Previous page Next page

Shooting Experience

By Jeff Keller

While I wasn't always thrilled with the controls on the camera, the RX10 is still one of the best superzooms I've used (and I've been doing this for a long time).

The real highlight for me is the RX10's 24-200mm equivalent lens, which has a constant maximum aperture of F2.8. Quite often, superzooms make compromises in order to stuff a big lens into a relatively small package. On the RX10, Sony went for lens quality over compactness. So, the RX10 isn't what I'd call a travel zoom, but I had no trouble carrying it around on a shoulder strap.

The RX10 gets mixed reviews for its controls. On the one hand, the manual aperture ring is great, and made it super-easy to fool around with depth-of-field. The 'by-wire' zoom/focus ring was less impressive. It requires too much rotation to adjust the zoom, which works okay for movies, but not so much for stills (which is why I relied on the zoom controller on the top plate). Turning on step zoom makes it a bit more responsive, but it would have been nice to be able to adjust the sensitivity.

The RX10's manual aperture was helpful in reducing the clipped highlights that pop up fairly often on the camera. I ended up working with the Raw image to bring back some highlight tone, while brightening up the shadows. ISO 125, 6.0 sec, f/6.3, 76mm equiv.

The two dials (mode and exposure comp) on the top of the camera are well-made and didn't turn accidentally. The rear control dial felt cheap, on the other end. Having run into issues with the scroll wheel on the a7/a7R, I was pleased to see that there wasn't a function pre-assigned to it. The RX10 has a number of customizable buttons as well as a Function menu, though the only changes I made were adding focus peaking and image quality to the latter, and assigning Drive to the left direction on the four-way controller.

While sharpness is generally a good thing, the RX10 can go a little overboard, such in this case, where the already mushy background gets even worse. ISO 125, 1/800 sec, f/4.5, 154mm equiv.

I enjoy taking photos of planes (see above) and while the RX10 doesn't have as long a focal range as most plane-spotters like, its 20 megapixel sensor allows for some pretty tight cropping.

The high resolution sensor on the RX10 can compensate for the 200mm zoom. The shot above is a crop of the original and still has about 3.5 megapixels left to work with. ISO 200, 1/200 sec, f/2.8, 199mm equiv. (uncropped), brightened.

Actually taking pictures with the RX10 was a snap (no pun intended). The camera starts up as quickly as one would expect given its lens size. While the RX10 isn't a very stealthy camera, the tilting LCD did let me fire off some photos without everyone noticing. I did have to crank up the brightness a bit, though. The EVF had good resolution, but as a glasses wearer, too much incident light enters, so I often had to put my hand over the top. Focusing was great in good light, and not-so-great in low light. There wasn't any noticeable lag, and the RX10 was always ready for take another shot. I didn't have any problems with the battery running out of juice while out shooting.

HDR off (ISO 200, 1/30 sec, f/2.8) HDR on

Sony cameras have some of my favorite added bells-and-whistles, including Sweep Panorama and Auto HDR. The latter came in handy on countless occasions where there was just too much contrast in the scene, such as in the example above.

Something else that's really nice about the RX10 is that, when all the 'blips and beeps' are turned off, that it shoots silently. I didn't want to be 'that guy' making noise taking photos in a library, but since the RX10 is so quiet, nobody noticed my presence.

I used to scoff at the idea of Wi-Fi on a camera. After reviewing three Sony cameras in a row, it's become a feature I can't live without. If I take a particularly inspiring photo, I can transfer it to my smartphone with just a tap (thank you, NFC), and off it goes to friends and Facebook. I was disappointed to see how stripped down the remote control app is, given the price of the RX10. After speaking with Sony, it sounded like this wasn't going to change, but I hope they can find a way.

Recording video is fairly easy on the RX10, and the results are very impressive (see the video page for proof). Sony gives you plenty of tools for more sophisticated recording, such as focus peaking, frame enlargement, and zebra pattern. I personally had some trouble perfecting manual focusing using peaking, and I think a distance scale would've been very helpful.

The variable speed focus dial is a blessing and a curse. For stills shooting, we think the 'gearing' is wrong: when making fine adjustments to focus, the ring isn't sensitive enough, taking lots of turns to make any appreciably change, but move it quickly and it becomes too sensitive, jumping all the way through the camera's focus range. As when it's being used to control the zoom, it would be nice if Sony let you adjust the sensitivity of the ring. For video shooting it's still more of a problem, since you can't tell how far you need to turn the focus ring to change focus by a predictable amount. Ideally we'd like a 'linear' mode for manually pulling focus, so that the rate of focus change wasn't dependent on the speed the dial is turned.

Previous page Next page
241
I own it
305
I want it
56
I had it
Discuss in the forums

Comments

Total comments: 491
1234
Clear Lens
By Clear Lens (1 week ago)

Beware of the common problem with stuck lens in Panasonic zoom cameras.

0 upvotes
rhegde
By rhegde (1 week ago)

Is it worthy to sell my Canon 70D (c/w efs 18-55 STM kit-lens, ef 50 1.8ii, efs 55-250 IS) by this (Sony RX10)? Those with hands-on experience of both these cameras, kindly reply. I am a newb using camera less frequently (stills & videos during travel) only.

0 upvotes
Lucas_
By Lucas_ (1 month ago)

Reading the Review, comparing images taken with the Pany and Sony RX10, and having had experience with both Panasonic and Sony cameras, the only excuses to give an 82% rating for the DMC-FZ1000 and 80% for the RX10 would be maybe due to the longer lens reach of the Panasonic and the higher Sony price. Even though I'd keep the Sony for its superior build, better IQ ( mainly in RAW shooting ) and ergonomics.

Comment edited 37 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
snapperdj
By snapperdj (1 month ago)

The panasonic has 4k video

0 upvotes
avicenanw
By avicenanw (1 week ago)

.... and the Sony RX10 have better build with metal chassis, superb Zeiss glass with constant f2.8 aperture throughout its zoom range, weather sealed against moisture and dust, have ND filter, headphone jack and better out of camera jpegs if you don't do post processing.

0 upvotes
aussiedean
By aussiedean (2 months ago)

Hi all my first post here on the forums and just to let you all know I have a very basic knowledge of Photography at this point and was just interested to see if anyone has come across a problem mentioned here:

http://thelightweightphotographer.com/2014/01/02/first-problems-with-the-sony-rx10/

In relation to the Carl Ziess logo? I have been looking into the camera and looking at purchasing until I saw this. Haven't seen anyone else mention it though which I find odd.

1 upvote
Najinsky
By Najinsky (1 month ago)

Why would this put you off. He identified a silly design oversight (when using filters) but's it's an easy fix now you know about the issue and so won't affect your photography at all.

0 upvotes
aussiedean
By aussiedean (1 month ago)

In the end I did purchase the camera and had no problem with the issue mentioned above but I have decided to take it back due to a problem with what I would consider to be quite bad lens wobble. From some forums this is normal activity but for a 1300 dollar camera I don't believe this is good enough.

1 upvote
Douglas69
By Douglas69 (1 month ago)

Carl Ziess and 'Ziess' lenses are two different beasts. One -- the Carl Ziess is made by anyone with lens making ability who has licensed the name. The other is from the original west German factory.

I guess it must seem pretty neat buying a plastic camera with a Carl Ziess or Leica lens on it but like the compact 35mm camera I bought a lifetime ago just for the German lens name on it's plastic lens, the performance just doesn't live up to the formidable reputation these legendary lens manufacturers rightly earned from their best lenses. Sadly those on compact cameras seldom (if ever) live up to the expectation the name suggests.

I'd be more interested to discover who made the lens than to blindly trust the name on it. Acrylic lens elements - the stuff beer glasses are made from, are getting better with lens makers experience, even mixing glass elements with plastic ones but don't be fooled for a single second... If it is a lightweight lens, it's made with plastic elements.

0 upvotes
srados
By srados (1 month ago)

Long time ago I got a Sony Walkman it stopped working after 3 days, than I got DVD player it could not play all DVD's, I got a P&S 3 megapixel camera it started overheating and after 4 months stopped working...SONY have worst engineering crew for consumer products.For professional TV production they are amazing, but I have tendency not to buy anything with that brand name.

1 upvote
Colin Dunleavy
By Colin Dunleavy (1 month ago)

I've had similar experience with Sony products ,although I have not bought anything from them in a long time.

0 upvotes
Mike FL
By Mike FL (3 weeks ago)

Good finding for "relation to the Carl Ziess logo"! Also "lens wobble" is known issue.

Sony-RX10 Mark-2 may be able to address these issues.

0 upvotes
sun line
By sun line (2 months ago)

the camera price isnt good

1 upvote
nanomatrix
By nanomatrix (2 months ago)

Wish it was smaller...

1 upvote
Mikedigi
By Mikedigi (2 months ago)

Where the reviewer says:
"Sony cameras have the unfortunate reputation of over-processing their JPEGs, to the point where fine details look 'fake'. During our time with the RX10, this issue wasn't terrible, but there's still some room for improvement.
One area which really suffers is grass and foliage. The example below illustrates the problem, and how you can fix it."
He makes it sound like a problem fixed into the JPEG engine, but surely the Sharpness, NR and whatever can simply be turned down? Why doesn't he say this?
Mike

0 upvotes
bdkbaz1
By bdkbaz1 (3 months ago)

The lens movement is not a problem. It is part of the design of the camera. People are comparing it to interchangable lens camera technology instead of fixed lens technology. I am a happy happy RX10 owner, there has been lens movement in my camera since day 1, and here is a link to a dropbox folder with my amazing RX10 results. There is a great low light video in there as well. The audio was from built in mics only. Be sure to view it at the highest quality HD.
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/cdxb4fi3to3a12y/AACo_8uwoJROjfwQtzUeUZPGa Enjoy and be sure to send me feed back.

0 upvotes
adadad
By adadad (3 months ago)

I am unable to open the dropbox link

0 upvotes
bdkbaz1
By bdkbaz1 (3 months ago)

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/cdxb4fi3to3a12y/AAChQfkt9FkdcQnZvsacR_s0a

Sorry this one should work. The video is at the bottom of the pictures.

0 upvotes
Nightrider1
By Nightrider1 (2 months ago)

You've done a marvellous job, kiddo. Excellent. I really liked all of them.

0 upvotes
adadad
By adadad (3 months ago)

I recently got the RX10. In continuous mode (standard) I get the ~ 3.4 fps, but ONLY when the AF is set to single (AF-S). When AF-C is selected I only get ~1fps. There is nothing beeing mentioned in the related DPreview testing. Does somebody else get this same results?

0 upvotes
budi0251
By budi0251 (4 months ago)

hmmm, I think we got some misfocus here.
comparing RAW image quality against Sony NEX-6 @ ISO 100 & 125, I see softer images on RX10's sample vs NEX-6.
However when you increase to ISO 200 (RX10 refocus), you can clearly see that the RX10 cropped picture sharpness is wayyy much better, comparable to those of NEX-6 (apart from the noise performance).

Could DPReview update the studio test shot for RAW @ ISO 100 & 125 for the RX10?

3 upvotes
Oxford Eddy
By Oxford Eddy (4 months ago)

My first comment posting on dpreview as using the RX-10 was a big disappointment. Given the rave reviews I have never been so surprised hence posting here. Compared to the RX-100 which I have had for some time the jpg images out of the camera are really soft. I never bother with RAW from the RX-100 as the jpgs are so good. I worked on a few RAW from the RX-10 but struggled to improve them much. I wonder if there is a fault with the unit I have (or had since I've taken it back to the store for a refund). I admit I took a lot of shots at f2.8 but why buy such a lens and shy away from big apertures because you can't rely on the quality?

I love the versatility of the camera and if it delivered on IQ then I'd be fine with the price too. But £879 for so-so results it's not for me.

0 upvotes
Timmbits
By Timmbits (4 months ago)

Surely you can set the noise reduction level. What have you got it set to? Did you try it at other levels?

2 upvotes
bdkbaz1
By bdkbaz1 (3 months ago)

Here are some jpeg images out of the RX10. Maybe you have it set wrong

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/cdxb4fi3to3a12y/AAChQfkt9FkdcQnZvsacR_s0a

Im not having any problem with softness. And check out the amazing low light video with only built in mics. Its in this dropbox folder as well. Be sure to pic high rez. for some reason youtube's diffault is much lower than it was recorded in.

1 upvote
Todd3608
By Todd3608 (4 months ago)

My favorite camera of all time...The RX10 that is...I am tired of changing lenses and just want solid pictures and video for my family. The RX10 allows me to do that without worrying about changing lenses. I have sold all my DSLR gear and have no regrets.

3 upvotes
waddowaddowaddo
By waddowaddowaddo (4 months ago)

For those of you wanting to see real photos, as apposed to test pics, I just added my Hong Kong hols to my web site,

http://www.waddo.net/Indexpages/mainphotoindex.htm

0 upvotes
LDPReview
By LDPReview (3 months ago)

Very nice! Thanks for sharing. Did you do any post processing on these? JPEG or RAW?

0 upvotes
BigDish
By BigDish (3 months ago)

Hi.
Thanks for sharing your pics. Am considering purchasing this camera but tend to think that colours can be a bit washed out with Sony.
Can you pass on some tips please?

0 upvotes
bdkbaz1
By bdkbaz1 (3 months ago)

Here are some real world pics as well as video at the bottom of the folder. Built in mics only on the video.

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/cdxb4fi3to3a12y/AAChQfkt9FkdcQnZvsacR_s0a

0 upvotes
forzanopaolo
By forzanopaolo (4 months ago)

I would prefer that in graph like the equivalent focal length comparison the name of the camera be written at the end of each line on the right in opposition of the actual situation in which there is a table with color lines and camera name: it should be much more understandable at a glance! thanks!

0 upvotes
Arnaud Lerecouvreux
By Arnaud Lerecouvreux (3 months ago)

Very good idea

0 upvotes
Ammarz
By Ammarz (4 months ago)

Despite the type of the camera why the price is high comparing with Sony Alpha 6000

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
darngooddesign
By darngooddesign (4 months ago)

Because the RX10 comes with an expensive lens. It is much better than the one the A6000 comes with; both in the amount of zoom and also it is a constant f2.8 zoom. You can get an 18-200 zoom for $800 but that is f3.5-6 so its not nearly as good. Really good lenses are very expensive. The RX10 is also weather sealed.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 2 minutes after posting
4 upvotes
Ammarz
By Ammarz (3 months ago)

I agree with you about the lens, but the lens not everthing if you look at the sensor size of the RX10 1″ (13.2 x 8.8 mm) while the sensor size in A6000 is APS-C (23.5 x 15.6 mm) not mentioning the MEGAPIXLES

0 upvotes
darngooddesign
By darngooddesign (3 months ago)

All things being equal, upgrading to a higher quality lens is far more expensive than upgrading to a larger sensor. You asked why it was so expensive, and the answer is the "the lens". The RX10 is also weather sealed while the A6000 is not.

Comment edited 23 seconds after posting
3 upvotes
Ammarz
By Ammarz (3 months ago)

thanks

0 upvotes
bdkbaz1
By bdkbaz1 (3 months ago)

I love the camera and I have taken great video and pics with it,

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/cdxb4fi3to3a12y/AAChQfkt9FkdcQnZvsacR_s0a

But, if you want to compare all things equally, and give the focal range in terms of 35mm (24-200) then you should in all honesty give the aperture in terms of 35mm as well. its 7.6 not 2.8

0 upvotes
rhegde
By rhegde (1 week ago)

Correct way of comparing (keeping 35mm as the base) the lenses: f7.6 is applicable for comparing its depth of field only, whereas f2.8 is applicable for comparing the exposure/illumination of the sensor

1 upvote
munro harrap
By munro harrap (4 months ago)

The lens correction of images squishes detail along the borders, especially at the long end.Even the subtlest noise reduction and then clever sharpening unfortunately peppers uniformly everything of the same tonal value. Smaller you wont notice, but then you could have a 12 MP sensor and get rid of the noise and restore some sense of reality to the graphic. The RAW file here of the red scooter (look at the nearest handle, and wince)

The 200mm lens with a 20MP sensor is a lot of magnification, but the 20MP magnifies all the faults of the lens and the corrections and the noise off the sensor.

0 upvotes
munro harrap
By munro harrap (4 months ago)

I downloaded RAWs from DPreview and Sonycameralabs.com (good review) and Imaging resource and fed them to my 2713H Dell, using the Sony Raw converter as my Photoshop and Lightroom cannot open the files . The Sony software again allows you to control the colour very well and the WAY sharpening is done (which I was used to on My R1), and has now good noise reduction but I got rid of all those options and sent TIFFs into Photoshop instead, and did it all there. Result? It's a digicam.
Even at the lowest settings the noise destroys the integrity of the image. Clothes, Flesh, brickwork, furniture and leaves all have the same texture, despite that lens.Only colour and your brain says different.
Shame, I was really hoping it was OK. Give it another 10 years, it'll be OK!!

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
km25
By km25 (4 months ago)

I just noticed, why do the rate the RX100 11 over the this cameras lens, do they think going to F/6 @ telephoto is good.

0 upvotes
fenceSitter
By fenceSitter (4 months ago)

dpreview's test camera seems to have a quite noticeable centering defect: Imatest says that resolution in the left corners is around 33% better than in the right ones. (1200 vs 900 lw/ph, thereabouts.)

I'm not sure I would give a "Gold Award" for this level of QC.

Comment edited 5 minutes after posting
1 upvote
orion1983
By orion1983 (4 months ago)

definitely! i´ve owned more than one RX10, and all showed significant/terrible difference between both corners, sometimes right better than left, sometimes vice versa. all were sent back. i know that with F2.8, corners can be/normally ARE a bit softer, but that´s not what i mean here!

0 upvotes
bdkbaz1
By bdkbaz1 (3 months ago)

I have seen absolutely zero problems with the corners. here are some images and video.

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/cdxb4fi3to3a12y/AAChQfkt9FkdcQnZvsacR_s0a

And the lens is not 2.8, its 7.6 in 35 mm equivalence.

0 upvotes
pict
By pict (4 months ago)

I WAS thinking I would buy this camera only when the price dropped significantly. Otherwise I'd buy a weatherproofed Pentax K50 SYSTEM for about the same money. (Yes, I know i wouldn't be getting F2.8, but the much larger sensor easily compensates for that.) However, the reported RX10 problems with sensor-lens misalignment are pushing me toward the Pentax even IF the sony price comes down by several hundred.

1 upvote
Smokymtnhiker
By Smokymtnhiker (4 months ago)

A Gold award for this camera while the A7 with same 80% got a Silver?

That's ridiculous. A6000 looks to be a far better deal. I couldn't care less about video.

DPR should either give two ratings for every camera which has video capability...

1.) Photographic
2.) Video

..or only rate cameras like the RX10 against camcorders since that is it's primary function.

0 upvotes
darngooddesign
By darngooddesign (4 months ago)

The A6000 is a better deal because its lens isn't nearly as good and its not weather sealed.

Comment edited 37 seconds after posting
1 upvote
Mike99999
By Mike99999 (3 months ago)

Look at the lens graph.

Sony RX10 - $1300

vs.

Sony A6000 - $650
Sony 18-105 f/4 - $600
total: $1250

0 upvotes
darngooddesign
By darngooddesign (3 months ago)

Sony sells a 24-200 lens for the NEX series and it costs a little over a grand.

0 upvotes
dgeugene1
By dgeugene1 (4 months ago)

I ordered this camera from Amazon twice and have returned it twice, obviously ambivalent! My main disappointment, among other things, is that the lens although very good does not support the high-resolution sensor. At that price I expect corner to corner sharpness at all focal lengths as I have with my Nikon P7700.

0 upvotes
PatJDooley
By PatJDooley (4 months ago)

I have the RX100M2 and the A65 with a bunch of lenses.

SAL30M28 30mm f/2.8
SAL35F18 35mm f/1.8
SAL18135 18-135mm
SAL70300G 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 SSM ED G-Series
Tamron AF 200-500mm f/5.0-6.3 Di LD SP FEC

Since I bought the RX10, I've only taken the A65 out with the Tamron lens attached. I use it for wildlife photography and it works pretty well. I take the RX100 when I want something that fits in a pocket yet still takes great photos. I took it to Venice and was very happy with the results. Just wish I had had the RX10 as well.

I'll see how things develop over spring and summer, as I get to shoot much more, but it is looking like I might be selling some lenses at the very least.

0 upvotes
Camley
By Camley (5 months ago)

DPreview - please don't complain about the default settings so much in your reviews - particularly those for the JPEG settings. The manufacturers provide adjustment capability so you can easily do this.

Just note the fact that the default settings are not optimum for you and make the changes to improve matters. That only takes a few minutes. Then move on and test the camera.

Only complain if you cannot achieve good results after making adjustments.

This is a site where serious photographers look for serious reviews. All of us can make the necessary simple adjustments to improve image quality as we see it.

13 upvotes
Bomkul
By Bomkul (5 months ago)

I wanted a go anywhere, do anything travel camera that had good IQ and in a small package. It's not a master of all trades, but it's damn good at almost everything...

7 upvotes
kimmac
By kimmac (2 months ago)

And isn't that just the point...that so many seem to be missing!
This camera (and I am a very happy owner of one) is all about convenience and quality. It is not a silver bullet!
The inevitable compromises one has to accept, if convenience is high on your list of priorities, fall well within acceptable tolerances when you look at the results the camera produces.
So rather than knocking the camera for its individual, perceived shortcomings, it should be viewed as a whole. And if the criteria the camera so ably fulfills aren't high on your list of priorities the answer is quite simple...don't buy it!

1 upvote
psoque
By psoque (5 months ago)

Sorry for reposting...I think I didn't get it right previously...

I'm sure we will have to wait when Canon PowerShot G1X Mark II is actually released in the US, but I am extremely curious to know if the "macro" performance on RX10 compares to that on G1x Mark II. As a "casual" flower photo-taker, that feature, which was not great on original G1X which I owned until recently, is very important to me.

0 upvotes
rccasgar
By rccasgar (4 months ago)

also waiting for a good comparison of these 2 cameras...

0 upvotes
Flight815
By Flight815 (5 months ago)

a lil pricey..but seems like a beast of tech..and please people.DONT compare a "dumb" smartphone to a camera. 2 totally different things.smartphones may be taking over the world,but they will NEVER take over a semi serious/serious photographer.

2 upvotes
jkokich
By jkokich (5 months ago)

The zoom is great, no doubt, and to buy a separate lens like it would cost a fortune, but I'll put my A57 up against it any day, with my kit lens and Minolta beercan, and money left over.

0 upvotes
repdetect
By repdetect (5 months ago)

I have an A57 as well.
Just don't go up against it shooting video with an A57.
And I would guess if your kit lens is anything but a 16-50 f2.8, you'll lose there too.
Don't get me wrong, I think the A57 is great...for shooting stills, with the right lens.
That being said I would trade my A57 for an rx10 any day, especially for travel.

2 upvotes
Kirk Tuck
By Kirk Tuck (5 months ago)

The RX10 (which I have owned for several months) is a very, very good video camera. The still images are good but the video is great and the ability to have a lens that's par focal (that doesn't change focus as you zoom) and constant aperture (doesn't change aperture as you zoom) means that you can use this camera for serious video production.

It's different than all those cameras listed below because it doesn't do line skipping in video it reads out the whole frame. This makes its final video output much sharper and more detailed than any of those. It's worth the cash IF you do video with it. Zebras, focus peaking, audio control. It's just a nearly perfect budget video machine. That's why people buy it.

6 upvotes
discbrake
By discbrake (5 months ago)

You nailed it. That's why I bought it. Put my full frame cameras to shame in the video department.

1 upvote
Kirk Tuck
By Kirk Tuck (4 months ago)

Yes. It makes my a99 look like mush in the video department. It's a bit more competitive in still shooting...

0 upvotes
dodgebaena
By dodgebaena (2 months ago)

Hi Kirk,
Your opinion seals the deal for me: I will be getting the RX10. The video from my a99 is a you say, "mush" and it's a pain esp when I am combining it with clips from my Sony NX30.

0 upvotes
pcworth
By pcworth (5 months ago)

@mosc I think you need to check your numbers because this camera has an f/2.8 lens across the range. You cannot compare a camera with a kit lens to a camera with an f/2.8 lens.

0 upvotes
tarsus
By tarsus (5 months ago)

Not only are they comparable, you will get far better image quality across the board regardless of an f2.8 lens.

0 upvotes
mosc
By mosc (5 months ago)

RX10: $1300
A77 with 18-135: $1100
K5IIs with 18-135: $1150
70D with 18-135: $1300
D7100 with 18-140: $1300
7D with 18-135: $1400
K3 with 18-135: $1400

It's not that it's priced like an APS-C camera, it's that it's priced like a TOP END APS-C camera. I mean those lenses are all a LITTLE less of a zoom and their apertures favor wide to tele (which IMHO is an advantage) but this cam's got a lot of high end competition. Not like the RX10 fits in your pocket.

7 upvotes
bdkbaz1
By bdkbaz1 (5 months ago)

Sorry. But your argument does not make any sense. Put the equivalent optics on all those APSC cameras and not only will you be carrying at least 2 lenses but the price of those lenses would bring your total cost to triple that of the RX10. And your video capture would still not come close .

4 upvotes
Gimble
By Gimble (4 months ago)

mosc's comparisons are correct. The RX10 does not deliver the same depth of field or low light capabily as an APC-C camera with an F2.8 lens because of its smaller sensor.

Personally I find that my RX10 is very similar in terms of IQ, depth of field and low light to my NEX 6 with an 18-200mm lens.

2 upvotes
darngooddesign
By darngooddesign (4 months ago)

1. Do any of those zooms reach 200mm?
2. Are any of those zooms f2.8 at the wide end?
3. Are any of those lenses f2.8 at the long end?

1 upvote
Photomonkey
By Photomonkey (3 months ago)

Pointless carping.
If you cannot see the use or the difference buy something else. Trying to "prove" that something is better with apples to oranges comparisons wastes time.

2 upvotes
GlobalGuyUSA
By GlobalGuyUSA (2 months ago)

It doesnt waste time you didnt nees to read it, Monkey, your comment was the one that added no new info -- but for me, it was good information. Thanks for the chart, Mosc!

0 upvotes
GlobalGuyUSA
By GlobalGuyUSA (2 months ago)

Darngood -- almost all of them reach 200mm equivalent. And it IS directly comparable because even if a lens is technically an f/2.8 on a 1" sensor doesnt mean it behaves like an f/2.8 on fullframe in terms of image results. Technical is the same as total perceivable equivalency. Its 2.7x crop factor mean images will appear as if shot by an f/7.6, even if the technical light ratio is the same.

Meanwhile, the APSC lense perceived equivalencies are f/6.5, f/8.5, or f/9.5, when compared against the f/7.6 of the Sony, even if technically f/4-6.3. All pretty much in the same range & the APSC sensor is much, much larger and can have better ISOs in the same sensor generation AND you can change lenses, allowing actual f/2.8 equivalent lenses (such as a technical f/1.8, or even better, f/1.4), smoking this Sony.

So yes, its 100% comparable with the price. Sony should be under $900, otherwise its way overpriced by 40%. Not a bargain, considering even lower range DSLRs will do a better.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 10 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
darngooddesign
By darngooddesign (2 months ago)

I know that on that sensor f2.8 doesn't provide the same DOF as on a larger sensor, but it still gathers way mor eight than your f6.5 equivillent. This camera is basically a super zoom RX100 and people love the image quality of those compacts.

Again, how large and heavy is that DSLR with all the lens needed to have the same focal length as the Sony's single lens? How expensive is that DLSR + the needed lens(s)? Is that DSLR weather sealed? Does it have a built in ND filter? The point of bridge cameras are the convenience. If you don't care about all in one convenience then bridge cameras aren't for you.

You keep on mentioning the ability to change lenses as a benefit, but people who want a bridge camera don't care about that so all you are doing is dismissing a camera because it doesn't provide what you value. If someone doesn't want to buy additional lenses, why would they care that you can o so on a DLSR?

Comment edited 4 times, last edit 9 minutes after posting
1 upvote
mosc
By mosc (2 months ago)

Convenience of not changing lenses can be solved by: Not changing lenses on the DSLR's I listed! The RX10 is a little smaller, but not much. The RX10 features IS, so do ALL of the other pairings I listed. ND filters are a problem on compacts that don't fit filters, they're pretty easy to have around when you have a DSLR.

The equivalence is correct, for the 1000th time. The RX10 is not magically able to gather more light at f2.8 than it's sensor's physical dimensions. Aperture is related to light INTENSITY, it is very much NOT related to LIGHT VOLUME. In the film era when everybody had the same size film, you knew the sensor so you knew the light gathering. Now that we have such variation in sensor size, you can't use aperture alone to have any clue on light gathering. A budget cell phone's f2.0 lens takes in only a small fraction of the light a FF sensor does at f8.0 because the FF camera's sensor is so much larger!

0 upvotes
darngooddesign
By darngooddesign (2 months ago)

So which weather sealed DSLR/Lens combo do you recommend to match this? Having to add/remove an ND filter is not only not convenient but slows down your shooting, maybe if you factor in a variable one but those add a lot to your comparable price.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 3 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
mosc
By mosc (2 months ago)

Weather sealed is not a normal requirement but even if that's what you want, Pentax has you set up with their 18-135 WR lens which you can mount on any of their DSLR's. Their top model is currently bundled with that lens and costs about 10% more than the RX10. You can use any other pentax DSLR body and it'll be cheaper than the RX10 like the K5IIs or the FAR cheaper K50.

The K50 with 18-135 is a third less money than the RX10 and although longer, not much different in terms of weight.

The RX10 is a nice all-in-one I suppose if it meets exactly your criteria. DSLR's are designed to meet most of your criteria out of the box and give you options for more individual requirements. The only thing really unique about the capabilities of the RX10 is the video and since it's release, Panasonic just crushed it on that.

0 upvotes
darngooddesign
By darngooddesign (2 months ago)

The K50 is a pretty good deal. Unfortunately is noticibly longer with the lens and is missing the tilting screen. Otherwise its a heck of a bargain.

The Sony is still smaller and smaller costs money. Its up to the consumer to decide if the smallest size is worth the extra money.

Comment edited 13 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
pedroboe100
By pedroboe100 (5 months ago)

I don't get it. It's bulky and expensive. Why would someone choose this over a Pentax K5, Olympus EM1, Pana GH3, with a Tamron superzoom lens?

0 upvotes
Menneisyys
By Menneisyys (5 months ago)

For example, for better video. Even the GH3 has somewhat worse video (at least low light-wise; resolution-wise, the two are pretty much equal), let alone the other cameras, which are significantly worse in every respect (resolution, low light, moire, available video framerates etc).

3 upvotes
Tomaz Ovcak
By Tomaz Ovcak (5 months ago)

It's an almost perfect weather-sealed all-in-one travel camera.

5 upvotes
pcworth
By pcworth (5 months ago)

Try putting an equivalent f/2.8 lens on any of those cameras and see how bulky they are.

3 upvotes
Thomas W CK
By Thomas W CK (5 months ago)

And how expensive the lens are,
Even only the f2.8 70-200mm lens is cost more than RX10
still not counting the cost of f2.8 24-70mm lens

2 upvotes
Boky
By Boky (5 months ago)

The equivalent 2.8 lens on APC-S camera will actually be usable at > ISO800 whereas RX10 is not with its small sensor. The only reason why RX10 lens is small is because it is paired with sensor that limits this camera to daylight shooting.

I also like the fact that I can change the lenses on APC-S dslr to accommodate situation and produce results that incorporate lens variations and creativity that comes with such flexibility. RX10 will always produce the same results, that are in fact completely lifeless and... shockingly bad at that price point

Nick

1 upvote
chadley_chad
By chadley_chad (5 months ago)

The fact you don't get it shows your lack of understand in photography, even more so the models you suggest as alternatives. Please tell me how much a GH3 with a 200mm f2.8 zoom lens would cost?????

1 upvote
bdkbaz1
By bdkbaz1 (5 months ago)

Sensor size, fast glass and optics, price and superior video and excellent jpeg engine is the reason. You will pay triple the price in micro 4/3 or APSC for the same focal range and speed. And your sensor is too small on the best bridge camera. Now talk superior video and price! The RX 10 is a no brainer if you understand the principles of photography and also if you just want to shoot automatic until you do.

0 upvotes
Dave Oddie
By Dave Oddie (4 months ago)

"The fact you don't get it shows your lack of understand in photography, even more so the models you suggest as alternatives. Please tell me how much a GH3 with a 200mm f2.8 zoom lens would cost?????"

The point is you don't need an F2.8 lens on an aps-c camera to match the RX10 shooting wide open due to the lower noise of the sensor.

I think it is you who doesn't get it.

0 upvotes
chadley_chad
By chadley_chad (3 months ago)

Wow ... My lack of understanding?

Please remind me what sensor is in a GH3 again; because I always thought it was a 4/3rds, not an APSC .... and as such (and without a truely matched CONSTANT Zeis f2.8 at 200mm), pours a bit of scorn on your counter argument!

I think t s YOU that doesn't get it!

0 upvotes
guyfawkes
By guyfawkes (5 months ago)

If you don't video, don't mind losing 1.5 stops at the tele end, don't need the equivalent of 200mm but like the idea of 24mm, don't mind a restricted ISO range of up to 3,200 and can put up with the noise if you do use it, you consider 10meg resolution is adequate for your needs, you believe that an APS-C sensor has certain advantages, you do want a top quality Zeiss lens and want to save a lot of money into the bargain, get yourself a Sony R1.

Comment edited 5 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
darngooddesign
By darngooddesign (4 months ago)

To paraphrase: If you don't need any of the features of this camera, you can buy a different camera.

0 upvotes
N13L5
By N13L5 (5 months ago)

I do like it, but going by the words of this review, it should compared to Panasonic's GH3. If you add that to the comparison feature at the end of the review, you'll find a rather interesting graph!

Sadly,
There are smart phones and cheap-o cameras that already record 4k video. Yet the RX10 can't even do 120 frames/s at 1080p.

With all the other qualities of this cam, why stop quite that short on video capability?

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
Menneisyys
By Menneisyys (5 months ago)

"With all the other qualities of this cam, why stop quite that short on video capability?"

To be able to force their users upgrade to the RX20 / RX10 Mk II?

(If it does get released, that is. After all, the R1 didn't received a direct successor for 8 (2013 - 2005) years.)

1 upvote
N13L5
By N13L5 (5 months ago)

I do like it, but:

There are smart phones and cheap-o cameras that already record 4k video.
This thing can't even do 120 frames/s at 1080p.

With all the other qualities of this cam, why stop quite that short on video capability?

0 upvotes
Lucas1964
By Lucas1964 (5 months ago)

I had posted this on page 1, and I repeat it here. Maybe owners can check this...
There may be a VERY ALARMING issue with the RX10! Some users (a.o. on the german Amazon site) have been complaining about the lens not being properly aligned to the housing (sensor!), which causes out of focus pictures towards the edges. One consumer checked three different copies of the RX10 and all three were not properly alligned, and he sent them all three back and gave up on this camera. If the construction of this relatively large lens to the camera housing does have such problems in quality control, all the benefits of having good glass and a good sensor are wasted of course.
I would urge all owners to check this by carefully aligning the lens with a nearby test card and check whether such a problem exist with their RX10 and report back here... I am very interested in this camera myself (particularly now that prices have dropped), but I want to make sure that this problem does not persist.

3 upvotes
Delos1956
By Delos1956 (5 months ago)

I bought one in january (Brussel, Belgium). The upper right border was slightly soft and the bottom left corner was totally blurred at focal length from 26 to 45 at aperture 2.8, 4, and even 5.6 (but slightly less). I sent my RX10 for repair, they changed a "lens" but the problem remains. I will write a letter to Sony and the shop where I bought this camera and will ask for a refund, because I find unacceptable they didn't made a test after the repair and have given back a defective camera. Sorry for my not so good english.

Comment edited 10 minutes after posting
3 upvotes
Lucas1964
By Lucas1964 (5 months ago)

Hi Delos, you are apparently not alone with your faulty RX10. I hope more kamers will check their camera and report back, so that the scope of this problem becomes evident...

1 upvote
fvharchi
By fvharchi (5 months ago)

Bought one 4 months ago. Happy with it. Slow zoom is relative: it is still faster than change lenses. Zooming also takes much less time than the time i need to think about composition or aperture usage. Macro usage is great.

3 upvotes
Bijan Alpha
By Bijan Alpha (5 months ago)

I don't get some of the comments
if you don't like rx10 then don't buy it, why are you complaining ?!!

13 upvotes
2eyesee
By 2eyesee (5 months ago)

Would you like DPR to change the name of the 'Comments' section to 'Positive Comments'?

13 upvotes
jbNjpn
By jbNjpn (5 months ago)

How about being a bit less presumptuous and / or pretentious? He may very well have meant a section that would be more appropriately titled 'Informative Comments' (very few complaints are actually informative as a rule)...

1 upvote
tarsus
By tarsus (5 months ago)

If this vastly overpriced, niche camera with its list of cons gets a gold award then DPR needs to go back and upgrade a whole lot of cameras to make any sense of their grading system. If you really think about what you can buy for $1,300, then the RX10 seems just plain silly. Sony execs must be chuckling, and unfortunately planning future overpriced gear, at the gullible camera reviewers and buyers who are gushing over this flawed seriously overpriced camera. For a more reasoned reviewed of the RX10 check the Camera Labs review at http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Sony_Cyber-shot_RX10/. It did not receive a Highly Recommended.

3 upvotes
max ott
By max ott (5 months ago)

read the review,w ent to a local seller.... bought it!!!!!
having the rx100II and the eos 70D and 5dmark two with all the best lenses, the rx 10 is a no brainer for travelling..... 875gramms with that lens and that sensor.... great.... only the zoom is very slow..... and wifi is a toy, compared to the ability that for example canon offers, but:weight and IQ in this package with tis this price are outstanding!!!!!! rx100 in the pocket in the evening, and rx10 on the neck daytime, bo more to carry with me while travelling.....

thank you dpreview.....

10 upvotes
kimmac
By kimmac (3 months ago)

Amen..!

0 upvotes
Charlieangel
By Charlieangel (5 months ago)

I was going to get the Sony RX-10 until Canon came out with the GX 1 Mk II. It has a sensor twice as big as the RX-10 in a relatively compact package. While the GX 1 zoom range is less than the Sony (120mm vs. 200), the lower price, bigger sensor, and compact form factor decided me in favor of the Canon Mk II--which, however, is not scheduled for release until May 9th. That said, the RX-10 is a very attractive package even at the price, and may be better for some user's needs. The tests show that the Sony and Canon have comparable image quality, but the Canon gets the nod within its lens magnification range. At its full zoom extension, the Sony would probably pull ahead. Purely as a zoom camera, the Sony is probably better, but up to 120mm, the Canon should be superior.

Comparing jpg images on DPR's review tool, I noticed that the Canon GX 1 has much more natural skin tones compared to the Sony RX-10

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 6 minutes after posting
3 upvotes
darngooddesign
By darngooddesign (4 months ago)

Yes. If you don't need a super zoom lens you can buy a regular camera the performs better. But someone who is shopping for a super zoom, wants the longer zoom lens, and will not be happy with a regular camera.

0 upvotes
mosc
By mosc (5 months ago)

Who would be excited to see a 16-135 constant f5 APS-C stabilized powerzoom lens, weighting about 400 grams, and $800. Anyone? Me neither.

0 upvotes
Rob Sims
By Rob Sims (5 months ago)

Sony/Zeiss already do a pretty good e-mount 16-70 constant f4 (granted half a stop slower) APS-C stabilized zoom that costs more, and sells pretty well.

You're saying that if they reduced the price and doubled the reach of that lens, no-one would be interested?

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Glen Barrington
By Glen Barrington (5 months ago)

A camera with a 1" sensor with a superzoom lens permanently attached and which is the size and weight of a DSLR, for over $1200 USD?

It is going to have to be more than merely good to be a viable option for me, the IQ is going to have to be better than any other camera ever produced.

I personally don't believe that will be the case, and the review bears this out.

2 upvotes
darngooddesign
By darngooddesign (4 months ago)

No DSLR with a 24-200 constant f2.8 lens will be that small. This camera is expensive because of the lens.

0 upvotes
justmeMN
By justmeMN (5 months ago)

Don't most superzoom buyers shoot JPEGs?

"JPEG images are over-sharpened and over-processed" should disqualify this camera from getting a Gold Award.

1 upvote
KrisAK
By KrisAK (5 months ago)

I'd cancel my order for the GH4 in a heartbeat (I'm primarily interested in video), except:

-- No high-bitrate recording options for 60p (or anything else internally)
-- The 29-minute runtime limit

Sony, the GH4 ships in about a month, so you've got approximately 4 weeks to come up with a firmware fix. You know where I can be reached.

0 upvotes
viktoriskra
By viktoriskra (5 months ago)

As far as I know the latter has nothing to do with the company's inability or unwillingness to 'give' you a full-length video feature. It simply categorises products into different tax bands - a device which shoots 29 mins 59 sec (or less) video is classed as a still image camera and falls into a cheaper tax band; anything capable of 30+ mins is a video camera to which a hefty taxation applies.

I suppose it would make sense to produce 2 versions of the RX10, seeing how popular it could be among videographers.

2 upvotes
KrisAK
By KrisAK (5 months ago)

Thanks. Yes, I'm assuming the 29-minute limit is a function of that European tax distinction. But I'm looking at this camera from a non-European market, where I have access to much less expensive cameras that do offer unlimited record times (e.g. Panasonic's FZ200.)

The RX10 looks like a great camera, but at that price I'd expect unlimited record capabilities for non-EU versions.

(And higher bit rates.)

0 upvotes
Camley
By Camley (5 months ago)

Surely you don't keep shooting a scene for 29 minutes?

2 upvotes
guyfawkes
By guyfawkes (5 months ago)

@ Camley.

Exactly. The limit is not total, only per scene. Want to bore the pants off your viewers? Shoot one scene lasting 29 minutes and they will be crying for mercy long before it ends. lol.

1 upvote
KrisAK
By KrisAK (5 months ago)

"Surely you don't keep shooting a scene for 29 minutes?"

Thanks. Yes, I primarily shoot wildlife using unattended cameras, where unlimited run-times are essential. Extended run times are also of use in certain corporate / event / documentary scenarios.

Shots of such extreme duration are, of course, edited for length prior to viewing.

Comment edited 5 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
William Koehler
By William Koehler (5 months ago)

@ Camley

I do this but with multiple cameras to give edit options in post. Think a concert with a fixed wideshot, left, center, and right orchestra cameras, plus the one camera I'm actually behind. Once the event starts moving around isn't always an option. And the fixed cameras had better keep recording for the entire event and I will then edit together all of the above in post. You can take the same approach to weddings as well.

1 upvote
rfsIII
By rfsIII (5 months ago)

God bless you DPR and thank you for using a tripod on your video shots! Finally we can see what the video really looks like.

2 upvotes
2eyesee
By 2eyesee (5 months ago)

Three video test scenes: all on a tripod with very little motion in the scenes - not so much as a single pan between them. How is that a good judge of video performance?

2 upvotes
guyfawkes
By guyfawkes (5 months ago)

@2eyesee.

I totally agree. Great that it was shot using a tripod so we don't experience the family movies syndrome, but I am put off most still camera video for two reasons: judder in the background induced by panning, and a similar effect when subjects move through the scene.

If I want video of my holidays, I use a very pocketable entry level Sanyo CG20 and which captures 1920x1080 at 17,500kbps and 59 fps. Despite its very modest intentions, it produces extremely smooth video with no signs of image stutter or judder.

If this inexpensive video camera from a not top-notch manufacturer can do it, why not better known ones?

0 upvotes
rfsIII
By rfsIII (4 months ago)

I have a hunch that the DSLR judder problem may be unsolvable. Otherwise penny-pinching studios would never let their DPs use Reds and Alexas. Everything would be shot on Canons or Nikons.

0 upvotes
repdetect
By repdetect (5 months ago)

Well I guess I'm impressed. Before this camera is forgotten...

Anyone want to buy an A57 with a 16-50 f2.8 and a SAL 18-135 f3.5-5.6 for $1200 all mint? :)

2 upvotes
joyclick
By joyclick (5 months ago)

Sony are bold in experimenting but arrogantly pricy,this camera will soon be forgotten.

2 upvotes
Glen Barrington
By Glen Barrington (5 months ago)

What camera are you talking about?

0 upvotes
darngooddesign
By darngooddesign (4 months ago)

@joyclick. Why don't you try price out a 24-200 weather sealed lens with a constant f2.8.

Comment edited 12 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
iae aa eia
By iae aa eia (5 months ago)

Only Canon I see can deliver an alternative I would choose instead (if I could afford), even if it were 90 % of the RX10's capabilities in all aspects (for the same price), including the lens range and aperture (a 24-200mm, ƒ/3.5, or a 30-200 2.8, or 24-160 2.8). Canon's new 1.5-in sensor has an area 126 % larger than the 1-in sensor's and this latter has a crop factor of 1.47 x related to Canon's, which means that, even if Canon stick to a 24-200 3.5, this aperture would be equivalent to 2.4 if it were the RX's lens.

0 upvotes
peevee1
By peevee1 (5 months ago)

After trashing mindless menu reiterations, the last 2 reviews became much more readable.
Now add a proper AF evaluation and your reviews will be great!

3 upvotes
Total comments: 491
1234