Sony Extended Zoom, Images Here (not words!)

words: explanation is here

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4373614

..........................................................................

Let's SEE Photos of what those of you who try SZ and/or CIZ are getting. (these: no crop, no PP)

here is a series, OZ: 24,70,200. SZ: 280, 400 (clouds were moving fast)











--
Elliott

The following images were taken using SZ. Interestingly, the EXIF data still shows the focal length as 600mm, but each was shot at a 5mp picture size giving 1200mm EFL.

I don't have a problem using SZ, or even CIZ, as they can give great results, but what I don't like is how the AF behaves when you're in one of those settings.


Eastern Rosella


A Superb Blue Wren (male) losing his breeding colours, as we are now in Autumn.


A Galah.



--
Panasonic FZ1000 FZ200 SOny RX10 iv

Rodger, thanks for posting, your Blue Wren is Splendid, instantly downloaded and my current desktop image, which is 13.25" h x 19.75 wide, it looks superb.

Rodger1943 said:

The following images were taken using SZ. Interestingly, the EXIF data still shows the focal length as 600mm, but each was shot at a 5mp picture size giving 1200mm EFL.

I don't have a problem using SZ, or even CIZ, as they can give great results, but what I don't like is how the AF behaves when you're in one of those settings.

Click to expand...

I have never used an RX10m4 or 600mm optical lens, and have no idea how Manual Focus, magnification assist and peaking appear at 600mm. or SZ 840 or SZ 1200mm. With my cameras, Sony SZ 280mm and Oly 2X 1,020mm, I often use MF to control the focus specifics, overcoming the difficulty of AF using non-specific area size. Have you tried MF using SZ or CIZ?

Rodger1943 said:

Eastern Rosella

A Superb Blue Wren (male) losing his breeding colours, as we are now in Autumn.

A Galah.

Click to expand...

....................

I said 'no words', however we don't want to give incorrect impressions if EXIF is wrong.

Part of my explanation in the other post has a section called 'CONFUSIONS'. It is always a challenge to remember or detect what we did. If EXIF is wrong, that's beyond detection.

I am sure you have no intention of misleading anyone,

Your Blue Wren which looks the best, EXIF shows 3012 x 2008 pixels (i.e. more than 5mp), which, if correct implies a crop from either 10mp or 20mp. Digital Zoom 1, implying OZ, which you think incorrect. If you didn't mention it, I would think Blue Wren was 10mp OZ Cropped to 6mp.

The Galah EXIF shows 5mp, but Digital Zoom 1, implying 5MP OZ.

The Eastern Rosella, EXIF indicates 5mp, Digital Zoom 2, i.e. SZ 1200mm as you said. That bird had to be far, far away.

........................................

to my eye, ranking technical and visual IQ , the EXIF seems correct,

Blue Wren OZ 600mm; 10mp cropped to 6mp

Galah OZ 600mm; 5mp

Eastern Rosella SZ 1200 (600 2x); 5mp

Unfortunately, the door to confusion using SZ or CIZ is WIDE.

--
Elliott

Very nice images from both of you.

Elliott, I'm a little confused, which you know is my usual state. Were you shooting at optical 200 for EFLs of 280 and 400? At optical 200, SZ would get you EFL of 300 - so some SZ and some CIZ for the 400mm image?

What's been your experience with shooting at optical EFL 600, for SZ/CIZ EFLs of 840 and higher, with SZ and CIZ?

Rodger1943 said:

The following images were taken using SZ. Interestingly, the EXIF data still shows the focal length as 600mm, but each was shot at a 5mp picture size giving 1200mm EFL.

I don't have a problem using SZ, or even CIZ, as they can give great results, but what I don't like is how the AF behaves when you're in one of those settings.

Eastern Rosella

A Superb Blue Wren (male) losing his breeding colours, as we are now in Autumn.

A Galah.

Click to expand...

so good it's just silly to have that much power in a bridge. The Galah is fantastic full screen.

--
www.MartinDareff.com

bill hansen said:

Very nice images from both of you.

Elliott, I'm a little confused, which you know is my usual state. Were you shooting at optical 200 for EFLs of 280 and 400? At optical 200, SZ would get you EFL of 300 - so some SZ and some CIZ for the 400mm image?

Click to expand...

Images without words: Impossible with SZ or CIZ I should have known.

EXIF: anything past Digital Zoom 1 is SZ or CIZ.

I don't have an RX10m4, I am only showing my rx100m6,

You only get SZ or CIZ after max OZ, so

rx100m6, anything past 200mm is SZ or CIZ.

RX10m4 anything past 600mm is SZ or CIZ.

All SZ or CIZ is at the narrowest aperture of the OZ lens. rx100m6 all SZ or CIZ is f4.5; RX10m4 f4.0. Nicely, when you extend the reach, the lens no longer darkens.

...................................

My zoom series (test shots, not photos): I start with 24mm OZ to indicate the distance from subject. Next, 70mm OZ and 200mm OZ to show the m3 max and m6 extra OZ reach (20mp for these 3 shots).

Next, I shoot SZ 280mm (10mp image size); finally SZ 400mm (5mp image size).

I am not showing CIZ yet.

bill hansen said:

What's been your experience with shooting at optical EFL 600, for SZ/CIZ EFLs of 840 and higher, with SZ and CIZ?

Click to expand...

I am currently focusing on actively using 10mp SZ 280mm. I have been shooting kids soccer, softball, ice hockey, wrestling, with my Oly OZ 300mm constant f2.8, smaller sensor. 300mm is just enough if the action is at the far end of the field/rink. So, can I use rx100m6 SZ 280 10mp 1" sensor to equal or beat my Oly 12mp 300mm 1/1.7"??? How much light is needed for the Sony to use fast enough shutter speeds? Sony has high ISO advantage, so ....

Of course RX10m4 600mm OZ would be awesome for this, just too big for me.

--
Elliott

Maybe a lot of words are not needed, but a caption under each photo would have been helpful.

DUTCH van Atlanta said:

Maybe a lot of words are not needed, but a caption under each photo would have been helpful.

Click to expand...

I guess I was lazy, and assuming others would read and understand what I wrote, assuming always risky, I did say:

here is a series, OZ: 24,70,200. SZ: 280, 400 (clouds were moving fast)

I have also had good luck with the 10mp crop on my Panny ZS200. I'm pleased with those images if I don't need to crop the result. I'm less pleased with the results of the 5mp cropped sensor. I even think that my results are a little better when I use the 10mp crop plus iZoom (the rough equivalent of CIZ of course) to reach the 720mm EFL of the 5mp crop. I haven't done enough testing to prove that though.

Hi Elliot,

You might be right about the blue wren. I did think it was a 5mp image using SZ, but if it doesn't fit size wise, then I made a mistake and apologise. With regards to the exif data it shows 600mm for all three images, which isn't true and its one reason I thought the wren was a 5mp image, as its 600mm, as well. However, the original image is also 600mm, so that's why its still showing 600mm. As for employing MF when using SZ, or CIZ, the answer is yes I do.

Unfortunately, I can't take down that wren now, so it will have to stay there.

Thanks very much for the comments, Martin.

Rodger1943 said:

Hi Elliot,

You might be right about the blue wren. I did think it was a 5mp image using SZ, but if it doesn't fit size wise, then I made a mistake and apologise. With regards to the exif data it shows 600mm for all three images, which isn't true and its one reason I thought the wren was a 5mp image, as its 600mm, as well. However, the original image is also 600mm, so that's why its still showing 600mm. As for employing MF when using SZ, or CIZ, the answer is yes I do.

Unfortunately, I can't take down that wren now, so it will have to stay there.

Click to expand...

The exif data for focal length is not wrong. It shows 220mm or 600mm equivalent that is correct if you shot all images on maximum zoom. Cropping either in camera or in post has nothing to do with the actual focal length of a lens.

David

bill hansen said:

I have also had good luck with the 10mp crop on my Panny ZS200. I'm pleased with those images if I don't need to crop the result. I'm less pleased with the results of the 5mp cropped sensor. I even think that my results are a little better when I use the 10mp crop plus iZoom (the rough equivalent of CIZ of course) to reach the 720mm EFL of the 5mp crop. I haven't done enough testing to prove that though.

Click to expand...

Reminder, I am getting ready for kids sports.

I planned on testing rx100m6 CIZ later, but, now that you mention it, comparing same focal length using either CIZ, crop and upscale to SZ optical crop only, is probably wise.

Comparing 20mp CIZ 400mm max to 5mp SZ 400mm max: the CIZ image, digitally inventing new pixels via up-scaling, would have 4 times the amount of pixels as the SZ image. Result?

CIZ is progressive, so I could use 20mp, CIZ up to 280mm only, and compare it to 10mp SZ 280mm. That means CIZ would be inventing less pixels than if it was used to simulate it's full 400mm. Result? Then I would compare rx100m6 20mp CIZ 280mm (bigger sensor/darker lens) to my Oly 12mp 280mm OZ (smaller sensor/brighter lens).

Shooting a bit wide, especially panning following Ben, Cooper, Ava, and now Addie, I crop even my CIZ or SZ images, not much, but some. I will also try cropping the comparison shots. Results?

Soccer starts soon, it will get real, I should be ready, I wanna be done with test shots soon.

Then, good light/bad light: there may be a crossover where rx100m6 wins in good light, Oly wins on a cloudy day. It's easy to have both cameras in the car.

--
Elliott

elliottnewcomb said:

DUTCH van Atlanta said:

Maybe a lot of words are not needed, but a caption under each photo would have been helpful.

Click to expand...

I guess I was lazy, and assuming others would read and understand what I wrote, assuming always risky, I did say:

here is a series, OZ: 24,70,200. SZ: 280, 400 (clouds were moving fast)

Click to expand...

Thanks for posting these Elliott.

Thanks for the work you do spreading the word and informing users of the RX100 series. I use my RX100-2 much more capably because of your help.

Your reports and demonstrations of the RX100-6 are helping me decide whether to spend the money to upgrade to this camera from my RX100-2.

keep the m2,

m1,2 28mm f1.8 is a speck better than m3,4,5 24mm f1.8 they darken a speck by 28mm. If you ever get a deal on the EVF, it works on the m2 only and perhaps a future sony.

I am trying to show the whopping difference of 70mm to 200mm here. In m1,2 case, it is 100mm max OZ to 200mm max OZ, your 100mm f4.9; m6 200mm f4.5. My guess is m6 is already fairly dark at 100mm.

Regarding this thread, extended reach, he difference in models OZ is further extended, m2 CIZ to 200mm; m6 CIZ to 400mm.

elliottnewcomb said:

keep the m2,

m1,2 28mm f1.8 is a speck better than m3,4,5 24mm f1.8 they darken a speck by 28mm. If you ever get a deal on the EVF, it works on the m2 only and perhaps a future sony.

I am trying to show the whopping difference of 70mm to 200mm here. In m1,2 case, it is 100mm max OZ to 200mm max OZ, your 100mm f4.9; m6 200mm f4.5. My guess is m6 is already fairly dark at 100mm.

Regarding this thread, extended reach, he difference in models OZ is further extended, m2 CIZ to 200mm; m6 CIZ to 400mm.

Click to expand...

I plan to keep the m2.

It's irreplacable now that i use it with your suggested settings.

I have an electronic view finder I bought used. I haggled on price, then found out I was buying from a Presbyterian priest. I felt bad.

He used it on the fixed lens expensive Sony ....forget what it is?

His images are incredible; taken inside churches from the Priest's perspective!

My worry is losing the darn thing if I leave it in the hot shoe. A little gorilla glue will prevent that (just kidding!)

You've probably photographed and video'd your kids' sports in the past, so you know this: spending time peering into a viewfinder or at an LCD can greatly diminish the pleasure of watching kids zoom around on the field, or on the ice. (Not saying it will, just that it can.)

In my own case, I found that although we treasure those pictures and the very occasional video, my wife and I got much more pleasure and relaxation from just watching, leaving our cameras at home.

Is that heresy?

bill hansen said:

You've probably photographed and video'd your kids' sports in the past, so you know this: spending time peering into a viewfinder or at an LCD can greatly diminish the pleasure of watching kids zoom around on the field, or on the ice. (Not saying it will, just that it can.)

In my own case, I found that although we treasure those pictures and the very occasional video, my wife and I got much more pleasure and relaxation from just watching, leaving our cameras at home.

Is that heresy?

Click to expand...

It's not heresy at all.

I mentally block out everything around me when photographing events. My view: Kids and family are more important.

bill hansen said:

You've probably photographed and video'd your kids' sports in the past, so you know this: spending time peering into a viewfinder or at an LCD can greatly diminish the pleasure of watching kids zoom around on the field, or on the ice. (Not saying it will, just that it can.)

In my own case, I found that although we treasure those pictures and the very occasional video, my wife and I got much more pleasure and relaxation from just watching, leaving our cameras at home.

Is that heresy?

Click to expand...

True, I take less than I used to, same thing at school events, weddings, concerts, I only want a few good photos, and when I can, I wait for opportunities with momentary brightness.

Except Daria in a play, dance recital, ... She wants photos of every outfit, every song, every dance routine, I miss more than I would like.

Than you Elliot. As someone who is considering purchasing a RX100 VI Mk 6 I find these photos be very encouraging. To my probably not very critical eye the Smart Zoom is pretty good for 400 mm FL equivalent. Any chance of showing a CIZ version? Please can you let me know how easy / quick it is to select the SZ / CIZ functions 'on the hoof' so to speak. Can they be assigned to a 'Fn' button? Thank you. J.