Glenn Barber: Why does the Prior Version look so much sharper???
@Glenn Barber. I think you're over-interpreting the scene.
The differences between the two cameras in terms of detail are very slight and well within the experimental error of the test. The Mark IV is sharper [in some areas](http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison/fullscreen?attr18=daylight&attr13_0=sony_dscrx100m4&attr13_1=sony_dscrx100m3&attr13_2=sony_dscrx100m4&attr13_3=sony_dscrx100m3&attr15_0=jpeg&attr15_1=jpeg&attr15_2=raw&attr15_3=raw&attr16_0=125&attr16_1=125&attr16_2=125&attr16_3=125&normalization=full&widget=1&x=-0.6813723976984615&y=0.7120032615117503), suggesting that the differences are down to minuscule variations in AF, in lens sample variation, in lens alignment...
It's certainly not the kind of difference that should make you choose one model over another, since the copy you buy of either could be better or worse than both of these and every shot you take could AF more or less precisely than either of these...
Bervilat: Wow!!! I was expecting minor changes but.... on the highest ISOs the mark IV is really crushing the others, very big advantage.
I mean, look at this:
You're comparing a full frame camera to the others.
Low light images are not yet available for the RX100 IV.
Cybergate9: as others have suggested - the inclusion/exclusion of brands would helped by some transparency..I don't mind if DPReview is used as Amazon's camera selling platform as long as I know which bits of editorial are affected by the sites ownership..
No parts of the editorial are affected by the site's ownership. We're owned by Amazon but have complete editorial autonomy - *only* DPReview.com *editorial* staff have any input into which cameras are and aren't included or what is said about that. [More detail here](http://www.dpreview.com/faq#q9).
No inclusions or exclusions are made on the basis of brand, they're made on the basis of how relevant the specific *model* is.
Horshack: The studio scene is definitive proof that dpreview has an anti-Canon bias. Check out this 100% crop from the 5DS file:
I can assure you it's not the D810 review that's been delayed around 10 minutes for this.
I promise I'll work extra hard to make up for those moments spent having fun, though.
Anaxagoras: Interesting stuff. But I would disagree with "Was this image taken with a DSLR or a mirrorless camera? If you can't tell from looking at the final image, does it matter?". For us hobbyists, yes it does. ENJOYING taking the image matters a lot.
Having owned both Nikon D7000 (optical viewfinder) and Sony NEX7 (small and light), my preferred solution to get the best of both worlds is a small dSLR - Nikon D5300.
When I need something truly pocketable my smartphone has to suffice.
It was intentionally phrased as an open question. Given the proportion of images I take that never make it out of Lightroom, I'd tend to agree with you.
Seeing that image made me go back and more closely examine our studio scene images. I think you might be [onto something](http://g3.img-dpreview.com/0CAD6661933747119767C622E35CB2C8.jpg).
jrvz: I am not fussed about mirrorless vs mirror. My first camera was a film slr - a Pentax Spotmatic 1000. I am currently using a Canon SX50, which is mirrorless, but has an Electronic viewfinder. I find the LED on the Canon useful, but in bright sunlight it is effectively blanked out , and then I find the viewfinder very useful.
I should have been more clear that when we use the term 'mirrorless,' we're using it as shorthand for 'Mirrorless Interchangeable Lens Camera.' (A pattern of usage recently also adopted by the Consumer Electronics Association).
On that basis the SX50 wouldn't be considered mirrorless.
354essar: Do the crop modes now apply to making videos? That was one firmware update I wanted on the original GR.
Not so far as we know. Video crops are harder to implement, I believe, since however many pixels you sample, you have to do the maths to downsample/upscale to a fixed output resolution (24-60 times per second), unlike stills where you output at whatever resolution you've captured.
star shooter: If anyone can bring out a ILC that can do the same job as a pro DSLR for sport and news, then I'm all for it. Otherwise an ILC is just another cheap, amateur camera for teenagers mum, dad kids variety. Long live the DSLR!
DSLRs *are* ILCs.
helltormentor: @ Richard Butler
How does this on chip PDAF achieve accurate focus with DSLR lenses? With native lenses, on chip PDAF is adjusted by CDAF which results in accurate focus but, as far as I understand, this is not the case when a DSLR lens is mounted and the CDAF doesn't come into play.
I can't say for certain until we're able to conduct some proper tests.
However, bear in mind that in a DSLR there will be some error in the alignment of: the lens mount, the camera mount, the primary mirror, the secondary mirror, the AF module optics and the AF sensor itself. Some of this can be calibrated for, before the camera leaves the factory but some of it will vary lens to lens (which is why high-end DSLRs have AF microadjust).
If nothing else, on-sensor AF assessment (PDAF or CDAF) has the advantage that it's being measured from the imaging plane, not a secondary device acting as a predictor of imaging plane sharpness.
Then there are lens characteristics such as spherical aberration that can give odd readings at off-centre points for some lenses. On-sensor PDAF elements look at the light from halves of the lens, rather than small regions (virtual apertures), which make them less susceptible, we believe.
Le Kilt: Gosh, remember, all compacts cameras are mirrorless. Now some have interchangeable lenses. And some are getting great sensors. Convergence ? The question is do you want TTL optical viewfinder, even if it means more bulk. All the rest is... yawn...
'Mirrorless' as we use it (and as recently adopted by the Consumer Electronics Association) is short for 'Mirrorless Interchangeable Lens Camera,' so, although compacts don't have mirrors, we don't consider them Mirrorless.
Wesley Byrne: Nice bike! And good article too; I agree.
Thanks. My skill level and fitness don't justify the bike, but it is lovely.
wombat661: At least you try to be less biased, but still got some ways to go...
For sports nothing beats DSLR for focus tracking especially in low lights AND you have a fast lens that needs accurate focus. All those tests for mirrorless use small aperture and bright light, so everything are in focus anyway. Is a lie just like Olympus M4/3 mirrorless claim to be as good as APSC when they just "mis-labled" their ISO setting. For that reason, you can't recommend mirrorless for the enthusiast.
Mirrorless takes time to turn on (even if that time is short), so you can't capture split second moment i.e. kids and babies, unless you set it to be on all the time, and that eats thru batteries. That time for EVF to turn on will irritate the hell out of some users. For that reason, you can't recommend mirrorless for the enthusiast unless you tell them what they are getting into.
Lastly, lens for Mirrorless and DSLR weights about the same. Been discussed before with data.
Mis-labeled their ISO setting? Would you care to expand on that?
Viva Santo Nino: I tend to disagree about the mirrorless cameras are not selling well. It seems the author did not see the recent article about mirrorless sales are up while DSLR sales are down. I mean, the article is on the homepage of the DP review.
The same author wrote both stories.
I didn't say mirrorkess aren't selling, I said that small mirrorless cameras aimed at people upgrading from oint-and-shoots aren't selling. (Or, at least, that's what I was trying to say).
fmian: $599??Haha.. okay.. More expensive than better cameras that come with more tech inside and are standalone.You can get an: RX100 for half the price.RX100 II for a bit less than this.RX100 III for a little bit more.The size advantage of this is made irrelevant when you consider it needs to be attached to an iphone to uncripple it.
In fairness, that's the list price at launch. Prices decline over time (at different rates in different markets), so it's unrealistic to point at a launch price and be surprised that it's higher than a product that's been on the market for three years. The original RX100 launched for $650, if you want a like-for-like comparison.
You're right that this plus a phone is probably bigger than an RX100 series. However, I tend to carry my phone with me most of the time, so I wouldn't save any pocket space by choosing a Sony.
Ultimately, it makes no difference to me: I don't have an iPhone, so this would be useless.
JOrmsby: I actually think this is a pretty cool concept, and would be interested if it were $299. But $599 for a fixed lens addition to my iPhone is a bit much.
@JOrmsby - launch price is key because that's the opening bid - the price will only ever drop from there. The J4 is a great example - advertised as $299 at Adorama but apparently no longer available, its launch price was $599.95 with 10-30mm lens.
It's specifically the size of the DxO camera that would make it appeal to me (since I could carry it on occasions were I wouldn't have room for the a5100). However, I don't have an iPhone, so it's irrelevant how interesting I find the idea.
Can you show me an example of a 1" sensor camera being launched for $299?
Tungsten Nordstein: 'it's easy to be cynical and wonder whether it's only been done to bolster the price and stop people writing off the camera as being an 'old' model'
No, it's easy to ignore the history of Ricoh's upgrade policy. It's easy to criticise a company who steadfastly refuse to follow the big three in their attempts to keep people buying endless new models for little reason. It's easy to ignore that Ricoh make a camera that does not encourage existing users to keep upgrading because it is a quality long-life investment (and one that seriously undercut the Nikon Coolpix A when introduced). It's easy to ignore the mountains of electronic goods waste produced each year. (41.8m tonnes last year alone.)
Didn't it also move from 8MP to 10MP (at a time when there were big performance differences between generations of sensor)?
I checked back through the existing model lineup (since I've not used the GRD I or II), before writing this and this appears to me the least significant upgrade of the digital era. I draw this conclusion only because there's always been at least one change that improves underlying image quality between every previous generation.
privater: I think GR II did 2 things right:1. Save you $30 to buy a eye-fi card2. You can now purchase clearance priced GR
The Wi-Fi implementation in the GR II looks pretty promising, from what we've seen.
Also, unlike using a Wi-Fi card, the antenna on the GR II is almost certainly *outside* the alloy case (I have to assume that's what the extra hump on the new camera is), so should be more reliable.