You haven't watched the clip have you? Or maybe it's just a classic case of cognitive dissonance?

We haven't shot the RX100 III in our Raw DR tests but there's not a huge difference between the Mk 1 and the Mk 4, so it seems odd to think it would have gone backwards with the move to BSI.

Without knowing the exposure settings of the two images shown in that video, it's impossible to know whether there really is a difference. Any difference in exposure and, consequently, shot noise is likely to very quickly be more significant than the differences sensor-to-sensor.

It's telling that Sony has never claimed an image quality improvement between the III and IV - all the claims have been about speed and the capabilities it brings.

Take a good look at grass and trees from a large-sensor camera and a small-sensor camera and compare. Unless you're blind, the difference will be blatantly obvious. One will look like grass and leaves, the other like green mushy cooked lettuce.

And the contradiction is followed by a fallacy.

Comparing different formats plus different lenses, cannot give you any usable feedback about your theory that more megapixels can lead to less detail.

Ever heard of "all else being equal (ceteris paribus)"? In the real world, less megapixels usually leads to less detail, all else being equal. In other cases it leads to the same amount of detail, but never less detail that can be extracted from a sensor (not to be confused with different jpeg engines turning the extra pixels into more mush).

Megapixels don't struggle with detail, AA and (type of) color filters and/or lenses and/or jpeg engines (demosaicing algorithms) may.

When you cram too many pixels in a sensor of a given size, the per-pixel image quality suffers. From these samples it's visually obvious to me that all those pixels are not optimally resolving all the detail that they theoretically should. And if you were to cram 100 or 200 or 500 million of those pixels into that same sensor, your image quality would not improve at all.
But then again, most photographers don't even know what optimal per-pixel image quality is or what it's supposed to look like.

But you lose light, weather sealing and EVF quality.
Still a good price for tge Panasonic though.

the EVF of the Fz1000 is straight out of the GH4.
It's a great high magnified 2.33 million dot EVF second only to the XT-1

Exactly !
Consumer Product, Consumer Results.
Production Quality ain't.

Exactly. This is not trying to be a professional level FF camera, it's a bridge slr-like camera, and in that category it far exceeded the expectations any conceivable models, including the RX10 and the FZ1000.

Well, you know, even the best of photographers are consumers of camera manufacturers. And if someone is looking through the image files of the RX10 II expecting top flight high end full-frame like image quality then I guess they just don't know that much about photography equipment.
So, I would say, that it isn't Sony's problem if your expectations aren't met, given your unrealistic expectations as a consumer.

" it far exceeded the expectations any conceivable models, including the RX10 and the FZ1000." in what way exactly does it 'exceed' the FZ1000? what I'm seeing with these samples is lower highISO performance from this than the FZ1000, and not just marginally but noticeable advantage to the Panasonic. If the 4K mode on this is the same as on the RX10iv then it's going to be shaky enough not to be usable, particularly at longer focal lengths. I'll take an FZ1000...actually make that TWO FZ1000 for the same price anytime.

@SSantana75: I am thinking silent shutter release of the new RX10ii that will reduce or eliminate camera shutter shock and that kind of thing. Also, I like slog2, which FZ1000 doesn't offer any kind of log profile. I do prefer the one stop advantage of the constant f2.8 equivalent aperture too. Plus, it's weather sealed, which FZ1000 is not. Now I don't think FZ1000 is a bad camera by any means, and I agree RX10ii is expensive compared with the Panasonic equivalent. And I believe once Panasonic comes up with its successor to FZ1000 with vlog, and possibly a weather sealing, then it would definitely exceed the RX10ii and will most likely force Sony to slash the price drastically...

"I am thinking silent shutter release of the new RX10ii that will reduce or eliminate camera shutter shock and that kind of thing." you mean the same silent shutter release the FZ1000 already had?

As for the aperture advantage that is really a personal choice as some (including myself) prefer the focal length advantage.

Weather sealing is an advantage, I give you that but to claim that makes the RX10ii 'far exceed the expectations' of the FZ is nonsense. whether those extra seals are worth double the price depends on the kind of shooter you are but I've shot my FZ in light rain quite a number of times and it's still going after a year.

For stills there is no real competition here though, the FZ is way ahead in focusing performance (yes, I have shot an RX10 and there's no mention anywhere of 'improved focusing performance') as well as overall speed of operation.

"Lumix DMC-FZ1000 creams the RX10 Mark II, and is probably on par or slightly better than RX10 Mark I."

This notion that the Mark I is somehow better than the Mark II is getting comical when the Mark II has the same lens and a (slightly) better sensor.

@SSantana75: I noticed you deliberately missed out all the video features I mentioned, such as the log profile. I presume you use FZ1000 primarily for stills, so in that case you are far suited with it. I still think RX10ii is better than FZ1000 on fast lens and the excellent video capabilities it offers. Good to know FZ1000 has silent shutter, I didn't know that.

You should read more about what stacked sensor actually do. More and more reviewers are saying there is virtually no impact on the IQ, but what is gained is the tremendous readout efficiency, which means video captures can be so much more in its bitrates, or if you wish to capture high frame rates such as 100/120 fps in full HD at 100Mbps. Check out thecamerastore who extolled the beauty of the new stacked sensor, which though wasn't any different to stills, but presents a game-changing moments for video capture capabilities.

As for the 'delogging' the captured log, you obviously showed yourself up as a non-video shooting photographer. Which is fine. Panasonic GH4 has the V-log firmware update soon and it's making those videographers salivate at the moment. Slog2 of Sony just require one to grade the footages in video editing softwares, and they will retain amazing amount of Dynamic Range that sensor(s), from the Sony RX series and future Panasonic GH and other micro 4/3 cams...

"What is even more comical then is the fact that for basically the same exact camera, the price of the Mark II is $500 higher than the price of the Mark I. Don't you agree?"

No. It has a much better viewfinder than the mark I (better OLED panel, better optics, better coatings), adds S-Log functions etc, but the stacked sensor plus built on DRAW allows:
- faster framerates
- silent shutter with less artifacts and no image noise penalty
- better EVF quality due to faster sensor read out
- faster focusing and tracking
- faster shutterspeeds
- better buffering
- better shadow recovery and a hair less shadow noise in low light (short in the blue spectrum)
- 4k video at full sensor readout
- much less rolling shutter artifacts
- more and better slow motion options

"You should read more about what stacked sensor actually do."

Probably not all that much, right? I mean, EVERY single new digital camera's press releases invariable touts it as that camera being the greatest thing since the invention of sliced bread.

"More and more reviewers are saying there is virtually no impact on the IQ..."

'Nuff said on these "revolutionary" stacked sensors, then.

@ TrojMac & Lightcapture: how amazing that with all these wonderful press release tidbits from the Sony Brainwashing Department, the more than one year old Panasonic Lumix FZ1000 still is much preferred by those who have tried using both that and the RX10?

I guess clever press release fodder cannot easily be converted to better image quality pictures and videos, eh?

It's not difficult to go to Youtube and search for thecamerastoretv and Jordan showed on the video, side by side, the RX100iii and RX100iv both taken in exactly the same condition, and the latter getting much cleaner shadow recovery from the deliberately underunexposed picture of Chris. C'mon, don't be deliberately obtuse.

We were also talking about sensors, the stacked sensor in particular. They clearly show the benefits over the older BSI sensor (also used in the FZ1000). No need to get worked up because you own the latter, since it's not going to stop taking pictures.
And half the points I mentioned aren't from the marketing department, or even mentioned specifically by Sony. They are from direct comparisons.

To Makfato, the camera he is tefering to has a 600mm equivalent lens in a slightly smaller camera. The one inch sensor allows for a lot, I know 2.8 is not possible but i would think f4 for the majority and 5.6 at 600 is doable.

Makfato: I needn't have a grasp on physics in order to want for something to be that appears to be reasonable, albeit more costly to produce.

So, I plead guilty to being a dolt when it comes to physics but can bet you that your camera skills are no better than mine.

What makofoto means to say is that even a good lens that goes out to 400mm+ on a quality camera starts becoming ridiculous. This lens is real; it's not some strange photoshopped creature, it's real and it costs $26,000.

http://pixelatedgeek.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/juza-600x400.jpg

When you say that you want a quality camera to go that far, people like myself or makofoto wonder if you really know what that means?

Just because lower quality cameras use inferior lenses doesn't mean that Sony should for this camera.

Now regardless of how ridiculous that $26k lens is, the point I've made is that the camera is big enough. It doesn't need to be any bigger or heavier. And if you did make compromises in the lens quality to make the lens smaller then it wouldn't be the peerless camera it is.

Again that monster is a ff lens. A 1 inch is a 2.7 crop factor, it puts a lot into the realm of possible. Look at the Nikon P900 with its 2000 equivalent zoom.

You're right, it's a Full-Frame F/2.8 lens and it's the *ONLY* F/2.8 lens that zooms past 400mm. And to get that kind of optical quality, they had to make a monster.

Now, you can apply that same idea to the Rx-10 ii; because the Rx-10 ii isn't trying to be the camera that does everything. It's going for the highest possible optical quality that one can get with a 1" sensor. So, if you extended the range, that camera would become so large and so heavy, that no one would want it. The entire point of using a 1" sensor is because it's large enough for useable quality, but not as heavy nor as bulky as a DSLR.

I really appreciate this comment. I don't think that the Rx10 or any 1" sensor camera is going to provide the image quality that a larger sensor can give you.

I own the Rx10 and 10-ii because they are the only fixed lens cameras that I have ever used that have "decent" quality and immediate results once that shutter release is pressed.
Years ago, I owned the Olympus C8080 and if I could get that camera again (just 8MP, with a smaller sensor), I would; except that the shutter delay is grass-growing slow.

Canon G3X -- an embarrassment even for Canon.