Francis Carver: We already have something quite good now like this, called mSATA. Way better than 2.5-inch SSD laptop drives.
If Intel has got anything to do with this, it'll likely be another "Thunderbolt for Windows PC" fiasco.
Isn't mSATA simply an interface?
J A C S: The DNG converter 9.1.1. is also out with support for the same cameras.
Thanks. I've added this a reference to the Lightroom updates.
thx1138: That second photo on the last page of the train tracks is woeful, full of noise and I was shocked it was only ISO 500, not ISO 5000. What the hell went wrong with the supposed ISOless sensor.
Looking at the Raw file, it turns out that I could have given the camera at least one more stop of light. The problem is that few cameras give you enough tools to accurately judge Raw exposure.
I'd just got the camera, didn't have long to get the shot in quickly fading light, and knew that if I let the highlights clip, I'd lose the very thing I was trying to capture.
It's frustrating, because the camera could have made a better image than the one it encouraged me to take.
Pritzl: I see DPR's point on the controls but I'm not sure Sony can do much on such a small body. I think Panasonic's LX100 is as small as you can get and still have decent, tactile controls. Any smaller and a touchscreen is almost a necessity.
Nonetheless, impressive camera but I still get that detached feeling due to the controls. Best way to put it is that the RX100's feel like an electronic gizmo that you tell to take pictures rather than a camera that let's you get really involved in the process sot that you are the one taking the picture.
The Olympus XZ-2 does a good job of remaining relatively small while including many more direct control points (though its engineering means it's not as small as it could be).
The likes of the Fujifilm XQ1, with its cleaver E-Fn button, showed a clever way of making the most out of limited control points.
You don't have to go full-on LX100 to make a camera that gives decent, tactile control. It's possible to make a more involving camera while keeping things small.
jamesfrmphilly: i have the MK III. i have money in my pocket. i shoot only still, no video.i can't find any reason to upgrade.
The improved AF (including Eye AF), the nicer viewfinder and details such as S-Log2 are all nice improvements. Even without the video capabilities, these *might* be worth the extra ~$150 over the M3, to you, but if you already have an M3 and would have to shoulder whatever depreciation it's suffered, *plus* the extra ~$150...
KingSameha: Something everyone should know... when shooting 4K the camera generates 5 minute clips max... then if you try and record again it generates a clip less then 3 minutes... then that's it... you have to let the camera cool down before it records anything else. A temperature warning light light comes on and it will either shut off the camera or disable the recording in 4K feature.
Contacted Sony, they stated that it was normal.
Sorry if this is off topic... I thought it was useful information.
Near the beginning of our video page, we said: 'In 4K the camera can record up to 5 minutes of footage and the user should wait before re-starting (presumably to allow the camera to cool down).'
Phototaker41: I like this camera but I don't want to upgrade from my old Sony RX100 because Image Quality is not improved much. So far I am satisfied with my RX100.and waiting for a new RX 100 with longer zoom (ex 24-200mm) and better image qaulity
An RX100 with 24-200mm lens? Isn't that an RX10?
falconeyes: Thanks for the review.
A few minor points of criticism though ...
- Another category "Entry Level Large Sensor Compact Camera"? Really?IMHO, all Large Sensor Compacts are enthusiast by definition. Who else pays 1000$ in this category?
- The Multi USB port physically should support mic input (I believe an older version of the port actually reserved pins for mic input). No ext. mic therefore should trigger a more prominent CONS comment.
- The RX100m3/4 lost a hot shoe but don't feature a sync port. And there is no excuse why the internal camera flash can't be switched to manual (w/o TTL pre flash) such that AT LEAST a remote flash can be triggerd optically. It cannot by simple oversight of Sony's part. No manual flash therefore should trigger a more prominent CONS comment.
Re: the scoring category, the 'Entry level...' category was created when it seemed possible that somebody might create such a camera. As you say, at nearly $1000, the RX100 IV isn't it. I've re-assigned it to the correct category.
nicoboston: I think DPReview should give 3 independent scores:- 1 score for still image quality- 1 score for video quality- 1 score for everything else
I have no doubt that this camera is "the most responsive and enjoyable". It is clearly a very interesting ans innovative imaging instrument.IMO, there is a disconnect between the final score "85% Gold Reward" and IQ. This unique score is misleading because many readers think that best score = best IQ.
Again, I truly believe this is a great and innovative tool; but I also believe that there are less fancy compact cameras that generate better still images. Your scoring method is too simplistic for an instrument with so many features.
Just my 2 cents ;-)
I'm struggling to think of another compact that comes close in terms of image quality. In daylight there are cameras that will make more attractively coloured JPEGs but the large sensor and fast lens mean that the low light capability and dynamic range of the RX100 IV are really hard to beat.
martinj68: looking forwards to the RX10M2 review, any ideas when?
It'll be a while yet: I think reviewable RX10 II's are only now starting to become available.
sportyaccordy: All the studio pics look a little out of focus.......
We shot more than one sample on more that one occasion. We believe any softness (and slight differences in where the sharpest points are), is within the realms of sample variation.
wandiba56: This is the case of money buys praise...what is extraordinary about these shots? Those with lifted shadows look very unnatural!!
bartolyni - We've provided all the testing to let you see why we've drawn the conclusions we've drawn (and explained the aspects of the camera we didn't like).
You're welcome to disagree with our conclusions but it's untrue/dishonest to suggest that this means we were paid-off. We did not receive any money for this or any other review.
berndimax: I cannot download the dpreview video samples.When I try, I get an error message:<code>Access denied </code> ....Anyone else got this problem?
Please try again: it should be fixed now.
Cheng Bao: many links are 404 error, I tried links under What's New -> Auto Focus, none of them are working right now
That should now be fixed, sorry about that.
utomo99: sony need to give the software bundle to maximize it
Capture One Express is a good start.
Allen Yang: I hope Panasonic will upgrade the FZ1000 with a touchscreen and 600mm focal length.
You wouldn't rather have a lens that's a whole stop faster?
Because the FZ1000's lens isn't *that much* shorter, but it is [significantly faster](http://www.dpreview.com/articles/4788790204/shooting-with-the-canon-powershot-g3-x?slide=3).
meanwhile: "but it also shows that 600mm equiv isn't quite as big a leap up from the FZ1000's 400mm equiv as the numbers imply"
Err, the graph shows that because the scale is wrong.
J A C S - It's Log2(x), so a halving of the field of view is represented by (roughly) the same distance on the scale. It seems like a fairly obvious choice.
J A C S: "In video capture, stabilization becomes active in 5 axes, gaining vertical and lateral translation, plus rotation around the focal axis. "
Is that still in-lens 5 axes stabilization? Or there is IBIS as well? It seems unlikely to do 5 axss in the lens.
J A C S: it's two axes from the lens (pitch and yaw), then three additional axes (horizontal and vertical translation, and rotation around the optical axis) from digital correction.
Another anlge: Another angle at the aperture. Non-professional. (Part 2 of 2)
What aperture shows, actually, is how much of incoming light (illuminance, light “quantity” per unit of area) is passed to the sensor. Same aperture in different systems (with similar properties of lenses – refraction, transparency etc.) will provide roughly the same illuminance. And now is the sensor, its physical properties, which is important.
I disagree. I'd suggest that illuminance seems important because the system used to describe exposure is based around illuminance. It has the advantage that you don't have to re-learn anything if you change between formats.
However, this has the effect of hiding the effect of sensor size.
You essentially have two choices:
Think in terms of illuminance and have a separate acceptance that larger sensors give better image quality.
Or consider total light and realise that it tells you *why* larger sensors give better image quality (and the extent of that difference, such that you can establish whether one camera or sensor is over- or under-performing those expectations).
And yes, medium format and large format do have potential to be better than full frame. The 35mm format is only used as a reference point for historical reasons, not because it's *best* or inherently ideal.
What *f-number* related to is illuminance. Without more explanation, the word 'aperture' is ambiguous.