IQ RX10m4 vs a91+Sigma 100-400

You likely would have less noise and more shallow DoF with the full frame Sony. If you shoot primarily wildlife, I think a high megapixel crop sensor ILC would make more sense than a relatively low mp full frame camera.

Ah yes- but there are a number of considerations that have me eye-balling an a9.

Short of buying the rig, there's little chance of being certain the result is what you're after. Plan B could be to rent the rig.

The setup was the RX10 on a tripod, intervalometer, and sort through the results.

Processing was done with PhotoLab 6.3 - crop, contrast, and DeepPRIME XD for noise reduction. DeepPRIME XD also does detail enhancement. I think the results are satisfactory.


Cardinal, Purple finch - Skippack, Pennsylvania

DSC-RX10 Mk IV - PhotoLab 6 crop, contrast, noise reduction

--
Some days I amaze even me.
Some days I put my car keys in the fridge.

BirdnSurf said:

Ah yes- but there are a number of considerations that have me eye-balling an a9.

Click to expand...

OK, in what ways is your RX10 IV falling short?

Typically the biggest challenge in bird photography is getting close enough to the subject, and a second issue is having equipment that is light enough that you're happy to walk around to try to find and get closer to subjects. I typically want a setup where I would be happy with the results even if I cropped down to a 2000 mm ff equivalent.

RBEmerson said:

Short of buying the rig, there's little chance of being certain the result is what you're after. Plan B could be to rent the rig.

The setup was the RX10 on a tripod, intervalometer, and sort through the results.

Processing was done with PhotoLab 6.3 - crop, contrast, and DeepPRIME XD for noise reduction. DeepPRIME XD also does detail enhancement. I think the results are satisfactory.


Cardinal, Purple finch - Skippack, Pennsylvania

DSC-RX10 Mk IV - PhotoLab 6 crop, contrast, noise reduction

Click to expand...

Yep, also almost 10 year old $500 DSLR with fairly cheap telephoto lens (cropped to almost 2000 mm equivalent):



For wildlife photography, there are so many other ways I'd spend $4500 before considering a low mp FF camera. If the primary purpose of the equipment is not wildlife, that’s a different story.

PGH423 said:

RBEmerson said:

Short of buying the rig, there's little chance of being certain the result is what you're after. Plan B could be to rent the rig.

The setup was the RX10 on a tripod, intervalometer, and sort through the results.

Processing was done with PhotoLab 6.3 - crop, contrast, and DeepPRIME XD for noise reduction. DeepPRIME XD also does detail enhancement. I think the results are satisfactory.


Cardinal, Purple finch - Skippack, Pennsylvania

DSC-RX10 Mk IV - PhotoLab 6 crop, contrast, noise reduction

Click to expand...

Yep, also almost 10 year old $500 DSLR with fairly cheap telephoto lens (cropped to almost 2000 mm equivalent):

Click to expand...

Er, I wish my RX10 cost $500! I seem to have missed a step somewhere in the discussion.

PGH423 said:

For wildlife photography, there are so many other ways I'd spend $4500 before considering a low mp FF camera. If the primary purpose of the equipment is not wildlife, that’s a different story.

Click to expand...

Again, I'm lost. IIRC I paid a shade over $1000 (USD) for my "open box, full warranty" RX10.

Agreed that there are a lot of things would have claim on $4500 burning a hole in my pocket.

As someone recovering from Guitar Acquisition Syndrome (down to two, an Ovation Elite, and a Les Paul clone, from you don't want to know how many guitars), as well as recovering from Telescope Aperture Envy (stopped at a 12" classic Meade LX200 and far too many add-ons), I wonder if the OP might not be showing signs of Camera Feature Envy compounded by Lens Acquisition Syndrome. [/ <-- meant as humor - I think]

--
Some days I amaze even me.
Some days I put my car keys in the fridge.

If you put a 600mm lens on the a9 and compared it to the rx10 then it would have better iq but to get 600mm you are using Sony a9 in crop mode which would give a 10.6mp photo compared to a 20mp on the rx10.

The a9 10mp photo should look fine but will it be able to resolve the same level of detail as the 1" 20mp sensor? If you upscaled the 10mp file to 20mp would it be better? doubtful. If you downscaled the 20mp file to 10mp would it look as good as the 10mp file probably.. I think at best this would be a sideways move and not beneficial and there are other options that will be better.

Now if you used an a7r3 that would give you 18mp in crop mode and thats not much different to 20mp, imo 2mp is nothing much and the a7r3 sensor and image quality in crop mode would exceed that of the rx10. its essentially apsc vs 1 inch sensor comparison with similar mp.

You also need to take into account the sigma iq which isnt bad but i found the IS and AF unreliable on an a7r2. (maybe i had a bad sigma) a7r2 af was fine with other lenses. i have an a74 now and have often wondered how an RX10IV would compare.

maybe the sony 100-400 + x1.4tc on the a9 would be better idea but if you are after a dedicated birding tool id just get a 600mm lens and a high res sensor for cropping.

RBEmerson said:

PGH423 said:

RBEmerson said:

Short of buying the rig, there's little chance of being certain the result is what you're after. Plan B could be to rent the rig.

The setup was the RX10 on a tripod, intervalometer, and sort through the results.

Processing was done with PhotoLab 6.3 - crop, contrast, and DeepPRIME XD for noise reduction. DeepPRIME XD also does detail enhancement. I think the results are satisfactory.


Cardinal, Purple finch - Skippack, Pennsylvania

DSC-RX10 Mk IV - PhotoLab 6 crop, contrast, noise reduction

Click to expand...

Yep, also almost 10 year old $500 DSLR with fairly cheap telephoto lens (cropped to almost 2000 mm equivalent):

Click to expand...

Er, I wish my RX10 cost $500! I seem to have missed a step somewhere in the discussion.

RBEmerson said:

For wildlife photography, there are so many other ways I'd spend $4500 before considering a low mp FF camera. If the primary purpose of the equipment is not wildlife, that’s a different story.

Click to expand...

Again, I'm lost. IIRC I paid a shade over $1000 (USD) for my "open box, full warranty" RX10.

Agreed that there are a lot of things would have claim on $4500 burning a hole in my pocket.

As someone recovering from Guitar Acquisition Syndrome (down to two, an Ovation Elite, and a Les Paul clone, from you don't want to know how many guitars), as well as recovering from Telescope Aperture Envy (stopped at a 12" classic Meade LX200 and far too many add-ons), I wonder if the OP might not be showing signs of Camera Feature Envy compounded by Lens Acquisition Syndrome. [/ <-- meant as humor - I think]

Click to expand...

The general subject of the thread, as I viewed it, is alternatives to the RX10 IV for bird photography. I was giving one alternative that won’t cost a fortune and I think makes more sense than low mp FF camera. I think you’re right about gear acquisition syndrome, though.

BirdnSurf said:

Hi!

I like to shoot small birds. I love my markIV, but I would like to upgrade. How would a cropped a9 pic compare to a RX10IV pic at 600mm? Hypothetically or real life thoughts appreciated!


Recent pic of a Song Sparrow using my RX10IV for fun.

Click to expand...

With decent light, the RX10iv will outperform the A9/100-400 as far as IQ when shooting distant subjects because of the extra 200mm of reach. I base my opinion when comparing my RX10iv with my Full Frame Sony A99ii with a 150-600mm Tamron. Photos taken with my Full Frame at 600mm are slightly better than the RX10iv at 600mm but the difference isn't great so I rarely bother with the FF 150-600 combo.

--
Tom

That's a great question because I love this camera. AND I have a lot to improve with my bird photography that doesn't have much to do with the camera.

Here's why:
1. slow to turn on/battery life.

1. I want smoother backgrounds.
2. Low light capabilities; In post processing there just isn't enough info in a raw file to lift shadows or tamper highlights. Also, the noise reduction software doesn't work as well as I would expect. That said, those qualities won't fix a bad photo to begin with.
3. More fun: I think learning a new system and having more capabilities is fun. I've had this camera for 5 years and I've grown a lot with it. I'm ready for a whole new world... my princess Jasmine.

BirdnSurf said:

That's a great question because I love this camera. AND I have a lot to improve with my bird photography that doesn't have much to do with the camera.

Here's why:
1. slow to turn on/battery life.

1. I want smoother backgrounds.
2. Low light capabilities; In post processing there just isn't enough info in a raw file to lift shadows or tamper highlights. Also, the noise reduction software doesn't work as well as I would expect. That said, those qualities won't fix a bad photo to begin with.
3. More fun: I think learning a new system and having more capabilities is fun. I've had this camera for 5 years and I've grown a lot with it. I'm ready for a whole new world... my princess Jasmine.

Click to expand...

1 & 2: You can get reasonably smooth backgrounds with the RX10 IV and can push the processing a good amount if you shoot raw. Keep in mind, you can get the best background blur by being close to the subject, having a distant background, shooting wide open, and being at full zoom. BUT you would see improvement with a crop sensor or full frame camera.

3: That’s a significant factor. I love using the 10 IV but I would get bored without any ILCs.

I would suggest renting some different equipment before spending $4K on a new body. I don’t have the Canon R7 but it might be the perfect choice for you. With a 600 mm lens on the R7, you’ll get about 3.4x as many mp on a distant bird as with a 600 mm lens on the a9 (e.g., cropping to a 7 vs 2 mp image). You likely would have far less noise and a program like Topaz could do much more with the 7 mp R7 image. With the longer reach of the R7, you’ll have more background compression, which makes the background appear smoother too.

Thanks for your thoughts. I've been obsessed lately. The a9 was my latest thought trap with the a walk-around sigma lens and the 200-600 if I got really invested in wildlife photography. But still, that's too much weight for me.

I've settled on two systems though to ponder due to weight limitations that I have; the R7 +100-500 and the OM1 + 300 pro. Both systems around 4 grand just to be better than the RX10IV!

I plan on renting when the time is near. Take care-