Neodp: Tattoos that can wash off are just silly. Permanent ones are just wrong and that's Bible folks. That does not mean God will not forgive you. It means that He says do not mark up (yes or even puncture) your body; even to commemorate the dead. No this doesn't mean we shun people for it Nor that they can't receive heaven. It means your body is God's art work (though we sometimes see the genetic decay or mutation of death) and it's not a permanent canvas for our creations. As the picture shows, the faded "art" is not comparable to beautiful the woman. Not hardly. This is like your kid redoing a Rembrandt. Just stop it. It's not a good thing. It thumbing your nose at God and His creation and that will not end well.
munro you just made a moral judgment; that you said not to do. If you were as you said, only an observer of society then that's also saying you're antisocial. I put it to you... Should we trust anyone who is not, 'true to thyself'? Fight for the truth. Not lies. Else who is your master? You are free to choose deathly thinking and die forever. I'm asking you to live in truth.
Babka08: Every comparison it seems that people make in this post are for larger or much, much larger cameras. The comparisons to apsc or 4/3 cameras is also telling, simply because the RX100 is even in the comparison bench. Folks, it is tiny. Nothing comes close. The review is bang on. I'll be upgrading from my mk 1 to this sometime fairly soon. The viewfinder itself is a significant reason.
A. Overprices might not sell well; because they are overpriced. Especially when you can get more overall benefit elsewhere.
B. See? Getting a different cam for every task can target better; but that gets overpriced and so is no value. That tends to make a photographer good at nothing. Except testing perhaps.
C. The GR is smaller and I was saying the SL1 is a better overall camera. I did not say it was perfect. One may well prefer a D3300.
D. Cell phone cams can work but don't well.
Yeah I know the RX100 line can't do all; but it doesn't sound like many agree. Price can change fact too you know. If the thing were $100 then I'm all in. See you probably think that's impossible; but you don't realize that's because you are being conditioned. Really. You could say no the price is what the price is; but you can see that's not true can't you? If you thinking they could make a profit and still a huge one then that's not true either.
Then hitaus I'd say you need to learn how to study. Not to mention humor. Relatively speaking you should generally known better. Do you know what time it is? Universally stated you should know science now screams the expanding cosmos (as the Bible has clearly stated for sixteen centuries) is very much proved to not be an accident. Inextricably tied to our cradle of life.The Earth and us to them both. So you have 3 proved by math (statistical rules) EXTREMELY non-random connections making everything ludicrously not random and by far. Whom do you suppose created all this? The Easter bunny? Get a clue. Your so called "education" is your excuse for BAD thinking. Change your mind man. All things are impossible accept through Christ.
1 Corinthians 10:21 (NIV)
21 You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons too; you cannot have a part in both the Lord’s table and the table of demons.
Neodp: Summary: Sony is really making better; but still inferior enough to question a pocket camera in the first place.
Can we not build a m43 or better APS-C based high quality fixed lens pocket cam that's also affordable?
Are we so tele stupid; to see we best use our feet more with pocket cams? How about a 85mm eqiv (50mm on APS-C, 45mm on m43) fast PRIME with cheap wide-angle (moderately) lens cover? What can't you do with that.
Isn't one better off with an SL1 and 40mm STM right now? It's not that much bigger. (But granted why doesn't Canon make those better in mirror-less??)
The problem is a willingness to put real comprehensive (photographic) quality into one manageable and yet affordable camera system. Flash and great video included.
Untill you are no longer willing to *not* pick your disadvantage (big ones) as you pick the camera and it's lens; that you choose to take along with you then they will never make it.
Credit for stepping a tiny bit that way... acknowledged.
SSantana75 The GR is a close option if you like wide. But camera are so many things. Once you get some stuff right then others are missing. It's not all physics either. Intellectual Property BS is worse than physics limits. These are not really physics problems. They are not making a BETTER total camera. Including total value.
I guess we've separated the men from the boys (Ladies from the girls), at least. You're either all in with the Bible or you're not. If you think freedom is anti-Bible then you're in for a very rude outcome. You can be a slave and not know it. Now think about what I just said and that it's love. If you don't get that then there's not a lot a of time left to learn. All things are forgivable, accept not accepting forgiveness.
md: Coolpix A has focus issues didn't it? High price too. Looks great though.
Also good points Ichi.
Sveinnol: I took this cool video of a salmon jump up a waterfall in Nordura in Iceland, recorded at 25p / 50M 1000fps (40 times slower). It demostrates the usefullness of the "end trigger" option when taking slow-mo. When you have seen somthing happening you trigger the end of the clip rather than when to start.
No editing, taken in rather low light conditions with maximum optical zoom on the Sony RX100 IV
Laminated: Does NOTfitinyour pocket.
I'd like DPR to post a pic of it shoved into someone's jeans.
Hammer time. Uh oh, uh oh. Here we go... LOL.
You mean like the smaller per value SL1. The word is the rebels were to big and so viola. Now the M system should be better; but the SL1 is better.
Gesture: What happens when you carry it in a pocket and dust/sweat/humidity causes an issue. WHAT IS WARRANTY-SERVICE response? How durable are these modern $1K marvels proving.
Perhaps he wasn't defensive. Perhaps he was offensive and that can be a good thing.
Example: I say the current prices for good cameras are far to much. That offends many. If you'd like to defend value then it requires a good offense.
Summary: Sony is really making better; but still inferior enough to question a pocket camera in the first place.
Tattoos that can wash off are just silly. Permanent ones are just wrong and that's Bible folks. That does not mean God will not forgive you. It means that He says do not mark up (yes or even puncture) your body; even to commemorate the dead. No this doesn't mean we shun people for it Nor that they can't receive heaven. It means your body is God's art work (though we sometimes see the genetic decay or mutation of death) and it's not a permanent canvas for our creations. As the picture shows, the faded "art" is not comparable to beautiful the woman. Not hardly. This is like your kid redoing a Rembrandt. Just stop it. It's not a good thing. It thumbing your nose at God and His creation and that will not end well.
Francis Carver: "The Speed Booster is essentially a backwards teleconverter... shortening the focal length of the lens.. as a 0.71x focal length multiplier lens... combined with the 2x crop of a Four Thirds sized sensor gives a net effective crop of 1.4x, so a 50mm lens becomes a 35.5mm lens when the adapter is added. Then ... this 35.5mm lens offers a field-of-view equivalent to a 71mm lens on full frame."
Wow, how wonderful, Metabones & Co. Who would give $649 for the privilege of giving up ultra wide angle perspectives? This product makes zero sense. You can get a pretty good lens, maybe even a pair of lenses, for that much money.
Sensors are not yet better at any size.
Lens are not less expensive that better bigger ones.
APS-C and higher lenses have better bokeh for the same F/x speed.
You have faster available f/x lenses for less cost and other IQ benefits.
You have more lens choices above m43 to date.
m43 is a relatively good sensor for a pocket FIXED lens camera (like a SMALLER 45mm PRIME for a portrait angle). AKA smaller/pocketable and good.
Think Pentax 40mm pancake yet smaller diameter m43 and built in to pocket body.
FodgeandDurn: The fact that so many people on this forum, a place full of people who know more about photography equipment than maybe 90% of amateur consumers, can be so full of people arguing about exactly WHAT this product does....
...IS A BAD SIGN for their marketing department!
It shouldn't be this hard for people here to work out what this thing does!
great point. Maybe there's a reason they can't.
Timmbits: I am really not saying this to criticise, but I wouldn't mind having something like this at a lower resolution (like 10-12MP) so it has even larger photosites (with all the benefits that accompany that - less noise, better sensitivity... smaller file sizes).
The performance of this isn't _that_ impressive, when you consider that the Nikon1 was offering frame rates like this for years now (probably also using a Sony sensor). I suspect when Sony-semi signed Nikon there were certain performance non-compete clauses in effect for X-years.
Only 70mm lens equivalent (remember, that is like a 45mmAPSC). OK for portrait, but not for wildlife or sports (games, etc) and the other stuff. That is understandable, because if you want more, Sony wants to sell you the RX10, and if this did that, there may be no RX10.
Price will come down over time. Maybe I can afford one in a couple years. ;)
But you are comparing the III to the IV where your assertion has merit. Still the III is still slightly better. Granted similar. If the 20Mpx is not actually better (see your test shots in low light) then what's it's point? What's missing is they're both noisy at their lowest ISO and in real world conditions. It's much worse as one goes higher to above base ISO. What that means is this size sensor and at this current best state of the art technology then desperately needs larger pixels (to a point) for it's relatively still minuscule size; when compared to other cameras. Specifically larger ones. So 20Mpx is not the same as 20Mpx on larger sensors. This puts us squarely back to over selling the numbers for number sake. Even though your good observation; that sometimes higher pixels per area can hide some noise. It certainly can a bit. That's the downsizing advantage. Since we don't need poster size prints (of bad pixels) from a small pocket sensor then they went to far. Stop at 100% IQ
ChampMJG: I get so angry when my cell phone apps release free updates. I get even more angry when my computer programs release free updates. I updated lightroom CC just the other day and as a result have scheduled my first anger management appointment
This is why you need open source and with the best "package manager". Upgrades are the ONLY solution; BUT this requires good upgrades. We have experienced upgrade hell and it's time to realize computers (including phones and now cams) are extremely complex. Their "planets" have to align. The problem is good "user friendly" goals, Apple (and the like) attempting to make all your choices for you and this does not work! You can't, "KISS theory" computer firmware and software. They are dynamic today or instantly old. That's just the current reality.
That's why I say look at something like Linux Mint (Mate version) AND on a qualified computer. This is where Android got the idea (now poorly implemented). You just push a button to add and remove top rated programs. Numerous in the pool (repositories). Then automatic (within the OS release) upgrades keeping everything upgraded AT THE SAME TIME. Thus no piece meal; time wasters you mentioned. That is THE way. So upgrade to stable. Not beta.
Neodp: Think outside the box...You know if it were not for the video in your pocket then even an old Olympus XA pocket film camera fills this need with stills. With some lens cons and many lens (full frame film) pros. This asks the question then... is another pocket HD digital video recorder and with the old film XA in the other pocket a better choice? Both with cost and results?
The problem is buying these Sony (Soni?) and as ones main or only camera. It does not fit as ones only camera without some big deficiencies. if we are suppose to buy many they better be much less expensive! If the person with one camera and who knows how to use it rules then we need a better camera. But don't misunderstand me. Via la pocket.
No dude (and yer freinds) it's "Uh, wut". ...ain't from around here are ye? I want to sencerely apologize for talking over your head. :P
Now wha (wut) I said is...(I good at grammar too)... do you need it and could we get by keeping that cash?
I am no longer looking for a toy. I'd prefer a better camera. You know... for carry, cost and IQ. Not a newer gadget cam every year. You know companies used to make better products AT A BETTER PRICE or go out of business. Ah but welcome to camera hell. Where you tell someone to put on the brakes and they hit the gas AND the train that ruins them. It is your choice.
Think outside the box...You know if it were not for the video in your pocket then even an old Olympus XA pocket film camera fills this need with stills. With some lens cons and many lens (full frame film) pros. This asks the question then... is another pocket HD digital video recorder and with the old film XA in the other pocket a better choice? Both with cost and results?
You are correct. Because there's no such thing as perfect lightning in actual practice. What this means is the shadows will always suffer when the BALANCE of too many mega-pixies (LOL) are stuff into (still) SMALL (pocket cam) sensor sizes. This is not a studio camera and so that settles it. Tim has a very good idea about the balance of just a few less pixels. No one would choose this as the absolute best detail camera either.
It's a BALANCE; but pixies are only as good as they actually do. Everything has to be set to compensate for worse if it's actually worse. The argument that you'll aways be at base ISO in great angle sunshine needs a rest
BTW: better we should have some inexpensive DETECTABLE pop out flash. One that's triggered by another low power (LED?) one and therefore holding it up and to one side with your other hand would make a huge difference in overall quality (to a photographer). If you like the idea of a pop out strobe-ist style IQ then remember who said it first.
Stepford Photo: There's way too much bad information posted below. DP's Review was overloaded with mistakes on shortcomings/idiosyncrasies for this camera.
I've been a long time Nikon & Cannon SLR & DSLR. Their technology has been far eclipsed by the electronics innovators like Sony and Panasonic. Combined with far superior German designed lenses. The place to go for mirrorless cameras are these two firms. Amateurs, quit dragging around that heavy oversized DSLR. Reserve those for Pro/Amateur shooters that needs "Big Lens Look" for ignorant clients or a big tele reach for sport and wildlife (drag your tripod with you ).
Go try this camera out at B&H. If you really don't like it after 30 days, give it back and get one of the questionable alternatives listed below. However, your going to like it like no camera before. Mirrorless, fixed lens cameras eliminate sensor dust and debris. I've had two Nikon low-pass filters fail (no, they wouldn't fix this known problem - Nikon's Service!)
Fixed lens systems can get dust also. Even if less likely; but then there's no easy way to clean them! Done right it's easy on removables.