Previous page Next page

Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX10 Review

March 2014 | By Jeff Keller, Richard Butler
Buy on GearShop


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 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
243
I own it
309
I want it
53
I had it
Discuss in the forums

Comments

Total comments: 486
1234
Rmel26
By Rmel26 (4 months ago)

This has just made me consider getting the Panasonic 35-100 F2.8 lens for micro 4 3. Since I already have the micro 4 3 bodies, all I really need is a fast zoom in one body and my 20mm in another. I see the 35-100 now selling below 1000 in EBAY. I think this is a better approach for those with micro 4 3 system

0 upvotes
zapatista
By zapatista (4 months ago)

@yabookie I guess f1.2 is part of m43 "not making fast lenses". What part of the crack pipe are you abusing right now?

0 upvotes
Mike99999
By Mike99999 (4 months ago)

The dirt-cheap (yet excellent) Olympus 40-150mm is equivalent to a f/2.8-4 on a 1" sensor like the RX10.

Nevertheless the RX10 is a really cool camera, and puts the entire Nikon 1 line to shame.

@yabookie: the m43 policy has been to make compact lenses. My favorites are the 12/2 and 75/1.8, which are 24/4 and 150/3.6 equivalent. You can't find anything that compact yet that sharp on full frame, let alone APS-C.

0 upvotes
Shield3
By Shield3 (4 months ago)

@Mike99999 - have you tried the 24/2.8 IS from Canon on FF? It's very light, a stop brighter than F/4, has IS and really sharp wide open.

1 upvote
PC Wheeler
By PC Wheeler (4 months ago)

A fine camera the RX-10. I bought one and sold it because it didn't fit any niche for me.

0 upvotes
Camley
By Camley (4 months ago)

Then why did you buy it PCWheeler?

1 upvote
TimGarner
By TimGarner (4 months ago)

Very impressive camera. A lot of the comments below, not so impressive!

I won't be buying one because I already have too many cameras and lenses. (RX100, D60 & D30 w/17-55/2.8, 18-135IS, 10-22, 70-200/4 IS, 50/1.8/ 85/1.8, 60/2.8M) It this one fell into my bag, I would use it sometimes, though.

The more interesting question is who would I recommend it to. If the alternative was a DSLR with one lens more or less permanently attached, the RX-10 has a lot to offer instead for similar money. 24mm is a lot wider than 28mm. 2 stops wider at 200mm EQ is significant. I haven't felt it yet, but I imagine that the lens feels a lot better than any DSLR super zoom, short of an "L" series. That video!

I like the RX100 in my pocket, sure. I shoot a very wide range of things and situations, and I'm willing to pay a lot more than $1299 for it. My camera bag weigh entirely too much though, and it doesn't have all that stuff in it.

In short, a good camera if you want a nice one and can pay for it.

1 upvote
mosc
By mosc (4 months ago)

you're talking as if it's f2.8 constant for an APS-C sensor. It's not, it's a 1" sensor. Compared to your APS-C f4 lenses, it gathers quite a bit LESS light. You'd be so much better off getting a new Nikon body for your $1300 than replacing good APS-C glass with great 1" glass you can't later upgrade the body on...

If it were 24-200 f2.8 for APS-C, I'd agree with you. $1300 would be a bargain. It's not. If that confuses you, you're better off thinking of it as an 16-135 constant f5 APS-C lens.

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

I paid close to this (It would be more in today's dollars) to buy my DSC F-707 5.24M Pixel with Carl Zeiss f2.0-2.4 lens 12 plus years ago before I started managing a construction project in Alaska. Best investment ever. Best pictures ever at the time. Don't kid yourself that the monster lens didn't attract attention. http://gallery.ramblindan.org/index.php/alaska

I would do the same today with this camera. I have a NEX5 and several lens for it as well as the 707, but I would carry this camera just for the glass and 20 MP in a sealed package.

0 upvotes
mosc
By mosc (4 months ago)

The RX10 lens is most definitely not weather sealed. Have you considered the 18-105 f4 sony powerzoom? It's less than half the price and mounts to your NEX5 (add a viewfinder too if you like). Combined it's considerably brighter even if the zoom range is 6x instead of 8x...

0 upvotes
Franka T.L.
By Franka T.L. (4 months ago)

Personally I am looking forward to the NX-Mini with that 17mm fast standard , if I were to shoot mostly wide the RX100-II might be the one to had, but then why don't I just get the Ricoh GR or Nikon Coolpix A instead.

The RX10 is a rather nice piece of ware , pity Sony spoil the fun with that under par Video. Hey Sony is telling us that we can have 4K inside the smartphone ( that do a zillion of stuff ) and yet a more pricey and dedicated platform like the RX10 don't !!

0 upvotes
peevee1
By peevee1 (4 months ago)

"The RX10 is a rather nice piece of ware , pity Sony spoil the fun with that under par Video."

Huh? DPR just wrote that it is the best video they have ever seen.

1 upvote
Menneisyys
By Menneisyys (4 months ago)

"Huh? DPR just wrote that it is the best video they have ever seen."

He must have meant 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.". Which, again, will be of no interest to non-moviemakers. The thing shoots excellent 28 Mbps H.264 video. It's "only" the lack of over-28 Mbps IPB and, generally, all kinds of ALL-Intra formats (and, of course, 4K, but, given that no other consumer-priced camera offers 4K, let's not list it as a cons) that DPR referred to.

For anyone just wanting to shoot videos for him/herself and not wanting to heavily edit it / make a full movie of it, this thing is sufficient.

0 upvotes
William Koehler
By William Koehler (4 months ago)

It bears noting that the GH4 is also in a very different price class, $1700 without a lens. And that higher bitrate option means the per second storage requirement goes from 3.5 MBps to around 14 MBps, or instead of ~14 GB/hour it is now ~110 GB / hour. I'm betting a lot of folks would have an issue with that.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 60 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Black Box
By Black Box (4 months ago)

Yet another travesty from Sony. As a prototype exercise to keep the engineers on their toes, it's wonderful! As a consumer product, it really isn't.

This review keeps calling this monster a "compact". But with the weight and the size of a front-loader it's really not that small. Actually, it's just a tad larger than the Moon. And at the price, bulk and weight of the excellent Nikon D7100, why not have... the D7100?

If Sony were a car manufacturer, they'd install a jacuzzi in a Corolla. A BRILLIANT idea, if you don't care about size, weight and fuel economy!

So, again, we have a BRILLIANT product that noone cares about. And all of us who have trusted Sony for years and agreed to pay extra for the quality are becoming less and less happy about paying for Sony's neverending experimenting and get NOTHING in return.

My endless respect for Sony is rapidly coming to an end. I just don't care about them anymore.

5 upvotes
discbrake
By discbrake (4 months ago)

"get NOTHING in return"

That's right. This garbage camera records better videos than MOST full-frame cameras.

9 upvotes
deepone
By deepone (4 months ago)

It records technically superior videos than all FF cameras, apart from $12K 1DC, although it would be interesting to compare rolling shutter.

People with negative comments towards this achievement are forgetting that individual requirements differ. People having problems with its size are welcome to offer an alternative with matching picture quality and 24-200 f2.8 glass. People having problems with price are welcome pointing out the alternative with matching picture quality and 24-200 f2.8 glass. People having problems with the concept itself are likely not considering the option that they are not the targeted customer.

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
4 upvotes
Franka T.L.
By Franka T.L. (4 months ago)

Care to find a 16-135mm/2.8 ( constant aperture ) lens for the D7100 ... really sure this cam is not a compact, but different tool for different people and for different need. No need to fuss and fury over something that's right for someone and that which not right for you. And well judging by the result and the market the Rx series , both the current RX-10 and the RX-100-II are actually gathering plenty of traction.

8 upvotes
SanPedro
By SanPedro (4 months ago)

For my needs it's perfect
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... Which is the whole point of it really. And it's well put together to boot.

9 upvotes
Black Box
By Black Box (4 months ago)

A whole kilogram of camera is "small package" to you? What do you usually shoot with? A barbell?

2 upvotes
cmvsm
By cmvsm (4 months ago)

You sound like an envious Nikon owner. I have owned a variety of Nikon bodies and glass over the years, but can see many spectacular areas that this camera has over my 7100. One is video. The video on the 7100 is ridiculous. Canon has owned Nikon in this category for years, yet Nikon continues to churn out the same crippled garbage, for whatever reason. Secondly is glass. Try finding a constant 2.8 aperture in the RX10s range. First off, you won't be able to, and second, you wouldn't be able to afford it if you did. Finally, in regard to portability, it trumps the 7100. I, as well as many, get tired of the bags of bodies, glass, etc., when going on an outing. Would be nice to have it all together for once. So, keep your envy in check. It will keep you from looking like a nob.

5 upvotes
SanPedro
By SanPedro (4 months ago)

Black Box... You don't 'get' the point of the camera. Some of us do and that's why we're happy with it. It's a small package for what it does. Try finding something comparable and you might end up needing 2 cameras and maybe a couple of lenses. This is the whole point... an Rx100 is smaller but doesn't have the range. An EM5 has better stlls quality but worse video and you would need a couple of lenses... and so on.
It's not the best at everything... Nobody is suggesting that. Every camera is a compromise in some way and this has a set of compromises that suits me. Think of it as a superbly crafted multitool that's just there when you need it. Stills, video, wide, tele, speed, quality, size - it's great at all of them.

3 upvotes
Mike99999
By Mike99999 (4 months ago)

Someone obviously has never held a D7100 with constant aperture zoom.

The Sony is a marvel of technology. How sad is the Nikon 1 system with f3.5-5.6 zooms compared to the RX100 and RX10?

0 upvotes
Menneisyys
By Menneisyys (4 months ago)

"The Sony is a marvel of technology. How sad is the Nikon 1 system with f3.5-5.6 zooms compared to the RX100 and RX10?"

Nevertheless, don't forget that it's far easier to optimize a fixed lens + sensor combo than doing the same with interchangeable lens.

This is how the following large-sensor cameras are MUCH smaller than any comparable ILC's:

- Sony RX100 (2)
- Canon G1X Mk II
- Sony R1
- Sony RX10
etc.

0 upvotes
iae aa eia
By iae aa eia (4 months ago)

What a lens! What a sensor-lens integration! What an output! What a camera! A masterpiece. Is the price high? Depends. I don't think it's cheap, but considering the reviews and the lack of direct competition...

6 upvotes
viktoriskra
By viktoriskra (4 months ago)

Here in the UK the price has dropped from £1079 (RRP) to circa £650 (Hong Kong import, including tax and shipping). Not bad for a camera that ticks so many boxes.

2 upvotes
IT Troll
By IT Troll (4 months ago)

That £650 does not include UK tax, or warranty though. If you declare your import (or it is discovered) VAT is payable which adds £130 making it £780. A "no risk" pre-imported one can be had for £739. The street price for a genuine UK model with Sony warranty is £879.

2 upvotes
deepone
By deepone (4 months ago)

It would be really helpful if camera testing sample images always included at least a few closer photographs of people. Most I'm seeing here is scenery and objects, apart from high ISO interior shots, with interior lights with all kinds of color casts.

Color rendition in skin tones is pretty important factor to many so I propose consideration of this.

To provide the most objective reference it would be best if they were shot on daylight, interior lighting is least helpful.

1 upvote
ThePhilips
By ThePhilips (4 months ago)

Bit too pricey for the Gold IMO.

Otherwise, IQ of RX100 with a longer *and* wider lens - is a sure winner.

2 upvotes
Galbertson
By Galbertson (4 months ago)

Oh, what seems like ideally packed camera...and actually with mic/headphone jacks. It is like they wanted it compared to A7/A7R. But that tiny sensor! My guess if it had a APS-C sensor, the price would be similar to A7.

The A6000 will not have mic jack...what happened to our upgrade of nex7?

Why not just give us all the better functions, as in tilting screen. Tactile DSLRish buttons/controls, HD 60p video, mic and headphone jacks, in a body size of A6000/A7, in APS-C sensor.

Sony why not just give us the camera we want and need, maybe in three models....
RX100R(with all above functions).
A6000R/A7000(with all above functions).
A7/A7R.

Just get it over with, don't dribble out models. Of course realize this is simply the world of marketing in modern technologies.

0 upvotes
deepone
By deepone (4 months ago)

If it had APS-C sensor the whole concept of built-in 24-200 f2.8 and video performance would fall apart.

Comment edited 11 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
miketala
By miketala (4 months ago)

If they used an apsc sensor the lens would be 2x the size and the price 50% higher. And then it would be totally unappealing.

1 upvote
peevee1
By peevee1 (4 months ago)

If they used APS-C sensor and f/2.8 24-200mm-equivalent lens, it would weigh a ton and look like a bazooka.

2 upvotes
Charlieangel
By Charlieangel (4 months ago)

I don't understand why so many people think that the camera companies could make much better cameras for the same price but chose not to. I don't think any company can stay in business unless it releases the absolutely best products it can as quickly as it can. If there were no competition, then your comment might make some sense. There are many real world restraints costs involved in developing any camera for sale; if companies had unlimited budgets and flexible time frames, then, yes, they could probably do much better. But again, there's the competition factor; consumers have a ton of choices now.

0 upvotes
historianx
By historianx (4 months ago)

Gold award? Really?

1 upvote
Julian Kirkness
By Julian Kirkness (4 months ago)

Try one - it's amazing!

3 upvotes
mattkiefer
By mattkiefer (4 months ago)

DPR: great work as always. Comprehensive and approachable. I know you have lots of pressure to get these things out the door, but perhaps a lucky intern could proofread. The very first sentence needs subject/verb agreement, and as I skip around I see tenses that vary and subjects that hop between I and we willy-nilly, especially in Jeff's section.

1 upvote
Stitzer23
By Stitzer23 (4 months ago)

I need background blur on a waist up portrait. Can the RX10 deliver? Please DPR, make this shot a standard in your samples.

0 upvotes
KVirtanen
By KVirtanen (4 months ago)

Check out page 8. There's a portrait with quite nice shallow DOF in there.

0 upvotes
michael_alabama
By michael_alabama (4 months ago)

Or possibly better on page 7 sample 3 (focus pulling)

0 upvotes
maxnimo
By maxnimo (4 months ago)

They should have named it "R2" or "R1 mark 2".

0 upvotes
Ben O Connor
By Ben O Connor (4 months ago)

Man ! Its a great cam, nothin' to say about. It already has the top notch lens for 1" system. Its a Zeiss.

Actually If you own a v1 and all lenses, it would be more heavy and more expensive and worse F number!!!!!! So its a good deal really.

2 upvotes
Boky
By Boky (4 months ago)

That is a lot of money for a camera with a small sensor and firmly attached lens, that will be obsolete in a year or 2. The sample photos look lifeless; however, I don't see as much of that famous RX100 yellow overcast, so it appears it is better at least in that regard. It is dslr-like size, costs a lot, but unusable at anything above ISO800...

Nick

4 upvotes
Red5TX
By Red5TX (4 months ago)

Obsolete how? Is it going to stop taking pictures in 2 years?

6 upvotes
Galbertson
By Galbertson (4 months ago)

It will simply not be offered in stores. It will not be listed as "current models". It will just be off the radar for future buyers. It certainly will not be a "classic" that hangs around or reemerges...actually, very, very few modern cameras will be classics.

0 upvotes
Red5TX
By Red5TX (4 months ago)

By that definition, every camera on the market will be "obsolete" in a few years since newer models will replace them. So what?

4 upvotes
Boky
By Boky (4 months ago)

The whole RX10 package will be obsolete, you will not be able to take off that lens and re-use it. In addition to this, you will be getting dslr like size camera with 1" sensor with mediocre performance for a lot of money, and that is crazy. RX10 was obsolete the moment Sony decided to create it.

0 upvotes
Red5TX
By Red5TX (4 months ago)

Lol, I don't think obsolete means what you think it does, mate.

2 upvotes
cmvsm
By cmvsm (4 months ago)

The bulk of the people that buy DSLR's rarely take off their walk around lens. Are those cameras obsolete as well? And what 'mediocre' performance are you talking about? People like you get hung up on pixel peeping, and would rarely be able to tell the likes of an old D40/D50 combo versus today's D7100. The differences are just not there unless you are looking for speed or constant low light capability. I'm glad that people like you are there to trade up for the latest and greatest every cycle. You keep the water warm and camera companies fed until i NEED to upgrade....Thanks in advance.

1 upvote
Menneisyys
By Menneisyys (4 months ago)

"That is a lot of money for a camera with a small sensor and firmly attached lens, that will be obsolete in a year or 2."

It's not known when a direct replacement arrives. Let me point out that the R1 has remained the current model for 8 (eight) years if you only count the RX10 as an all-in-one "bridge" camera appealing to the R1 folks.

Now, with the lack of 4K recording, I'm afraid the RX10 Mk II / RX20 will come far-far earlier; even this year, to save Sony from not offering a camera with strong 4K video in the "bridge" category.

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

Today on the 21 march 2014 days after the review was launched the cost comparison is wrong. Well it is in the Uk. The RX 10 is £849 from WEX the A6000 and 18 105 f4 is over a £1000.

I don't really blame dpreview. But i suggest they leave cost comparisons up to us as prices change so fast. More so for cameras than lenses

0 upvotes
keeponkeepingon
By keeponkeepingon (4 months ago)

This is a US web site and in the USA the price for the combo is $1248 which is less than what the RX10 is selling for, $1299.

I'm really curious why Jeff thinks the A6000 would be worse than the RX10?

0 upvotes
ThePhilips
By ThePhilips (4 months ago)

"I'm really curious why Jeff thinks the A6000 would be worse than the RX10?"

I'm no Jeff, but IMO, RX10 has more better/lenses available for it.

;-)

0 upvotes
matador88
By matador88 (4 months ago)

better jpeg than always mentioned olympus ones??
better or the same in most categories than 2/3 priced, category up, bigger sensor, and more pocketable e-m10?
hm...

Comment edited 52 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
bawbaw
By bawbaw (4 months ago)

Best thing to do if considering an rx10 ... buy an rx100. Unless video is your 100% primary concern ... it does 99.9% of the same thing. Has the same sensor. A slightly better lens if you go by the comparison on this review on raw.

Big thing is .. it goes in your pocket.

I shoot a Leica M9 normally.. although.. what do I grab most of the time due to space ... my rx100. It's that annoyingly good.

Oh and you can still get them new for £300 if you hunt about as they don't have wifi BOO HOOO.

2 upvotes
mosc
By mosc (4 months ago)

For me, I shoot so much at 28mm that the RX100 becomes unbeatable. I don't need anything longer and f1.8 with a 1" sensor is just a ton of light. RX10 can't match the RX100 at 28mm. Neither can most anything short of a premium SLR lens which certainly isn't fitting in my pocket.

Even if size is not a huge priority though, f1.8 on a 1" at 28mm is hard to beat.

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
particleman78
By particleman78 (4 months ago)

To me the RX10 lens looks better significantly better in the corners than the RX100 lens.

"A slightly better lens if you go by the comparison on this review on raw."

0 upvotes
john Clinch
By john Clinch (4 months ago)

Unless you want an eye level view finder

or a faster longer lens

0 upvotes
2eyesee
By 2eyesee (4 months ago)

@mosc
Yes, f/1.8 on a 1" sensor is great on my RX100M2. Half my photos are at 28mm just to take advantage of this.

The RX10 is seriously good if you need the reach - 200mm at f/2.8 - but for me I couldn't give up 1.3 stops at the wide end.

1 upvote
cmvsm
By cmvsm (4 months ago)

You forgot the lens...minor oversight.

0 upvotes
2eyesee
By 2eyesee (4 months ago)

I'm not sure why a lot of RX10 reviews seem to focus on comparisons with the Panasonic FZ200 and Olympus Stylus 1. I understand that they are all fixed lens cameras, but I think the RX10 is much closer to a DSLR like the Nikon D5300 with 18-140mm (27-210mm equivalent) lens - in terms of price, size, weight and zoom range.

So reviews like this end up rating the RX10 very highly as a super-bridge camera. But when you compare it to D5300 with 18-140mm you find they are pretty comparable - the D5300 with it's slow lens on a large sensor, and the RX10 with it's fast lens on a small sensor.

According to DXOMark the D5300's ISO performance is 1.5 stops better than the RX10. So the D5300 at the wide end at f/3.5 works out 0.8 stops better then the RX10 at f/2.8. At the tele end, where the D5300 will be at f/5.6, the RX10 will be ahead by 0.5 stops.

3 upvotes
mosc
By mosc (4 months ago)

I agree but give DPR some credit, they included two relevant APS-C lenses in their discussion and graph. They mount to the Canon SL1 and A6000 which give a fairly good comparison on size and weight fronts. I don't know why you say D5300 over D3200. Even that seems to be discounting some dimensional advantage. The other two options are at least size constrained products like the RX10.

0 upvotes
2eyesee
By 2eyesee (4 months ago)

@mosc
I just used the D5300 as a comparison as it comes in a kit with the 18-140mm lens. I haven't seen such a kit for the D3300.

Sure, such a kit is a bit bigger and heavier than the RX10, but the RX10 is 813g compared to the D5300 + 18-140mm which is 970g - only 20% heavier. The Stylus 1 is only 402g - half the weight and size of the RX10 - which is why I think it's fairer to compare the RX10 to the D5300 + 18-140mm than the Stylus 1.

0 upvotes
adk38
By adk38 (4 months ago)

Still it is a bridge camera :-)

0 upvotes
peevee1
By peevee1 (4 months ago)

RX10 is wedged between Stylus 1 and a6000+16-105/4, and the review compares to both. Sony really found the niche which was not filled before (well, even Stylus 1 is in a relatively new niche).
Given how many people use just 1 lens with their DSLRs and how many people like superzooms, it should be a productive niche. Just not at that price.

0 upvotes
Sad Joe
By Sad Joe (4 months ago)

PLUS: Whopper Spec CONS: Whopper Price. VERDICT: ?

0 upvotes
Ralf B
By Ralf B (4 months ago)

Easy: Double whopper!

0 upvotes
GarysInSoCal
By GarysInSoCal (4 months ago)

This is NOT Burger King and you can't have it 'your way'... ;D

1 upvote
jkoch2
By jkoch2 (4 months ago)

High price = low score for "value." That might change, once the RX10ii with 4k video appears, and the RX10 price falls to $700.

0 upvotes
rfsIII
By rfsIII (4 months ago)

In my opinion DPReveiw is leading readers down a dangerous dead-end path with all this "equivalent aperture range."
The whole silly business started with a post on one photographer's website and has now grown into a weird cult of people who are angry all the time about f/stops and love to argue with anyone who doesn't profess unwavering faith in their precepts.
And worse, it completely misses the point of the exposure triangle. To get more out of your camera you need to understand the relationship between f-stop, shutter speed, and ISO but this new religion you people have adopted throws that out and makes readers think that the surface area of the sensor is in some undefined way related. Converts go on and on about twice or four or 16 times as much light hitting a larger sensor than a smaller one as though that matters.
Unless you are dealing with bellows or other real exposure-changing variables, from an exposure point of view it doesn't matter what size sensor you use.

4 upvotes
Rachotilko
By Rachotilko (4 months ago)

@rfsIII: partly agree.

I myself believe there are two sides of the issue : absolute one and relative one.

In absolute terms (and that relates to better IQ for a given ISO & f-stop), larges sensor is really hit by more light then smaller sensor.

In relative terms, an unit of the sensor area is hit by the same amount of
light (given constant ISO, exposition time and f-stop), regardless of sensor size. This is the exposure triangle thing you mentioned.

The readers with basics in mathematical "measure theory" are probably better prepared to grasp the nuances of the concepts related.

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

"absolute and relative"
this is the key point!

0 upvotes
Tilted Plane
By Tilted Plane (4 months ago)

You finish with the problem of your argument--it's NOT about exposure. The size of the sensor relates to the geometry relative to the lens and incoming light through the aperture...depth of field. Visual qualitites. That's why a "normal" 150mm lens on a 4x5 inch camera looks (!) amazingly different than a "normal" 35mm lens on a APS-C sensor camera when both are shot at the same aperture.

2 upvotes
mosc
By mosc (4 months ago)

People who talk like this are stuck in the film era where ISO was a thing. You put in some ISO and then you had to keep track of that when figuring out exposure. ISO now is just a calculation done inside the software. ISO isn't a thing anymore it's a calculation.

And that calculation is a big key to image quality. Cameras vary fairly closely to crop in terms of their capabilities at given ISO's. As such, you have to consider ISO and sensor size together when you talk about actually taking a picture. ISO3200 from a FF sensor is perfectly fine, from a cell phone is not. We can't just talk about ISO3200 as a thing anymore, you have to have some context for the sensor size!

The best way to do that is to compensate for crop everywhere consistently so photographers can compare apples to apples.

1 upvote
mosc
By mosc (4 months ago)

You even say "given constant ISO, exposition time and f-stop". Constant ISO? Who the hell cares about constant ISO? Photography teachers need to get with the times. I can turn a dial and change ISO. MORE likely, I just let the software figure out what the hell ISO I SHOULD be using based on the EXPOSURE I want. Does that make it any more clear?

You want to know what the picture will look like when you hit the button, you want to know sensor size, aperture, lens focal point, and shutter. That said, you can really simplify that because shutters are nearly identical in capabilities and sensor size can be added into aperture and focal length. As such, the MOST IMPORTANT two things to show for the capabilities of a camera would be equivalent aperture and equivalent focal distance. Hence the two axis of the graph.

0 upvotes
rfsIII
By rfsIII (4 months ago)

Your comments prove my point that this guy's whole idea has made photography much more complicated than it actually is and it should be dropped from DPR. You all sound less like photographers and more like medieval theologians debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

0 upvotes
john Clinch
By john Clinch (4 months ago)

yes equivalent aperture is a mess. It really confuses people and I'm sure it was pushed forward by some one who wanted to sell more large sensor cameras. ISO performance is not proportional to sensor area. What we need is the review sites to figure out whether the faster lenses compensates for the smaller sensor. Looks like it doesn't for the f4 lens but does for the f5.6. But telling us that would make more sense than loads than a whole load of equivalent waffle

Oh and no the digital era is no excuse for all this equivalent idea. In the film era crop factor really was proportional to sensor performance as they all use the same sensor, just in different sizes. You couldn't say 400 ASA was fine. It was poor in 110 film but excellent in an 8 by 10 plate camera

0 upvotes
mosc
By mosc (4 months ago)

"ISO performance is not proportional to sensor area." You're very wrong. There is great improvements as time has progressed (APS-C sensors from 10 years ago are comparable to today's cell phones) but the largest differentiator in ISO performance, by far, among cameras sold as "new" today is sensor size.

0 upvotes
guyfawkes
By guyfawkes (4 months ago)

@ rfsIII, I agree.

In my film days when I used 35mm, 6x6 and 5x4 formats, we all knew that for an equivalent FoV each format needed a different focal length lens. Roughly 50mm for 35mm film, 75/80 for 6x6 and a 150mm for 5x4. It was simply acknowledged that one result of this was DoF differed even when setting the same lens aperture and focussing distance on each. This was simply a law of optics.

It seems to me that arguers for the equivalent aperture range haven't heard of the inverse square law as it relates to optics and have introduced this mumbo jumbo as somehow being of a significance. One can go through a long lifetime of photography in complete ignorance of "equivalent aperture range" as it won't impact one one's photography one iota.

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

regarding equivalent aperture, You have to differentiate :

a, total amount of light - in that case equivalence applies. It means that given the f-number (for example f/2.8), the FF sensor receives four times as much light as m43.
Hence for the same ISO, scene, f-number, exposition times, the whole FF image is created using four times as much light as whole m43 image.

b, amount of light *per-area* - in this case equivalence does NOT apply. It means that given the same exposition time and f-number, an unit of area (such as square milimeter) receives the same amount of light, regardless of sensor size.
Hence for the same ISO, scene, f-number, the *same* exposition time is required for proper exposition for all sensor sizes.

Comment edited 38 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
mosc
By mosc (4 months ago)

ISO is an easily changed variable in the digital age so your point is mostly about making sure people understand what the term aperture is actually describing. Your point is however of no value in comparing cameras with different crop factors. I agree, you need to differentiate but light per area is a photographer's concept that has little value on it's own for making purchasing decisions.

0 upvotes
Rachotilko
By Rachotilko (4 months ago)

@mosc

you're right that it was mostly about clarification: that in some respects (namely the exposition time) the f/2.8 = f/2.8 regardless of sensor size.

But I disagree that it is irelevant to making purchasing desicions: since exposition times surely are relevant.

0 upvotes
mosc
By mosc (4 months ago)

Again, variable ISO is a fact of life in the digital age. Exposure time is what you want it to be because you can just change the ISO. If you want to know where an equivalent picture quality will be reached with one camera's ISO to another, your best bet is crop. Hence exposure is irrelevant to capability.

1 upvote
Galbertson
By Galbertson (4 months ago)

A very simplified theory...it is like baking bread...you have the bread dough, the more yeast, the quicker it rises.(ISO=yeast. You have the heat of the flame, bright dayknob to 550 degrees, grey day, knob to 225or less degrees.
You have a hole from flame to dough, the smaller the hole, the slower to bake bread, the bigger the hole, the quicker to bake bread.

Now, the bigger the bread dough, maybe longer times, but feeds more mouths.

The same with film or digital?...yummmmm, can smell it rising.

1 upvote
psoque
By psoque (4 months ago)

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
mosc
By mosc (4 months ago)

I think the RX10 is overpriced. The lens is great but in a few years it can't be used with a newer 1" sony sensor that offers new things like 4k video or real action tracking on-chip PDAF. If they make an RX20 one day, you'll have to re-buy the lens. Maybe it'll be a little longer at tele or a little lighter but your old glass is throw away. Usually, fixed glass comes at a discount. No mount to deal with, the lens can have fewer compromises, saves money. That makes up for it. This one doesn't seem to have that.

You can't find 1" lenses that compete with this but there are plenty of APS-C sized lenses that do. The article lists a couple, the EF-S 18-135 and the very impressive sony E 18-105. There's also the 18-200 sigma that just came out which is under a pound and has 11x instead of 8x range and usable macro. The dimensions of the RX10 isn't revolutionary either compared to one of those lenses attached to a small camera. Several combos come out LIGHTER than the RX10, all are CHEAPER.

5 upvotes
mosc
By mosc (4 months ago)

If you buy one of those APS-C lenses, you don't sacrifice weight or image quality or focus capability and you gain the ability to upgrade bodies. Or to throw on a fast prime.

Seems like fixed lenses need to be lighter and cheaper to win out over their equivalent DSLR options. Usually they are. This one isn't.

0 upvotes
Gillaid
By Gillaid (4 months ago)

Hi,
Can you indicate me a combo lighter and cheaper than the RX10 ?

Thx

2 upvotes
Bexter
By Bexter (4 months ago)

It is very expensive but this is a constant aperture f2.8 lens covering that huge range. That is what you are paying for.

4 upvotes
Altruisto
By Altruisto (4 months ago)

The RX-10 is a great compromise: A6000+18-105 f4 is a lot deeper, but not as bright, not as wide, not as long and doesn't even come close as regards macro performance. It loses the "do-it-all" characteristic of RX-10. I got RX-10 in Europe for 750€. The 18-105 f4 alone costs 580€.

1 upvote
mosc
By mosc (4 months ago)

Altruisto, look at the equivalent aperture graph. The 18-105 is "brighter" in terms of light gathering. It's a much bigger bucket which adds up to more than f2.8 vs f4.0.

Bexter: The RX10 weighs 1.79 lbs
Sigma 18-200 is .95 lbs and the SL1 is .90 lbs. I bring that option up because the sigma is a macro lens. total weight 1.85 or basically the same as 1.79.

Similarly, the sony powerzoom is 1.06 lb, you can attach that to an .76 lb a6000 for a 1.82 lb package. If you want to ditch the EVF you can get a lighter E body like the .59 lb a5000.

as light if not lighter.

0 upvotes
pcworth
By pcworth (4 months ago)

Something can only be considered overpriced if there are equivalent products at a lower price. This camera sounds expensive, and for some $1300 is a lot to spend, but consider what it offers.

The equivalent Canon lenses for my DSLR (covering 24-200 at f/2.8) cost me almost $4000 and are HEAVY. This thing offers image quality close to an APS-C DSLR in a total package that runs under 2lb. That is a significant accomplishment, and worthy of a premium price.

If I did not own a Lumix FZ200 I would buy one of these in a heartbeat. It seems like an excellent travel zoom provided you do not need super duper zoom.

Comment edited 55 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Hannu Liivaar
By Hannu Liivaar (4 months ago)

RX10 is a black horse, as was R1 at 2005. R2 never came out (who knows the reasons?), so maybe there never will be RX20 as well. At the end, RX10 seems a nice tool (as was R1 despite heavy criticism about the sensor "aging" since the lens was not detachable (but what a great lens)), so kudos to Sony for its braveness to come to the market with something completely different.

0 upvotes
Marek Mikus
By Marek Mikus (4 months ago)

Well, You do not understand the point - this "is" fixed lens camera with superb video capabilities and is determined for users who want this, like me for example. Sony has many DSLR or mirrorless cameras with interchangeable lens, so You should compare those and not RX10. For me it is perfect choice, after 1 month I am very satisfied and yes, price is high, but for users who wants such All-In-One still photo solution with great video, this is great choice. For me, it is State-Of-Art product and I am thankful Sony did it.

1 upvote
mosc
By mosc (4 months ago)

pcworth if you honestly think f2.8 and zoom range are all that you need to know then you should just stick to your FZ200 and sell your L lenses. See, your Canon lenses are heavier than your FZ200 because they suck in about 32x more light than the FZ200 does. The Canon L's not surprisingly contain about 32x more glass than your FZ200 lens. And not surprisingly either, you can use them in 32x less light and get a very similar looking picture.

Or you could just learn what equivalent aperture is all about and understand that your FZ200 compared to whatever canon body you mount up behaves much more like those L lenses stopped down to f15 instead of f2.8. You can however open up the L lenses quite a bit from f15 equivalent but the FZ200 is stuck at that, or even smaller.

Comment edited 55 seconds after posting
1 upvote
cmvsm
By cmvsm (4 months ago)

@Mosc - Why would you compare an 18-105 to the RX10's 24-200 lens? How is this making any kind of point in terms of light gathering?

0 upvotes
mosc
By mosc (4 months ago)

cmvsm, the 18-105 is on a crop sensor. The RX10's lens isn't really 24-200 that's an eqivalence. The 18-105 on it's intended 1.5x crop is really a 27-158mm equivalent. That's not quite as wide or as long but it's close, 6x vs 8x zoom. 158mm and 200mm serve similar purposes. So do 24mm and 27mm. You're not going to be completely out of luck with either of those lenses in all but the most extreme shooting situations. Zoom range is an advantage of the RX10 over APS-C zooms to be sure, as is speed on the TELE end in particular. That said, the RX10 is very slow at wide compared to APS-C or, dare I say, it's 1" cousin the f1.8 RX100.

Particularly in the first half of it's zoom range, it's nothing special. How much you use 100-200mm telephoto I suppose is at the crux of whither this camera has any value at all.

0 upvotes
Sirandar
By Sirandar (4 months ago)

It seems that the dynamic range on the RX10 is sufficient and the high ISO performance is also sufficient. I would say that this is a great camera and if I were to buy from scratch I would probably buy it. No lenses to change, everything you need in a single package in a small camera bag.

This is the camera I dreamed Pana would make after the FZ30 but never did.

3 upvotes
Sirandar
By Sirandar (4 months ago)

Finally a successor to what Panasonic started with the FZ30 and abandoned.

If I didn't already have a camera that produces better images than the RX10, I would probably buy one when the price drops.

Looking at the image quality it does seem that the RX10 has a considerable penalty in both high ISO detail and dynamic range compared to M4/3 BUT in terms of actual use, in many ways the weather sealing and the flexibility on not having to change lenses all the time offsets the reduced image quality and slightly slow AF.

If you have to change lenses you have missed the picture opportunity.

I loved my Pana FZ30 and still have it, and I used it long after cameras with much better image quality and dynamic range were available for the simple reason that when the light was good it was always up to the task. The lack of dynamic range and the slow tele end were what made me move on.

0 upvotes
Rachotilko
By Rachotilko (4 months ago)

I really think that having a good M43 standard zoom (3.5x) gives you much better versatility than the 10x zoom of FZ30 (or FZ50).

The missing default reach can be easily compensated for by cropping: this is what the smaller sensor size does anyway.

Comment edited 34 seconds after posting
1 upvote
The Squire
By The Squire (4 months ago)

The still from the test-wall video look much higher resolution than most other non-4K cameras.

But it's only demonstrating the theoretical capability of the sensor with it's full read-out.

If you take a 28Mbps video of a still test subject then each frame will approach the quality of a 28Mb still, because the inter-frame compression will have a field day!

Once you have any movement, the codec has to work harder to maintain that resolution. The RX10 does ok it seems, but that's where you'll see a difference with the GH3 and its higher bit rate.

I can't help but think that the RX10 is a bit crippled with the maximum video quality being limited by AVCHD 28Mbps. If it had the 50/70Mbps options of the GH3 that sensor would really shine!

1 upvote
Menneisyys
By Menneisyys (4 months ago)

"If it had the 50/70Mbps options of the GH3 that sensor would really shine!"

Just remember: you can always use external HDMI recorders like the Ninja 2. Then, you can have even ALL-Intra recordings.

1 upvote
ZAnton
By ZAnton (4 months ago)

That is what I was expecting, when Nikon had announced Nikon 1 cameras. But instead of doing good, bright zoom, they concentrated on expensive and useless slow tele- and standard lenses.

3 upvotes
peevee1
By peevee1 (4 months ago)

Exactly! Slow zooms of Nikon 1 system don't make any sense compared to fast zooms on cameras with smaller sensors. f/2 3x zooms or f/2.8 superzoom (like the one in RX10) would make the system interesting, and the lenses worth keeping for upgraded bodies.

1 upvote
beavertown
By beavertown (4 months ago)

It will along with with NX Mini eat up Nikon 1's already eaten market totally.

What Nikon 1 needs to do is to close the 1 line.

The V3 sensor scored 52 is so embarrassing comparing to the RX100II scored 67 that beats the xhit out of the V3.

The worst thing may happen if Samsung NX Mini 1' sensor scores higher than the Nikon 1's.

Comment edited 58 seconds after posting
4 upvotes
Blackraven
By Blackraven (4 months ago)

Stop trolling!!! I don't want want to read your negative xhit no more. What do you want to achieve with all your bitching?

1 upvote
Galbertson
By Galbertson (4 months ago)

Isn't it amazing so many statements only to dismantle another person's theory. Where is the honest, open questions, and helpful answers. Photography is not just sitting around table, growing old, tossing barbs back and forth.....just wattch an innocent child, playing with camera. It doesn't matter what or how you shoot, just have fun. The camera a wonderful tool.

Don't attach your eyes to your brain, attach your eyes to your heart.

0 upvotes
sportyaccordy
By sportyaccordy (4 months ago)

I would love if they did something with an F1.8 ish (or faster) 3x zoom. Call it the RX200.

I was hoping Sony would use a logical naming structure for the RX series. Single digit for FX, double digit for DX, 3 digits for 1". This should have been the RX200 IMO.

1 upvote
Everlast66
By Everlast66 (4 months ago)

Isn't the RX100 already 3.6x and f1.8 at the wide end, plus much more compact. I know its 4.9 at the long end, but I don't think you can get any constant aperture f1.8 ZOOM lens. That would be huge. Perhaps 28-50mm (equiv) they might be able to make constant f1.8 but might have to be larger than the RX10.

3 upvotes
Dr_Jon
By Dr_Jon (4 months ago)

Sigma 18-35mm f1.8 DC HSM lens for APS cameras, constant f1.8 and very sharp.

0 upvotes
sportyaccordy
By sportyaccordy (4 months ago)

1.8 3x zoom would have an aperture diameter not far off from that of the RX200.

0 upvotes
NCB
By NCB (4 months ago)

But ... in the real world it DOES compete with the likes of Olympus Stylus 1. And indeed various APS-C and M4/3 DSLR and CSC cameras. The bottom line is that it's a brute of a camera in terms of weight and size, has a price to match the weight, and almost anybody who might include it on their shortlist can almost certainly find a better package for their particular needs elsewhere.

1 upvote
utomo99
By utomo99 (4 months ago)

Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ100 Announced Jul 21, 2010
Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ150 Announced Aug 26, 2011
Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ200 Announced Jul 18, 2012
Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ250 Announced ???

I hope Panasonic using 1" or 1 1/2 inch sensor.
And keep the fast lens.
Using Mechanical Zoom Ring.
and Use better sensor which have low noise on low light

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
1 upvote
Andy Crowe
By Andy Crowe (4 months ago)

Panasonic don't have any cameras with 1" sensors do they? The most I'd think they'd do in a new FZ camera is use the 1/1.7" sensor from the LX series.

1 upvote
utomo99
By utomo99 (4 months ago)

I hope Panasonic use 1 inch sensor on their new Fz series.
This will be interesting.
If the sensor still small 1/1.7 it is not good enough

0 upvotes
mrdancer
By mrdancer (4 months ago)

I could stomach the 1/1.7" sensor if they keep or better their lens specs (maybe 24-600=25x zoom, F2.4 constant) without the camera becoming too much larger. Don't forget Wifi & NFC. Also keep the price under $600. Much of the cost of this Sony is probably in the lens, and Panny should have their Leica R&D all paid up by now. With the smaller sensor, Panny could also significantly upgrade the video specs.

It's a little late for this wish list, since if they are going to intro the FZ250 this year, all of the specs were probably completed a year ago (it takes time to get these things through the pipeline). Hopefully they've already incorporated this wish list and are currently working on the FZ300 specs (30x zoom, F2.0 constant, 4k vid, enhanced sensor, better jpg engine, smartphone camera software tricks, etc.)

1 upvote
mosc
By mosc (4 months ago)

Panasonic already has the sensor they need for a good superzoom. 16mp 4/3rds. Wouldn't need to be that bright a lens if it had >10x zoom and a ~$500 pricetag.

0 upvotes
zodiacfml
By zodiacfml (4 months ago)

I wouldn't mind the price if I needed that very nice video quality of this camera.

0 upvotes
orion1983
By orion1983 (4 months ago)

Apart from the image quality....I Keep on reading comments and REVIEWS claiming that the RX10 was weathersealed. At first I had 3 RX10 in my hands for a longer time.....These seals look anything but weathersealed. In addition, the German Sony papge removed all info about weathersealing although it was standing there before! Last but not least: even Sony claimed and claimes only a weathersealed BODY, no sealed lens. This is always misinterpreted and transferred to the whole camera... This misleads all potential buyers!!!!

2 upvotes
Menneisyys
By Menneisyys (4 months ago)

Do you know anyone with a water or sand damaged RX10 (of course not having submerged the camera in water, "just" shot in the rain)?

If it's indeed not weather resistant in practice, then, it's indeed very bad news...

0 upvotes
orion1983
By orion1983 (4 months ago)

I have not used my RX10s in rain or dust but I know how weathersealing of a body looks like at a Nikon DSLR or so. And within the RX10 description, there is no single word of an IPXy certificate....thus....there is no weathersealing, just "a bit better than the others do", but nothing you can judge Sony for if there is dust. And....the lens is of course pumping air.....

Comment edited 46 seconds after posting
1 upvote
Reinhard136
By Reinhard136 (4 months ago)

Ok, so we have a camera about the same size as a Canon SL1, which takes pictures which are almost as good as the SonyRx100ii. I wont be trading my RX100ii, while it has a little less zoom than the Rx10, it pictures look slightly sharper, probably from the less ambitious zoom, and it fits effortlessly in the smallest pocket. When you don't need something small, doesn't a proper SLR, do a lot more, in a very similar package and without blackouts etc ?

1 upvote
Andy Crowe
By Andy Crowe (4 months ago)

A DSLR with a 200mm equiv lens is a lot bigger package than this.

4 upvotes
cgarrard
By cgarrard (4 months ago)

Put a 24-200mm equivalent f/2.8 lens on the SL1then re-measure size and price.

3 upvotes
darngooddesign
By darngooddesign (4 months ago)

The SL1 with a 25-200 f3.5-5.6 is longer by half the size of that lens. And that is with f3.5 at the wide end as opposed to the RX10 having constant 2.8.

http://j.mp/1hNTzXM

0 upvotes
Reinhard136
By Reinhard136 (2 months ago)

Reasonable point, I admit I did not look at that - but keep in mind the extra bit of lens is also paid for by the fact that you can swap lenses around on a dslr to a smaller/faster package, and of course, you don't need quite as much zoom in an "equivalent" lens, ie the larger sensor gives you the same result, with a shorter lens and some cropping.

0 upvotes
darngooddesign
By darngooddesign (2 months ago)

None of that addresses the fact that the RX10 is a constant f2.8.

0 upvotes
Reinhard136
By Reinhard136 (1 month ago)

......Yes, constant 2.8 is a very nice feature, but keep in mind if you can change lenses you can put on a 1.4 if you like, or even if you have a slower lens than a 2.8 performance may still be better via superior ISO on a larger sensor. No doubt it is a nice camera, but I suspect the body size is due more to marketing it as an SLR, rather than the best they could do, the amazing r100 iii, is a landmark triumph in that regard. I think the GM1 or even the Nikons makes a lot more sense than this one, only a matter of time before the r100 or one of its brothers gets interchangeable too, and then this one will look pretty portly.

0 upvotes
darngooddesign
By darngooddesign (1 month ago)

The point of bridge cameras is that you get one lens that covers a huge zoom range; no one buys a bridge camera if they want to swap lenses.

So while you could put a 1.4 lens on there, you will not find a comparable zoom with 1.4 at the wide end. I suspect the reason the RX10 is its size is due to how weird it would look and off balance it would feel with a tiny body and a huge lens; there are no smaller lenses that cover both the RX10's zoom range and constant 2.8 aperture.

The r100 does not need to be ILC because Sony has the already small nex/a6000 cameras. I doubt anyone would buy an ILC with a 1" sensor when they could buy a m4/3s and get a larger sensor and a very mature lens ecosystem.

0 upvotes
darngooddesign
By darngooddesign (1 month ago)

I do agree that Sony made a conscious decision to design this with a DSLR shape, but I disagree that this camera could be much smaller and keep that lens. For example here is the GM1 with a 35-100 constant 2.8 lens. The body is much smaller, but as soon as you add a lens does that really matter that much? The "Panasonic Lumix G X Vario 35-100mm f/2.8 Asph." on the GM1 is physically longer by about half an inch, and that lens doesn't go nearly as wide or as long. An actually matching lens would be much larger thus negating the smaller body. Carrying several lenses to match the range of the RX10 ends up being much larger and much less convent, and the reason for bridge cameras is their convenience.

0 upvotes
Reinhard136
By Reinhard136 (1 month ago)

Agreed, the big size was more about what the marketing department thought would look cool, and the RX10 does look cool. I expect Nikon hope you are wrong about there being no demand for 1 inch sensor interchangables. I suspect the slower acceptance for Nikon is around the same problem you mention, which goes back to the initial comment about the RX10 being too big - the Nikons are as big as 4/3, so apart from a bit of a saving in lens size why would you bother. I expect we will see them bring out smaller bodies too, if they want to stay relevant.

0 upvotes
darngooddesign
By darngooddesign (1 month ago)

I still think the RX10 would look wierd with a small body attached to that big lens. Can you imagine trying to hold the camera with the lens fully extended with one hand and no grip. At least the Sony looks well proportioned.

0 upvotes
Reinhard136
By Reinhard136 (1 month ago)

Yes it does . I like the story of Minox, the designer fashioned a piece of wood into the largest size and shape he could comfortably hold in his hand - then worked out how to make it into a camera - definitely a darn great design ........ Seems a pity we want shapes which have been set by film cameras, at the expense of average ergonomics, and excessive size, and which is now largely irrelevant to sensor based cameras. There have been a few attempts, to think outside the box. Prefer to see the ergonomics people have a go, than the marketers....... but you can understand the conservatism, to jump away like the first lytro could easily end in miserable sales, in a tepid market.

0 upvotes
darngooddesign
By darngooddesign (1 month ago)

True, but Sony has a long history of trying unique camera designs. They have made more than just a few attempts to rethink the camera shape; attempts than went much further than the Pentax Q10. The RX10's size is pretty much dictated by the outside diameter of its lens and the size of the grip needed to comfortably hold it.

Comment edited 22 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Reinhard136
By Reinhard136 (1 month ago)

I can see you really like the camera. If it were smaller, I would like it too, and it would be a more significant camera, and I suspect its success would be more long term.

0 upvotes
darngooddesign
By darngooddesign (1 month ago)

Actually, I think it's fine but I don't have one. I'm not planning on getting one either as I'm happy with my X-E1. I'm sure if it were smaller lots of people would like it, I just doubt that lens can be made significantly smaller. So a smaller version wouldn't exist.

0 upvotes
Reinhard136
By Reinhard136 (1 month ago)

lens is small already ..... body is the prob

0 upvotes
darngooddesign
By darngooddesign (1 month ago)

I don't think you could make the body much smaller, its already not much taller than the lens, without introducing a lot of ergonomic issues. I've handled super zoom compacts without a significant grip or viewfinder and they suck when fully zoomed.

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 49 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Reinhard136
By Reinhard136 (1 month ago)

........ you can have the last word on that one - repeating ourselves now

0 upvotes
badi
By badi (4 months ago)

Well... even if i don't really plan to buy it, i was very excited about this camera.... sounds like really nice features, excellent lens.... reasonable bulk...
But if i were to buy a camera NOW i think the price is kind of wrong.
If you don't find it expensive you can put some more hundreds and you get the A7 + kit lens. If you do, you get an a6000 with kit lens for a few hundreds less ... there is the extra reach which is really nice....
so probably that is why everybody says that 8-900$ would be attractive (the same price point as a6000 kit).

3 upvotes
badi
By badi (4 months ago)

Actually i think a x3 crop from photo taken with the A7 (@70mm) will be same or better than the full file from the RX10 (@200mm)... would be nice to see a comparison.
DPReview, any chance to have a look at something like this?

Comment edited 24 seconds after posting
3 upvotes
peevee1
By peevee1 (4 months ago)

x3 crop is 1/9 of resolution. 24mpix/9=2.7 mpix, vs 20mpix in this camera. Do you really think the resolution of 3x crop of FF will match resolution of the full sensor?
Maybe it will get close by ISO12800, when noise and noise reduction destroy details on both. But then, with 24-70/4, A7 will be at ISO25600, and with kit 28-70/3.5-5.6, it will be at 51200, having much worse noise again...

0 upvotes
badi
By badi (4 months ago)

:) I talk about a x3 crop from a full frame sensor, versus a full sensor which is x2.7 crop ... so the sensor physical size is pretty close.
Actually on the A7 to have a 200mm you actually need a x2.85 crop (2.85 * 70 ~= 200)

Comment edited 8 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Henry McA
By Henry McA (4 months ago)

I just compared it with Raws of the Canon G1 X. The Canon files seem to be sharper at all iso settings and noise seems to be finer and less digital. And the Canon is less expensive...

6 upvotes
brendon1000
By brendon1000 (4 months ago)

Yes even a $300 Sony NEX3N will be sharper than this camera. This point of this camera is its superb lens.

Otherwise it is no better than a Sony RX100 which sells much cheaper.

If you can point out any other camera with a 24-200mm f2.8 constant lens and having a 1 inch sensor or larger I would gladly admit to being wrong.

12 upvotes
2eyesee
By 2eyesee (4 months ago)

@brendon1000
f/2.8 on a 1" sensor receives as much light as f/5 on APS-C. No one would get very excited over an f/5 zoom on an APS-C DSLR.

2 upvotes
hippo84
By hippo84 (4 months ago)

@2eyesee. Wrong! f/2.8 on a 1" sensor receives as much light as f/2.8 on APS-C. f/2.8 on a 1" sensor has the same DoF as f/5 on APS-C

5 upvotes
2eyesee
By 2eyesee (4 months ago)

@hippo84. Wrong! They receive the same INTENSITY of light. The APS-C sensor, however, is 3x larger so it receives 3x more light - around 1.6 stops more.

Comment edited 31 seconds after posting
8 upvotes
badi
By badi (4 months ago)

@brendon1000: interesting.... BUT, if the camera (lens+sensor) does not provide a better IQ, i would question who cares how excellent the lens is? :) ... it's not like you are going to use it on a better sensor sometime.

3 upvotes
Shield3
By Shield3 (4 months ago)

2eyesee is correct. Think of two buckets catching rainwater - the larger bucket is going to gather more water.

1 upvote
Andy Crowe
By Andy Crowe (4 months ago)

> No one would get very excited over an f/5 zoom on an APS-C DSLR.

You know what, a sharp 24-200mm equiv constant f/5 APS zoom that's a fair bit smaller than a 28-84mm f3.5-5.6 kit zoom would be quite exciting.

2 upvotes
mosc
By mosc (4 months ago)

I agree with Andy here, except those lenses are very common. 8x APS-C zooms are not large. Tokina's 8x zoom is 1.34 lbs. Nikon's 1.08 lb and Canon's a pound even (though it's closer to 7x). The RX10 is 1.79 with a body, SL1 brings in at 0.90. Not much weight savings and the APS-C lenses are a stop brighter on the wide end.

The new sigma 18-200 is under a pound and offers a lot more reach than the RX10. You could have that sucker attached to an A37 for nearly half the price of the RX10.

0 upvotes
brendon1000
By brendon1000 (4 months ago)

@Zeyesee - My mobile phone with a f2.8 lens has about the same exposure value as my A55 DSLT with an equivalent f2.8 lens so shutter speeds are around the same.

Your arguments are all plain wrong. DOF is what differs.

@Badi - This camera isn't about the best IQ. Its about good IQ with a jack of all trades lens in a compact package. Thats the USP of this camera.

@mosc - Again most of these superzooms end at f6.3. Hardly fast and most are very soft at the long end. The RX10 is f2.8 constant throughout and sharp even at 200mm f2.8.

The Sigma isn't even as wide as the RX10 and isn't as fast either.

Apples to oranges comparison. The SL1 is also not in the same league as the RX10. Does it shoot 10 fps ? Does it have a tilting LCD ? Does it have built in Wifi ? Does it have a flash sync speed of 1/1600 ?

0 upvotes
ttbek
By ttbek (4 months ago)

Why is the Canon PowerShot G1 X II not on the graph? Is it because it would make the Sony look bad (even just a little bit, lol)? Honestly the Sony reviews on here tend to go into fanboy mode -_-. It makes no sense not to have the Canon PowerShot G1 X II on the graph considering that the review has it in the chart just above (but also fails to make note of it in the text, and why isn't the original G1 X in the chart... since it's in the graph). It's a tradeoff of course, less range, but I think it's worth both mentioning in the text (the good and bad of the comparison) and having it plotted on the graph.

2 upvotes
Treeshade
By Treeshade (4 months ago)

Please learn to read.

"This chart plots equivalent aperture over focal length (35mm equiv.) Canon has not provided data for the PowerShot G1 X II, hence the use of its predecessor."

7 upvotes
bg2b
By bg2b (4 months ago)

Canon may not have provided the data, but the dpreview people can measure it easily enough, and in this case I think they should have. Right now the graph jumps out at you, and it's only on closer reading that you notice the comment that they're plotting the G1X instead of the G1X II. I think the chart would be less confusing if they omitted the G1X from it.

0 upvotes
nevercat
By nevercat (4 months ago)

OK, the real reason is not some stupid comparisy, it is the lens. The Canon G1 XII has a lens going from 24mm to 120mm (5x zoom) how can DPR compare the FL's from 120-200mm? And the Canon lens is not F2.8 over the whole range. Azoom lens with a smaller reach is often better then one with a longer reach.
So the Canon might be a great camera, it is not possible to compare the IQ over the full FL and apperture of the Sony.
The RX10 and the G1 XII are both great cameras, both with great IQ, so why worry, buy the camera you like best...

0 upvotes
Iku-Turso
By Iku-Turso (4 months ago)

How do you know you produce good, balanced reviews? Sony fanboys whine about Canon-bias and Canon fanboys whine about Sony-bias.

0 upvotes
mosc
By mosc (4 months ago)

the Canon can be cropped out to 200. Light gathering ability is cut but it's got a comparable sensor to the RX10 when it's zoomed in an cropped to 200mm. It's a slower lens at that point is all.

0 upvotes
Jeff Keller
By Jeff Keller (4 months ago)

We need to have a camera in-hand in order to gather the data to put the G1X II on the chart. Canon was unable to send us a camera and unwilling to report the data from one of theirs.

1 upvote
ttbek
By ttbek (2 months ago)

Treeshade, it's possible that I overlooked that, it's also possible that the article had been amended between my comment and your reading (probably not though, as I was more looking between the chart that clearly had G1X II data, though just two points, and the graph). Either way, you're as guilty as I am as I was referring to the chart that had data for the start and end apertures of the G1X II, so those points could at least have been on the plot even if the whole curve couldn't (and seriously, there is no way that the line connecting those two dots could cross the RX10 curve without something extremely wonky going on).

Jeff Keller, I'm glad to see that this has been updated in light of the G1X II review.

0 upvotes
ttbek
By ttbek (2 months ago)

Iku-Turso You do it by being thorough, presenting all the data so that readers can draw their own conclusions. It's fine for reviewers to give their own opinions, part of the job actually, but data and facts should be complete in a way that lets readers see the big picture, or at least all of the small picture (e.g. how contemporary point and shoots compare with each other, having some data in their for other formats, like E-mount was good for seeing some of the bigger picture). Presented as it was before it was updated someone not familiar with the data in question could have easily mistaken the G1X curve for being the G1X II.

0 upvotes
budi0251
By budi0251 (4 months ago)

I suppose the advantage of DSLR is the capability of using different specialized lenses; ie. :

macro/supermacro w/ bellows or microscope lenses
UWA (sigma 8-16, or Nikon 14-24 FF lens,)
fisheye (Canon 8-16 FE comes to mind)
Tilt-Shift (Canon) or PC (Nikon) lens for super DOF focus
superfast/superbright (f/1.4, f/1.2, f/0.95, f/0.75, etc. or Nikon 200mm f/2)
fast & bright super tele (albeit very heavy 600mm f/4 or 800mm f/5.6)
telescope mounting/astrophotography
infrared imaging (need to modify the thing though)
veryfast PDAF (though sometimes not 100% accurate, useful for news PJ)

Other than that (one might add some more), I suppose Sony's RX10 is good enough for most of the time as above DSLR companion lenses system.

0 upvotes
badi
By badi (4 months ago)

Well... many of my friends use DSLRs/mirorless with their kit lens only. If this kind of camera was available&affordable, it is a much better solution for a lot of people.
Anyway those knowing what the lenses above & numbers mean know what to choose. Those who don't should go for the RX10 and will be happy.

4 upvotes
discbrake
By discbrake (4 months ago)

I have recorded a lot of musical concerts using this camera. It simply produces magic in the video department. Left my Full-Frame sensor cameras in the dust. The image is clean, crisp, vibrant, and graceful.

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
1 upvote
Gesture
By Gesture (4 months ago)

While the world's population grows and new areas become more of consumers, it still seems like there is just way too many really wonderful and interesting cameras (1" sensor, micro 4/3, APS-C, FF, DSLSR, ILC, etc.) chasing too few customers.

7 upvotes
tkbslc
By tkbslc (4 months ago)

And too many good last years models at heavily discounted price competing with new expensive models.

1 upvote
binauralbeats
By binauralbeats (4 months ago)

I agree. This ist a great time to be into digital photography.

1 upvote
Michael Ma
By Michael Ma (4 months ago)

Top notch video quality, that's questionable. Every sample I've seen has blown out highlights, and people seem to comment that the codec will not hold the detail when you underexpose.

2 upvotes
Demon Cleaner
By Demon Cleaner (4 months ago)

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
By 2eyesee (4 months ago)

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
By rfsIII (4 months ago)

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
By Demon Cleaner (4 months ago)

@ 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
By Menneisyys (4 months ago)

"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
By s_grins (4 months ago)

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
By Shield3 (4 months ago)

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

1 upvote
EsVeeFoto
By EsVeeFoto (4 months ago)

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

27 upvotes
RichRMA
By RichRMA (4 months ago)

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
By brendon1000 (4 months ago)

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
By badi (4 months ago)

@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
By Ron Poelman (4 months ago)

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
By Shield3 (4 months ago)

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
By Menneisyys (4 months ago)

"@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
By Shield3 (4 months ago)

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
By EsVeeFoto (4 months ago)

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

7 upvotes
viking79
By viking79 (4 months ago)

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
By Seeky (4 months ago)

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
By Gryfster (4 months ago)

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
By ecm (4 months ago)

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
By EsVeeFoto (4 months ago)

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
By RichRMA (4 months ago)

Until it rains.

0 upvotes
brendon1000
By brendon1000 (4 months ago)

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
By Menneisyys (4 months ago)

"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
By cmvsm (4 months ago)

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
By Menneisyys (4 months ago)

"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
By RichRMA (4 months ago)

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

4 upvotes
beavertown
By beavertown (4 months ago)

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

8 upvotes
Total comments: 486
1234