9 on the long end.
 
I'm a big SLR fan myself, but these kinds of changes are good.

All P&S cameras are diffraction limited. Increasing the resolution on those tiny sensors just doesn't help. You need more glass, bigger lenses, larger sensors, etc to see any real gains in image quality.

It strikes me, for the price, this is targeting the "SLR owner wants a pocket camera" rather than "grandma wants good photos".

It is what it is.
 
Looks nice but I'll wait until I see low-light samples. It's impressive that they can fit a 1" sensor inside a super-compact body, but the sensor is still 1/3 the surface area of APS-C and 1/2 of Micro 4/3rds. I think the NYT article is blowing it out of proportion.
 
CptObvious said:
I think the NYT article is blowing it out of proportion.
Click to expand...

+1

Especially when they say things like "insane amounts of detail and vivid, true colors" and "is as customizable and manually controllable as an S.L.R"

Either way, $650 for a compact camera is insane.
 
Niken Rockwell said:
Sony is deceptive when claiming a “1 inch” sensor. Its image area is only 8.8 x 13.2 millimeters (0.34″ x 0.52&#8243😉, so where is the FTC when you need them to stop this baloney?
Click to expand...

😀
 
This is the camera I wanted Nikon to make since their N1 system was introduced - a pocketable semi-large sensor camera. I already have a DSLR, and don't need to waste money on another interchangeable lens system. Just give me the best possible IQ in something small enough to fit a pants pocket. The specs look good, the sample images I've seen are good - I hope Sony doesn't screw it up with buggy firmware or atrocious noise reduction.
 
gevorg said:
😀
Click to expand...

Yep the actual size of the RX100 sensor is 2/3" diagonal, which means it's neither 1" across, diagonal, or squared. Only in the alternate universe of camera maker land is 0.67" = 1". The FTC should sue Sony for false advertising.
 
CptObvious said:
Yep the actual size of the RX100 sensor is 2/3" diagonal, which means it's neither 1" across, diagonal, or squared. Only in the alternate universe of camera maker land is 0.67" = 1". The FTC should sue Sony for false advertising.
Click to expand...

What about perimeter? 🙂

On a serious note, they should just specify the light gathering area in mm^2 or sq. in. Sensor specs should not be dumbed down like TVs.
 
CptObvious said:
Yep the actual size of the RX100 sensor is 2/3" diagonal, which means it's neither 1" across, diagonal, or squared. Only in the alternate universe of camera maker land is 0.67" = 1". The FTC should sue Sony for false advertising.
Click to expand...

To be fair, this is not some recent development. Other sensor vendors have been making alternate-reality claims for years using the inch rating. The 1/1.7-inch sensor in the Canon S100 is not actually 1/1.7 inches diagonally either.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top