I did an early preview on this camera https://luminous-landscape.com/sony-rx10-iv-early-hands-preview/
Hopefully Chris will participate in this review. It looks like it would make a heck of a movie camera.
How are the EVF, grip, and controls on the RX10 IV? If a camera isn't pleasing to the hand and eye, it doesn't get used as much.
In a way, this is "How much putzing with cameras is acceptable on a family vacation?".
3. The menu system can be a bit confusing. So what!I highly recommend Kevin's recent video on using the Sony A7xx menu. Much of it also relates to the RX10xxx cameras. The RX10 (1st version) is my current go-to camera (love the 24-200 f2.8 zeiss vario-sonnar!), and the video was (is), I refer to it frequently, very, very helpful.
-Eric
How are the EVF, grip, and controls on the RX10 IV? If a camera isn't pleasing to the hand and eye, it doesn't get used as much.On the first version the ergonomics are quite excellent. Everything falls to hand. My only complaint is that the aperture click on/off switch won't hold its position very well.
Although I haven't bought the RX10IV, I did go to a dealer and shot off about 30 Raw exposures both in and outdoors. I found the images very noisy at 400iso and above. Even using noise reduction which took a lot of fiddling, the shots never looked that great. It has a great lens and feels good in my hands but the noise issue really put me off.
Too bad since I was ready to buy it.
Brian
Although I haven't bought the RX10IV, I did go to a dealer and shot off about 30 Raw exposures both in and outdoors. I found the images very noisy at 400iso and above. Even using noise reduction which took a lot of fiddling, the shots never looked that great. It has a great lens and feels good in my hands but the noise issue really put me off.
Too bad since I was ready to buy it.
Brian
Can I ask you which RAW processor you used?
Latest Lightroom Classic CC
It all depends on your presentation size. For 4x6 or web is fine but I see the detail ruining noise at ISO 2000. I have a RX100 and the sensor performance should be similar.
I can use it without much worries to ISO 400, with care and caveats to ISO 800 and beyond that only if getting the shot is more important. Again, depends on your priorities.
It all depends on your presentation size. For 4x6 or web is fine but I see the detail ruining noise at ISO 2000. I have a RX100 and the sensor performance should be similar.
I can use it without much worries to ISO 400, with care and caveats to ISO 800 and beyond that only if getting the shot is more important. Again, depends on your priorities.
Thanks, Peter. This really does look like an excellent camera. If the next version has a fully articulated LCD panel, I'm in,
I'd love to see some stuff shot at the long end of the zoom.
rather then adding a $2500 70-200 f/2.8 to our A7rII.
The IV is supposed to fix the slowness/hunting at long focal lengths, which I see from time to time on the III.
I have no experience with the Sony, but understand it is quite capable, and only comment because I travel a lot. You can now buy a Panasonic GX8 for around $800 and for the extra $900 that the Sony would cost, you could add a selection of lenses. The Panasonic has a larger sensor (m4/3) and is weather-sealed, but the important thing is non-technical -- it packs flat. I've always found the long-lens all-in-one cameras to be awkward to travel with. They don't fit well in packs, because they're thick in all three dimensions. With an m4/3 you can take the camera apart and the thickest thing you'd be packing are the lenses. I happen to have what I think is the fattest m4/3 lens sitting on my desk, with a micrometer, and it appears the Lumix G Vario f4 7-14 (14-28 equiv) is 2.9 inches fat at the fattest point (the lens cap.) I also have the Lumix G constant f2.8 35-100 (70-200 equiv) sitting here, and at the fattest point it is 2.6 inches thick. The m4/3 cameras also have a half-dozen handy pancake lenses. The GX8 is (was) at the high end of the Panasonic line, and there are very capable and smaller and cheaper m4/3 cameras. Just sayin'.The GX8 is an awesome, sexy very sophisticated and reffined camera. And despite its age, it's still
This is from my GX8 this past summer with the 14–140mm Panasonic zoom. A basic all-in-one point & shoot rig I use when traveling. RAW file recently processed in Affinity Photo on my iPad. ISO 6400, no NR applied beyond whatever Affinity does by default. I printed an earlier, grainier conversion at 12x16"…looked pretty darn good.Looks good.
-Dave-
Fred, the largest 4:3 print I can make is a 15x20"er. I've never printed a photo from an m43 camera beyond that, though my friend Bruce has done some 18x24"s and I think some larger still. They all hold up fine to my eyes. I'd expect much the same from Sony's RX10-series cameras.Thanks Dave.
-Dave-
The IV is supposed to fix the slowness/hunting at long focal lengths, which I see from time to time on the III.
I opted not to get the Sony for my trip to Belize - opted to stick with a familiar (Canon DSLR) camera - but could easily see buying the Sony RX10IV if I could actually handle one in the store or in the field (if someone in my club gets one and lets me handle it). Ergonomics means a lot to me.Thanks! I will probably order one this week.
Coming into this a bit late, found it after doing a search for this camera. I'm pretty much ready to pull the trigger on one. Tired of hauling my 5DMII and one of my favorite lens, 100-400mm around. Tired of dust on the sensor. Can't imagine making a print larger than 13x19 no my Epson's. Sure a new a7 III sounds nice but seems maybe overkill for my needs and a LOT more expensive. Anyone move 'down' (so to speak) from a 5DMII or similar DSLR who would advise me one way or the other? Plan to shoot raw, use latest version of Lightroom/ACR.
Oh, want to get GPS data for the shots which I believe is possible (from camera to iPhone)?
The Canon 5DMII and the Sony RX10M4 have roughly the same dynamic range at base ISO (http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Canon%20EOS%205D%20Mark%20II,Sony%20DSC-RX10M4). This is simply amazing to think that one of the best full-frame sensors available in 2009 can now be matched by a tiny 1" sensor.Thanks! FWIW, just ordered the Sony. If it's roughly as 'good' as my 5DMII, I'm going to be happy with the much smaller, lighter product with it's more modern advances. I'll hold onto all the older Canon stuff for awhile but suspect with the lens collection I have, I can sell them used at a deal and make up for the cost of the Sony in short order.
So basically you have a choice to get the same IQ as a Canon 5DMII with an impressive lens & AF included in the price (RX10M4), or get an A7III with better low light performance, but in a more expensive and bulkier package. If you never print larger than 13x19 or don't need specialty lenses (UWA, true macro lens), I suppose the RX10M4 would suffice.
The RX10M4 (or the A7III for that matter) can be paired with a smartphone to get GPS information. To do so, you would have to install the Sony Play Memories Mobile app and pair the two via bluetooth. The procedure is detailed in the RX10M4 help guide which is available online (http://helpguide.sony.net/dsc/1720/v1/en/contents/TP0001593291.html).
Cheers,
Fabien
I'm not quite convinced, no matter how tempting that lens.I'm loving it so far!
Thanks, Andrew. Thing is, a full frame Sony A7 III is in the same price ballpark.Without lens. I had want bumps for that big time but it would be more expensive, heaver with the lens I wanted (previously the Canon 100-400), sensor dust issues, an so far, the RX10 may fill the bill for some time. I'm amazed and how well it focuses compared to the Canon and love GPS from the iPhone.
I'm impressed with the reviews of the Sony RX10 4. It does seem the ideal camera for general purposes, and I'm considering a purchase.
What holds me back is the lack of comparisons between, say, a Nikon D7200 with 80-400/ F5.6 lens at 400 mm (equivalent to 600 mm full frame), and the Sony RX10 at 600 mm equivalence.
If the difference is very small, or insignificant, then I'd buy the Sony RX10. But I simply don't know, despite all my internet searches. Why is nobody publishing such comparisons?
The differences in the Sony's ability to focus (how well, quickly etc) and that of my 5DMII is night and day. Tack sharp focus of shots taken quickly are superior to soft shots no matter the sensor. So in a week of shooting with the Sony, just the focusing capabilities have blown me away FROM my Canon. Now that's an old Canon, maybe newer products compare with the Sony.
What I HATE: it eats through batteries. That small battery is a joke; you need to carry around 3-6 of them for even half a day shooting.
Hi Andrew,Neat, thanks.
I got myself one of these to get around the poor battery life. Fairly light and you plug it into the side port on the Sony and have power for days. You need to keep a battery in the camera as well. It will keep the battery charged all day. I wear it in an inside pocket.
Neat, thanks.
I, too, am rather late to the party. I hope things worked for you NancyP, even though you chose not to g9 the Sony route.
I wrote one of the early reviews in the RX-10iii for Lu-La and for Light and Landscape magazine. After two trips to Iceland, four weeks in the UK and a trip to Galápagos, I am still excited by the images I get from it. No, they don’t stand up to a 1:1 comparison on screen, but that’s so far from reality, it’s ridiculous. In prints up to 13x19, I defy anyone to “spot the difference” at normal viewing distance or even arms length. Even a 16x20 looks great on the wall. You see, that’s where the comparisons must be made. I’ve shot 35mm, 6x7, 4x5, 4/3s and Still shoot some FF with my D800E. Yes, there’s a difference, but not on the wall as a framed print.
More importantly, the camera can hang on my shoulder all day, with zero fatigue. Add to that no dust, every focal length from 24mm to 600mm (can you imagine a 600/4!!!) and a great feel in my hand with Exp. Comp. right there at my thumb, and all’s well with the world.
Ray,
Look at post #30 on this thread...It's a photo I posted from the 600mm end of the RX10 IV Zoom.
Peter,
I have, and it's a very impressive image for ISO 2500. However, the image is only 3.2 MB. On my monitor, in Photoshop, that translates to an 8" x 12" size at 100%. How would the full size image look at, say, 24" x 36"? Downsizing a 60 MB image (in 8 bit) to 3.2 MB will definitely improve the quality. Even certain iPhone images could look impressive at that size.
Hi Ray,
24"x36" I think would be pushing it...if your looking at the print super close up. However for my needs it's perfect. I'm using this camera for gathering reference materials for my Paintings. My images are only viewed on my monitor. In this environment I have more info than I need.
Peter
Of course, the argument that a particular camera produces image quality sufficient for a certain size print, goes back to the early days of this site when Michael reviewed the first Canon digital camera, the 3 mp D30, which could produce A4 size prints equal to any full-frame 35mm film camera.
However, if you raised the print size to A3, the film image had the edge, but that edge disappeared when the 6 mp D60 was released.
I'm still using an Epson 7600 which produces 24" wide prints from a roll of paper. My concern is, if I were to capture a spectacular shot at 600 mm with the Sony RX10 4, and decided it deserved a 24"x36" print, would the image quality be close enough to the quality I would have got if I'd shot the same scene with a Nikon D7200 using my Nikkor 80-400 zoom at 400mm, also equivalent to 600 mm full-frame?
Ray,
If you really want crisp 36x24" prints you need to go considerably upmarket to at least 40MP fullframe with a very good lens. I used to run a P45+ back and so I know that for sure. At some points you need pixels, the RX10 series simply doesn't have them.
Edmund
My concern is, if I were to capture a spectacular shot at 600 mm with the Sony RX10 4, and decided it deserved a 24"x36" print, would the image quality be close enough to the quality I would have got if I'd shot the same scene with a Nikon D7200 using my Nikkor 80-400 zoom at 400mm, also equivalent to 600 mm full-frame?
There is no doubt in my mind that the D7200 with a Nikkor 80-400 @ 400 would provide a superior image on screen, given the larger pixels of the D7200, but that kit will also set you back TWICE as much in cost and TWICE as heavy in weight (or more), plus an additional lens to cover down to 24mm.