pacnwhobbyist: All things considered, it looks about the same as its predecessor. There are some differences in JPEG processing vs. the III but detail capture and ISO performance look pretty similar. Again though, to their credit, Sony never said there was going to be a huge leap in image quality with this new sensor. Most of the improvements are performance-based.
Sony did indeed claim there would be an improvement in image quality with the RX100iv.
It was a part of the Sony Q&A interview over at Imaging Resource. The Senior General Manager of Sony's Digital Imaging Business, Mr. Kimio Maki, stated very clearly and succinctly that the new sensor design had resulted in improved noise performance.
Have a read for yourself:http://www.imaging-resource.com/news/2015/06/16/sony-qa-the-must-have-sensor-tech-of-the-future
Edit: The relevant section is a fair way into the interview, beneath the illustration of the "Fast Hybrid AF"
Jennyhappy2: Either way it's gonna sell.
As of today on Amazon, here are the top sellers:
LX100 - #113RX100 II - #104RX100 IV - #20RX100 III - #19RX100 - #18
Like it, then buy it. Otherwise, look elsewhere.
Photography is the high road Jennyhappy2. Very few photographers have photographs of Amazon stats in their portfolios. And those that worry about such things have sadly lost their way ;-)
Boy you've really stung me there with your ad hominen attack Mike FL. I hit a nerve with those brand fixation comments didn't I? Dredging through past forum threads to in an attempt to locate questionable commentary in order to discredit and belittle. Really, you shouldn't have.
Mike FL, such fanboyistic rants are distasteful and unbecoming. No true photographer talks in terms such as "manufacturer X beats manufacturer Y". It's demeaning not just to yourself but also the wider DPR community. In future please reconsider your approach and place the craft of photography before the badge on the front of the camera. You might find people will have a lot more respect for your comments if you do.
Steve Balcombe: Thought I'd take this opportunity to find out whether I 'need' to replace my MkI with a MkIV. And the answer is no!
It's ok, I do understand that there is far more to the difference than pure image quality, but on that specific issue it looks like I wouldn't gain much. Surprising perhaps, given three generations and all the fuss about the new sensor.
^^ Agreed, although the slightly disappointing thing is that anyone who views the end photos is not going to notice any difference. And I think that's what many of us were hoping for considering the marketing rhetoric and eye-watering bump in price point.
If you use your RX to shoot fast action sports then it's time to crack open the celebratory champers and pop the streamers.
However for the rest of us the IV is just another curious addition do the Sony stable.
Demon Cleaner: Why are all the wide sweeping landscape shots at f/2.8?
I can understand maybe one or two (for variations sake), by why would you not provide examples representative of what a competent photographer would take?
That's cool Sam. At the end of the day the embarrassment is all mine for the way I chose to articulate my concerns. Appreciate the reply though, that couldn't have been easy.
"Stopped down any further, and I'd be in diffraction territory."
I'm sorry but this is just laughable. I'm embarrassed for you.
Why are all the wide sweeping landscape shots at f/2.8?
Just Ed: The long tele and action shots look a bit blurry to me. Was there a focus problem or stabilization problem. Could just be too fast of action for the chosen settings.
The static shots a very impressive. I like some of your compositions and choice of interesting colors/garb.
I don't think it's fair to blame the equipment in this instance.
Take photo 3 for example, the picture of a stationary gent being interviewed. A 1/125 shutter isn't nearly fast enough for a 600mm equiv focal length. Compounding matters is the choice of an f/16 aperture, which is heavily diffraction limited on m43.
Modern cameras may be incredible feats of engineering, technology and design, but there's still some limitations even they can't overcome.
Which is why they still put a 'P' on the mode dial...
600mm equiv at 1/125? An aperture of f/16 when diffraction starts to affect from f/8'ish on m43?
The Lumix 100-300mm loses 40% of its peak resolution at f/16.
DPR any explanation as to why you're taking sample photos that aren't representative of the capabilities of the camera in question? I'm assuming these were taken in an Auto mode and what we're seeing here is reflective of a broken metering system?
Demon Cleaner: A gold award for a camera that doesn't have overall image quality listed as a pro?
Hi Kryten61. My point was that it's highly irregular for a camera to receive a gold award when image quality isn't meritorious enough to warrant inclusion in the 'pros' listing at the top of the 'Conclusions' page.
I think the NX1 is a fantastic camera and would love to be the owner of one myself.
Edit: Just to clarify, I think image quality *should* be listed in the Pros. Especially when considering it's a staple inclusion in every Canon APSC review, even with their antiquated and significantly substandard sensors.
A gold award for a camera that doesn't have overall image quality listed as a pro?
ManuelVilardeMacedo: I don't see the need for this kind of aperture on an ultra wide-angle lens. It might be useful for shooting in dimly lit locations with no tripod or flash, but aren't wide-angle lenses supposed to keep everything sharp? I surely need good depth of field when I shoot landscapes and interiors. I'd trade f/0.95 for f/22.The bokeh mania is driving people nuts.
"I surely need good depth of field when I shoot landscapes and interiors. The bokeh mania is driving people nuts."
Huh? It's an ultra-wide angle lens. Even wide open the hyperfocal is under 9 meters. At f/2 it's 4.5 meters. This lens has everything to do with available light and very little with your "bokeh mania". Cinematographers and videographers in particular will be wetting themselves over this piece of glass.
backayonder: Reminds me of a hotel I once stayed in. The plumbing was shocking
It appears they upgraded the facilities after your visit, and from the scale of the amendments it seems they feared you one day might return.
Ivan Lietaert: I actually like this kind of video. It is quite convincing.There is one thing I wouldn't do, and that is to change lenses that close to the surf. I'm sure the your sensor will get dirty very soon like that!
The cynicism stems from the presenter being on the Sony payroll for "brand support." And that's Sony's wording, not mine.
It's no more appropriate for a Sony rep to be presenting this piece on the A6000 than it would be for a Canon rep to present it.
"Sony Camera Goes Surfing With Sony Ambassador." Has a nice ring to it, hmm?
I also quite enjoy these types of articles and hope to see more in the future.
I don't see the issue as long as DPR makes it clear that they're undertaken by people on the manufacturer's payroll and we're forewarned it's a cynical fluff piece and impartiality is out the window.
Eugene232: not a fanatic of m43, sold an EPL5 a few months ago, but pics taken by this camera on Flickr look realy nice
@Zusu, How does this differ from what users of other cameras post to Flickr?
Syriac: I noticed on the shutter dial that the intervals are 30, 60 and 125.
Shooting video in 4k PAL mode (25p) the "proper" shutter speed should be 50 or in 1080 PAL mode (50p) should have a shutter speed 100.
Does the LX100 sold in PAL regions have a different shutter intervals or are the all the same? or did I miss something here?
Further adjustments to shutter speed can be made with the rear dial. 1/25th, 1/50, 1/100 are all there.
draschan: just tried it for a day. a friend got the fancy leica version. it's an excellent excellent camera. the lens is simply amazing. the controls are phantastic!!! aperture on lens, time and compensation dials. nice viewfinder (although I have little comparison with viewfinders). fast, reliable. and the lens. did I mention it? the lens. it is 1,7 -2,8. the wide angle seems better than my excepensive olympus 12mm. It is a loveable camera. don't see much (or any) difference to my gm1 concerning the 12 vs 16mp. I personally would prefer a touchscreen and I'm not sure why it's not included. the extra leica lens hood is also great... as far as I can tell all panasonic I used did amazing video, I am looking forward to test the 4k (and extract 8mp images from it). so only downside: if you like touch then wait or get the lovely gm5. panasonic is really trying hard to please their customers.
@Sirandar, for your delectation:
The 12mm prime is a good but not great lens. The 7-14mm f/4 zoom, which is at its best at 7mm, even resolves better than it at 12mm.