photo perzon
Senior Member
for picture IQ. But dpreview shows advantage to III
see the circular slide rule at ISO 1600 looks better on IV
see the circular slide rule at ISO 1600 looks better on IV
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
III vs IV mystery imaging resource shows IV as winner
- Thread starter photo perzon
- Start date
newellj
Senior Member
What we should be taking away from this is that in ordinary still photo use:
there.
is.
no.
difference.
For video or high speed stills, the advantage is to the Mk IV, of course.
paperwastage
Forum Enthusiast
- Messages
- 375
- Solutions
- 2
- Reaction score
- 73
No difference in quality
But there's some additions for still photo use
16fps burst, or 1/2000-1/32000 shutter speeds, or fully electronic quiet shutter
Are you willing to pay $300 more for this?
Last edited:
If I was buying one today, I'd get the IV.
But, I already own the III. I see no reason to (also) get a IV for the shooting that I do.
photo perzon
Senior Member
In the world of cameras the many extras in the IV, just the higher resolution EVF are well worth it. Just like the IV is expensive, selling the III will soon be at a $ 200 discount.
Also the new sensor is like a martian compared to an earthling. Completely different...the "no difference" I hear is a compliment to the excellent III.
i did consider upgrading to the m4, the evf, though havent seen it in person yet, i know it's improved dramatically. the new sensor sounds amazing.
but i wasn't willing to dish out $320 to get the rx100m4 as much as i like the new features. it wasn't worth it when i got my rx100m3 for $630 brand spanking new. i aint smurt or nuthin, but it's a no brainer for me.
but i wasn't willing to dish out $320 to get the rx100m4 as much as i like the new features. it wasn't worth it when i got my rx100m3 for $630 brand spanking new. i aint smurt or nuthin, but it's a no brainer for me.
photo perzon
Senior Member
Of course this is a game of retail and guile.
These are the reasons I upgraded:
EVF 2300 vs 1400
I find skin tones warmer, better pink tones
newellj
Senior Member
The EVF is obviously a hardware improvement, but the color tones you're referring to required no more than a tweak in the jpg settings, which wouldn't have cost anything.
photo perzon
Senior Member
mike geier
Senior Member
I do not see any difference whatsoever
I guess that is because I don't care about video, and 1k for a camera like this is totally absurd anyway. I just returned mine and am staying with my old RX III
I guess that is because I don't care about video, and 1k for a camera like this is totally absurd anyway. I just returned mine and am staying with my old RX III
BlueBomberTurbo
Senior Member
If you're into video, it's certainly worth it. It ticks all the boxes for me for both photo and video. I was struggling with the price until I got a good look at the specs on the new features. Then I jumped on it without hesitation.
The new video features are much deeper than just 4K, HFR, and high nitrate settings. There are video settings that only advanced video enthusiasts would use or even understand. Ones that aren't in 98% of other cameras. The biggest draw is the ability to map the full dynamic range of the sensor to your footage, and there's so much customization available to ensure you get the the look you need for your workflow.
It's amazing that you can get these features in a small pocket can with usable image quality. Adding heavy video features has made the IV more niche than previous generations, and $1K isn't cheap, but if the camera fits your needs, it's well worth it.
damian5000
Senior Member
- Messages
- 1,948
- Solutions
- 3
- Reaction score
- 779
The keyword being "sounds". It makes no difference for stills... That I've seen anyways.
Greg Hobson
Member
- Messages
- 45
- Reaction score
- 7
Yes looking at still images there is zero difference in image quality. You do get faster shutter speed available and faster burst rate of shots per second and an improved EVF but image quality is the same.
There are big improvements for video users, but as a stills only user there is nothing that makes it worth upgrading from III for.
Last edited:
photo perzon
Senior Member
There is so little on this clearly like you said it
Jerry 39
Leading Member
Stupid question
It states that the maximum lens app is 1.8 at wide and 2.8 at tele. How far can the lens be stopped down or what is the minimum app it can be used at. In A priority how far can you stop it down.
Thanks
It states that the maximum lens app is 1.8 at wide and 2.8 at tele. How far can the lens be stopped down or what is the minimum app it can be used at. In A priority how far can you stop it down.
Thanks
BlueBomberTurbo
Senior Member
F/11 at all focal lengths. Gets some funky flares going on at F/11 with the sun in the frame. It's apparent at all apertures except wide open, but most intrusive fully stopped down.
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum