Marsh at Dawn, Haliburton, Ontario

[Peter McLennan]

I have a Mark IV RX10. Everything Terry said.  I recently returned from a two week trip to Bangkok and Bhutan and my client and I were delighted with the 100 plus page Blurb book and the ten minute video I created from the journey.  Full bleed, double-page-spread images in a book that's nearly two feet wide when open look great.  Not fine art, mind you. It is an HP Indigo printer, after all.  But pleasing, nonetheless.

Especially true is the part about it being a good walk-around travel camera. It's compact, light and self contained. I took five batteries, never used more than one and a half in a day and I shot both stills and video.  The entire trip used half of a 128GB SD card.  Raw stills and 1080P 60 video.  The camera mic is excellent, absent wind and background location noise.

The autofocus system is more difficult to use than my D800 and is far more complex to understand. I still struggle with it, especially when it says in the viewfinder "Focus Cancel".  Thanks, Sony.

The Sony and my phone were the only cameras I took.

Also, the RX 10 would make a perfect air show camera.

[Jeremy Roussak]

I'll echo Terry's comments. The fairly low pixel count means I don't think it will replace a full-frame DSLR in my kit, but it's a small, light (though dense) camera with a good lens. FWIW, the three shots of the Harpa concert hall that I've posted recently in the User Critiques forum were all taken with an RX10iv.

Jeremy

[John R]

...FWIW, the three shots of the Harpa concert hall that I've posted recently in the User Critiques forum were all taken with an RX10iv.

Jeremy

There are days when I feel like Slobodan - just chuck it all in and buy a simple all in one camera like the RX10iv. I responded because what Jeremy described in taking photos at the Harpa concert, is how I want to photograph. See something in your mind's eye that you like, point, compose and shoot, because you have the range, from 24-600 equivalent. But in Canada this is $2100 camera, plus 13 % tax! For that, I may as well get the Z6 Nikon and live with less range per lens. Everything seems to be compromise.

JR

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Thanks again all who commented, and apologies to Terry for sidetracking the thread (though it is still about the OP camera).

As I said, I've been thinking about that Sony RX10 IV. Something that bothered me is the 1" sensor (noise) and not-so-shallow depth-of-field. Also, the idea that I would be carrying at least three or four less-often used focal lengths (300mm to 600mm) all the time. I am sure those super telephotos would open new possibilities, but still... not something used most of the time. And the price, of course, even if in the States it is "only" about $1600.

I am currently leaning toward a somewhat surprising choice: a quirky little Canon M6 Mark II. On the plus side: 32.5 Mpx APS-C sensor, native miniaturized lenses (especially the high-speed pancake 22/2 - eqv. 35mm). I am also going to get a kit lens, 18-150 (eqv. 28-240) that should be my standard walk-around  lens. As I like a shallow-depth of field, in particular for portraits, Sigma is about to ship its 56/1.4 (eqv. 90mm). All three lenses, body, plus that quirky viewfinder, would be about $2,000. Weight? 1093 grams (2.4 lbs).

[luxborealis]

Sounds like a respectable option, Slobodan. It certainly comes in at a manageable weight.

Since purchasing a D7200 APS Nikon this summer (originally for the 200-500), I have considered using it as my travel/walk around camera, especially with the larger sensor, but I would prefer to stick to one lens. The 16-80 just isn’t long enough and anything longer doesn’t meet the speed and quality of the Sony. This is a long-winded way of saying I’m envious of the ‘kit’ lens you describe and hope it meets the speed/quality standard you’re looking for.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

...  All three lenses, body, plus that quirky viewfinder, would be about $2,000. Weight? 1093 grams (2.4 lbs).

I just checked the specs for Sony RX10 IV and the weight is exactly the same: 1095 grams or 2.4 lbs 

[armand]

Thanks again all who commented, and apologies to Terry for sidetracking the thread (though it is still about the OP camera).

As I said, I've been thinking about that Sony RX10 IV. Something that bothered me is the 1" sensor (noise) and not-so-shallow depth-of-field. Also, the idea that I would be carrying at least three or four less-often used focal lengths (300mm to 600mm) all the time. I am sure those super telephotos would open new possibilities, but still... not something used most of the time. And the price, of course, even if in the States it is "only" about $1600.

I am currently leaning toward a somewhat surprising choice: a quirky little Canon M6 Mark II. On the plus side: 32.5 Mpx APS-C sensor, native miniaturized lenses (especially the high-speed pancake 22/2 - eqv. 35mm). I am also going to get a kit lens, 18-150 (eqv. 28-240) that should be my standard walk-around  lens. As I like a shallow-depth of field, in particular for portraits, Sigma is about to ship its 56/1.4 (eqv. 90mm). All three lenses, body, plus that quirky viewfinder, would be about $2,000. Weight? 1093 grams (2.4 lbs).

If you use the long focal lengths on the RX10iv the DOF can be quite limited. On the 24-85 range, less so. It’s workable for a travel camera most of the times.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

If you use the long focal lengths on the RX10iv the DOF can be quite limited. On the 24-85 range, less so. It’s workable for a travel camera most of the times.

Agree. But even at the longer focal lengths, say 300-600mm, the shallow DOF, though better than at the 24-85 range, is still a far cry from a full frame super telephotos. I was shooting last year with a Canon 100-400/4.5-5.6 and the bokeh at the end range is really creamy. I also tried a Leica 25-400 in a shop this year (another 1" camera) and wasn't impressed with the bokeh and shallow (or not) DOF at 400mm.

That said, I was aware of those limitations when considering RX10 IV and would work with what I would have (i.e., try to find images that would work with the camera/lens limitations).

Also, the kit zoom I mentioned, 18-150 APS-C format, is a rather slow one: f/3.5-6.3. Those f/stops roughly translate to the same DOF for the same focal lengths when compared to RX10 IV. However, I would have two high-speed lenses for the times when I need more light or more shallow DOF (22/2 and 56/1.4).

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... This is a long-winded way of saying I’m envious of the ‘kit’ lens you describe and hope it meets the speed/quality standard you’re looking for.

I thought this deserves an update. I did order the M6m2. It is a nice little camera, very enjoyable in use (ergonomics-wise). Quality surprisingly good. Then something unexpected happened. B&H had a promotion combo, Canon RP with a 24-240 new Canon superzoom, plus an adapter for Canon EF lenses, for less than the M6m2 combo. I thought, surely a full-frame mirrorless would be a better deal, quality-wise. So I ordered that too. Long story short, after several days of comparing the two kits, I returned both and ordered a Canon R body, to go with my old lenses (at this point, it is 16-35/4, 50/1.8, 85/1.8, and 70-200/4, plus a 1.4x extender).

The reason?

Although my reasoning still stands that no one will notice the difference in social media and online postings (that seems to be in my future, as opposed to large format prints for sale at art fairs), I forgot about one guy who would notice and know it is there: myself. I got spoiled by better quality over the years.

If anyone is interested, I could post example comparisons between the RP kit and M6m2 kit (here or in any other thread).

[maddogmurph]

Hi Slobodan,

For Sm, online and prints up to 16x20, I think the RX-10iii (and, my guess the iv, too) is ideal. I can confidently shoot most subjects and can carry the camera all day with no fatigue. The all-in-one 24-600mm f/2.8-4 Zeiss lens is really the ideal, in fact, perfect, walkabout lens. The stabilization makes the everything up to 600mm possible, even with ridiculously low shutter speeds at 600 (1/50th!)

Places you will notice a difference . . . Shooting:
  -  action: fewer keepers compared to a DSLR; that being said, still enough keepers to be productive
  -  birds on the wing: I find it almost impossible to track and shoot successfully compared to DSLR
  -  some edge distortion and softness, but no worse than many DSLR lenses
  -  close-up and macro: extra care must be taken to zoom and focus; not as intuitive as with a DSLR

In processing . . . note: I mostly shoot raw, especially for my personal work - and the files are excellent (even the jpegs are excellent and can withstand some processing)
  -  sharpness (or ability to be sharpened) is excellent, especially at ISO64 to 125; at 200 photos start to look a little grainy and by 400 they are grainy, but still, definitely printable and perfectly fine for the web/projection
  -  shadows do not recover as well as I would like them to; increasing “Shadow” adjustment on Lightroom tends to brighten mid-tones too much without doing as much to shadows as I am used to with Nikon NEFs
  -  you will not have as much highlight room as you’ve been used to
  -  smoothness: you may miss the smoothness of tones that FF produces; although I must admit, on web/projection the difference is virtually unnoticeable; on prints, it would take a side-by-side for a medium-sized print at normal viewing distance to really see a difference; larger prints, well you know what happens; 20x30 - I’ve not printed that large with the Sony, but with a good file and proper up sampling, I’m sure it would look great.

The Sony is the ideal travel camera as it’s the camera that can always be with me (Though the same can be said about my iPhone!). I still use my FF for fine (serious, aka 4x5-style) landscapes (when I’m not travelling overseas) and an APS DSLR for wildlife, birds and sports, again when I’m not travelling overseas. My travel photography is for a market that doesn’t usually require large prints, so the Sony is ideal. It’s also my go-to camera when I’m out hiking for a few hours, but even then, I’ll often use an iPhone and I know yoiu’ve had similar success with that, too.

I hope this helps,

Terry

That's one of the best camera reviews I've ever read.