SONY Rx100....WOW!

[JoeJITSU]

I just saw the reviews and also the footage on this Amazing Camera. BRILLIANT!
Check out the Full Review as well here eoshd.com/content/8499/sony-rx100-review

[Postmaster]

I was eyeballing this since a while, pretty cool little camera, that I might buy, instead of a GoPro Hero II.

Frank

[JoeJITSU]

I was eyeballing this since a while, pretty cool little camera, that I might buy, instead of a GoPro Hero II.

Frank

Im was thinking the same thing. The stabilization is second to none. The GoPro does have a nice little case for using underwater though.

[atarijedi]

Im was thinking the same thing. The stabilization is second to none. The GoPro does have a nice little case for using underwater though.

Not just underwater, but any sort of inclimate weather, or dirty situation.

[vision_filmz]

Not just underwater, but any sort of inclimate weather, or dirty situation.

Also the GoPro 2 only cost $300 compared to this camera which cost 2x more. Very very different kind of cameras... I must say though, the provided video footage looks great, technology is getting pretty scary.

[dop16mm]

too bad it doesn't have a native 24p mode. The 60p for slow-mo is nice, but wouldn't want to have to conform all the time for regular mode. The manual controls and focus ring would make for a handy little pocket camera.

my Canon Elph 300hs, fills the bill quite well, and even has a sports/underwater case for go-pro type uses. Just wish it had a manual mode. Can't really justify another pocket cam right now though.

[markr041]

I don't get it. I really don't. That's a lovely video. But, except perhaps for the low-light brief bus scene there is nothing in the video that could not be done with a standard consumer camcorder. And, that camcorder will have higher resolution and far less artifacts (like moire).

Small size you say, or waterproof? How about the Sony HDR GW77, which was introduced at the same time as the RX100. It is pocketable and has the same stabilization but an optical 10X zoom. It has a better zoom (the RX100 is noisy and the speed cannot be changed) and better resolution and no artifacts. It has better audio. It does not produce the small dof effects (except at telephoto or close) or have the potential low-light ability (at wide-angle only for the RX100), but it in most instances produces better video. See the reviews and the iso charts at slashcam.de.

I am not saying the RX100 is bad, but the great video hardly demonstrates why it is a better choice at that price point for video than anything else. Or why sophisticated people can use that video to say anything about the camera. Great videographer though.

[JoeJITSU]

I am not saying the RX100 is bad, but the great video hardly demonstrates why it is a better choice at that price point for video than anything else. Or why sophisticated people can use that video to say anything about the camera. Great videographer though.

Yea, you don't get it.
Maybe you should see what I posted under the video with the GREAT REVIEW!

[markr041]

I read the review. I do not see any comparisons with camcorders. I do not see any resolution charts, showing the mediocre resolution and the aliasing. I see enthusiasm for shallow dof and big sensors, but little attention to: the poor power zoom (you do know you cannot alter the speed of the zoom and that it is not silent?), the mandatory "digital" zoom (you do know you cannot turn off digital zoom?) or the lack of control for audio (you do know about agc pumping background noise?) or, again, attention to sharpness relative to mid-level camcorders (you do know it is much less?). That is, I do not see atention to what you do not get - the trade-offs with actual video cameras, not still cameras with video. It is amazing when you compare to the Canon DSLRs, but that is not the full set of alternatives for video. And yes, there are limitations to camcorders too.

What I did see elsewhere are the resolution charts on slashcam.de; hard evidence of the video problems. So, a camera enthusiasts review, but not a crtical review. Wow!

[JoeJITSU]

I read the review. I do not see any comparisons with camcorders. I do not see any resolution charts, showing the mediocre resolution and the aliasing. I see enthusiasm for shallow dof and big sensors, but little attention to: the poor power zoom (you do know you cannot alter the speed of the zoom and that it is not silent?), the mandatory "digital" zoom (you do know you cannot turn off digital zoom?) or the lack of control for audio (you do know about agc pumping background noise?) or, again, attention to sharpness relative to mid-level camcorders (you do know it is much less?). That is, I do not see atention to what you do not get - the trade-offs with actual video cameras, not still cameras with video. It is amazing when you compare to the Canon DSLRs, but that is not the full set of alternatives for video. And yes, there are limitations to camcorders too.


What I did see elsewhere are the resolution charts on slashcam.de; hard evidence of the video problems. So, a camera enthusiasts review, but not a crtical review. Wow!

Ahh, An Anti-DSLR guy, I was in your shoes before. I got Rid of my HMC150's, Panny HPX170 to go to 5D Mark II's. I regret the Zoom but overall, I am making way more $$$$ with my 5D Mark II's and waiting for my Black Magic Camera. My brother does have a Sony Ex2 and I do love that camera but in reality, It is all about the money for a lot of us. I love what I do as well