kymarto Loc: Portland OR and Milan Italy

OK, this is clearly not a level playing field. The Nikon is FF and the Sony has a 1" chip. This is not meant to be a comparison of peers, but to show what a difference in dynamic range means in practical terms.

For reference, the Nikon is rated at as having 14.3 stops of dynamic range and the Sony has 12.6. By comparison, that is still better than the new Canon 5D's and almost a full EV better than the 5D Mark III.

What I've posted below is about 1/4 of a frame, underexposed by three stops and then raised three stops in Photoshop, with highlights reduced to get back highlight detail. Because even then the curtains were dark, I also raised shadows more, so what you are seeing is the shadows raised probably around 5 EV, which is radical, of course.

The first is the shot done with the Nikon at its lowest ISO of 100, then the Sony at its lowest ISO of 80. Finally I've posted a similar image done with the Sony without exposure compensation, getting back what highlight detail I could, and again raising the shadows by about 2 EV.

What is obvious is that radical underexposure to retain highlight detail affects the Sony much more than the Nikon (and this is to be expected). But the good news is that for simply raising the shadow to reveal detail, the Sony acquits itself quite admirably, without any blocking up of deep shadow, and without much added noise.

When one considers that you could fit five Sonys into one Nikon, the results are quite impressive to me, but there IS a difference between compact cameras and DSLRs (at least high end ones), which would become more evident of course at higher ISOs.

Nikon underexposed, then corrected for highlights and shadows

(Download)

Sony underexposed, then corrected for highoights and shadows

(Download)

Sony exposed normally, then corrected for highlights and shadows

(Download)

unclebe1 Loc: NYC & Wellington, FL

As you say, it is not a level playing field, but the results are quite interesting. In addition to the difference in the shadow detail, there is a noticeable difference in color saturation. Not big, mind you, but noticeable. It would be interesting to see this same comparison for other cameras to see just how they compare. As an owner of an original RX100, I've always been very happy with its performance and its size. Compared to my full frame bodies (and even my APSC body) it's a keeper.

Thanks for posting!

kymarto Loc: Portland OR and Milan Italy

The color saturation is affected by the shadow and highlight corrections, which were different for each image. Also, I did a bit of color correction (very informal and quick) and that might add to the perception of saturation differences. And these were raws, and perhaps the conversion algorithm is a bit different for Nikon and Sony. Bottom line: don't read too much into those saturation differences...

mikegreenwald Loc: Illinois

Color saturation is important, but these studies do little to analyze the differences - they are simply not comparable for that purpose.
I have never run direct comparison tests, but with 5DM3, N610, and Sony Rx100M2 all used regularly, saturation has never been a significant problem, though I often feel compelled to modify it in PP from each of them.