Previous page Next page

Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 II Review

September 2013 | By Allison Johnson
Buy on From $598.00





Key Features:

  • 20.2 million effective pixels
  • Steady-Shot image stabilization
  • Rear control dial and customizable front control ring
  • 10fps continuous shooting in 'Speed Priority' mode
  • Tiltable 3" 1.2M-dot 'WhiteMagic' LCD screen
  • 13 Picture Effects (33 with variations)
  • Built-in stereo microphones
  • 330-shot battery life (CIPA)


Following on the heels of a hit









Previous page Next page
I own it
I want it
I had it
Discuss in the forums


Total comments: 513
Fredy Ross

I am delighted I bought this little pocket rocket. I am 73 and finding heavy gear too much to carry walking around. Just went to Romania for a week with a canon 600D, sony nex6 and this little camera and ended up using the rx100ii most of the time as I never print more than 13x19 and take raw. The only thing I hate is the memory recall as twice in the dark I pressed it by mistake and found later I had taken jpeg and not raw. Not sure what I did but had to reset the camera. well done sony. Look forward to FF in October. The LCD is so good I don't need a viewfinder.

1 upvote

Thinking about it more, this camera is so innovative, so peerless, so amazing for its size, so without competition, pushes the envelop SO MUCH, if this is not a GOLD, what is???


Usabilty/price. But if it works for you, who cares, then it's gold for you which is great. Go buy one and create some photographs.

1 upvote

$499.00 retail price, it would have probably got gold.


:) i bought one the first week it came out. I also bought the RX100 the first week it came out. yes the price is punchy. but it is punchy for a reason. no competition. still. a full year on. nobody is even getting close.

i think the price is justifiable. yes, it costs as much as a mid range, APS-C DSLR. but it takes just as good pictures. So i don't see why people are complaining.

BTW, I'm not a Sony sales rep. my full frame camera is a Canon, and I love Nikons, too. (Had my D600 not spit oil all over its sensor, I would be on Nikon.) But whenever i touch a Sony camera, it stuns me how much better the functionality is. they are years ahead of Canikon in terms of giving the customer what the customer wants.


This should be a GOLD. Really.

I owned the RX100. I didn't last a year. So I had to buy the RX100II. It's amazing.

I HATE the tilting screen (and the hot shoe, although less so.) It makes the camera bulkier, and its completely useless. This camera should fit into my pocket. The RX100 barley fit in there. The MkII is worse.

Re some of the negatives listed in the above review: the tracking AF is a lot more reliable than on my full frame Canon (Canon's AI servo really blows.) To be fair, given the smaller sensor / much thicker focus plane, it is easier to get it right here than on full frame.

Re the shooting experience, I love it. I put everything I need on the Fn Button. Works really well. Sure, if you are coming from Canikon, it'll be different. But I find it better than Canon's.

The functionality of this thing blows my mind. I wish my Canon 6D could do this much.

What's badly needed is a touch screen that doesn't tilt, and the MkIII will be a real winner.


1 upvote

The flip screen may be useless for you (and the camera does have some useless elements, for me) but it is as functional as any similar display you see on other cameras without it being full swivel; with swivel mount likely adding even more bulk.

It's funny, the UI functionality part of this is what disappoints me the most. The IQ is astonishing for the size (if not price).

Hubertus Bigend

It's a shame that manufacfurers keep thinking people don't need viewfinders anymore. It may be the case, of course, that people really don't need viewfinders anymore. I sincerely hope, though, that many people will buy Panasonic's LF1, the only enthusiast-small-compact camera with built-in viewfinder at this point of time, which, by the way, also has at least a minimum of telephoto capability (200 mm eq.). Why doesn't the LF1 get reviewed, by the way? I think it's the most interesting compact camera on the market today (alongside its Leica branded sibling).

(As for the "award", I couldn't care less, but on the other hand I wonder why cameras without viewfinders get rewards at all ;-)

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 7 minutes after posting

I imagine the P&S market in general doesn't much care about viewfinders since they were weaned off them ages ago, and the newer generations (born into modern smartphone use) were never even exposed to them. Then on the opposite end of the spectrum, enthusiasts' opinion of EVFs vs optical viewfinders are still pretty divided... And it probably wasn't very cost effective to slap even a low res EVF unto a pocketable camera until a few years ago.

I actually bought myself an LF1 so I guess that much might make ya happy, tho the EVF wasn't amongst the top three reasons why I got it. Zoom range/aperture, size, and Wifi/NFC implementation would probably top the list for me... And the price was just about what I was willing to pay for a pocket camera (if I could get an RX100 II for $600 I'd probably choose that, but at $750 it's a bit much).

I've used the EVF on the LF1 a bit and I can appreciate it's handy to have (it made it easier to take stable shots while zoomed in on a concert), but I'm also seriously thinking of now getting a M43 model sans an EVF, so what do I know... :P


Because not everyone needs or wants a viewfinder on a tiny pocket camera.

1 upvote

I agree. I'm waiting for an improved version of something like the LF1 with a 1mb viewfinder. I don't mind if the camera is a bit bigger. The LF1 viewfinder was a little bit too low res for me as I've got used to the Oly VF-2 with my Olympus XZ-1


@everyone "crying" for the Silver award choice - if you really think all it takes for a camera as a photographer's tool to get a Gold award is its great sensor disregarding usability as a photographer's tool you probably don't take that many photographs.

Don't bother reading reviews. Read paper specs and order through Amazon/Gearshop accordingly.

Comment edited 34 seconds after posting

This review is very good but it can be summed up by the following:

Next time Usain Bolt wins the 100m he should be given a silver medal.

Comment edited 49 seconds after posting

The Olympus XZ10, with a smaller sensor, has an optically much better lens, and that lens remains faster through out the zoom range.

The Olympus can also be used through ISO 2000, while it looks like this Sony tops out at about ISO3200.

Unless you're counting video quality, not an Olympus strength, or an available EVF, the Olympus beats this Sony--and the Olympus is a lot less expensive, more pocketable too.

So yeah there are problems with this camera, that other small still cameras best.

I'm less familiar with it than the Olympus, but I suggest you look into the Fuji X20 too.


RX100 in imaging-resources studio shots easily out resolved XZ10. If DPR shoots the new scene with XZ10, you will see RX100 20 MP would do the same here.

The old studio scene was not credible as it was too small. That meant the studio scene was only reflecting close focusing performance of a lens, not real world performance.

So no you're wrong. RX100's 20 MP sensor and lens combo is better than XZ10.



Drop the more pixels = better camera thing, that only matters if you're going to do lots of cropping.

The Olympus has an optically better lens, and that lens is faster thru the zoom.

Yes the Sony is better at higher ISOs, but its lens limits what it can do.

You see I have real world shots from the Olympus, I'm not using the studio scene.

And don't mistake, I think the Sony is a plenty good camera, with a very good sensor, it's the lens that's that needs be better.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 4 minutes after posting

RX100 resolves more detail, has better dynamic range, lower noise, and focuses faster.

No contest here.

1 upvote

I don't like the new studio scene. :( lol

1 upvote

The video samples are, as usual for this site, nearly useless. I've told dpreview before about how we need more useful videos that show AF/AE performance, etc. etc. But you're not interested in improving things I guess.

1 upvote
Sam Carriere

You could always get a video camera -- which this isn't.

1 upvote

Oh I see, that's why it shoots 1080p60 video w/stereo audio and manual control then? Give the camera whatever name you wish - it's irrelevant. I assume this site basically ignores video because they don't really "like" video and are into still photography more. Whatever. That's just incredibly stupid if so.

1 upvote

May the crying over silver begin.

Oops, too late. :)


Can someone help me out please. I have noticed, from this test scene (even the one before) that the D7100 has yellow 'patches' or 'blotches' in its images starting at ISO3200. Seems quite bad. I have noticed this is other Nikons too.

And at this ISO the Sony has cleaner images. However this can't be, right? The Nikon is supposedly one of the best apsc and the sony has smaller sensor by far, not to mention its only a compact.

Is this something to do with noise reduction approach? Appreciate if anyone could, errr, shed some light.


Nikon has this broken JPEG engine for years now. These mucus-like splotches look especially "nice" on the faces in low-light portraits.

Manfred Bachmann

I wish me the nikon1 would have this sensor!


Other than the illogic silver award. It's a good review as ever.

For me RX100 has been the best compact travel camera from release and has not been challenged since.

RX100M2 is a sweeter renovation.


Reading the above, I don't understand why this camera doesn't get a gold award. It seems to me something to do with the shooting experience. Or perhaps it's the price. But to say that it can't be beaten for features and image quality while remaining pocketable does beg the question of why it's only silver. It seems to me that this assessment reflects the reviewers' personal preferences a little too much and not enough of the review's systematic analysis.


I'm really looking forward to the RX10 (APC-C version).


This camera which has "Image quality is at the top of its class" scores 79% and a silver award and the Canon Eos 100/D 78% and a gold award...

*scratches head*

No I don't get it

Jeff Keller

please see:

Namely "There is no direct link between the overall score and the awards: they are not given automatically to cameras reaching a certain threshold"

1 upvote

I have the thing and I can attest that it's silver level. Amazing IQ alone does not make a perfect camera. It has issues with the practical functionality of the WiFi feature, in-hand ergonomics and general mechanics of use. It's really a gem in many ways, but an imperfect one.


I agree, Make the camera a little bit larger, the sensor a little bit smaller and the lens a bit faster and you would have had a good handling, versatile camera with very good IQ and it would still be pocketable for most people.

1 upvote
photo nuts

I don't understand. This is the best camera in its class, but only received the silver award. Why? Sure, it has its flaws but there's nothing better in its class (similar size and weight).

Comment edited 27 seconds after posting

I hope Sony read the review and design new version which is much better and get the GOLD


Perhaps because of the price bump

Seon C

Well, it is competing now with the mk1. Perhap mk1 is still a better over all deal now that mk2 is out. mk2 is not as innovative as the original rx100


I think the slow tele end of the zoom range should have been mentioned as a weakness and the rapid drop in aperture. It goes from f/1.8 to f/2 just changing from 28mm to 29mm, which is a joke. To really standout form the first version, it should have been f/4 at tele end, 24mm at wide end, placed more emphasis on improving lens quality as it's clearly soft at the edges and corners of the test scene, had 1/4000 shutter speed, at least allowed monochrome filters in RAW+jpg, kept the RAW files used for the HDR mode, bundled it with an EVF at a good discount.

Still a great little camera, but I'm not really seeing much reason to get this over the original

Allison Johnson

We agree on the quick drop in maximum aperture, and it is mentioned about halfway done the image quality page:

There is a black and white 'Creative Style' mode available in Raw+JPEG, but the monochrome filter effect modes are not available in Raw+.

1 upvote

You're right THX1138. If they add those improvements, especially allowing RAW+ on the efx, I'll upgrade to the M3! (But that "slow" tele end isn't so bad at all compared to a lot of kit zooms).

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting

What a "joke" is that they put some an impressively large sensor in an impressively small body, and yet some people (you) try to find something to complain about.

Is it a problem that it doesn't cook eggs? Perhaps you'd like to complain that you can't change the lenses on it. Or that it doesn't have a full frame sensor in it.

I haven't seen anything that would suggest that it's physically possible to make a faster lens, with that sensor size, in that size of camera body. Have you? What would you suggest, that they make the camera bigger? If you want that, you can buy an lx7 (with a smaller sensor), or a m43rds, or a dslr.

Leandros S

Okay, I see what you mean now.

Comment edited 7 minutes after posting

Did I not say it's still a great camera. As for making the camera bigger, they already did by puting the swiveling LCD, it's much thicker now. I would have preferred the camera grew a little for the faster lens. We are only talking half a stop, yet you are carrying on like a pork chop as though I asked for f/1.8 throughout the range.

Oh thanks for your permission to buy other cameras, but I already have them and won't be adding the Sony to my collection.

1 upvote

No. The problem is the people making these kind of comments don't understand what it actually takes to manufacture this kind of camera. Please looking up MTF, and it's implications to lenses. Don't just be annoying consumers who gripe about features that aren't actually feasible. Grip about low res raw video, but not about this lens please.

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
1 upvote

2mm = 'much thicker now'..?

I've never seen so much hyperbole as in this comment thread, and that's saying something on DPR.


The first person to invent a blow-up camera with stick-on features will be a multi-gazillionaire.


The RX100 II is not "much thicker" than the RX100. It's a tenth of an inch thicker and still fits in the same pockets as the original camera. It is a bit heavier, though.


I liked the control ring on the RX100. It operated smoothly with a quiet clicking sound. The corners were somewhat soft at wide angle and there seemed to be a lot of plastic in the all-metal body.

If you look at the the test chart shots for the image quality compared (daylight) the lower left corner is much better than the lower right corner. I ran into a similar thing with mine. But I really did like that control ring.

gerard boulanger

I thought "Carl" has to be removed for the previous "Carl Zeiss" brand name to become "Zeiss" alone...

1 upvote
Sean Nelson

I recently purchased an RX100M2 and am very pleased with it. It delivers still and video results that surpassed my expectations, and has a quick menu and enough assignable function buttons and dials to provide a very capable shooting experience even for those who never go near the "Automatic" modes.

I agree with the criticisms of the front control ring - it is frustrating to use because of the lack of feedback and rather erratic response to movement. And the camera really needs to have the optional Sony grip affixed to be decently "ergonomic". But those are really the only two negatives on an otherwise very impressive product.

It's an expensive product, but it's really in a class of its own.


I tried a Sony rx100 mk II for some street life. Bought one and returned it within the hour.* Great camera for many things but didn't find it too hot for street life work. I sincerely find the Pentax Q line faster with greater usability for that kind of work. And the Sony at tele goes very slow.

Still have to give sony the kudos for packing so much high tech in the little space and above all the LCD. The LCD is hands down best in class of any LCD I have seen on any camera. With the power on sun mode I had direct clear sky sunlight falling on it and it still was very visible with great contrast. The fuji xm1 for example has a mode like that but the LCD becomes washed out and hard to judge exposure.

Sony- if you could make a camera like this with faster response, less zoom range and higher quality lens (wasnt too impressed with some of the ghosting) and faster I would be interested. Or even a prime set. But for now it just comes across to me as a camera trying to be "too smart" and "trying too hard"- sort of what Zack Arias said in the x100s review.

* I made it darn clear to the store I may return it according to their policy if it didn't work for me to make sure and they fully encouraged me to give it the try and return if it didn't work. I double clarified that they were cool with that before buying.


Cool. What's even cooler is if they let you do it again.


Since when does 13.2 mm equal 1 inch?


@Stizer23- they do, that's why they have the policy. I do not buy with the intent to play and return. I buy with the intent to try to keep. That's how I got the Fuji X-E1 (same store) along with two lenses, so they know me already.


@roserez- I guess you are not replying to what I posted.


prime please..

Total comments: 513