Sony RX100 - pocket rocket

[TheAnimus]

It's not all good. The lens is shockingly bad wide open - in focus regions aren't too bad, but the out of focus regions are really really ugly, and highlights show really bad focal depth chromatic aberrations (don't know what the term is - the green behind the focal plane, purple in front ones that are almost impossible to correct). Everything OOF glows with fringing too. It's shocking.

Stopping down a bit gets rid of the worst of it, but OOF regions look quite busy and highlight spots are pretty ugly, but by f/4 it starts to smooth out and look acceptable. But at that aperture you don't get many OOF regions in most shots, so it's a bit pointless!

Are you using LR? They are pretty good at removing it with the built in profile for lenses I find.

As for the noise issue, the amount of dynamic range available should hopefully allow you some leeway in hiding the effects of it, and ultimately the fact that the DoF will be more at a wider aperture can be a benefit in low light settings a lot of the time.

It's interesting to compare it against a terrible new generation DSLR, so I'm going for Canon's entry level 1000D as it really is poor it is something that would just about be in price range with a lens, assuming people were happy to compromise on size.

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cam...(brand3)/Canon

The interesting thing here is at 100 ISO it is really quite a bit better than, the SNR at 18% isn't top, but the extra dynamic range in real world use would allow you to hide that easily.

However, as soon as you start going up to higher ISOs the smaller sensor can't even be saved by BSI. But in practice, the fact you'd be wanted the same effective DoF would allow a much wider aperture, the build in lens stabilisation should also allow you an extra f/stop, in which case, to get the same effective shot, the performance will probably be better.

These small cameras are really interesting, all the real innovation appears to be happening at this end of the market, as ultimately smaller sensors are much better bet economically.

[kalniel]

Are you using LR? They are pretty good at removing it with the built in profile for lenses I find.

My LR pre-dates the RX100 so doesn't support the RAW files - I'm converting to DNG first. Will have to see if I can import lens profiles somehow.

As for the noise issue, the amount of dynamic range available should hopefully allow you some leeway in hiding the effects of it, and ultimately the fact that the DoF will be more at a wider aperture can be a benefit in low light settings a lot of the time.

Noise was the wrong word, sorry. Busyness probably better. Not smooth.

It's interesting to compare it against a terrible new generation DSLR, so I'm going for Canon's entry level 1000D as it really is poor it is something that would just about be in price range with a lens, assuming people were happy to compromise on size.

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cam...(brand3)/Canon

The interesting thing here is at 100 ISO it is really quite a bit better than, the SNR at 18% isn't top, but the extra dynamic range in real world use would allow you to hide that easily.

However, as soon as you start going up to higher ISOs the smaller sensor can't even be saved by BSI. But in practice, the fact you'd be wanted the same effective DoF would allow a much wider aperture, the build in lens stabilisation should also allow you an extra f/stop, in which case, to get the same effective shot, the performance will probably be better.

Note this is the Mk1, so not even a BSI sensor. There are a few things which I think are giving such good noise performance at higher ISOs from the RX100 - most obviously there is some clever noise reduction post process going on, probably even in RAW. Chroma noise just isn't visible at all, only luminance noise. The other is that at 20MP noise is very fine grained, so you can get away with a lot more.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

My LR pre-dates the RX100 so doesn't support the RAW files - I'm converting to DNG first. Will have to see if I can import lens profiles somehow.

Have you tried the RC:

http://blogs.adobe.com/lightroomjour...dobe-labs.html

They are released many times a year.

[kalniel]

Have you tried the RC:

http://blogs.adobe.com/lightroomjour...dobe-labs.html

They are released many times a year.

I haven't tried this one, but yes I know about them, thanks. As I use LR as my image database as well it's a bit of a hassle running two concurrent copies - the RC trials expire quite quickly. I'm weighing up whether to go to LR5 this year, or given I've missed most of it, might wait for 6 next year.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

I tend to store up pictures and batch process them using the RC,so it has not worked out too badly for me ATM.Having said that I might get 5 or 6 myself,but only after I get a new monitor and calibrator.

[kalniel]

Right, it's called axial or longitudinal CA, and LR3 can't correct for it so no point with profiles (best I can do is general defringe).

LR4.2 onwards has some tools that help:
http://blogs.adobe.com/lightroomjour...-controls.html

Looks like I might be splashing out after all - my macro lens for the Oly can show the same wide open as well (which I rarely get to use as D.o.f. too small)

[Chadders87]

ISO 800 is pretty good for a pocket cam. My old cybershot has too many artifacts to print hi-res on ISO 400 (Used for everyhing but direct sunlight). Might be time to upgrade!

[kalniel]

ISO 800 is pretty good for a pocket cam.

Check out the ISO 3200 shot!

I've splashed out for LR5 (upgrade) - axial CA correction, healing brush and more control over local sharpening/brush effects won it over for me.

You never end up just paying the advertised camera price do you? Add in a memory card, maybe case (mine came with one on offer), and software and it adds up a little more

[GoNz0]

the RX100 will never have a lens profile as it is a fixed lens camera, the profiles embedded in the .ARW file.

the sliders in CS6 work well to get shut of the CA and fringing though

[kalniel]

Well I got LR5.. and the CA adjustment is a bit disappointing. It's basically a select/replace by specific colour range. With enough fiddling it defringes axial CA in some cases, but still leaves ghosting in bad cases.

So I'm still quite disappointed in the lens - as long as you don't have strong contrast edges before or after the focal plane it's OK, but that kind of destroys some of the reasoning for having a lens that supposedly opens to f/1.8 and a larger than normal sensor.

Hit the right combination of backdrop and so on and it can be quite nice: