Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 IV real-world sample gallery posted

Good man, Dan. CA becomes especially evident with lots of post-processing, including highlight reduction and shadow pushing. Easy to remove in ACR though, with not too much of an impact on sharpness unless the CA was really, really bad (many pixels wide) to begin with.

I use the Mark I as my quick-and-easy travel cam. I've gotten more keepers and art-worthies (for me, at least!) than with my 60D, which I down-graded to an SL1. (I'm just an enthusiast.) I like it better for its 'dedicated live-view' for shooting from the hip, from above, from the left or right as you would if you were riding a bike. Yep, I got some of my son as we rode bikes on vacation. He's not a stand-and-pose guy. HDR can be used lightly, so that it catches details in the dark areas without getting that creepy look. Panoramic? Canon, have you tried a Sony??

I'm excited for the Mark IV --- because of the anticipated Mark III price drop! Sadly, it's not dropping far or fast enough!

Thank you Lightcapture, appreciated!

Johnnie

That 'barber brothers' video seems pro level to an amateur like me! Very nice. Now I hate to be critical as well since I'm a noob, but in my humble opinion the green/cyan tint in the video is really ugly. I hate it in particular on skin tones...

Brand loyalty (or worship) is a very strange thing indeed...

Really ?

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison/fullscreen?attr18=daylight&attr13_0=sony_dscrx100m4&attr13_1=canon_eos6d&attr13_2=canon_eos7dii&attr13_3=canon_eos7d&attr15_0=raw&attr15_1=raw&attr15_2=raw&attr15_3=raw&attr16_0=1600&attr16_1=12800&attr16_2=6400&attr16_3=3200&normalization=full&widget=1&x=0.44743485086342244&y=0.8418574231523872

eg, 1600 vs 12,800

MAC:

You're in luck the 6D, body only, is on sale this week at B+H for about 1400usd, but you'd need a lens.

LR apply +25 chroma NR when u open the raw file initially.

it's useable max is iso 1600 which compares to my SL1 iso 3200 - see below. My SL1 has good skin tone colors. I paid $363 for my SL1 when it first came out. The small $125 50 STM is wonderful and this small setup fits in my jacket pocket with no neck strap and my hand strap string. When I bought my SL1 I got a package deal from this site's gear shop with the great 55-250 stm for just $181. This second light lens fits in my second jacket pocket. Then I bought the great 10 - 18 stm for $299 which fits in my 3rd jacket pocket = $968 total, better colors, better IQ, better 16-400 range. Works with my odins. Backs up my 7d2. iphone for me

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison/fullscreen?attr18=daylight&attr13_0=sony_dscrx100m4&attr13_1=canon_eos100d&attr13_2=panasonic_dmclx100&attr13_3=canon_g7x&attr15_0=raw&attr15_1=raw&attr15_2=raw&attr15_3=raw&attr16_0=1600&attr16_1=3200&attr16_2=1600&attr16_3=1600&normalization=full&widget=1&x=0.42049899602059077&y=0.882336663137023

@HowaboutRAW:

yes 6d good deal, and I have plenty of lenses, but I'm a 7d2 owner and $1499 on that one is a great deal!

@ttran88: when sony makes a jean pocket camera that gets skin tones right, has a use-able iso 3200, and charges a reasonable price, then I might consider. Until then, SL1 and iphone

A F150 FX4 is just so much better than a Lexus IS250 ...

MAC, let me see if I have this right.

You will choose an SLR over a 1" compact because it takes better photos, but you will use an iPhone over a 1" compact because it fits in your pockets. Got it.

The image you are talking about was shot using Face Detect. The RX100 IV picked the gentlemen on the left of the frame as the dominant face to focus on. Considering this image was shot from the hip, as I was walking, and as the subject was walking toward me, sharpness is pretty darn good. I do agree that the CA is problematic, though. Also, I would not say the shot was "seriously underexposed," rather it was underexposed by about a stop, so as to keep detail in sky.

My "RAW" tattoo makes me much more photographer, and of the superior master RAW race.
Also, gives me much more dynamic range, and as I don't care for WB, I can easily tell the dress is black and blue.

Haha, I always hate people saying "I've give it my 110%" or some riduculous things like this, and now I am one of them! With regards to jpeg, I don't think you can say that 'real' photographer just take jpegs and not have to deal with it. I mean, even in film days, we crop our pictures. And once you send it to 'develop' your slides or negatives, you've gone through a 'post processing' already, only that you have no control over this process, unless you do the prints in your own darkroom, and that's again a form of post processing. I was shooting mostly jpegs with minimal post processing (levels, cropping usually) with my RX100 for three years. Last year I bit the bullet and started to learn about Lightroom (useful resource: Tony Northrup), bought the 6th version, and then shot with RAW+Jpeg entirely, even my time lapse. And yes, the initial learning curve with programmes like LR is steep, but after a week or so, I discovered I can recover so much more details with RAW. Try it!

It's in jest.
(just a little banter back n forth about visual cues from society, hence the talk about the color of a certain dress that was recently in the news).

I do believe in JPEG as a valid option for serious photographers, just as much as RAW is a valid option for serious photographers.
The actual issue that I find endlessly fascinating is that so very many people here have been indoctrinated to believe that JPEG is so inferior that it lacks use by anyone except non-photographers or the first baby steps toward learning photography.

Reality is really less extreme. JPEG can help people become better photographers if they take time off RAW for awhile and make some big mistakes that cost them photos they may have been able to save with RAW. From that, the human person behind the camera will learn a lesson that they will never forget; and they will be a better photographer for it.

Likewise, some JPEG settings are really quite fun and look very appealing. And if you never shoot JPEG, then you'll never be able to appreciate this.

Reply to biological viewfinder. I am sure jpegs has its professional use esp in photojournalism when you are not allowed to retouch photos, or they have no time to post process their captured images. I can even understand what you might have meant regarding learning the basics of composition, exposure, focus etc. I can even say that there ARE lazy people out there thinking that Light rooming solves all problems as long as they shoot raw. But I disagree that those to shoot in jpegs exclusively bear the honour of the moniker 'real photographers'. After all, greats like Ansel Adams dodge and burn their prints to their nth degree to achieve the look he's after. His prints are definitely not presented 'as shot'. He said something like "it's terrible to see a fuzzy idea perfectly focused" (heavily paraphrased). What all photographers need to do, whether shooting jpegs or raw, is to always ask ourselves "what am I trying to capture in the frame to my audience?"...

Biological_Viewfinder it's simply stupid to waste precious time on the field setting the jpegs, i'ts much better to spend that time in your house sipping some wine while you edit the pictures.
You still have to worry about composition and exposure... but WANTING to worry about WB on the field is just some self imposed challenge.

Actually, I can set white balance pretty much anywhere I go just by looking at it. Fortunately, my camera does really well on AWB; but when there is mixed lighting from a window or from different light-sources in the same room, I nail that color almost every time just by looking at the scene.
-
And I also use Manual-only most of the time, and I already know just by looking at the brightness of a scene what ISO, Shutter speed, and Aperture size to use.
-
The JPEG that comes out *IS* what I expect. I don't even chimp anymore. I walk away with confidence that I have all my camera settings perfectly set and my image is a keeper.
-
Now, you go ahead and keep on using that crutch called raw. And I'll continue down my path. I am in control of my camera, you are still a slave to yours. And by your own statements, you have done this to yourself on purpose!
-
I will say, however, that I do like your avatar very much. ;)_

biological-viewfinder, that's good you can nail everything so quickly, esp with regards to mix lightning. But am I assuming you don't find it frustrating that in contrasty situations, a jpeg can basically capture only 8-9 stops of useful information while raw can capture up to 13 stops (much closer to what our eyes could perceive)? How do you retrieve those lost information in your jpeg files may I inquire?

LOLOLOLOL!!!! HAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!

Wow. You guys spread ignorance like it's mayonnaise.

Sure, I realize that there is a little more useable information on a RAW file compared to a JPEG.

Why don't you do yourself a real-life favor, as opposed to these hypotheticals and what's on paper things you do; and go find an old camera that you liked and compare it to what you use now.

Okay, now compare your old camera to your new one. Raw, JPEG, it isn't really important. What do you see? That's right, your old photographs are still really fun to look at. Completely inferior to your new camera's capabilities, but still great viewing, and they always will be too.

YES!!! You are technically correct; a raw image has more dynamic range, more detail, you can change your white balance failures, yes to all that!!!!

Quite interesting that I can clearly see what you are talking about, but you don't have a clue what I'm saying.

Biological Viewfinder: Why do you assume you know I don't know what you are talking about? I was an avid jpeg shooter until July this year. With my RX100 that I bought since 2012, and previously two Fuji Finepixes (one which was the F31d which I still kept because I really loved its still capabilities at that time). Prior to that I shot in films (Canon EOS 630 and then when that one breathed to its last I bought a second hand SLR, the original Rebel model). I shot negatives, positives and IRs. I learned darkroom techniques and printed many black and white enlargements and took part in photo competitions, ten of the photo competitions two I won some prizes. I was nearly going to pursue my dream of becoming a fashion photographer but my family wanted me to complete my A Levels so I did, and I became a materials engineer working in HP inkjet printhead division (very much involved in photo-quality print technology). (con't below)

I noticed I said July. It was June, I bought LR6 in May, and took a month to figure out how to shoot RAW for the first time before I travelled to Ireland shooting everything exclusively RAW, and I think I WON'T turn back to shooting jpegs. The only time I still have jpegs is when I shoot panorama using the RX100 (which only allows jpegs)...

Go try out the mini-blind mode on some subjects. Keep trying that until you have it nailed so that you know when to use it; which is probably 10-20% of shots that could be done in this manner.
-
Go try the watercolor effect. It's stunning!
But just like the mini-blind, it won't work on most things; but where it does work, it's amazing.
-
Hey, you seem to feel that you can defend RAW just like all the people who defend it. And you look down your nose at the people who choose to use JPEG. But you yourself are missing out on a great deal of fun and exceptional work.
Just like someone else here said, the camera itself does post-processing. Yes it does; and it even has modes that can make your artistry show that you know how to use your camera (ALL OF IT, not just the parts that shoot RAW).
-
Like I said before, I agree that RAW is better in technical terms for a flat image that presents nothing about a person's style. You said, you shot IR, you should know about this stuff.

And just to add to my last comment, I would say shooting jpegs are analogous to shooting slides, you have very little latitude in the Dynamic Range, in that if you overexposed your shots, then you lose details/information on the highlights. Shooting RAW is like shooting with negatives, you have much greater exposure latitude, and that helps to retain more information in a wider dynamic range. I agree that learning to shoot slides is a great way of learning how to expose the scene optimally, more so than shooting with negatives...

To add: watercolour effects or some other such effects can be achieved in Photoshop.

No, they can't. Do it, if it's so easy.

-

And that's what I mean when I say that you aren't hearing me. You appear to be listening; you're in the room, and we're talking. But you haven't heard a word I said.

-

You suggest that you can't return to your photographic playground forever and that you want to have as much information as possible to preserve it.

I'm saying that you aren't doing that. You're taking technically superior, flat presentations. You believe that they are a great starting point. But because you're stubborn about RAW, you're failing to realize the potential that Sony engineers placed within your camera to achieve an artistic rendering of what you saw.

If you don't use these features until you have mastered them, then it's like a child refusing to taste the food before them.

I'm telling you, it's like lobster and you don't want to eat it because it looks like a big bug!

I think you'll find, even in a lowly Photoshop Elements 8 which I have in my laptop that it does watercolour automatically. The 'artistic' filter option even allows adjustments in the the 'look' of the watercolour effects.

I have told you I have been shooting exclusively jpegs for years before I switched to RAW. I didn't start with shooting RAW, I have to learn shooting and trying to get the look I want in jpegs in the past. Then I realised I can get MORE (not less) information with RAW. I don't know why you can't see shooting in RAW is like shooting with negatives, and shooting with jpegs are like shooting slides as an analogy.

I don't mind the analogy. I've already agreed that technically raw is superior. I've already said over and over that I agree with you on this detail.

Well, I did not criticize the camera at all, it is about the technology that can be offered right now... Sony already pushed the limits..

yep, exactly :) maybe flat lenses that can enable much much faster glasses :)

As an engineer, i don't think so... but lets see ;)

Why not provide a continuously variable curved sensor which changes shape with the focal length? Then you can have both. (not that such a beast exists on this [small] scale, yet)

You just sold me this. I thought I read only 240fps...that looks great!