RX10 IV vs Sony A6700 (or similar) + Sigma 16-300: Any Direct Comparisons?

RX10 IV vs Sony A6700 + Sigma 16-300: Any Direct Comparisons?

Hi everyone,

The Sigma 16-300mm has been available for a few weeks now, but I haven't been able to find any direct image quality comparisons between it and my current setup. I'm currently using the RX10 IV, which serves me well for my primary shooting scenarios: vacation photography and capturing opera singers in theaters, thanks to its long zoom range.

I'm considering potentially upgrading to a Sony A6700 paired with the new Sigma 16-300mm lens. The appeal of the Sigma is that it would give me a single do-it-all lens solution—I really prefer not to swap lenses during shoots. I'd love to see some real-world comparisons before making the switch.

Has anyone here had the opportunity to test both setups side-by-side? Specifically, I'm interested in:

• Overall image quality comparisons
• Performance low-light conditions
• Any significant differences you've noticed

I'd really appreciate any insights or sample images if anyone has experience with both combinations. Thanks in advance!

MattMatt1972 said:

RX10 IV vs Sony A6700 + Sigma 16-300: Any Direct Comparisons?

Hi everyone,

The Sigma 16-300mm has been available for a few weeks now, but I haven't been able to find any direct image quality comparisons between it and my current setup. I'm currently using the RX10 IV, which serves me well for my primary shooting scenarios: vacation photography and capturing opera singers in theaters, thanks to its long zoom range.

I'm considering potentially upgrading to a Sony A6700 paired with the new Sigma 16-300mm lens. The appeal of the Sigma is that it would give me a single do-it-all lens solution—I really prefer not to swap lenses during shoots. I'd love to see some real-world comparisons before making the switch.

Click to expand...

I own an RX10iv that replaced a Sony A77ii with a Tamron 16-300. While not exactly the same I think the comparison is relevant.

MattMatt1972 said:

Has anyone here had the opportunity to test both setups side-by-side? Specifically, I'm interested in:

• Overall image quality comparisons

Click to expand...

• The RX10iv has better IQ, far better at the long end.

MattMatt1972 said:

• Performance low-light conditions

Click to expand...

Because of the faster aperture of the RX10iv I feel the low light IQ was comparable.

MattMatt1972 said:

• Any significant differences you've noticed

Click to expand...

The RX10iv had far better AF.

MattMatt1972 said:

I'd really appreciate any insights or sample images if anyone has experience with both combinations. Thanks in advance!

Click to expand...

Putting a superzoom 16-300 on an A6700 is a waste because it doesn't come close to the quality the A6700 is capable of with a good lens. It would be like putting a low power 4 cylinder engine in a Ferrari.

--
Tom

I don’t have, and wouldn’t buy, this lens, but i do have Sony’s excellent 70-350 G lens (and quite a few others)

Overall, this A6700+Sigma superzoom combo seems inferior to your existing camera: bigger and heavier, less zoom range, almost certainly worse image quality. The A6700 will bring superior AF and more controls, and possibly slightly better low light performance, but I don’t think that’s adequate compensation. Basically, if you go down the ILC route, you need to be prepared to change lenses.

MattMatt1972 said:

Has anyone here had the opportunity to test both setups side-by-side? Specifically, I'm interested in:

• Overall image quality comparisons
• Performance low-light conditions
• Any significant differences you've noticed

Click to expand...

While you wait for direct comparison comments or results, you can consider what the specifications tell us when converted to full frame equivalents:

RX10 IV: 24mm f/6.48-600mm f/10.8

A6700/Sigma: 24mm f/5.25-450mm f/10

So, the A6700 combo has a slight light gathering advantage, mostly at the wide end, but loses some reach at the long end.

Then you have to consider the sharpness of the Sigma lens compared to the Sony lens ... same, better, or worse? Does it have similar reliance on software lens corrections?

How about AF, image stabilization, etc... same, better, or worse?

24mp vs. 26mp is inconsequential.

ishwanu said:

MattMatt1972 said:

Has anyone here had the opportunity to test both setups side-by-side? Specifically, I'm interested in:

• Overall image quality comparisons
• Performance low-light conditions
• Any significant differences you've noticed

Click to expand...

While you wait for direct comparison comments or results, you can consider what the specifications tell us when converted to full frame equivalents:

RX10 IV: 24mm f/6.48-600mm f/10.8

A6700/Sigma: 24mm f/5.25-450mm f/10

So, the A6700 combo has a slight light gathering advantage, mostly at the wide end, but loses some reach at the long end.

Then you have to consider the sharpness of the Sigma lens compared to the Sony lens ... same, better, or worse? Does it have similar reliance on software lens corrections?

How about AF, image stabilization, etc... same, better, or worse?

24mp vs. 26mp is inconsequential.

Click to expand...

It’s actually 20 vs 26mp. That makes the 450mm roughly equivalent to 500mm on the RX10M4—still a loss, but less than it seems. The AF will be better (but the RX10M4 is still pretty good) and IS may be a bit better. But, overall, the combo seems to lose more than it gains compared to the RX10.

My approach was a bit different: I have an A7CR, which is the FF version of the A6700. So I can use both FF and APS-C lenses on the same body, getting 26mp with APS-C lenses, and 61mp with FE lenses. So that single body goes from 12mm 61mp through to almost 600mm cropped 20mp images, using three of my lenses.

Digital Nigel said:

ishwanu said:

MattMatt1972 said:

Has anyone here had the opportunity to test both setups side-by-side? Specifically, I'm interested in:

• Overall image quality comparisons
• Performance low-light conditions
• Any significant differences you've noticed

Click to expand...

While you wait for direct comparison comments or results, you can consider what the specifications tell us when converted to full frame equivalents:

RX10 IV: 24mm f/6.48-600mm f/10.8

A6700/Sigma: 24mm f/5.25-450mm f/10

So, the A6700 combo has a slight light gathering advantage, mostly at the wide end, but loses some reach at the long end.

Then you have to consider the sharpness of the Sigma lens compared to the Sony lens ... same, better, or worse? Does it have similar reliance on software lens corrections?

How about AF, image stabilization, etc... same, better, or worse?

24mp vs. 26mp is inconsequential.

Click to expand...

It’s actually 20 vs 26mp.

Click to expand...

Sorry, yes.

Digital Nigel said:

That makes the 450mm roughly equivalent to 500mm on the RX10M4—still a loss, but less than it seems. The AF will be better (but the RX10M4 is still pretty good) and IS may be a bit better. But, overall, the combo seems to lose more than it gains compared to the RX10.

My approach was a bit different: I have an A7CR, which is the FF version of the A6700. So I can use both FF and APS-C lenses on the same body, getting 26mp with APS-C lenses, and 61mp with FE lenses. So that single body goes from 12mm 61mp through to almost 600mm cropped 20mp images, using three of my lenses.

Click to expand...

ishwanu said:

MattMatt1972 said:

Has anyone here had the opportunity to test both setups side-by-side? Specifically, I'm interested in:

• Overall image quality comparisons
• Performance low-light conditions
• Any significant differences you've noticed

Click to expand...

While you wait for direct comparison comments or results, you can consider what the specifications tell us when converted to full frame equivalents:

RX10 IV: 24mm f/6.48-600mm f/10.8

A6700/Sigma: 24mm f/5.25-450mm f/10

So, the A6700 combo has a slight light gathering advantage, mostly at the wide end, but loses some reach at the long end. <snip>

Click to expand...

These are DOF equivalents, not light gathering apertures!

The RX10 IV gathers more light, it has a wider aperture 2.4 to 4.

Maxmolly7 said:

ishwanu said:

MattMatt1972 said:

Has anyone here had the opportunity to test both setups side-by-side? Specifically, I'm interested in:

• Overall image quality comparisons
• Performance low-light conditions
• Any significant differences you've noticed

Click to expand...

While you wait for direct comparison comments or results, you can consider what the specifications tell us when converted to full frame equivalents:

RX10 IV: 24mm f/6.48-600mm f/10.8

A6700/Sigma: 24mm f/5.25-450mm f/10

So, the A6700 combo has a slight light gathering advantage, mostly at the wide end, but loses some reach at the long end. <snip>

Click to expand...

These are DOF equivalents, not light gathering apertures!

The RX10 IV gathers more light, it has a wider aperture 2.4 to 4.

Click to expand...

That is incorrect. The RX10M4 gathers more light per sensor area (which is what the aperture number is about) but its sensor area is quite smaller. Since its pixels have considerably less area, they get less light at the same aperture number. Because ISO is sensitivity per area, at equal ISO values the image noise seen at the pixel level will be higher the more pixels you have, and will be lower the larger the sensor is.

Dak on cam said:

Maxmolly7 said:

ishwanu said:

MattMatt1972 said:

Has anyone here had the opportunity to test both setups side-by-side? Specifically, I'm interested in:

• Overall image quality comparisons
• Performance low-light conditions
• Any significant differences you've noticed

Click to expand...

While you wait for direct comparison comments or results, you can consider what the specifications tell us when converted to full frame equivalents:

RX10 IV: 24mm f/6.48-600mm f/10.8

A6700/Sigma: 24mm f/5.25-450mm f/10

So, the A6700 combo has a slight light gathering advantage, mostly at the wide end, but loses some reach at the long end. <snip>

Click to expand...

These are DOF equivalents, not light gathering apertures!

The RX10 IV gathers more light, it has a wider aperture 2.4 to 4.

Click to expand...

That is incorrect. The RX10M4 gathers more light per sensor area (which is what the aperture number is about) but its sensor area is quite smaller. Since its pixels have considerably less area, they get less light at the same aperture number. Because ISO is sensitivity per area, at equal ISO values the image noise seen at the pixel level will be higher the more pixels you have, and will be lower the larger the sensor is.

Click to expand...

Another way of measuring the light gathering properties of the lenses is the lens diameter. That Sigma lens only needs a 67mm filter, whereas the Sony has a 72mm filter thread.

Digital Nigel said:

Dak on cam said:

Maxmolly7 said:

ishwanu said:

MattMatt1972 said:

Has anyone here had the opportunity to test both setups side-by-side? Specifically, I'm interested in:

• Overall image quality comparisons
• Performance low-light conditions
• Any significant differences you've noticed

Click to expand...

While you wait for direct comparison comments or results, you can consider what the specifications tell us when converted to full frame equivalents:

RX10 IV: 24mm f/6.48-600mm f/10.8

A6700/Sigma: 24mm f/5.25-450mm f/10

So, the A6700 combo has a slight light gathering advantage, mostly at the wide end, but loses some reach at the long end. <snip>

Click to expand...

These are DOF equivalents, not light gathering apertures!

The RX10 IV gathers more light, it has a wider aperture 2.4 to 4.

Click to expand...

That is incorrect. The RX10M4 gathers more light per sensor area (which is what the aperture number is about) but its sensor area is quite smaller. Since its pixels have considerably less area, they get less light at the same aperture number. Because ISO is sensitivity per area, at equal ISO values the image noise seen at the pixel level will be higher the more pixels you have, and will be lower the larger the sensor is.

Click to expand...

Another way of measuring the light gathering properties of the lenses is the lens diameter. That Sigma lens only needs a 67mm filter, whereas the Sony has a 72mm filter thread.

Click to expand...

That is unreliable since it does not take into account vignetting and focal length (wide angles use light from a much larger set of directions). Also the transition between "light makes it to the image circle or not" is determined by the "entrance pupil", the image of the aperture as seen when looking inside from the front lens, and the distance of the entrance pupil from the filter threads depends on the exact lens recipe. That is one reason that the later Tamron generations of all-in-one-zooms using XR (extra-refractive elements) manages to produce lenses with smaller filter thread diameters (and shorter length) than comparable competition from the same time.

Here are two lenses: the left one is 28-200mm at its 200mm position (1:5.6), the right one is 24-135mm at its 135mm position (also 1:5.6). The left one has filter thread diameter ⌀62mm, the right one ⌀72mm. At the shown focal length, the left lens with its smaller front lens diameter collects significantly more light.



This can be seen by looking into the front lens and seeing the circle of the wide open aperture (1:5.6 in either case):


200mm at 1:5.6


135mm at 1:5.6

So the front lens diameter needs to be taken with a heavy grain of salt: entrance pupil as the apparent light gathering area determining which input light rays make it through the lens and which not may be sitting closer to the front lens element or not so close. Those light rays which pass through make it to the image circle (apart from degenerate cases like "cat eye's bokeh"), but that does not necessarily mean that they end up on the sensor (which typically is wholly inside of the image circle apart from cameras like the Panasonic LX100 with variable aspect ratio).

Now make no mistake: even at 135mm (the extreme end of the 24-135mm lens) the bigger lens here produces better image quality than the 28-200mm lens. But its light gathering power at this focal length is about the same.

--
Dak

Maxmolly7 said:

ishwanu said:

MattMatt1972 said:

Has anyone here had the opportunity to test both setups side-by-side? Specifically, I'm interested in:

• Overall image quality comparisons
• Performance low-light conditions
• Any significant differences you've noticed

Click to expand...

While you wait for direct comparison comments or results, you can consider what the specifications tell us when converted to full frame equivalents:

RX10 IV: 24mm f/6.48-600mm f/10.8

A6700/Sigma: 24mm f/5.25-450mm f/10

So, the A6700 combo has a slight light gathering advantage, mostly at the wide end, but loses some reach at the long end. <snip>

Click to expand...

These are DOF equivalents, not light gathering apertures!

The RX10 IV gathers more light, it has a wider aperture 2.4 to 4.

Click to expand...

I guess you don't know about equivalence. This is a primer from 11 years ago:

https://www.dpreview.com/articles/2666934640/what-is-equivalence-and-why-should-i-care

Read the whole thing.

Here's an axiom: When two different camera/lens combinations present the same angle of view and the same DOF, the total light presented is the same (aside from lens design differences such as corner falloff, coatings, and the number of elements, which cause variations in transmission). And if the DOF is different, the one with less DOF is presenting more total light to the sensor. Of course another factor in the full equation is a possible difference in the efficiency of the sensor technologies, but that's a separate consideration.

Thank you everyone for your thoughtful input and advice.

Based on the feedback here, it looks like upgrading from my RX10 IV wouldn't provide any meaningful advantages for my current needs. I'll stick with it for now unless something truly compelling hits the market.

Really appreciate you all taking the time to share your experiences and insights!

Digital Nigel said:

Overall, this A6700+Sigma superzoom combo seems inferior to your existing camera: bigger and heavier, less zoom range, almost certainly worse image quality.

Click to expand...

a6700 + 16-300 is only a few grams heavier and certainly not bigger than the RX10 IV.
The combo is greater in length, but as soon as the RX10 is powered-on the lens extends to make the overall length even greater.

ChaosCloud said:

a6700 + 16-300 is only a few grams heavier and certainly not bigger than the RX10 IV.
The combo is greater in length, but as soon as the RX10 is powered-on the lens extends to make the overall length even greater.

Click to expand...

Size is most important when carrying it around turned off where the RX10iv is smaller. It's longer only at the longest focal lengths and not at the most used focal lengths less than 100mm. One thing I know for sure is the RX10iv will have better IQ at long focal lengths. All the reviews I have read about the lens indicate it's IQ is compromised. Putting a mediocre lens like the 16-300 on an A6700 is like putting a 120 HP 4 cylinder engine in a $1,000,000 Ferrari. A complete waste.

tbcass said:

Size is most important when carrying it around turned off where the RX10iv is smaller. It's longer only at the longest focal lengths and not at the most used focal lengths less than 100mm. One thing I know for sure is the RX10iv will have better IQ at long focal lengths. All the reviews I have read about the lens indicate it's IQ is compromised. Putting a mediocre lens like the 16-300 on an A6700 is like putting a 120 HP 4 cylinder engine in a $1,000,000 Ferrari. A complete waste.

Click to expand...

The RX10 IV is bigger even while it's powered off. It measures 133x94x145mm = 1813cc
While a6700 with Sigma 16-300 measures 173x69x122mm = 1456cc
You can compare here Sony Alpha a6700 vs Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX10 IV Size Comparison

Carried on a strap with lens pointing down, the RX10 IV is projecting from your torso out by an extra inch vs the a6700. This makes the difference between a camera that can be comfortably tucked under a jacket, or one that is an awkward bulge.

A lens that has the range of 2 or 3 conventional zooms is going to have to make some compromises, but I would rather have a photo with compromised quality than a missed shot because I didn't have the right lens on the camera when the photo opportunity appeared.

Hi,

owning myself the RX10Mk3 with the known issues concerning its AF (which is in another league in Mk4) and shooting it alongside with an A6400/A6700 (with several lenses including the 200-600) I cannot point out a clear "winner".
There have been many similar (controversional) discussions with the same outcome: The lens alone of the RX10Mk3/4 holds its own in IQ over the entire range and the fast aperture (the lens can be used wide open without restrictions) levels out most of the "disadvantage" in terms of noise of the physically smaller sensor in comparison with the bigger sensors on the a6xxx when paired with slower aperture - super zooms.

Usually I pick the cam with the task in mind: No special things and maximum flexibility, then it's my RX10Mk3 w/o hesitation. On a specific photo outing though it's the photo rucksack with the A6xxx and likely the 200-600. The RX has motor driven zoom - which might be too slow for some jobs when fast changes are required. Then again it's usually the well prepared and planned shooting which provides the best results - and this doesn't need fast lens exchanges of changes in FL.

The a6700 has the advantage of the bigger battery and manual zooming consumes less power: This might count.

So no, no straight forward answer...

ChaosCloud said:

The RX10 IV is bigger even while it's powered off. It measures 133x94x145mm = 1813cc
While a6700 with Sigma 16-300 measures 173x69x122mm = 1456cc
You can compare here Sony Alpha a6700 vs Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX10 IV Size Comparison

Carried on a strap with lens pointing down, the RX10 IV is projecting from your torso out by an extra inch vs the a6700. This makes the difference between a camera that can be comfortably tucked under a jacket, or one that is an awkward bulge.

A lens that has the range of 2 or 3 conventional zooms is going to have to make some compromises, but I would rather have a photo with compromised quality than a missed shot because I didn't have the right lens on the camera when the photo opportunity appeared.

Click to expand...

I consider length including the lens and depth of the camera body more important. In this case the A6700/18-300 combo is 198mm long vs the RA10iv at 145mm.

tbcass said:

I consider length including the lens and depth of the camera body more important. In this case the A6700/18-300 combo is 198mm long vs the RA10iv at 145mm.

Click to expand...

198mm is if you add the Sigma's 123mm to a6700's 75mm overall dimension, but that overall dimension includes the grip, so you need to subtract the distance between lens flange and grip which equals ~173mm installed length.

The Sigma combo becomes longer near max. tele than the RX10 at max. tele, but otherwise it's the more compact option.