Thomas Richter: Problem is, Sony does not have a single decent standard zoom for any of their mirrorless systems.
According to DXOmark mtf measurements, the 24-70 f4 is optically similar to the Canon 24-70 f4 (similar sharpness uniformity at 24mm, better between 35-50mm, a tad worse at 70mm) but smaller in volume and weight.
TriezeA72: With Canon's EVF'less junk, and this nice but limited in reach expensive RX10ii, it really makes the FZ1000 stand out as the best value for money in this category of cameras, you get reasonable reach, 4k, sharp lens, great AF and an EVF for $600/700
But you lose light, weather sealing and EVF quality. Still a good price for tge Panasonic though.
maxnimo: The first thing I noticed is that this sensor is really struggling to capture fine detail, like vegetation, even at low ISO. I believe they crammed too many pixels in it.
That's a great contradiction.
Thorgrem: So APS-C e-mount is good as dead. The last APS-C lens came in 2013....
With about 52 lenses to choose from, plus all the non native lenses, there were less people waiting for lenses, than some try to make us believe.
Another attempt at selffulfilling prophecy.
Sony's bestselling camera is still the A6000. That's how dead it is.
sibuzaru: I really doubt that it is a Global strategy.
I don't, since it's the only way to have imaging survive in the current rapidly shrinking (overall) market. Move up, or out.
ogl: It seems to me only sensor business helps SONY to live.
The only division not making money right now, is the mobile division.
DtEW: ISO 4-million? It's useless without 20-stops of Exmor dynamic range!
"even Sony doesn't offer more DR in low light high ISOonce one opts for ISO 800+, all mfrs DR is equally bad."
Not really. At an indicated ISO 200K on both the A7S and 1DX (both measured around 145k), the 1DX gets about 5.5 stops of DR where the A7S gets 7.7 stops of DR. Mostly thanks to lower read noise, also at high ISO.
straylightrun: The 24-70 Sony FE lens can't be a Zeiss lens. It was optically disappointing and there were more quality control issues with it than Sigma lenses! It was an above average kit lens charged at a premium thanks to a little blue badge on it. It feels like Sony rushed it out when FE was in its infancy and just paid royalties for the badge. No way Zeiss actually had anything to do with it.
Price is similar to the Canon 24-70 F/4, as is optical performance (similar at 24mm wide open, better at 35-50mm, slighly worse at 70mm).http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare/Side-by-side/Sony-FE-Carl-Zeiss-Vario-Tessar-T-STAR-24-70mm-F4-ZA-OSS-versus-Canon-EF-24-70mm-F4L-IS-USM-on-Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-III__1253_0_1074_795
coody: Over scored. It is not that much better. It is only a little improvement from the Mark III. The 4k video is only 5 minutes but costs $1000. Not worth of it.
It's not just 4K that you're paying for. It's the much faster sensor read out allowing:- much faster focusing- better EVF quality (coupled with better optics and higher resolution)- faster burst- silent shutter- faster shutterspeeds- recording high resolution images while shooting video- 4K- higher fps for slow motion
And you're paying for things like the better EVF, faster and deeper buffer RAM etc.
joelakeland: This is a great pocket camera though I still think the Panasonic GM5 with a pancake is giving you better image quality and with the 12-32 lens as good or better. Plus, have you seen the great price you can pick one up for on eBay? I'm talking under $550.
Don't believe me, put the GM5 up with the RX100 IV in the studio comparison.
As a non-video guy, I'm not swayed by the Sony's capabilities there. It's best feature? The fast aperture at the wide end which can give you some nice output.
Half of the sensor size advantage of the GM1 translated to noise, is wasted because the sensor is that much less effiecient per area (they're roughly 0.5 EV apart in SNR). So with the 12-32 zoomlens, you're losing a stop and half in the noise department when shutterspeed limited and roughly a stop in terms of DOF control compared to the RX100mk IV.
But yes, using a small prime like the 20mm f/1.7, there's quite a bit of signal and DOF control to gain (around a stop).
Laminated: Does NOTfitinyour pocket.
I'd like DPR to post a pic of it shoved into someone's jeans.
MK III (same size as MK IV):http://media.bestofmicro.com/2/A/444610/original/Sony-RX-100-iii-G01.jpg
Doesn't look anywhere near MC Hammer jeans.
The lens is up to 2 stops faster than your average kit zoom that comes with those ILC's. But the difference in noise between that "tiny" 1 inch sensor and a modern µ4/3 sensor is less than a stop. Meaning, you gain up to a stop in low light.
The DOF difference with µ4/3 is roughly 1 stop at the same f stop, FL (35mm equiv) and distance, which again, gains you up to a stop of DOF flexibility. In a smaller package.
Elliot H: with such a high rating, jpeg(which most users will use) imagequality rating is not that high
Yeah and a viewfinder counts for something (the Fuji has none), a camera plus lens (E-M10 plus 20mm f/1.7) being 74% thicker, 46% taller and 68% heavier counts for something, as does a more efficient (per area) sensor (the previous BSI sensor was already 22% more efficient than the one in the E-M10).
Michel Savage: One major CAVEAT about this camera: no weather proofing will mean that it is not suitable for use in high humidity areas. Sony`s RX series have proven to be very sensistive to humidity (see numerous online postings about this). It is one thing to show how good a camera is when new. It is another thing to show how well it will resist abuse and sustained action in varying environments.
The RX10 and RX10 II have weather sealing.
RichRMA: Based on a noise and detail obliteration in RAW, it's about 1.5 stops worse than m4/3rds. Not bad for a pocketable camera.
@ RichRMA:You're comparing lenses, which depends on the lens used on the µ4/3 (Dpreview used a 50mm prime iirc). Using a compact kit zoomlens, it won't be as seen here.
I'd say between 0.5 and 1 EV.
J A C S: I disagree with the conclusion that this camera can sometimes catch up with dSLRS in low light, etc. The resolution is so far behind dSLRs, I am talking about 20-24mp dSLRs only, that even some mirror shock would get you better resolution than this camera on a steady tripod. I just snapped a few shots at 1/15 sec at 200mm with my 21mp FF, one of those crops is in my gallery.
Also, fast primes on FF do not have IS, indeed, but they are really fast by 1" standards. All decent f/4 zooms have IS and they collect more light than the lens of this camera even at its widest (and fastest) setting. They are much sharper, as well.
"Also, fast primes on FF do not have IS, indeed"
Some do (it all started with the A900....).
The difference in lens sharpness (see lens performance page) between the IV and the G7 X is rather surprising. Sure, I was expecting compromises for the longer reach, but not to this extend.
Also interesting to note that the E-shutter low light shots appear to show less color shifts (typical blue/purple) in shadows, where I was expecting the opposite (see the Panasonics and most other cameras when using an electronic shutter). Still trying to figure out how that is possible... maybe less interference from the electrical charge (and heat) that would normally be built up to activate the mechanical shutter.
Many thanks to Dpreview for the quite extensive write up and amount of testing that went into this one.
Allen Yang: I hope Panasonic will upgrade the FZ1000 with a touchscreen and 600mm focal length.
It's 33% shorter. The Canon lens is 50% longer.
Classic math issue. ;-)