Sony RX100

[mattheww50]

There's some validity to that; it's been estimated before that your typical film SLR camera with store-shelf Kodachrome film was good for an equivalent 6 megapixels of detail. The 8 megapixels of the iPhone camera can in some ways compare to that in some situations, and you can even download free apps that allow you to do manual settings (what there is to control, there's no aperture to adjust for example.) The camera phone is definitely the best deal going for anyone who wants full-auto point-and-click photography, but once you start getting concerned about "limitations", it's time to invest in something more serious.

For almost 20 years now when I've gone shopping for a camera, my criteria is to get as close to the professional SLR feature set as possible in a compact format; the Sony RX was the natural choice this time around, and it's really paid off, this camera has actually made me a better photographer..

In my experience from digitizing almost 10,000 Kodachrome® 35mm slides, I think the resolution is a little better than 6 megapixels, but not much. Definitely less than 8 megapixels. That's the point at which the pixel size pretty much matches up to the grain size in Kodachrome I/II/25. While 8 megapixels in the Iphone® sounds great, the reality is the optical system limits the useful resolution to something considerably less than 8 megapixels. You can calculate the Dawes diffraction limit from the diameter of the lens, and because of physical constraints on the size of image sensor and the size of the optical system, it is very difficult to get the resolution above about 5 megapixels. The Pixel size is smaller than the diffraction limit, so you end up resolution considerably smaller that the number of pixels would indicate. By contrast the Sony RX100 has a very large sensor for a point and shoot , and in fact the pixel size in the sensor is about 3 times the area of a pixel the typical phone and low to mid range point in shoot camera. You can apply the Dawes diffraction limit to the Sony's optical system, and it really can delivery a 20 megapixel image in many circumstances. the larger sensor also tends to improve the signal to noise ratio in the images, which has a profound effect in very low light situations. The difference is further impacted by the relatively high powered DSP in the Sony that among other things is able to correct for certain types of optical aberrations in the optical system.

It is kind of like the difference between the GPS chip in many smart phones (it works, but you don't need, and aren't likely to get 2-3 meter accuracy), and a dedicated GPS device which with WAAS often can achieve 2-3 meter accuracy.

 

[Esko]

DxO Mark measures an average sharpness of 6Mpix for RX100 II lens across the whole zoom range, which (I believe?) should be decent for this kind of camera.

http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Sony/Sony-Cyber-shot-DSC-RX100-II-Lens
http://www.dxomark.com/About/Lens-scores/Metric-Scores

 

[Lumiture]

I think the Sony A6000 or A5000 would be good. It is compact and has interchangeable lenses.

 

[StarHalo]

I think the Sony A6000 or A5000 would be good. It is compact and has interchangeable lenses.

Totally dig the interchangeable lens systems, with the caveat that mass and price at least double. I'd kill for a Nikon 1 J5 with the universally lauded 32mm f/1.2 lens, but that's a single focal length camera for $1500. Add another lens, now the price continues skyward, you need a way to carry more than one lens, etc.

 

[NoNotAgain]

In my experience from digitizing almost 10,000 Kodachrome® 35mm slides, I think the resolution is a little better than 6 megapixels, but not much. Definitely less than 8 megapixels. That's the point at which the pixel size pretty much matches up to the grain size in Kodachrome I/II/25. While 8 megapixels in the Iphone® sounds great, the reality is the optical system limits the useful resolution to something considerably less than 8 megapixels. You can calculate the Dawes diffraction limit from the diameter of the lens, and because of physical constraints on the size of image sensor and the size of the optical system, it is very difficult to get the resolution above about 5 megapixels. The Pixel size is smaller than the diffraction limit, so you end up resolution considerably smaller that the number of pixels would indicate. By contrast the Sony RX100 has a very large sensor for a point and shoot , and in fact the pixel size in the sensor is about 3 times the area of a pixel the typical phone and low to mid range point in shoot camera. You can apply the Dawes diffraction limit to the Sony's optical system, and it really can delivery a 20 megapixel image in many circumstances. .

If you scan film that has a fine grain structure like Fuji Velvia at a rate of 300 DPI or better you can get an image better than most pro DSLR cameras made today.

We're attempting to equate lines per millimeter that is discernible with pixels, Not and Apples Apples comparison.

Like you, I had tens of thousands of slides that I needed to do something with. My old Leaf 45 scanner was too slow for bulk 35mm scans. I ended up finding a Nikon scanner that has an automated strip film feature. Something to think about if you have a large number of slides or negatives to scan. OBTH, don't bother with a flat bed scanner unless you want it for line art, besides being slow, they frequently show rasterizing of the image.

My new iPhone 6s does well compared to the older cell phone cameras. I you need to use the flash though, it's slow to lok on and it holds the led light for a couple of seconds before the exposure happens.

 

[StarHalo]

If you scan film that has a fine grain structure like Fuji Velvia at a rate of 300 DPI or better you can get an image better than most pro DSLR cameras made today.

Bear in mind a pro full-frame camera is now 40-50 megapixels..

Other news: The Sony RX100 at the pet shop; shooting through the glass, no flash or tripod, .jpg image with no processing - zoom on in there, plenty of detail:

 

[NoNotAgain]

Bear in mind a pro full-frame camera is now 40-50 megapixels..

Other news: The Sony RX100 at the pet shop; shooting through the glass, no flash or tripod, .jpg image with no processing - zoom on in there, plenty of detail:

Nice picture.

Canon offers two different 50 MP cameras. Until you get to the medium format camera/backs, there aren't any higher pixel available.

The Nikon D810 I've got is 36 MP, along with a couple of DX format D3200's (24 MP). Depending on what I'm shooting, I may shoot in RAW or a mix of RAW and jpeg. Cheaper cameras typically don't give you the option of recording both at the same time.

The digital back for my studio camera is 40MP but needs to be connected to a computer and is only suitable for still life work due to using a raster scan for the three colors.

There are times that a compact camera is neat to have. For me, if I go to an airshow, i need the high frame rate, fast auto-focus. I get vendor VIP tickets and in return they usually want to have a usable image for showing their management what sponsorship is paying for.

 

[StarHalo]

Gotta have telephoto for the air show. The D810 sat on my wish list until the a7R II came out, one of these days..

 

[StarHalo]

 

[StarHalo]

Playing with exposure bracketing/HDR with the Sony RX100; the key to photographing Christmas lights is to do it at that moment of sundown when the lights are just on but the environment is still visible. But if you've got a good camera, you can get the same results in the dead of night - this pic isn't much to look at composition-wise, but note that you can see individual colors of light spilling out from the string, the exposure is low enough that nothing is washed out to white, yet everything in the setting is plainly visible, and you can still see the stars in the sky. No noise, no gradients, just a clean picture like any other day, even though it's night. That this comes out of a sub-$1,000 camera the size of a deck of cards just doesn't even fit in my head..

 

[RBR]

.....