I have been looking around for a small take everywhere camera with decent IQ. I went to the Photo Expo last week in New York City and the Sony RX100 seemed like the right camera for my needs. For those of you who use it. How are the jpegs straight out of the camera. Do they need a lot or work or a few tweaks? Thank you
Hmmmm....I love my Sony's (RX 100 and NEX 7) and the jpegs are quite good. But I do think that to get the most out of the RX 100 one needs to shoot raw. I think if I was a jpeg only shooter I'd probably get an Olympus as I think their straight OOC jpegs are the most pleasing.
Once you have the flavor you want dialed in, they are solid. I shoot raw now that ACR is updated. But for a few weeks I shot it jpg and no complaints. Highlights are decently controlled, but the general exposure is a tad hot for my taste.
For my use of the RX100 it is a carry around light weight travel and snapshot camera that will still provide good image quality and limited depth of field on the wide end if I want it. So for that kind of shooting I really don't feel like shooting RAW files and then having to play with the images. Just put them in lightroom and maybe use a one click preset and done. That's all I'm hoping for.
PS: David I clicked on your web site and saw your Sony RX100 thoughts. well done.
Jack
DavidWEGS wrote:
Once you have the flavor you want dialed in, they are solid. I shoot raw now that ACR is updated. But for a few weeks I shot it jpg and no complaints. Highlights are decently controlled, but the general exposure is a tad hot for my taste.
Love it.
+1. Much better JPEG's than what you can get out of any other P&S (Panasonic, I'm looking at you).
You would do fine, IMO with either jpegs sooc for general stuff and even better using a preset on RAW, but the jpegs are pretty darn pleasing. before ACR had profiles for the RX100, I only shot jpeg as I test drove the camera and was happy with what I got.
cannpope wrote:
I would hope that for the price of the RX100, that the JPEGs are STUNNING and it's a shame that it has no viewfinder :/
Would be a worse camera I wouldn't of bought if it HAD a viewfinder. Whole point of the thing is making something that is truly pocket sized with a decent sensor.
If you want a camera that won't fit into a pocket and has a VF the market is packed with the X100, XE1, Xpro, various m4/3 camera's, even some tiny 1/1.7" compacts with the ability to add an accessory EVF. Problem is that EVF or not, NONE of them will fit in my jeans pocket.
If I'm willing to spend $650 and be forced to wear the camera around my neck, in a shoulder bag etc, why on earth would I want a 1" sensor RX100 ? Much better options for the same money if you take size out of the equation.
Thing is though, size is what its all about, being pocketable is what makes me willing to trade off everything else.
Its really the point of the camera.
Make the thing the size of a NEX and give it a EVF and whats the point ? Why spend $650 for a 1" sensor compact when I could spend the same money and get a much larger APS-C ?
The same is true for my Fuji X100 though. The Jpegs are fine, the RAWs are significantly better.
+1 to the comments about being pocketable. It is the whole point of the camera. Being pocketable is the deal-breaker for this kind of camera. The X100 is not by a long shot, pocketable (unless you're a professional clown).
Exactly. The OP wants a "small take everywhere camera with decent IQ" - in my mind the only real options are the Canon S100, Oly XZ-1 and Panny LX7. The Canon is more pocketable but IQ is not as good. The Oly and Panny are slighly less pocketable and IQ is not as good. The Sony's makes the best files and is very compact. Main drawback? $$$.
The Fujifilm products are nice but not what I consider "small take everywhere" products. Unless you wear cargo pants everyday.
