p.2 #3 · TIME Magazine... RX100... 'best inventions'...
It has a sensor the same size as the Nikon J1 and is about the same physical size. The Nikon has better video modes, more focus points, phase detection, ability to change lenses, much faster shutter speeds, and costs less. The Sony is better at pretty much everything else, especially the important parts like image quality. However, this is hardly inventive, it's exactly what we expect with time...evolving cameras.
p.2 #4 · TIME Magazine... RX100... 'best inventions'...
If you need a dictionary to try and justify the RX100 as one of the top 50 inventions of the year I think that's telling.
As corndog says, it's exactly what we expect, evolution of a digital cameras. It's a point and shoot camera, it's not a new concept. We could easily substitute it for the 5D3, A99, D800E, or any lesser camera and it would be no different - not invention, evolution. Might as well call the Lunar a top 50 invention of the year.
The Lytro camera probably should have been named instead. Sure it's in its infancy and seems gimmicky (or "novel"), just as many inventions begin. As Einstein said, “If at first the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it.” I have no use for a Lytro (not now anyway) whereas I could put a RX100 to good use right away but this doesn't change my position.
The RX1 could *maybe* be considered a new invention since it is the first of its kind, but I think even then, calling it a top 50 invention is a stretch, in the context outside of the digital camera world.
Within our little bubble of digital cameras and alt gear, I think the RX1 and RX100 are pretty neat, amazing even, but that's about as far as I'd take it.
Congrats to Sony though, I'm sure this will only help their sales.
p.2 #5 · TIME Magazine... RX100... 'best inventions'...
uhoh7 wrote:
Haha, you are guys are tough crowd, as usual.
The rx100 is to "the consumer point and shoot", what the Ford model A was to the Model T---in a vacuum
The OMD has no such corresponding leap in performance compared to the best contemporary 4/3s---or does it? Educate me
It was leap, yeah. Corresponding... well, I don't know. I can't really make a comparison since the RX100 was the first P&S I've used for five or more years. To me, the new IBIS alone makes the OMD the most innovative camera (wrapped in a nostalgic frame, no less). It's not just a step ahead of it's former iteration, it's a from-the-ground-up reworking of the system, and it makes a strong argument against the need for optical stabilization on the lens. The IQ improvement was enough to sway some very picky shooters here on our own boards, and if what I saw from Japanese tourists this summer between here and Northern CA is any indication, Oly owns that market. I think, for many, the EM-5 wasn't just the evolution of the m4/3s paired with a great lens line, it became a reinvention of the format.
p.2 #6 · TIME Magazine... RX100... 'best inventions'...
Wow, so you base your opinions off samples you see online rather than have first hand knowledge of a product and then you bash it in online forums....how original.
Having owned quite a number of CSC's, such as the EM-5, NEX5n and NEX7, in addition to the RX100, I can say with firsthand experience that the RX100 has IQ that meets or exceeds those other cameras in the context of them using a kit zoom like the 14-42 for m4/3 or the 18-55 for the NEX.
Put better glass on them and their advantage shows, but the combination of 1" sensor and faster zoom trumps a larger sensor and a slower f3.5-5.6 type zoom, especially when its a rather poor one like the 14-42 Olympus lenses
Uncle Mike wrote:
It's definitely not an invention, it's just a point and shoot camera with a new combination of previously-invented features.
Also, I think it's overrated. Yes, it has a great sensor, but based on sample photos I've seen online, the lens is nothing great, not as good as the kit lens you would get with any interchangeable lens camera.
p.2 #7 · TIME Magazine... RX100... 'best inventions'...
Given all the vehement controversy in this thread, here's a consideration to keep things in perspective:
This is a TIME Magazine fluff piece. It's not the pinnacle of hard-hitting investigative journalism and scholarly rigor. It's not the definitive judgment of leading experts on photographic history and technology. I suspect many of the posters on this thread have much more knowledge and insight into cameras than the article author rummaging through the press releases cabinet to find 50 nifty new products.
I personally wouldn't put much weight on magazine "Best X of X" lists of any sort, which tend to contribute little to the sum of human knowledge besides further testament to the shallow triviality of the mass media.
p.2 #9 · TIME Magazine... RX100... 'best inventions'...
Jacob D wrote:
If you need a dictionary to try and justify the RX100 as one of the top 50 inventions of the year I think that's telling.
Within our little bubble of digital cameras and alt gear, I think the RX1 and RX100 are pretty neat, amazing even, but that's about as far as I'd take it.
The need for a wikipedia entry is telling, but not of anything about the camera
this thing gives nothing away to the walkman, in fact it's far more innovative in terms of the technology. The Walkman after all did not sound any better than any other cassette player--or use any new head tech etc.
There are inventions and inventions. I can pull out my Nature mags and glean some "lightbulbs", but few are going to register in everyday lives. That is the realm of the PC, the iphone, the iPad...and the RX100.
p.2 #11 · TIME Magazine... RX100... 'best inventions'...
My vote goes to the DP2M (Merrill). This is my first Foveon based camera. I would not consider myself a foveon fanboy, because I do use many tools. But the per pixel sharpness and color transition is beyond everything I have seen before. It is not a high ISO camera yet. But for landscapes and architecture it is a dream. Now I clearly see the disadvantages of the Bayer interpolation.
The built in 30mm lens is terrific, better than my Leica summicron 50. http://www.foveon.com/article.php?a=69
Before a heated discussion begins, Sony already has a patent for a similar technology. I hope the days of the outdated Bayer technology are numbered. Unfortunately the industry did not invest a lot in new sensor technologies over the years, consumers did not know it better, and where happy with more and more medicore megapixel and high iso as benchmarks of image qualty.
p.2 #12 · TIME Magazine... RX100... 'best inventions'...
deadwolfbones wrote:
I own and enjoy a RX100, but what is that photo supposed to prove, exactly?
It's supposed to be a funny reference to the all too common tendency to dismiss what's outside the box--like the iphone, in Ballmers case.
Since when is a spirited debate beyond the purview of the FM ALT forum?
@glacierpete: You certainly could make a case for the DP2---it's kinda like the indoor cloud Time also likes. Lots of limitations but when it works: wow!
Seriously, I think the RX100 is pretty obviously a major landmark, and tossing it into the P&S pidgeon hole is a Ballmer like attitude, but I hope nobody takes it personally. Good friends disagree all the time--and a little wit--or the attempt, usually doesn't hurt.
p.2 #13 · TIME Magazine... RX100... 'best inventions'...
You want spirited debate, uhoh7? I’ll give you spirited debate!
My view is that the RX100 is both a landmark camera and not especially innovative from an engineering perspective.
It is innovative, or inventive, in a marketing sense: someone at Sony, uniquely in the five years or so since in-camera software correction of distortion made this type of camera technically feasible, decided there would be a market for a tiny camera with a seriously compromised lens and a high-pixel-count sensor of average efficiency but 3 × (not 2 ×, thrice) the surface area of the norm.
And it turned out that this odd set of compromises was exactly what the market wanted, to a tee. Frankly, in some ways that just proves the market is dumber than other camera manufacturers suspected. I’m sure they’ll adjust their future behaviour accordingly.
None of which means I think every photographer who bought an RX100 is dumb (obviously). And for the record, I think the 1"-type sensor is as good a compromise as any, though I’m not fond of the RX100’s specific implementation (the emphasis on high-ISO performance resulting in a high (noisy) base ISO). The rest of the RX100 is more or less awful: lens, general ergonomics, user interface, price.
And although it’s strictly innovative (no-one thought to make a camera like this before), that’s partly because Canon, Nikon, and the rest are asleep. Anyone paying attention could tell you that miniaturising a consumer electronics device more than is sensible would be a winning formula (vide: every Apple hit of the last decade); that people want more pixels even though they have no use for them; that buyers’ aren’t discerning about lens quality; and that usability is nearly irrelevant because most people don’t care about it and reviewers don’t understand it.
p.2 #14 · TIME Magazine... RX100... 'best inventions'...
millsart wrote:
Wow, so you base your opinions off samples you see online rather than have first hand knowledge of a product and then you bash it in online forums....how original.
Yes, looking at sample photos online is an excellent way to judge the image quality that a camera is capable of.
