1 of 20 pictures

Sony RX100 II 9
Sony RX100 II 11

20 Pictures - Sony RX100 II

  • Sony RX100 II 11
  • Sony RX100 II 9
  • Sony RX100 II 10
  • Sony RX100 II 2
  • Sony RX100 II 3
  • Sony RX100 II 4
  • Sony RX100 II 5
  • Sony RX100 II 6
  • Sony RX100 II 7
  • Sony RX100 II 8
  • Sony RX100 II
  • Sony RX100 II 1
  • Sony RX100 II
  • Sony RX100 II
  • Sony RX100 II
  • Sony RX100 II
  • Sony RX100 II
  • Sony RX100 II
  • Sony RX100 II
  • Sony RX100 II


July 15, 2013, 3:57 pm

Actually it doesn't replace the RX100, it will be sold next to it and Sony will continue to produce both as some will not want the WiFi etc.

Brian O'Neill

July 16, 2013, 10:46 am

I got the RX100 for £400, it is an amazing camera but at £649 the sony nex is a better buy. One tip is check out the sony uk outlet store, you get some amazing bargains there. They have nex 5 cameras on there now for less than 300! outlet.sony.co.uk


July 16, 2013, 12:09 pm

As the RX100 is only £430 now, is this camera £200 better? Is the image quality that much better and the user experience that much more enjoyable?


July 18, 2013, 7:20 pm

Re comment that, "The screen itself pulls away from the body and
tilts upwards to around a 90-degree angle, or downward to around 20 degrees. This isn’t as great a versatility as found on some cameras...": One Sony featured award
winning professional photographer reviewer suggested just turning the
camera upside down to get even more tilt screen viewing angles. Now you
have your 90-degree downward tilt. And, there you go.


July 19, 2013, 4:31 pm

I suspect that none of the reviewers here is aged over 50. If they were they'd know the problem with this camera intuitively, because to look at the screen on this camera they'd have to take their reading glasses out of their pocket and put them on. I once said this to a Ricoh salesman and he said "I'm sorry for your affliction sir", to which I had to reply "young man, it's not an affliction, it's an inevitability of age, as you'll find out". So its problem is that it doesn't have a viewfinder. Other similar sized cameras do, and e-viewfinders are getting very good. So good, in fact, that soon they'll be able to dispense with the useless power consuming screens that now encumber every camera and replace them with e-viewfinders. And if they cut the in camera menus down to a useable size (try the one on the Leica M9, and no, I can't afford one either, but try it) then all menu functions could be accomplished using the viewfinder. Then we'd be able to buy camera cases that went ALL THE WAY AROUND THE CAMERA(!), and we'd put screen protector manufacturers out of business (sorry guys). So no, it isn't the best compact ever made.

Jonas N

July 27, 2013, 6:23 pm

I plan to use it for street photography, and then I'd at least easily throw £50-£100 on the tiltable LCD display alone. In my view, it serves to polish one of the major applications of this camera.


July 31, 2013, 12:39 am

Almost no other pocketable cameras have a viewfinder either. So it is the best camera every made in it's class. If you go a little bigger viewfinders are pretty standard. And the new RX100 can use an e-viewfinder with it's hot shoe but it's pretty pricey ($400).


July 31, 2013, 8:17 am

Agreed, but that's a bit like saying that the Citroen 2CV is the best car in its class at the Le Mans 24 hours.


August 29, 2013, 11:07 am

Both viewfinders and LCD screens have downsides. You cannot check the image quality from a viewfinder which is vital if you are on the go. You cannot make overhead shots. You cannot be comfortable looking from a tiny viewfinder when the camera is on tripod. So judging buy that is not fair. Especially in compact class. Its a camera designed to have a relatively large sensor in a compact body which gives impressive results in its class. This earned the camera a lot of respect and popularity. So the question is who would want to go for a camera with viewfinder instead of a one that provides better image quality?


January 20, 2014, 2:02 pm

Another cons:
1 high price.
2 no grip
3 not wide enough, 24mm is good with more than 6x zoom

comments powered by Disqus