RX100 has terrible image and stabilization in low light. RX1 has superior image qaulity but how much faster (less blurring) in low light?
943784
Seems to handle low light shooting (Especially with high ISO) very well: http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2012/10/09/night-time-street-shooting-with-the-sony-rx1-amazing-high-iso-samples/
943785
Hi MattThis is a confusing question. "Blurring" (blurred pictures) is a function typically of too low a shutter speed. Good to great high ISO performance - and the RX-1 is just about as good as it gets there - allows you to keep shutter speed high in low light conditions. I would also agree with other posts that the RX100 is not 'terrible' in low light, at least not relative to other compacts, indeed it is better than virtually any other compact camera, but not the in same league as the RX-1 or any other full frame sensor camera. This also effects video, as this depends on sensor noise and low light ability too. Hi MattThis is a confusing question. "Blurring" (blurred pictures) is a function typically of too low a shutter speed. Good to great high ISO performance - and the RX-1 is just about as good as it gets there - allows you to keep shutter speed high in low light conditions. I would also agree with other posts that the RX100 is not 'terrible' in low light, at least not relative to other compacts, indeed it is better than virtually any other compact camera, but not the in same league as the RX-1 or any other full frame sensor camera. This also effects video, as this... » Read More Hi MattThis is a confusing question. "Blurring" (blurred pictures) is a function typically of too low a shutter speed. Good to great high ISO performance - and the RX-1 is just about as good as it gets there - allows you to keep shutter speed high in low light conditions. I would also agree with other posts that the RX100 is not 'terrible' in low light, at least not relative to other compacts, indeed it is better than virtually any other compact camera, but not the in same league as the RX-1 or any other full frame sensor camera. This also effects video, as this depends on sensor noise and low light ability too. « Show Less
943786
I do not agree with your statement about the RX100 having poor low light performance. I have no problem in this area. This camera has replaced my camcorder for shooting in concerts and drama performances. Having manual control and clear zoom during video is very nice.
953429
Well, I see Orson has given a very complete answer. Not having shot the Rx100 I can't offer an opinion but I can tell you I am VERY pleased with the quality of the pictures taken with the LX7. I think the bigger sensor may be more of a factor if you are shooting videos than with stills. For me, the LX7 is great. Get an electronic view finder if you can. Oh, and study up! All these cameras have a ton of features. I'm still learning!
953430
If price is not a factor the choice is tougher. I understand the the RX 100 is a great little camera. I might have gone that way except that I was looking for value. For the money the Lumix was my first choice.
883523
I own the FZ200 and returned the X-S1. Even though the X-S1 has a larger sensor which should result in better image quality, unfortunately the X-S1's auto focus is unreliable, image stabilization almost seems non-existent , and the lens has about the same slow and dark specs as a DSLR kit lens, which results in blurry pics more often them not. To get around that, you can up the ISO a bit, but that won't help focus issues and reduces the mirage quality. I get much better pics out of my Panasonic FZ200 and I suspect you would get the same out of the FZ70.
948238
Yes, back to your original post. I guess the sx1 is for those wanting the benfits of a CMOS sensor, greater zoom (over the sx200 which looks like a great pocket camera), true 1080p HD video, and standard AA battery usage (rechargable, of course, but standard in a pinch), and RAW+JPEG, all things I like very much.p.s. on that review site above the image quality of the rebel xsi is quite inferior to either the sx1 or sx10!
1660345
RX100 specs&quality; are better. But XF1 is best money tradeoff with brilliant EXR mode.
948240
"Neither the SX10 nor SX1 will keep up with any decent DSLR in image quality and surely not in low light, they just don't have the image sensor size"Yes, C. Jones, that is a given! If you want the convenience of a P&S; you have to still give up some of the features of a good SLR...at least for now.
458561
Why do you say " that the SX10IS will be better for photos" when this is the bottom line of the review you link: Canon's PowerShot SX1 IS has justifiably become one of the most talked-about super-zoom cameras on the market today. It takes the already capable PowerShot SX10 IS with its powerful 20x zoom and articulated screen, but swaps the sensor for a CMOS version which can deliver both HD video recording and fast continuous shooting. As such, the SX1 IS becomes the latest and arguably one of the best hybrid cameras to date, delivering 10 Megapixel stills at up to 4fps with a decent degree of manual control, along with Full HD video in the 1080p format. The SX1 IS is more than just the SX10 IS with HD and fast continuous shooting though. Canon's also fitted an HDMI port to deliver quality output to an HDTV, supplied an infra red remote control to make those HD slideshows even more convenient, and swapped both the viewfinder and screen for wider 16:9 shaped models to better-suit the HD video mode. There's also a digital teleconverter option which can double the reach of the lens without any loss of quality when filming video. The lens motor is also the improved silent mechanism used on higher end cameras and comes with RAW without need to update firmware (my additional comments...the only downside I see is the lower resolution viewfinder but I rarely use viewfinders any more anyway).
779657
You can find some rumors about dates here: http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=8438.0And given that the RX100 costs 40% more than the S100, I'm not sure comparing them makes any real sense.
1066202
Rx1R will have more detailed version of the cloud - so for landscapes and sky shots i would recommend rx1r
230129
It has nothing to do with the lens, low light has to do with the camera. The 1.4 Fstop helps, but if you have a pro level DSLR going to 100,000 ISO is no problem.
220161
Thanks very much. By the way, we have a Canon G12. I feel it too distorting both colours and proportions and of course slow between 2 clicks. What would you suggest to improve on "fidelity" and speed: A. Canon S100 over Nikon P7100 (and Olympus XZ-1?)?B. Olympus E-PM1 over Nikon J1? C. or Nikon V1 solves everything? PS. I have no Nikon lenses so I am not stuck on Nikon. Thanks
2178177
Ben, the images out of the SX200 are not blurry at all, even in low light conditions due to the wonderful stabilizer.I was worried at first, then I printed out some pics 8 X10 and WOWWWWWWWI do not miss the Superfine anymore. In addition to that, now I am able to email full resolution pics :)I am still an S80 owner. The SX200 is much faster in everything even zooming at max and in low light conditions.
425580
Obviously the 1.4 has lower light capability and should be the better lens unless you are paying substantially more for it.
309945
Get the SX100 as a refurb at a cheap price. You'll never tell the difference.
861885
Hello Jack, I have not done that comparison I'm afraid. But I had the LUMIX FZ200, which does compare to the RX10, and I can say that i like the SONY better.
1217377
I chose the Sony HDR CX500V over the HF S100 based on low light performance and stabilization during side by side testing. The low light performance of the S100 showed notable noise artifacts while the CX500V was totally clean and smooth. The stabilization of the CX500V was also head and shoulder above the Cannon. I will miss manual controls and inputs of the Cannon, but in grab and go, day to day shooting of the family, the Sony fits my intended use better in long run.