Previous page Next page

Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX10 Review

March 2014 | By Jeff Keller, Richard Butler
Buy on Amazon.com From $998.00


Review based on a production DSC-RX10 running firmware v1.0

Sony has a long history of making interesting cameras and has, in recent years, produced some of the most innovative products and technologies. Not all of these developments have caught on but we've admired its pioneering spirit, even when we haven't always loved the products.

The Cyber-shot DSC-RX10 combines aspects of two of the company's most imagination-catching cameras - the current RX100 II zoom compact and the near-legendary R1 from 2005. It revives the large-sensor, long-zoom concept of the R1, but utilizing the RX100 II's 1"-type BSI CMOS sensor, meaning it can offer a balance of high image quality and long zoom in a sensibly sized package. In this case it means the RX10 is able to offer a 24-200mm equivalent F2.8 lens.

That relatively big sensor means the RX10 is not a small camera - it's about the height and width of a small DSLR. Its body is slimmer than a DSLR but its 8.3x lens adds a stout, weighty bulk to the proceedings.

Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX10 key features

  • 20MP 1"-type BSI CMOS sensor (13.2 x 8.8mm)
  • 24-200mm equivalent stabilized F2.8 lens
  • Weather-sealed magnesium alloy body
  • Manual zoom and aperture rings
  • Tilting 1.23 million dot rear LCD
  • 1.44M dot OLED viewfinder
  • ISO 125 - 12800 (expandable down to ISO 80)
  • Built-in 3EV Neutral Density filter
  • Approx 10 fps continuous shooting in 'Speed Priority mode'
  • 1080/60p video with full-sensor sampling, uncompressed HDMI output
  • Wi-Fi with NFC

Of course, a lot of time has passed since the R1 was launched, so it's no surprise that the RX10 is a more capable camera. However Sony says it has added a lot over even the RX100 II launched earlier this year. For example by using the same Bionz X processor as the Alpha 7 and 7R, it gains more sophisticated image processing. Significantly it also gains a built-in 3EV neutral density filter, meaning you can make use of that F2.8 maximum aperture, even in bright light.

The RX10 also becomes the first Sony to feature a 'Direct Drive SSM' focus motor, which uses piezoelectric materials to position the focus element, rather than linear motors. The company says this allows the lens to be both moved and stopped more accurately - reducing focus times. The lens also has a pretty reasonable close-focus distance, that increases from 3cm at the wide-angle end to 30cm at the other extreme (giving magnification ratio of 0.45x and 0.38x respectively).

And Sony appears to have been thinking about more than just stills when it made this cameras - the RX10 offers one of the most extensive lists of features for videographers we've seen on any camera. The big news here is that the camera uses every pixel on the sensor to create video (instead of sub-sampling), which dramatically reduces moiré. Other video features include step-less aperture control, headphone and mic sockets, focus peaking, zebra exposure warning, and uncompressed video output.

The only problem is likely to be trying to convince anyone to spend so much on a compact camera. Because, while it was relatively easy to make the argument that the RX100 was worth nearly twice as much as a Canon PowerShot S110 (given it had a sensor three times larger) it's a little harder to explain to people why they should pay $1299 for a zoom compact - no matter how capable.

That's always a problem with camera trying to carve out its own niche: you don't have easy reference points to compare it to. So, while the RX10 is rather large and expensive compared to other compacts, it's also a camera that offers a unique combination of capabilities, for shooting both video and stills. The question is whether that combination of needs exists.

So what's the big deal?

Part of the problem with trying to explain why the RX10 costs so much (and we're still not sure why it costs quite so much), is that it requires you to understand not just the equivalent focal length range and aperture, but also the effect of sensor size.

This understanding isn't necessarily helped by the use of F-numbers to describe aperture. In terms of exposure (and by definition), F2.8 = F2.8 = F2.8. However, that doesn't tell the whole story. In terms of depth-of-field and total light projected onto the sensor (which is a major determinant of image quality), you also need to consider sensor size - otherwise the 24-200mm equivalent F2.8 lens on this camera doesn't sound any more impressive than a camera half the size and, more importantly, less than half the price.

  Equivalent focal length Maximum aperture range Sensor size Equivalent aperture range
Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ200 25-600mm F2.8 1/2.3"-type F15.5
Canon PowerShot G1 X II 24-120mm F2.0-3.9 1.5"-type F3.8-7.5
Nikon Coolpix P7800 28-200mm F2.0-4.0 1/1.7"-type F9.5-19
Olympus Stylus 1 28-300mm F2.8 1/1.7"-type F13
Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX10 24-200mm F2.8 1"-type F7.6

So, while at first glance the Olympus Stylus 1 looks most impressive, the equivalent aperture figures tell a very different story. Equivalent apertures tell you how the lens compares to a full frame lens with similar characteristics - much as the more familiar 'equivalent focal length' does. However, rather than telling you which lens has a comparable field-of-view, it tells you which full frame lens would provide the same control over depth-of-field and the total light hitting the sensor.

So, while it might initially appear that the Olympus Stylus 1 offers a comparable lens in a much smaller body (and for much less money), the truth is quite different.

This chart plots equivalent aperture over focal length (35mm equiv.) As you can see, the Canon PowerShot G1 X II bests the RX10 at their equivalent focal lengths.

Two superzooms that advertise 'fast' lenses really aren't, when put into perspective. The Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ200 and Olympus Stylus 1 are never in the race - the RX10 is effectively 1.5 - 2.0 stops faster at all focal lengths. One compact camera that does compete very well is the Canon PowerShot G1 X II. It doesn't cover the same focal range (it's 24-120mm), but its large sensor allows for better low light performance (in theory) and more control over depth-of-field.

The one setup that consistently beats the DSC-RX10 is Sony's a6000 mirrorless camera mated with its 18-105mm F4 lens. It doesn't quite cover the same range as the RX10 (and we don't think the user experience is as good), but it costs less and is more expandable.


If you're new to digital photography you may wish to read the Digital Photography Glossary before diving into this article (it may help you understand some of the terms used).

Conclusion / Recommendation / Ratings are based on the opinion of the reviewer, you should read the ENTIRE review before coming to your own conclusions.

We recommend to make the most of this review you should be able to see the difference (at least) between X,Y and Z and ideally A,B and C.

This article is Copyright 2014 and may NOT in part or in whole be reproduced in any electronic or printed medium without prior permission from the author.

Previous page Next page
285
I own it
299
I want it
69
I had it
Discuss in the forums

Comments

Total comments: 488
1234
Demon Cleaner

Judging video quality based on static scenes? You guys sure know how to test the encoder...

The quality of a camera's video performance is entirely predicated on how it renders 'movement'. The raft of tests you perform make it appear as though you are completely oblivious to this.

No elements moving through the scene? Not even a single pan? *sigh*

Please (sincerely) get someone who has a basic understanding of video to undertake the video component of the reviews. Outsource if you need to (and you need to).

5 upvotes
2eyesee

You're so right. All 3 video test scenes are shot form a tripod with no panning or motion filling the frame.

All the criticisms of RX10 video I've seen have been with the codec breaking down recording fast motion. No video codec will even break a sweat with these tests, yet they are enough for DPR to conclude that the RX10 has "...arguably has the best video quality that we've seen".

1 upvote
rfsIII

Here's my thought about that....none of the DSLR/mirrorless/compact camera video I've ever seen so far does very well with movement. So maybe they're just sparing us the disappointment.

0 upvotes
Demon Cleaner

@ 2eyesee
Con: "bit rates not competitive"
Conclusion: "arguably has the best video quality that we've seen."

Talk about a logical fallacy. It really is amateur stuff.

0 upvotes
Menneisyys

"Talk about a logical fallacy. It really is amateur stuff."

Again: they've spoken about post-28 Mbps bitrates and All-Intra stuff, both of which

- not available on the RX10, unlike on the GH4
- unless you shoot serious movies where lossless editability etc. is of paramount importance, aren't of much interest. Someone just shooting holiday videos won't want to make All-I recordings - not even 50 Mbps ones, for that matter...

0 upvotes
s_grins

This could be the best all-in-one camera with perfect balance of sensor size and ZOOM range. But 1.8 lb of heft deems this camera useless for me. For those who do not mind to carry 1.8 Lb, RX 10 could be a perfect companion when price settles down to under $900.

1 upvote
Shield3

Had Sony put an APS-C sensor in this I'd have bought one.

1 upvote
EsVeeFoto

They didn't. So, this camera is not for you. You should get a camera with an APS-C sensor.

27 upvotes
RichRMA

Odd, isn't it? A small entry level DSLR with an 18-200mm lens isn't as large as this one is (albeit not as well-built either) but it would provide the APS sensor. The question is, how is the separate lens set-up when it comes to overall lens quality compared to this integrated camera?

0 upvotes
brendon1000

Actually an entry level DSLR with zoom lens will be larger than this camera. Where have you seen it smaller ?

And lastly the super zoom lens will be 2 stops slower at the long end.

1 upvote
badi

@RichRMA ... well, according to the specs, any 18-200/3.5-5.6 lens for DSLRs is ~600grams. The RX10 is 800g ... so nope.
You can go lighter/smaller if that is what you want, with an sony mirorless + their 18-200 which is 460g (the lightest i found), but not that huge of a difference. However you get better DOF, but the RX10 lens is brighter... so probably the IQ is somewhere in the same field.

1 upvote
Ron Poelman

Totally valid point.
Why not the excellent, tried and true 16 or 24mp sensors ?
Might have solved the JPEG issue,
which absolutely makes a lie of the "Gold" rating
in this class of camera.
Almost an R2, so why hold back, Sony ?

0 upvotes
Shield3

EsVee - you do know Sony's last "bridge" camera like this had an APS sized sensor right? http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonydscr1

0 upvotes
Menneisyys

"@RichRMA ... well, according to the specs, any 18-200/3.5-5.6 lens for DSLRs is ~600grams. The RX10 is 800g ... so nope."

Those "superzoom" lens can't really be compared to Sony's lens. First, the RX10 isn't (much) thicker than any of them. Actually, it's as thick as the Canon EF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 IS (79 x 102 mm).

And we haven't even touched the question of IQ - for example, the just-mentioned Canon has pretty mediocre IQ: http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/canon_18-200_3p5-5p6_is_c16/page4.asp

(The Nikon 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G AF-S ED VR II is "only" 77 x 96.5 mm, though - that is, 5.5mm shorter than the RX10.)

0 upvotes
Shield3

F7.6 equivalent on FF - pretty tough to really blow out the background unless one uses the "zoom in tight" trick. F/8 on my 5d3 and damn near everything is in focus.

1 upvote
EsVeeFoto

Have you seen the sample pictures or are you just talking theory here?

7 upvotes
viking79

24-200mm f/8 is actually pretty good. I know using 28-300mm on D700 I was at f/8 to 11 most of the time. The benefit here is you are at f/2.8 brightness still so AF will be much better than it would be with an f/8 lens.

2 upvotes
Seeky

I disagree. At f8, DOF is still very limited depending on focal length. Of course, at 24-70 range, DOF gets very large, but above that it really depends on the focus distance what exactly is sharp.

0 upvotes
Gryfster

The DOF at 1050 f/8 and 200@f/7.6 is not the same (somewhat obviously). I am also curious why you are making such an irrelevant comment. Its pretty obvious that you can "blow out" backgrounds better with a FF body and wide aperture. You just can't have it in such a compressed package.

0 upvotes
ecm

Huh. A new-generation R1..... for $1300?? Nah.

For $820 I could get a Panasonic G6 kit plus the 45-150 and get better quality photos and videos in a smaller package, faster lens notwithstanding. If I was willing to go a bit larger I could get the Canon SL1 kit plus 55-250 for about $850..... Or the Nikon 3200, or, for that matter, Sony's own A58, and STILL kick this thing's #$$ for a lot less dollars.

2 upvotes
EsVeeFoto

This camera is definitely not for you if you want to be changing lens all the time an don't require a fast lens.

13 upvotes
RichRMA

Until it rains.

0 upvotes
brendon1000

I don't get why people compare apples to oranges ? Does the G6 with 45-150mm lens go as wide as the RX10 ? Nope. Does the 45-150 at least have a constant f2.8 aperture ? Nope.

If a camera is not for you that is OK. This isn't a mass market camera at all and will appeal to select people only.

11 upvotes
Menneisyys

"For $820 I could get a Panasonic G6 kit plus the 45-150 and get better quality photos and videos "

And videos? Come on - not even the GH3 has the same resolution (and, I assume, low-light performance - after all, the GH3 isn't doing full sensor oversampling in video mode either) as the RX10, let alone the G6...

2 upvotes
cmvsm

You speak nonsense. Who wants a lens that starts at 45 and ends at 150? You get cheated on both sides of the tube. Put equivalent glass on the end of that Nikon 3200, and you'll be into the game for more money, and have just about the same performance. Step away from the keyboard and actually try a camera for a change.

0 upvotes
Menneisyys

"Who wants a lens that starts at 45 and ends at 150?"

People wanting tele zooms, _in addition_ to their wide(r) lenses.

0 upvotes
RichRMA

About 1 stop worse noise control than the Olympus m4/3 system. But with a fast lens so approximately equal performance.

4 upvotes
beavertown

Not expensive and much better value comparing to the Nikon V3.

8 upvotes
cincyMAT

Enough with the multiple click throughs to read your reviews. Stop it already!!

4 upvotes
tkbslc

Do you know anything about how the internet makes money?

1 upvote
darngooddesign

@cincyMAT. You should ask for a refund on your subscription.

3 upvotes
Shamael

DXO has tested 1" sensors, and compared the Nikon V3 to Rx100 and Rx10. In this test the Nikon sensor looks drawn in a real bad way. It is the worst 1" sensor made until today. And all that for 1200$....sic.

RX10 is a real fantastic camera, the only problem is it's shape and package, and the second is it's pricing. A camera Nikon's V3 like had made a better job for my own purpose. In some way, an RX100 with interchangeable lenses is what I wait for, and i seriously look at Samsung's mini. With the backlit Sony sensor and Schneider Lenses (?) it should perform very well too. And, the pricing is ok with Samsung. Hope it will make Sony price be a bit more human in the future, like a6000 pricing.

0 upvotes
utomo99

With that price, I prefer to buy Canon G1X mark II. Which have bigger sensor, and cheaper price.
I did not see any good reason to pay more than $799. CMIIW

4 upvotes
Menneisyys

Let's see how the Canon compares.

One thing is dead certain: its video will be _far_ inferior. Not only because of not having 1080p60, but also it's likely to have the same horrible moire and aliasing effects because of the line skipping used in Mk I.

Mk I produced one of the worst 1080p video footage I've ever seen. I really don't think Canon could improve their tech work THAT much in the meantime.

7 upvotes
utomo99

I hope canon listening the video quality complain and improve it.
But most people use the p30 in my opinion.
OK, if not. How about buying good Handycam with the rest of the money ;)

0 upvotes
NilsBV

Good reasons to buy the RX10 vs G1X Mk II:

* longer zoom
* faster lens at the long end (albeit slower at the short end)
* weather sealing
* EVF

Is $799 an appropriate price for the RX10? That's about the price of the Stylus 1, and the RX10 is substantially better specified. It's expensive but the price seems reasonable for what you're getting.

Of course your preference for the G1X Mk II is entirely legitimate if the extra features of the RX10 are not important to you. It is all about what is the right camera for you and your needs.

4 upvotes
yabokkie

G1X2 at 120mm f/7.34 equiv. is still faster
than f/7.64 equiv. of RX10.

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
1 upvote
EsVeeFoto

yabokkie, are you sure the difference between 7.34 and 7.64 is what will make the difference between images coming out of this camera?

6 upvotes
yabokkie

> will make the difference between images coming out of this camera?

please ask the person who said that.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
wootpile

Meh..big, expensive.

I would have liked to see this sensor in a Nikon p7800-ish package with 650 buck pricetags.

0 upvotes
Menneisyys

You'll see something very similar to the P7800, if the rumours are true.

The P8000 will soon be announced with GREAT features. (At least as per rumors.)

0 upvotes
Shamael

and great Nikon price tag ....sic

0 upvotes
Beckler8

Interesting. Hopefully the horrible AF & AE drifting (for video) seen in Nikon compacts will be fixed? I was ready to get the 7800 but was forced back to sony because of that nonsense. Why do you never read about that in reviews? Especially the ones here which are 60 pages long yet still pretty useless, esp. regarding video.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
Menneisyys

"and great Nikon price tag ....sic"

At least we can be sure the P8000 won't be anywhere so expensive as the RX10.

0 upvotes
km25

This is going to appeal to causal users Sony, time to clean up the Jpegs. Other wise it is like most Sony. Well made and this time well thought out. But keeping with Sony tradition, over priced.

0 upvotes
Nukunukoo

At full sensor sampling with uncompressed HDMI, I wonder how video would look at higher ISOs (dim scenes) recorded on a Ninja 2? Intriguing.

0 upvotes
Menneisyys

Too bad DPR's video quality comparison widget doesn't have the same bright / low light switch as the stills widget. Then, the low-light performance could much more easily be checked out.

Nevertheless, given that this thing does sensor oversampling, I'm absolutely sure it has _much-much_ better low-light performance than all APS-C sensors using plain line skipping.

Just an example: here's a comparative shot of how full sensor oversampling compares to line skipping on the iPhone 5s, the former using my jailbreak tweak "VidCam WideAngle Tweak":

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/81986513/122013/30/My%20iPhone%205s%20camera%20enhancer%27s%20low%20light%20comparison%20-%20upper%20is%20the%20default%20Apple%20mode%2C%20lower%20is%20that%20of%20mine%20T.jpg

(more info on the tweak: http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1538193 )

0 upvotes
photog4u

Mike Kobal did some low light video sampling. He was impressed.

0 upvotes
Menneisyys

"Mike Kobal did some low light video sampling. He was impressed."

No wonder. After all, we're sampling 20 Mpixel worth of pixels, not just 2 Mpixels. Therefore, the low-light performance improvement must be even higher than with my iPhone 5s comparison, where the difference in the number of sampled pixels is "only" four-fold (2 Mpixels vs. 8).

0 upvotes
Garth Wood

Maybe I've missed it somewhere in the review, but can anyone tell me definitively what the raw image bit-depth is? Discussion around the Intertubes seems to waver between 12-bit (which I expected) and 14-bit (a surprise), with at least one commenter claiming to have heard directly from Sony that it's 14-bit depth.

I own this little gem, and it's wonderful. But I don't have a solid idea of how much post-processing I can do before the image starts to break down or posterize; and the manual that came with the camera (and other official docs from Sony) is/are strangely silent on image bit-depth.

0 upvotes
Artistico

I'd not worry about bit depth if I were you. Just post process and see how much of a beating the images take before they fall apart and you'll soon get used to how they behave. Usually it's not whether it's 12 or 14 bits that is the limiting factor. Correct exposure, ISO selection and such things make a bigger difference.

3 upvotes
ZhanMInG12

I wouldn't worry about it. I own two A7s and pushes my photos in post a LOT.

I have not noticed a difference in any of my photos comparing the A7 and the D800's loseless mode, judging from the dynamic range I get from the cameras. Whatever Sony removes from the 14-bit standard, it must either be useless or they've done a great job extrapolating it back with the data they kept.

3 upvotes
dbm305

It'll be the usual Sony cRAW; it's very slightly lossily compressed, so it's hard to say what the bit depth really is: in practice it varies from area to area of the image. If I were to say average 12 that might be a bit meaningless, but maybe it helps. But it starts with 14 before compression. If you mess around with RAW digger or similar tools you might be directed to bits of the image at 100% where you can see the effects, but at the whole image level you get a smaller file size for no visible loss.

1 upvote
Dr_Jon

See:
http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fblog.lexa.ru%2F2014%2F02%2F12%2Fsony_craw_ettr_szhatie_s_poteryami_teoriya_i_praktika.html
or
http://diglloyd.com/blog/2014/20140212_2-SonyA7-RawDigger-posterization.html
Basically if you have bright and dark pixels in a 32 pixel horizontal strip you have very lossy encoding of the other pixels in that strip.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
turvyT

Not a bad try.

1 upvote
marc petzold

Let's wait until the RX10 comes down to somewhat into the 800 EUR range, then it'll be very tempting, interesting...possible a year or two...and if sony would release a successor let's say in 2015 then, the price will drop even faster...apart from that, since the technical specs are known back in 2013, a very interesting bridge after all, and a worthy successor for my old R1.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Donald B

can anyone answer this ? is the lens 200mm when shooting at a distance of 2 meters like a prime on ff, or 200mm at infinity ? like your common zoom.

0 upvotes
Artistico

Er... aren't usually lenses the same focal length regardless of what distance they are focused at?

2 upvotes
JJ1983

Actually... No. Google 'focus breathing'.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
1 upvote
bskbo

No. It's called focus breathing.

1 upvote
badi

Does it "really" matter?
I mean, even if you compare say some top grade 200mm from canon, nikon, sigma, etc, all focused at infinity, you will get slight variation.

Comment edited 38 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Dr_Jon

You can get a lot of variation, the latest Nikon 70-200 f2.8 zoom is only 134mm at MFD when set to 200mm (the Canon equivalent is about 185mm).

0 upvotes
pew pew

Sounds like a good camera for those wanting a power zoom camera with good video and pictures, but i´m scratching my head how this camera got a better score then the a7.

3 upvotes
white shadow

I think they are comparing it within its category ie. the bridge camera and superzoom group. The A7 belongs to the full frame mirrorless group. No way this camera can compete with a full frame camera whatever the brand.

6 upvotes
MichaelKJ

DPR folks claim that scores can't be compared across different types of cameras, which makes perfect sense (apples to oranges). Unfortunately, they don't necessarily practice what they preach because the average score for FF cameras is higher than the average for formats with smaller sensors.

2 upvotes
Dr_Jon

That may not be a surprise - there aren't really low-end FF cameras while APS and smaller sensors do have some really cheap and cheerful options.

0 upvotes
Mike Yorkshire

Interesting concept and a good performer, but the general public are more likely to compare it in terms of value for money with something like a Fuji HS50, than with a DSLR and a couple of lenses.
It will sell to a select few who understand what it can do, but the average Joe, and Joanne, will be happy enough with something like the Fuji and $800 loose change.

6 upvotes
bobbarber

@dpreview

The graph of aperture vs. equivalent focal length is hard to read. The differences between the colors are subtle. Also, lots of people are colorblind (one of the main reasons that scientific graphs are in black and white). Maybe you could incorporate symbols into future graphs? This can be done with or without colors.

http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/edu/DLESE/BRF/energy/distribution/globalrad.gif
http://pyx.sourceforge.net/examples/graphstyles/usesymbol.png

If a graph can't be understood at a glance (or so), then there's no point in graphing the data. It's a visual aid, nothing else. Just put the data in a chart otherwise.

P.S. A great review... Don't mean to sound snippy! Thanks for the work.

Comment edited 51 seconds after posting
4 upvotes
dpmaxwell

1st page says it has a 2.36M dot OLED viewfinder. Specs page says viewfinder resolution is 1,440,000. Which is it?

Not much (none that I could find, in fact) discussion about the viewfinder in the review. Strange. I must be missing it.

0 upvotes
Shamael

it has the 1.4 m EVF found in the a6000

0 upvotes
win39

The Nikon 1 V2 with 10-100 lens and one inch sensor seems to be the camera you can't find to compare the Sony with. It will also show what a hulking brute the Sony is.

0 upvotes
areichow

At the expense of image quality, low light performance, and a much slower lens... Seems like apples and oranges. I guess if you only shoot in bright light it might be OK!

16 upvotes
elf kerben

Wow, long wait after the R1. This is really impressive to see what Sony can do, which also have DSLRs to sell.

Canikon now its your turn ... but i think, we will wait a long time .. :)

8 upvotes
onlooker

Was the lens decentered or is the quality really that bad at ISO 200?

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison?attr18=daylight&attr13_0=sony_dscrx10&attr13_1=oly_em10&attr13_2=fujifilm_xt1&attr13_3=nikon_d7100&attr15_0=raw&attr15_1=raw&attr15_2=raw&attr15_3=raw&attr16_0=200&attr16_1=200&attr16_2=200&attr16_3=200&normalization=full&widget=1&x=0.6397705306478768&y=0.07663865546218487

2 upvotes
APenza

Never owned a Sony before I bought the RX100. I'm having such a good time with this little gem of a camera that I may consider the RX 10 for my next purchase. The zoom range is perfect for 90% of what I enjoy shooting.
And f 2.8 across the range is a plus, while the size and weight is not a dealbreaker. There are many times when carrying my Canon DSLR and a couple of lenses to cover 24-200 is more of a pain than taking just one camera along.

15 upvotes
Scottelly

Ultimately there is no super-zoom for a DSLR with an f2.8 aperture. That and the fact that this camera shoots very sharp photos (but not as sharp as a comparably-priced DSLR or Sony A77) makes this a bridge camera that will probably sell. It also is much cheaper than a good, weather-sealed DSLR with a super-zoom lens. Even the Sony A77 with Sony 18-250mm has disadvantages, when compared to this thing (weight, size, etc.). Nice job Sony! I hope you can sell it. I do wish the viewfinder would tilt up, and I have two questions (complaints): "Why in the World would you not include GPS in your flagship bridge camera, like you do in your much cheaper HX50V, HX400, and SLT cameras?" My second question: "Why is the screen not able to twist from side to side, like screens on most other bridge cameras, like the Fuji S1 and Panasonic FZ200?" From this video I would say you got most things right for image quality though Sony. Nice job! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ki38E57TSng

9 upvotes
Shadowww

But f/2.8 at 2.7x crop gives as shallow DoF and as much light (total, per sensor) as approximately f/5.6 lens on a full-frame DSLR..

0 upvotes
tkbslc

Not quite. It's like f5 on APS-C and F7.6 on FF.

3 upvotes
Maczon

Bokeh like FF f7.6 lens.
Shutter speed / exposure like f2.8 lens.
and more noise than bigger sensors.

3 upvotes
prrbill

I had the A77 with the Sony 16-50ƒ2.8 along with a Tamron SP 70-300 with the Sony being used 95% of the time because of its versatility and quality. Yet after 'investigating' the RX10 before its release and then seeing prints taken with it, there was no hesitation in selling the A77 system and going with RX10. My shoulder says thanks since it no longer has to handle a 10 lb. bag. The RX10 handles everything I need a camera for in my 'doddering old age' which includes car & train show trips. The results are outstanding and that's all I require.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
Princess News

Good all around but kind of pricey...

7 upvotes
Lab D

200mm seems a little short for a camera this size and type, but still it is a very nice option for some buyers, and does a lot without having to buy more lenses. As 1 inch sensors improve (and this one is very good already) I think more and more people will be attracted to them.

2 upvotes
Wally626

Nice shot of the Reading Room at the Suzzallo Library. Spent way too much time in that room. Reading books and writing on paper. You youngsters may not remember, but that is what was done before Kindles and iPads.
If Sony can get the price of this camera down to $999 That would really increase sales, so many threads on DPR start "I have $1000 to spend on a camera".

1 upvote
papa natas

Remember less fat kids too?

0 upvotes
Sdaniella

Sony is not new to 'zebra' mode (over-exposure warning), which was in original Cybershot DSC-R1 (which lacked video).

1 upvote
tlinn

The very interesting discussion of "equivalent" aperture on page 1 left me with a question. I totally understand that f/2.8 on a smaller sensor provides less control over DOF than the same aperture on a larger sensor. But Jeff seems to state that there is also a difference in the amount of light let in. Is he simply stating the obvious—that more photons are allowed through the larger opening thereby improving image quality? If so, am I correct in assuming that the conversion table of equivalent apertures only seeks to account for the difference in DOF?

1 upvote
Richard Butler

It's about the combination between sensor size and aperture size. F-number tells you about the light per-unit-area, but ignores the how big the area of the sensor is.

Equivalent aperture takes this into account. It tells you about depth-of-field, in comparison to a full frame sensor and it gives you an idea of how much total light (light-per-area x area) is available to the sensor, during a given exposure.

0 upvotes
noirdesir

It's actually quite simple, for a given AOV, the amount of light a lens lets in is proportional to the size (area) of the entrance pupil, where the latter is the size of (physical) aperture as seen from the front of the lens. A bigger opening, more light, a smaller opening, less light.

Now, the size of the entrance pupil also defines the f-stop, entrance pupil divided by focal length gives gives the f-stop, or the focal length times the f-stop gives the entrance pupil. Picking the long end of the zoom, a focal length of 73.3 mm times the f-stop of 1/2.8 => 26.2 mm as the entrance pupil. A FF lens+camera with the same entrance pupil, ie, with the same 'light gathering capability' (at the AOV of a 200 mm lens) thus has an f-stop of 26.2 mm /200 mm = 1/7.6.

2 upvotes
Wally626

To extend on Richard, the total amount of light can be associated with the total amount of noise in a image. Aperture equivalents for DoF and Noise can be done but there are some assumptions made when doing so that not all cameras or sensors are going to be able to meet. In essence you are assuming a perfect lens and a perfect sensor or at least one with enough pixels to use the same proportional circle of confusion as the larger sensor and a lens that can project a sharp enough image onto the sensor so the image details are smaller than the chosen CoC. It also assumes that the technology in terms of noise is similar in the various levels of sensors. Not a bad assumption as some of the smaller sensors do have better noise performance per unit area than the larger sensors.

0 upvotes
yabokkie

simply put, equivalent f-number tell us all and every photographic effect that an aperture can have on the out image. everything perfectly quantitatively met with no exception.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
Scottelly

No, he is not stating that more photos improves image quality. More photos means that you can use a faster shutter speed, which means you will get less blur from lens/camera shake or subject movement though, so image quality CAN be improved. In order to get more photons you need to use glass that transmits more photons or a wider aperture. The better glass should give you little negative affects, but a bigger aperture means that you will normally be degrading the image quality, by bluring the shot a little. Lenses do not perform as well at their widest apertures as they do when stopped down a little. (Usually f5.6 or f8 is where they produce the sharpest possible image, but sometimes they peak at f11.) So it is a balancing act. DOF equivalence graphs and tables are about sensor size vs. aperture size, and have nothing to do with exposure. They are all about depth of field, which is another reason you might want to use a smaller or larger aperture (to get more or less stuff in focus).

1 upvote
dpburgel

This is still something that I don't follow. For the same field of view, a larger sensor is just spreading the SAME light over a larger area. If you move a projector farther from the screen, the image gets larger but also dimmer. I thought the ISO advantage of larger sensors came from better isolation of the signals from each pixel because the pixels are larger. Also could be that pixel actually cover a larger percentage of the area (in which case they would indeed capture more of the available light -- more efficient).

The sensor size only introduces a crop factor that set the equivalent 35mm focal length (where the effective DOF is changed). Otherwise, the ISO would not be comparable. f-stop and shutter speed and ISO determine the exposure, not the sensor size. Or am I missing something? Are the sensor ISO values calibrated to make up the difference?

0 upvotes
Richard Butler

@dpburgel - I think I need to more clearly state the assumptions:

We're comparing lenses with equivalent focal lengths (ie same field of view at the same distance). This means a smaller sensor is using a shorter focal length to give the same FOV. In turn, this means an aperture of the same f-number is physically smaller.

Eg: Full frame sensor, 100mm F2 lens (50mm aperture) Quarter frame sensor, 50mm F2 lens (25mm aperture)

At which point, it's not the same amount of light spread across a larger area, it's the same light-per-square-mm of the sensor, but the two sensors have different areas.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 2 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
Scottelly

For some reason I wrote more photos rather than more photons in my other reply here. Since I can not edit that, please take this into account.

BTW, at one point in time (a few years ago), I got confused about the aperture, front element of a lens, and the image circle it produces, and the relationship between them. Understand that a lens that produces a smaller image circle does not "project" more light per square millimeter than another lens, just because the image circle is different. For all intents and purposes it is the aperture opening that determines everything about the volume of light transferred through a lens (number of photons). Today's lenses are all pretty much made of excellent quality optical materials, which transfer the light quite well, so there will be almost no difference between one lens and another as far as how much light is transferred through it, given the same aperture. It's optical physics: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lens_aperture

0 upvotes
Scottelly

Also read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-number

0 upvotes
Felix11

Richard,

this graph is fantastic and I would love to see the concept extended so we could compare different cameras and lens. Say A7 with lesnes to X-t1 with lenses.

In my opinion whenever you (DPR) talk about equivalent aperture you always stress DOF and downplay or ignore total light.

Surely photography is about capturing light and minimizing false data (i.e. noise) and equivalent aperture is the over-riding factor.
Saying that F2=F2=F2 completely ignores this.

0 upvotes
tlinn

Thanks for all the replies. I'm hoping for a little more clarification. I understand that we are talking about equivalent focal lengths and that the size of the aperture is going to be different in absolute terms depending sensor size. I totally get that the larger aperture is going to be letting in more light (hence my comment about more photons) spread out over a larger area—even though it is the same amount of light on a per-unit-of-measure basis. My assumption has been that the benefit of this would be lower noise (or "improved image quality") and that the amount of this benefit would be hard to quantify because of differences in sensor design and quality. From some of the replies it appears we are assuming a perfect sensor, right? Is there another benefit to the larger sensor besides lower noise (DOF aside)? I'm still wondering if I am missing something.

0 upvotes
yabokkie

> the size of the aperture is going to be different in absolute terms depending sensor size.

all photographic effects are decided already as the light enters the lens aperture at a certain angle of view and has nothing to do with what happens at the rear side of the lens and nothing to do with sensor size (as long as we can have a good projected image on the sensor).

forget about focal length and f-number which are not correct photographic concepts but rather handy approximations. solid angle of view (in square degrees) and aperture area (in mm2) are the real primitive measurements.

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 8 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
yabokkie

> forget about focal length and f-number which are not correct photographic concepts

this is why we need focal length and f-number equivalents. focal length equiv. is no focal length but angle of view, and f-number equiv. is no f-number but aperture area at a certain angle of view. then we have correct photographic measurements and can compare them across different sensor formats.

Comment edited 48 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
dpburgel

Thanks for clarifying, Richard. Makes sense now!

0 upvotes
Northgrove

Love how the video stills are clearly outresolving those from the Nikon D610, a fricking full frame camera. The X-E2, as expected, makes my eyes bleed. Video was never a strong card among the X series cameras. I like how this part was included in the review! Often an overlooked but important aspect for people wanting to film with the camera.

Comment edited 45 seconds after posting
6 upvotes
Scottelly

The AVCHD format is not bad, in my opinion. They said it is not good, but at 28 Mb it is a pretty high-volume format, and I think it is using about the best compressed format you can get (H264 I believe). I read that the Nikon D5300 produces spectacular video, but at much higher bit rates. I wonder if it is really much better than the video this thing and cameras like the Sony A77 and A99 produce, in their 28 Mb AVCHD format (which is the same as or a higher bit rate than most dedicated 1080p video cameras could do, last time I checked). Of course the Panasonic GH4 shoots at a higher bit rate. It shoots 4K video! Besides, that thing is spectacular, even at its very expensive price of $1,700 without a lens. This thing costs hundreds less and has a great lens included. Really there's no comparison. If you're going to do stuff like that, you might as well compare this thing's image quality to that from a Nikon D800 with a 50mm prime lens!

1 upvote
Menneisyys

"The AVCHD format is not bad, in my opinion. They said it is not good, but at 28 Mb it is a pretty high-volume format, and I think it is using about the best compressed format you can get (H264 I believe). "

Yes, for the time being, H.264 is the best. (The even more storage-saving H.265 isn't widely supported on the encoder / SoC level yet.)

Nevertheless, it's not only a question about the format (H.264 AVC vs. MPEG4 ASP vs. M-JPEG etc.), but also the quality of the encoder. For example, one of the earliest consumer P&S cameras to bring true 720p30 video recording to the market, the Panasonic ZS3 / TZ7, had an atrocious H.264 encoder. Even at the highest encoding speed (16 Mbps), if you pan the camera fast, the image just breaks down. Newer cameras (e.g., the Nikon P300) or 720/1080p-capable smartphones like all iPhones starting with the iPhone4 have significantly better encoders.

Given that Sony's H.264 encoder have always been great, I in no way think 28 Mbps is too low.

0 upvotes
Menneisyys

And WRT DPR's remark "The only thing that really holds the camera back is Sony's use of the AVCHD system, which limits the bit rate to 28Mbps (at 1080/60p). By comparison, Panasonic's more video-focused DMC-GH4 supports bit rates as high as 200Mbps." - they referred to IPB and ALL-Intra formats. (The former is used by both 1080p and 4K; the latter by 1080p only.) They are indeed missing from the RX10. Nevertheless, if you purchase an external HDMI recorder like the Ninja 2 (they aren't that expensive - some $700), which can record 10-bit 4:2:2 at as high as 220Mbps (with the RX10, it'll be 8-bit only, naturally), this problem isn't an issue any more. And if you aren't a movie maker, then, most probably "plain" AVCHD will be sufficient for you. After all, as I've stated, Sony's H.264 encoder is very good and couldn't really make use of elevated bitrates.

1 upvote
J Parker

Initially I thought this camera was expensive -- then I realized it might be dollar for dollar one of the best camera values around.

If the Zeiss lens is as good or better than the f2.0-2.4 from the days of the Sony F707/717/828, this is tremendous value for the money. Consider the cost of a Canon or Nikon F2.8 24-200mm lens combination -- then ask yourself how much would a Zeiss equivalent would cost.... To add a little more food for thought, years ago, Luminous Landscape did a shoot out between the above mentioned Canon L Glass and the fixed Zeiss lens on the Sony F828. The Canon should have won hands down -- it was a dead heat.

Think about the sum of the parts this camera offers. This camera is worth every dime.

12 upvotes
tkbslc

I know some people find resale irrelevant. But for those that like to factor it into their decisions, a fixed lens camera is always a pretty poor investment. This camera will be worth $300 in a few years, whereas if you purchased a nice lens for an interchangeable mount, it would retain probably 75% of its value.

So while I agree, the lens is nice, you can't take it with you which makes the price a harder pill to swallow.

Comment edited 24 seconds after posting
9 upvotes
yabokkie

I see people buy double or super zoom kits and next time do the same for another mount from another maker.

0 upvotes
technic

the RX10 is in many ways a worthy successor of the F707/717/828 (and R1), similar concept with the latest technology.

If I remember correctly the 707 or 717 started selling for a similar EUR 1300 price (over ten years ago ...), and it was worth it. A big difference is that in those days DSLRs were just starting to become affordable, and often had little choice in good WA/standard zoom lenses; this makes the RX10 more a niche camera than the F-series in its days.

2 upvotes
Northgrove

Yes, for being so close to APS-C performance, just maybe an f-stop away or so, it's pretty good value.

RX10 + 24-200mm equivalent: $1300

Nikon D5300: $1100
Nikkor 18-200mm (24-300mm equivalent) f/3.5-f/5.6: $600

So it's $400 more for the step up in sensor size and a bit more reach. Regardless if one thinks it's worth it or not, it's surely no outrageous price for the RX10 when looking at it like this. And as for the 18-200 lens, I actually doubt its optics is as good as this Zeiss lens. I've used one myself and it's soft for anything 100mm+.

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 2 minutes after posting
1 upvote
J Parker

tkbslc, thanks for your response. I agree -- it would be great if the lenses I mentioned were interchangeable.

As to the resale value though, it depends. For example, on the most popular used camera sites, a Sony F828 commands about twice the value of a Nikon D70 in similar condition (both the Sony and Nikon came out in the same year, 2005).

0 upvotes
Wally626

The 18-XXX APS-C lenses are a bit tighter than the RX10 at the short end and slower at the long end. 18mm on Nikon or Sony is 27mm FF field of view.

0 upvotes
Dougbm_2

@Northgrove. Actually 27-300mm equivalent for the Nikkor 18-200mm.

0 upvotes
Scottelly

I wish Sony would make an m4/3 camera similar to this one (20 megapixel sensor) and package an m4/3 version of this lens with it. I would buy that for sure! Then I could the Panasonic 7-14 and a spectacular prime. I'd be set for my little camera kit then. I could get an old Olympus Pen as a back-up.

0 upvotes
Ben Ramsey

Northgrove,
The $1100 you quote as the price for the d5300 is the price of that camera with its 18-140 kit. That would be about a 27-210mm equivalent. The Sony is $200 more, with less range on the long end, a significantly smaller sensor, and a very minimal system behind it. Personally I don't think I'd buy either, but if pressed I'd find it hard to make a compelling case for the Sony.

0 upvotes
Northgrove

Again, please, pretty please make the focal length graph logarithmic. The huge distance between 100-300 mm just corresponds to a 3x zoom, exactly like the much smaller distance between 24-70mm.

9 upvotes
mosc

DPR, please acknowledge this point! Doing that graph right will really help highlight light gathering capability over a variety of focal lengths across widely different sensor sizes.

3 upvotes
noirdesir

I second that, the f-stop axis already is logarithmic (base 2 or base 2^.5 if you prefer), plotting the focal length on a logarithmic scale only makes sense.

1 upvote
Richard Butler

We'll work on this. A calculation error meant I was getting strange results when I plotted on a log scale. Now I've found the error, I'm happy to rework it.

1 upvote
Richard Butler

It's now changed.

2 upvotes
Rooru S

I'm surprised the RX10 outperforms video resolution compared to the a99. Tried video from the a99 and wasn't performing as I expected. Tried the RX10 and it's something totally diferent.

3 upvotes
Shamael

Normal, the sensor uses a partial frame, not the FF. If you take a sensor portion comparable to the 1" sensor, you end with a resolution of 8 mpix. I do not know if RX10 uses the whole sensor surface for video, but if it does you have a 20 mpix resolution, if it uses half of the sensor you still have 10 mpix, with the same surface on the A99 you end with 4 mpix. That makes the difference. A99 sensor has 2.5 times larger pixels, what gives it a low light and high Iso advantage and better dynamics. RX10 is made for video and Sony has concentrated on that part of the camera what is it's strong point.

1 upvote
Gesture

Would love to see a camera like this in Micro-Four-Thirds.

0 upvotes
Greynerd

Nice to see but it may be not so nice to pick it up. This 1" version seems heavy enough.

4 upvotes
Northgrove

I think the Canon Powershot G1 X Mark II is the closest for that. It has a sensor a bit larger than even micro 4/3 and also a built-in zoom lens with some reach, and also offers a bright lens. Still not as long as this one though.

2 upvotes
Gesture

$800 MAX.

5 upvotes
kadardr

By Christmas

2 upvotes
Richard Shih

Considering the RX1 never dropped below list price, doubtful.

4 upvotes
Cheng Bao

But R1 did. In it's final days, the price for new R1 is literally cheaper than a SAL1680 and comes with a free body. But I agree it won't drpo below $800 this christmas

1 upvote
aim120

He was talking about the RX1 not the older R1.

Comment edited 40 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Scottelly

This thing looks pretty amazing. I bet a lot of people who shoot with the R1 will buy one of these.

0 upvotes
unknown member
By (unknown member) (9 months ago)

Not really comparable to the R1 in my opinion.

0 upvotes
Menneisyys

"Not really comparable to the R1 in my opinion."

Still, this thing is probably the closest, apart from the 5x R1 not having been a superzoom and having a larger sensor.

As an earlier user of the R1, I'm REALLY tempted by this camera. I loved my R1 and always mourned Sony;s reluctance to release its successor. Nevertheless, I'll wait a bit more to see how the Canon G1X Mk II and the Nikon P8000 deliver.

0 upvotes
Dimit

Now this is really the most interesting launch in 2013.Fresh approach,something nobody did to-date,excellent video capabilities,quality lens,robust built,universal use.
Those who know will certainly appreciate.
If I was about to give a single gold award each year,this is the one I would.

11 upvotes
ThePhilips

> something nobody did to-date

FZ200?

RX10 is definitely a better cam - but it is far from being a novelty.

0 upvotes
photog4u

The lens is shattered!

0 upvotes
Scottelly

It doesn't look broken to me. Or do I not get it? What exactly do you mean?

0 upvotes
Len_Gee

What do you mean "shattered"?

0 upvotes
Cheng Bao

I think he meant the title picture, which has a huge finger prints on lens of rx10

0 upvotes
peevee1

DPR, I think you have a small error in you equivalent aperture table. Although Canon G1X II does have 1.5" type sensor, the lens does not cover it completely (it is used in MAR mode). I suppose it should make the apertures something like F3.9-7.7 rather than F3.8-7.5, but it is hard to calculate precisely.
No that it changes anything much.

0 upvotes
Richard Butler

The F3.8-7.5 figure we gave is based on the G1 X II's 1.92x crop factor, rather than the 1.85x crop factor that using the full area of the 1.5" type would give.

2 upvotes
yabokkie

f/3.77-7.34 calculated from maker spec (factor 1.883x).

the 1.92x can only be used between sensors of the same aspect ratio. because we are calculating a 4:3 sensor's equivalency to a 3:2 one, a small adjustment of 0.9805806757 should be applied and we get 1.883x.

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 5 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
yabokkie

0.9805806757 is a handy number for equivalency calculating between 4:3 and 3:2 sensors. to save time for a formal calculation which may be: 4:3 sensor -> 3:2 sensor of the same area -> linear ratio against a 3:2 sensor of different area.

if the areas of the two sensor formats (of any shape) are known, the factor = sqrt(area ratio).

0 upvotes
Richard Butler

Oddly enough, I also calculated from 'maker spec.'

Based on this image, the 18.7x12.4mm figure given by Canon makes sense as a proportion of the full 1.5"-type sensor used in the original G1 X.

From here you find the 4:3 area is around 17.9x13.4 (it's hard to know exactly, given the low precision of the original numbers), which is around a 1.94x crop (the diagonal AOV of a lens doesn't care what the aspect ratio of the sensor is).

Since the whole point is that the multi-aspect ratio system is meant to give the same AOV with both the 4:3 and 3:2 crops, we've (rather charitably, I think), assumed a 1.92x crop for both 3:2 and 4:3, since I'm not confident enough in the stated figures to be certain otherwise.

However, I'd struggle to get to 1.883x by any means.

0 upvotes
yabokkie

Richard, I told the same to a DPReview person (may be it was you) that AOV doesn't work for different aspect ratios for it changes depending on which of the horizontal / vertical / diagonal size is used (though diagonal is a good compromise between H/V and does have a sound meaning related to image circle).

since photograph won't be possible without area, area and area ratio are the more important concepts, and areal magnification replaces AOV when we lost grip on the aspect ratio and even irregular shapes (that AOVs are the same if a subject projected on two sensors occupying the same portion of area of the whole frame).

Comment edited 5 times, last edit 6 minutes after posting
1 upvote
Richard Butler

In terms of understanding depth-of-field - which is what most people associate with aperture values - using comparable AOV seems more meaningful than trying to normalize image area (regardless of the noise-per-area implications).

0 upvotes
yabokkie

but there is no comparable AOV for different aspect ratios. diagonal AOV we have been using is rather a special case, a simplified measurement, and a handy approximation (same for focal length and f-number both bring their errors and that's why you see people use angles and numerical apertures outside photography).

return to my previous post, in a general format
(1) convert a sensor format to a different shape in same area,
(2) compare to a format of the same shape but different area,
is a perfect method with mathematical soundness and beauty.

0.9806 isn't a large error but it'll be
0.9622 between 3:2 and 16:9 and
0.9435 between 4:3 and 16:9 which is considered untolerable (> 5%)

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 15 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
tkbslc

You guys are arguing about maybe 1/10 stop here, regardless.

0 upvotes
yabokkie

there are many sources of errors many of them we don't have good control but this one is a simple calculation issue and you only have to program it once and the error is eliminated forever. why should anyone insist the error should be left there and never be touched?

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 51 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Just a Photographer

Is it really as big as it looks like?

2 upvotes
Joe Ogiba

It looks like the correct size for humans with normal hands.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sony-cybershot-dsc-rx10/images/inhand-back.jpg

2 upvotes
Gary Martin

Not everyone needs a little camera, some of us like something with some heft and a good feel in the hands.

Comment edited 11 seconds after posting
3 upvotes
Richard Shih

Nope, it's actually relatively compact (when not fully zoomed) given the specs.

4 upvotes
gerard boulanger
1 upvote
Northgrove

You won't get away very cheap with a comparable crop sensor DSLR and a superzoom lens either, and the performance seems similar. The DSLR will give you maybe an f-stop better noise performance but on the other hand, this one would kill it on video.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
3 upvotes
yabokkie

the EF24-105/4LIS is quite a good lens for both 35mm full-frame and APS-C cameras. I'd prefer it as a travel lens for it comes quite cheap as a kit lens that I'll feel less sad when lose or break it.

it doesn't have the wide zoom range but has at least half stops larger aperture (smallest on APS-C, near 2 stops on full-frame) than RX10.

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 4 minutes after posting
1 upvote
brendon1000

Yes it is but you need a $1500 body to go with that lens and I will bet the combo won't be as small as a RX10 either.

0 upvotes
mosc

As I commented before, the equivalent aperture table on the bottom of page one needs the X axis converted to a logarithmic scale. The distance between 24 and 48 should be the same as the distance between 150 and 300. I love the graph, think it will really help people. Just do it right though!

Oh, and if you really want to be clever about it, you could add a dotted line with equivalent aperture with cropping to extend the zoom ranges of the more limited lenses. The RX10 doesn't go to 300 but with simple cropping it's still better than the FZ200 for a long way out.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 4 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Julian Kirkness

I took the plunge and bought an RX10 in November ready for travelling to Thailand for a month - and love it!

I have had loads of cameras both 'Compact' and ILC (including my current E-M5 and a 5D MkIII) but have really wanted an all in one solution like one of my earliest digital cameras, the Minolta D'Image 7i.

However, since DSLRs came along no one has produced anything with this focal length range, built in EVF and good quality.

The RX10 is therefore a revelation and is, in my mind, simply the best overall camera (for personal use) available!.

Glad DPR like it too!

17 upvotes
The Squire

Is the RX10 using the RX100 or RX100II sensor? I ask because the high-ISO noise looks like the 'old' RX100. Almost exactly. While the RX100II looks about 2/3-stop faster than both the RX10 and RX100.

0 upvotes
Jeff Keller

It uses the RX100M2 sensor.

1 upvote
The Squire

It's just that when I look at the studio shots the RX10 *really* looks like the first RX100 at ISO1600 and 3200.

0 upvotes
Rachotilko

Thank you for nice review of a nice cam.

However, I expected that after reading it I'd be informed about how good the lens is, esp. wide open. After all, that's the most significant selling point of the product - since the whole concept stands&falls upon the lens resolution @F2.8.

Unfortunatelly, almost all of the samples are taken with aperture narrower than F4. Why is that ?

0 upvotes
technic

unfortunately, the samples also show that either the camera or the lens was skewed relative to the subject plane. On the left side RX10 is clearly better than others, on the (top) right side it is a lot worse. Difficult to draw conclusions from that (my impression is that it's mostly a focus plane issue, not blurred corners).

0 upvotes
Lucas1964

Hi technic,

this might be a VERY ALARMING issue!
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.

0 upvotes
Gao Gao

The video resolution is insane. It also shows even GH3 only has about 720p true resolution even though its aliasing is still better than the rest...

3 upvotes
justmeMN

The "Conclusion - Cons" list contains significant flaws should have prevented this camera from getting a Gold Award.

DPR should stick to writing excellent reviews, and forget about giving an Award at the end. Awards have become meaningless.

15 upvotes
pacnwhobbyist

You have to consider the context in which this review was written. They gave it a gold award because, despite its flaws, they felt it was the best camera in its class (bridge cameras). And I find it humorous the suggestion that they are shilling for Sony. They had plenty critical to say about A7/A7R when they reviewed those cameras.

8 upvotes
Markol

Oh please, look what cameras got the gold award recently, they are all best in class?

0 upvotes
pacnwhobbyist

I'm saying in this instance that's why. They've been giving out gold awards left and right lately because there are some pretty darn good cameras on the market. No one is making anything remotely close to a bad camera right now....at least when it comes to the enthusiast/pro side of the house.

0 upvotes
fox-orian

Wait, since when were these scores and awards relative to each other? Reviews don't work that way. True, scores are meaningless and only lead to frivolous debates, but as far as my understanding goes: review scores are pit against only the product in question being reviewed. They're a grade as to whether or not the product ultimately achieved what was expected of it (various factors considered) --- not whether or not it's the best in its class. If that's the case, they'd have to CONSTANTLY scale down other reviews on the site to make room for newer, obviously better cameras that hadn't been released yet. It's a way to tell "This camera has way more good going for it than bad. It's overall solid." Not "This camera has an 80% score and is interchangeable with any other 80% score camera because that's the class it wound up in."

0 upvotes
Total comments: 488
1234