Thoughts on the New RX100 (mark 3)

[havoc315]

Several users on this board own the RX100, which is arguably the most advanced, best IQ, you can get in a camera of that compact size. Certainly, it was already one of the few compact cameras capable of capturing Disney dark rides:

Great Movie Ride - Casablanca by Havoc315, on Flickr

Great Movie Ride, Wizard of Oz by Havoc315, on Flickr

DSC01290 by Havoc315, on Flickr

I wasn't interested in upgrading to the second version of the RX100, which offered tweaked IQ improvement, a hot shoe, wifi and tilting screen. But retained the same lens.

Now, the third version has offered some major upgrades, but upgrades that come with compromises.

The first and biggest change --
The lens had been equivalent to 28-100, 1.8-4.9. It was a very fast lens wide open, properly suited for low light, dark rides, etc. But once you zoomed in, the lens quickly became very slow. Additionally, the lens was not very wide.

The new lens is 24-70, 1.8-2.8. While it may not sound like it, 24 is much wider than 28. This is a welcome upgrade. But the change in the aperture is the big news --- Even at 70mm, the lens is an acceptable fast 2.8. While you would probably still want to use the wide-1.8 end for extreme low light, the entire range now has a fairly fast aperture.
The obvious compromise --- it lost a bit on the telephoto end. Overall, a good compromise. Many advanced photographers often use 24-70 as their walk-around photolength. Premium APS-C lenses are the equivalent of this range.... Premium full frame lenses are 24-70/2.8.

The other significant changes:

Addition of EVF. The RX100 has a very nice LCD. But in bright light, in glare, and even for better balance of the camera, it's really nice to have an EVF. They managed to put in a pretty high quality EVF, as a "pop-up" feature, keeping the camera compact.

Built-in ND filter -- The main use, is to allow the fast apertures even in bright day light, for narrower Depth of field. Also handy for those Disney World fireworks pics.

The price is a bit high for my blood at the current time... $800. I bought the original RX100 at the full price of $650. It is "only" $150 more, and it has a huge amount of upgrades. But for a compact camera, I could rationalize $650 as mid-500ish.... while $800 feels more like "almost $1,000."

But when the camera comes down in price, I'll be seriously considering upgrading.

So what is this camera good for? For people considering dSLRs and mirrorless cameras, is this a replacement?

The lack of telephoto range would make it difficult for this to be the only camera you own. But for many users, it can be the camera they use 90% of the time.

Compared to traditional dSLRs:

- The lens is superior to "kit" dSLRs. dSLRs still have larger sensors, though the RX100 has a larger sensor than almost any other compact. (to my knowledge, only the Canon G1 series is larger, but the camera isn't super compact). So taking the superior lens but smaller sensor, the image quality overall can probably equal a kit dSLR. Low light abilities may actually be better on the RX100 than kit dSLRs.
- For advanced users, used to having a 24-70/2.8 on their full frame camera.... They may be able to appreciate having the same range in a tiny compact, with an even faster aperture wide open. So it's a good secondary body when an advanced user wants to go compact. But it will not match the image quality and low light performance of a large sensor camera, with a good lens.
- Compared to most compacts, you will get some control over depth of field. You will be able to achieve decent amounts of background blur when it's desired. But it still won't come close to a large sensor camera in this regard. So if portraits with creamy blurred backgrounds is your thing, this is not the camera for you. But if you simply like sharp family pictures, this camera can do very nicely. It similarly lacks the ideal focal length for portraits (usually 85-135), so you may find yourself needing to get a little closer to your subjects than you would with a dSLR. Though 70mm is certainly decent for portraits.
- For landscapes, this is really an amazing camera. Particularly for good light landscapes, it's hard to fault the original RX100..... and now it will be even better with the wider lens. Given a choice between taking a landscape with the RX100 or using my full frame dSLR... I'm not sure the fullframe dSLR would do any better.

Some landscapes from the first edition RX100:

Epcot fireworks from World Showcase by Havoc315, on Flickr

Horseshoe Bay Beach Bermuda by Havoc315, on Flickr

Horseshoe Bay shortly after Sunrise by Havoc315, on Flickr

Disney Boardwalk sunset by Havoc315, on Flickr


Now, getting to the whole point.......

Is this the ideal walk-around compact camera for Disney World?

My answer is "almost." At Disney World, most shooters aren't putting a priority on narrow depth of field. The opposite -- you want sharp backgrounds of the Castle, etc.
24-70 is a very nice walk-around range for the parks.

But the downside --- There are a few instances where a long telephoto is still useful at Disney World, most notably Animal Kingdom.
And $800 is a lot for a compact.... You're getting into the ballpark of being able to build a pretty nice mirrorless/dSLR system including tossing in a 1.8 prime lens, and a telephoto. $800 is now a good amount more than some pretty decent mirrorless and dSLR kits.

So if I was okay with the price....... I would seriously consider the RX100m3 as a main Disney World camera, but then I'd also pack a cheap but decent superzoom compact (something like the $200 20x Canon SX280). So for $1,000, I'd cover a massive zoom range from 24mm to 500mm. From 24-mm to 70mm, I'd have super high quality. But then the ability to still get decent telephoto shots when I want them. And carrying both cameras would still be much smaller than carrying a dSLR or mirrorless. A mirrorless with a couple lenses can be pretty small, but still won't be nearly as small.

I'm currently in love with my fullframe dSLR, and am not currently in a frame of mind to leave it behind often. But for someone wanting to travel light, this may be the best option for a photo enthusiast.

 

[fractal]

Love the pop-up viewfinder! Would be cool to see this in an RX-1 model or even the next generation A7's. The built in ND filter and fast aperture at the long end are also major pluses.

If you are looking for the best truly pocket-able camera with a view finder - this is a no brainer. For me, the small sensor size does not make up for the portability. I'd rather have my slightly larger NEX-7 with better IQ, but it is tempting.

 

[hakepb]

It's an interesting camera.
From what I can see, the main other drawbacks are
1) it appears the lens quickly "slows down". The graph at dpreview suggests it is f/2.8 by 28mm (a stop slower than the other RX100, but it is a stop faster at 70mm
2) while it is capable of much better video, there is no longer any external mi inputs. (Unless Sony actually his a MiShoe under the flash.)

 

[havoc315]

Love the pop-up viewfinder! Would be cool to see this in an RX-1 model or even the next generation A7's. The built in ND filter and fast aperture at the long end are also major pluses.

If you are looking for the best truly pocket-able camera with a view finder - this is a no brainer. For me, the small sensor size does not make up for the portability. I'd rather have my slightly larger NEX-7 with better IQ, but it is tempting.

The NEX-7 with lens, while much smaller than a dSLR, is still much larger than the RX100.
NEX-7 with 18-55 lens is now going for $950. The lens isn't as wide as the RX100, and the aperture is much slower.

So the NEX-7 is bigger, more expensive, with a much slower lens.

In terms of image quality, sticking with that lens, I'm not even sure which would give better IQ, to be honest.
If you are shooting at 2.8 versus 5.6 -- That's a 2-stop difference.
So using the same shutter speed, shooting at the equivalent of 70mm...

Let's say you are shooting at ISO 800 on the RX100... You would need to shoot at ISO 3200 on the NEX-7.

While IQ of the NEX-7 is certainly better than the RX100 at the same ISO, is ISO 3200 on the NEX-7 better than ISO 800 on the RX100?

Certainly, the NEX-7 has the potential to be far superior. Far better control over depth of field. Upgrade to better lenses, although the only fast lenses are primes. No truly fast zooms for the NEX-7.
So for the NEX-7 to truly shine as superior to the RX100, you'd need to spend significantly more.

For you, the NEX-7 certainly is the better option. Really, for anyone willing to invest the money and inconvenience in changing lenses, a mirrorless/dSLR is still far better.

But for anyone looking for a 1-lens only system under $1,000...... , I dare say the RX100 may be a better choice than the NEX-7.

 

[havoc315]

It's an interesting camera.
From what I can see, the main other drawbacks are
1) it appears the lens quickly "slows down". The graph at dpreview suggests it is f/2.8 by 28mm (a stop slower than the other RX100, but it is a stop faster at 70mm
2) while it is capable of much better video, there is no longer any external mi inputs. (Unless Sony actually his a MiShoe under the flash.)

I need to find the exact apertures at different focal lengths,haven't seen it listed anywhere yet.

It is interesting to compare this camera to the much more expensive RX10 --- With it's 24-200/2.8.
The RX100 is $500 cheaper, in a much much smaller body. (Can't put the RX10 in your pocket). The RX100 clearly has much less reach -- only 70 versus 200. But, the RX100 aperture can go as fast as 1.8 on the wide end, while the RX10 never goes faster than 2.8.

Truthfully..... if you totally put aside the price, and I was simply offered 1 of the 2 cameras, I'd probably take the RX100m3 over the RX10. Either way, I wouldn't give up my dSLR. So for my second body, I'd rather have something pocketable with the potential for 1.8 aperture, than a bridge camera with an extended 2.8 range.

 

[fractal]

The NEX-7 with lens, while much smaller than a dSLR, is still much larger than the RX100.
NEX-7 with 18-55 lens is now going for $950. The lens isn't as wide as the RX100, and the aperture is much slower.

So the NEX-7 is bigger, more expensive, with a much slower lens.

In terms of image quality, sticking with that lens, I'm not even sure which would give better IQ, to be honest.
If you are shooting at 2.8 versus 5.6 -- That's a 2-stop difference.
So using the same shutter speed, shooting at the equivalent of 70mm...

Let's say you are shooting at ISO 800 on the RX100... You would need to shoot at ISO 3200 on the NEX-7.

While IQ of the NEX-7 is certainly better than the RX100 at the same ISO, is ISO 3200 on the NEX-7 better than ISO 800 on the RX100?

Certainly, the NEX-7 has the potential to be far superior. Far better control over depth of field. Upgrade to better lenses, although the only fast lenses are primes. No truly fast zooms for the NEX-7.
So for the NEX-7 to truly shine as superior to the RX100, you'd need to spend significantly more.

For you, the NEX-7 certainly is the better option. Really, for anyone willing to invest the money and inconvenience in changing lenses, a mirrorless/dSLR is still far better.

But for anyone looking for a 1-lens only system under $1,000...... , I dare say the RX100 may be a better choice than the NEX-7.

NEX-7 is larger but is still smaller and lighter and easier to carry than a DSLR.

If I where buying into the system today I would likely buy the A6000 which with kit is actually less than the RX100III. Add the Sony 50mm 1.8 and the Sigma 19mm & 30mm 2.8's and you are all in around $ 1,300-$1,400 with a mirrorless "system".

Fast zooms is a hole in the E-mount lineup for sure but can be fixed with adapter. I gravitate towards primes as much as possible. I also have fun shooting my fisheye which would be lost with the RX100III.

I would love a built in ND filter and being able to slip the camera in a jacket pocket is a big plus.

As far as IQ - After looking at your pics, which are great for a P&S sized camera, and knowing they were in the hands of somebody that knows what they are doing, I shot similar photos that are just better. The difference is the camera.

No doubt the RX100III seems like a terrific options - and you may be right that it may be the best "Disney Park" carry around camera but I would not trade straight up for a new one vs. my NEX-7.

 

[havoc315]

NEX-7 is larger but is still smaller and lighter and easier to carry than a DSLR.

If I where buying into the system today I would likely buy the A6000 which with kit is actually less than the RX100III. Add the Sony 50mm 1.8 and the Sigma 19mm & 30mm 2.8's and you are all in around $ 1,300-$1,400 with a mirrorless "system".

No question... That's a better system. But $500-$600 more, with the "inconvenience" of changing lenses. (Not a big deal for me and you, but some people chafe at it).

Fast zooms is a hole in the E-mount lineup for sure but can be fixed with adapter. I gravitate towards primes as much as possible. I also have fun shooting my fisheye which would be lost with the RX100III.

Throw on the adapter, and a large lens... and any size advantage really goes out the window.

But yes -- Being able to change lenses is part of the joy of an interchangeable lens cameras. Whether fisheye or telephoto, tilt-shift, or true 1:1 macro. It's one of the reasons that no all-in-one camera could ever satisfy a really advanced photo enthusiast. You simply can't do it all with one lens.

I would love a built in ND filter and being able to slip the camera in a jacket pocket is a big plus.

As far as IQ - After looking at your pics, which are great for a P&S sized camera, and knowing they were in the hands of somebody that knows what they are doing, I shot similar photos that are just better. The difference is the camera.

Maybe you're just the better photographer?

Honestly, for in decent lighting, for landscapes, I don't find a dSLR noticeably better than the RX100. In fact, sometimes I prefer the results of the RX100.

Here are 2 shots taken at the same time, with the RX100 and the A55...

Last light by Havoc315, on Flickr

sunset-35.jpg by Havoc315, on Flickr

Can you really say that the A55 shot is "just better" than the RX100? If anything, I prefer the results with the RX100 in this instance.

Another example:

vacation-192.jpg by Havoc315, on Flickr

untitled-289.jpg by Havoc315, on Flickr

The RX100 for good light landscapes, was certainly matching the A55, with a good lens in this instance. Even if you pixel peep, the RX100 performs amazingly.

No doubt the RX100III seems like a terrific options - and you may be right that it may be the best "Disney Park" carry around camera but I would not trade straight up for a new one vs. my NEX-7.

Didn't say it's the best carry around camera.... That depends on the size and weight that you want to carry around!
I've actually seen some people complain the RX100 is still too big for them! While plenty of others think nothing about a huge body with a 70-200/2.8 hanging around their neck all day.

But it's probably the best carry-around Disney World camera that will fit into your pocket.
When I travel now, I take my RX100 (probably will stick to the first edition for a while longer), and a full dSLR set-up with several lenses. How much I carry will vary from day to day. If I'm walking around light without specific photography intentions, I'll carry the RX100 so I have something always ready to do. Then there will be times I carry both. Particularly, if I have a telephoto lens or prime on my dSLR, then the RX100 can quickly give me a different focal lengthy without switching lenses. To the beach, I'm more likely to carry my RX100 (easier to tuck away in a beach bag if I want to swim... wouldn't want to risk sand getting into a dSLR, wouldn't ever change lenses at the beach). But if I'm going with a real desire to emphasize the photography, away from the beach, I likely carry my full setup.

 

[WDWFigment]

It certainly has me intrigued. I preordered just to get "in line" but I'll probably cancel. $800 is just a lot for me for what would amount to my third string camera. That doesn't diminish the camera at all, though. I think it's an attractive buy even at $800.

As for debating where it stands in terms of "Disney Parks cameras," that's too variable to say definitively. If fitting in your pocket is your mail concern, this absolutely is the #1 camera. Once you throw in other factors like IQ, price, etc., it becomes less clear. I could probably get a DSLR w/ 50mm f/1.8 and 30mm f/1.4 lenses for ~$800, and that will have superior IQ, but of course there are size and convenience trade-offs.

Great to see another innovative product from Sony while Canon and Nikon continue to rest on their laurels...

 

[havoc315]

It certainly has me intrigued. I preordered just to get "in line" but I'll probably cancel. $800 is just a lot for me for what would amount to my third string camera. That doesn't diminish the camera at all, though. I think it's an attractive buy even at $800.

As for debating where it stands in terms of "Disney Parks cameras," that's too variable to say definitively. If fitting in your pocket is your mail concern, this absolutely is the #1 camera. Once you throw in other factors like IQ, price, etc., it becomes less clear. I could probably get a DSLR w/ 50mm f/1.8 and 30mm f/1.4 lenses for ~$800, and that will have superior IQ, but of course there are size and convenience trade-offs.
.

That's exactly my thought on why $800 is a tad too high for my liking. For around $500, you can get something like a Nikon D3200 with kit lens PLUS kit zoom lens. For another $200, you can get a Nikon 35/1.8.
So for $100 less than the RX100, you have a APS-C sensor camera, with a versatile zoom range, including low light capability (at 35mm).

The only advantage the RX100 gives in that case, is size. (I never said it was the ideal Disney Camera.... said it was possibly the ideal *COMPACT* Disney camera, at least if you pair it with a basic superzoom camera for telephoto needs).

That's why $650 is approximately the maximum price that I can subjectively justify for the RX100. You're not going to get a good dSLR + lenses for significantly less than that.

The price will likely drop.... but can't say how much, or how fast. The original RX100 stayed at full pricing of $650 for almost a year. The RX100ii, after about a year, has only dropped about $50.

But as of today -- the original RX100 is $550 on Amazon, and can be found for under $500. Though 2 years old, it's actually a great camera for that price.

The RX100ii is $700 on Amazon. I'd skip this model and pay $150-$200 less for the original version... Or pay $100 more for the RX100iii.

 

[fractal]

Havoc,

Images from RX100 are amazingly good. Here are some comparable shots I took with the NEX-7 and the 50mm 1.8.

Different focal lengths and I think the NEX shots are better - but closer than I would have imagined.

Again - for a fixed lens camera you can slide in your pocket for under even $1,000 I don't think you can do any better.

Dare we speculate into the future?

A future RX-1 full frame with an equivalent fast zoom lens and pop up viewfinder?

 

[havoc315]

Havoc,

Images from RX100 are amazingly good. Here are some comparable shots I took with the NEX-7 and the 50mm 1.8.

Different focal lengths and I think the NEX shots are better - but closer than I would have imagined.

Again - for a fixed lens camera you can slide in your pocket for under even $1,000 I don't think you can do any better.

Dare we speculate into the future?

A future RX-1 full frame with an equivalent fast zoom lens and pop up viewfinder?

Great shots fractal --- No question, those dark ride shots are better than the RX100. But I'm guessing you weren't using the kit lens on your NEX? I'm guessing you were using a fast prime. (No question, APS-C sensor with a fast prime will beat the RX100 in low light).

As to the landscapes... those are excellent shots, but I don't think they are better IQ than the RX100 shots. Maybe I'm seeing something different than you... I just honestly believe that if you had taken the exact same composition of those shots with the RX100, you wouldn't notice any inferiority in the RX100 shots.

RX1 full frame with a fast zoom lens is NOT coming.... for the simple reason that any full-frame fast zoom lens needs to be huge. It's physically impossible to make anything like that compact.

What we might see some day...... The A7 series is basically the RX1 with interchangeable lenses...
So maybe we will see a RX100 body, with it's 1-inch sensor, with interchangeable lenses. That would basically put it along the lines of the Nikon 1 series. But just like 4:3 system telephoto lenses are pretty darn small, these lenses could be even more compact.

The whole problem with the NEX, E-mount, A7 series of mirrorless -- They may be great cameras, but since they are based on large sensors (APS-C and Fullframe), their bodies can be compact but their lenses are really no smaller than dSLR lenses. (They can keep the size down by using smaller apertures, etc).
Panasonic and Oly are really the leaders at making entirely compact mirrorless sytems.....

We will each differ in terms of how much size versus image quality. I shoot mostly with a full frame dSLR -- so a pretty big camera body, but I tend to shy away from massive lenses. (I love my 200/2.8 prime... which is big, but no where near as big and heavy as a 70-200/2.8. )

The RX100 won't win awards as best image quality of any camera... Not even the best in it's price range.... But it's a very narrow niche of possibly being the best at around that price range, that will also fit within your pocket.

 

[SkaGoat]

I'm not sure I'm cross shopping an RX100 with something like a NEX, or a6000.

I think I either want a interchangeable lens system, or I don't. If I'm shopping for a pocket point and shoot, then the RX100 would probably be it.

But for my main rig, it's gotta have high quality, interchangeable lenses. Right now I'm in the Canon ecosystem with my DSLR, and I don't really see myself moving off it any time soon.

 

[fractal]

Great shots fractal --- No question, those dark ride shots are better than the RX100. But I'm guessing you weren't using the kit lens on your NEX? I'm guessing you were using a fast prime. (No question, APS-C sensor with a fast prime will beat the RX100 in low light).

As to the landscapes... those are excellent shots, but I don't think they are better IQ than the RX100 shots. Maybe I'm seeing something different than you... I just honestly believe that if you had taken the exact same composition of those shots with the RX100, you wouldn't notice any inferiority in the RX100 shots.

RX1 full frame with a fast zoom lens is NOT coming.... for the simple reason that any full-frame fast zoom lens needs to be huge. It's physically impossible to make anything like that compact.

What we might see some day...... The A7 series is basically the RX1 with interchangeable lenses...
So maybe we will see a RX100 body, with it's 1-inch sensor, with interchangeable lenses. That would basically put it along the lines of the Nikon 1 series. But just like 4:3 system telephoto lenses are pretty darn small, these lenses could be even more compact.

The whole problem with the NEX, E-mount, A7 series of mirrorless -- They may be great cameras, but since they are based on large sensors (APS-C and Fullframe), their bodies can be compact but their lenses are really no smaller than dSLR lenses. (They can keep the size down by using smaller apertures, etc).
Panasonic and Oly are really the leaders at making entirely compact mirrorless sytems.....

We will each differ in terms of how much size versus image quality. I shoot mostly with a full frame dSLR -- so a pretty big camera body, but I tend to shy away from massive lenses. (I love my 200/2.8 prime... which is big, but no where near as big and heavy as a 70-200/2.8. )

The RX100 won't win awards as best image quality of any camera... Not even the best in it's price range.... But it's a very narrow niche of possibly being the best at around that price range, that will also fit within your pocket.

Yes - I did say the dark rides were with the 50mm 1.8. Kit lens suks in dark rides.

I'm looking at the landscape shots closer and I will concede they are pretty darned close. I think if you printed them 8X10 and bigger then a difference would show. But who does that much? Most photos today are viewed on a computer screen.

Bottom line - It's a great time to be into photography.

 

[havoc315]

Yes - I did say the dark rides were with the 50mm 1.8. Kit lens suks in dark rides.

I'm looking at the landscape shots closer and I will concede they are pretty darned close. I think if you printed them 8X10 and bigger then a difference would show. But who does that much? Most photos today are viewed on a computer screen.

Bottom line - It's a great time to be into photography.

Agreed...... and I have printed a couple of those landscapes quite large. As long as the ISO is low, they look great printed.

But yes, as photographers, we have moderately priced tools available to us, that are far superior to what professionals had just a few years ago.

It is a great time.

 

[fractal]

The NEX-7 with lens, while much smaller than a dSLR, is still much larger than the RX100.
NEX-7 with 18-55 lens is now going for $950. The lens isn't as wide as the RX100, and the aperture is much slower.

So the NEX-7 is bigger, more expensive, with a much slower lens.

In terms of image quality, sticking with that lens, I'm not even sure which would give better IQ, to be honest.
If you are shooting at 2.8 versus 5.6 -- That's a 2-stop difference.
So using the same shutter speed, shooting at the equivalent of 70mm...

Let's say you are shooting at ISO 800 on the RX100... You would need to shoot at ISO 3200 on the NEX-7.

While IQ of the NEX-7 is certainly better than the RX100 at the same ISO, is ISO 3200 on the NEX-7 better than ISO 800 on the RX100?

Certainly, the NEX-7 has the potential to be far superior. Far better control over depth of field. Upgrade to better lenses, although the only fast lenses are primes. No truly fast zooms for the NEX-7.
So for the NEX-7 to truly shine as superior to the RX100, you'd need to spend significantly more.

For you, the NEX-7 certainly is the better option. Really, for anyone willing to invest the money and inconvenience in changing lenses, a mirrorless/dSLR is still far better.

But for anyone looking for a 1-lens only system under $1,000...... , I dare say the RX100 may be a better choice than the NEX-7.

Havoc - this has been bugging me and I think I finally figured out why. When shooting at f/2.8 on a 1 inch sensor at 70mm equivalent it's the equivalent of shooting about f/8 on a full frame at 70mm ( if my math is correct ), which means it's equivalent to shooting at f/5.3 on an APS-C sensor. You have to do the math on the aperture as well as the focal length correct?

 

[havoc315]

Havoc - this has been bugging me and I think I finally figured out why. When shooting at f/2.8 on a 1 inch sensor at 70mm equivalent it's the equivalent of shooting about f/8 on a full frame at 70mm ( if my math is correct ), which means it's equivalent to shooting at f/5.3 on an APS-C sensor. You have to do the math on the aperture as well as the focal length correct?

Yes in terms of depth of field. No, not in terms of exposure. As I state in my earlier summary, even with 2.8 aperture, the rx100 isn't great for narrow depth of field.
That's why landscapes are a type of shot where the rx100 can excel, since you're not aiming for narrow depth of field. You typically stop down the aperture for landscapes.

In terms of exposure level, 2.8=2.8=2.8. Which is why I maintain the rx100 can outperform a kit-lens dSLR, since the faster lens lets you use lower ISO.

 

[fractal]

Yes in terms of depth of field. No, not in terms of exposure. As I state in my earlier summary, even with 2.8 aperture, the rx100 isn't great for narrow depth of field.
That's why landscapes are a type of shot where the rx100 can excel, since you're not aiming for narrow depth of field. You typically stop down the aperture for landscapes.

In terms of exposure level, 2.8=2.8=2.8. Which is why I maintain the rx100 can outperform a kit-lens dSLR, since the faster lens lets you use lower ISO.

OK - so a larger sensor will give you a more narrow depth of field. In landscapes that's (dof) not really an advantage since you typically focus to infinity. Although, if you use a tripod for landscape shots you can shoot at 100 iso for any sized sensor.

What you lose with a smaller sensor is a degree of creative ability to separate your subject from it's background.

 

[havoc315]

OK - so a larger sensor will give you a more narrow depth of field. In landscapes that's (dof) not really an advantage since you typically focus to infinity. Although, if you use a tripod for landscape shots you can shoot at 100 iso for any sized sensor.

What you lose with a smaller sensor is a degree of creative ability to separate your subject from it's background.

Exactly. That's why I said "good light landscapes" where you can use low ISO.

The main advantages of a larger sensor are high ISO performance and depth of field control. (Technically, the impact of sensor size on depth of field is indirect. Large sensor requires larger focal length, creating narrower depth of field).
Larger and better sensors typically may also have somewhat better dynamic range and color, but the rx100 performs very well in this regard. According to dxomark for example, the dynamic range of the rx100 is noticeably better than the Canon Rebel series.

Even your typical small sensor p&s can produce some great sharp shots under perfect lighting conditions.
But between the fast high quality lens and medium sized sensor, the rx100 can do a lot that a small sensor camera can't. Those small sensor cameras really require perfect lighting and slow shutter speeds, because the IQ starts to degrade even when you hit ISO 200-400 range, and completely falls apart by the time you hit 800-1600. With the rx100, IQ quality remains for an additional 1-2 stops. Can get some ok shots even at 6400. Combined with the lens, it can shine even without ideal lighting.
But as you demonstrated-- in extreme conditions like a Disney dark ride, it still can't match a dSLR with fast lens.
The larger sensor also allows it to squeeze in 20mp, so resolution is higher than typical compacts. And finally, it's big enough to get some DOF control, though can't compare to aps-c sensor.

The more I think about it, it's really a perfect second body for an enthusiast.
Either to carry when the enthusiast wants to go light, or if you want extra coverage without changing lenses.
Out on a hike for example--- use the rx100 for landscapes, while you have a telephoto on the dSLR for wildlife.