What can you expect, it is a bridge superzoom after all, so basically it is like most bridge superzoom cameras, except it has a much longer zoom range and a bit better image stabilization and color rendering than other superzoom bridge cameras. And that is what makes it the best in the category. There is no need for RAW in a camera like this, the sensor is so small that you will not need to use RAW really.

But there is a new category of bridge/superzoom cameras born with the Sony RX10 that has a big enough sensor to benefit from using RAW. The drawback with this camera is that the superzoom is so far only zoom, not super as it is only about 8x zoom equal to 24-200 mm on full frame. We can get much better zoom range in f.x. the Nikon 1 series, which uses the same sensor size and for only half the prize of this Sony. But when we get more cameras in this new category of bridge/superzooms we are seeing some fun times ahead with new level of image quality and good usability of RAW ;)

I note that some of us (me included) would like a compact bridge camera with long zoom (say better than 24 - 1000 mm equivalent) and a big chip, maybe a 1 inch. Doesn't that defy the laws of physics? If it doesn't, I'm in line to be the first buyer!

The Sony RX10 tops out at 200mm, and is a beautify camera, but not a superzoom. The Nikon P900 looks like a winner at 2000mm tops, but with the typical tiny chip....and not exactly pocket-able either. Is it really possible to hang a 24-1200 zoom on a 4/3 or better and not need a flatbed truck to carry it? Help the old man understand! :)

The old man