-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
One Ring To Rule Them All.......... RX10 iv Content
- Thread starter DenverSteve
- Start date
tbcass
Forum Pro
I think AbS likes to zoom in to 200% to look for differences.
BertIverson2
Member
Once I acquired DXO PL and started shooting raw, I have not put my decent flash on the RX100IV about 7 years now.
Cheers,
Bert,
(old timer from 1950s who bought blue flash bulbs back then for daylight film with flash)
It seems that the solution to every single problem is this $200 software and RAW images. There should just be an auto-reply to every post on this forum that says "shoot RAW and use AI denoise" and it would save everyone so much time.
smorgasbord
Forum Enthusiast
It’s actually mostly true. I had an RX10iii for almost a decade. I had often struggled with autofocus on moving subjects and low light performance.
I was going through some of my older photos (all raw) and tried the one version old DXO software and was amazed at the results.
Decided to sell my iii and bought an iv just as discontinuance was announced. Quite happy - although I wish I hadn’t limited myself to ISO 400 so much in my several years old photos.
Of course, a V with today’s autofocus and an even better sensor would be even better.
Last edited:
Dak on cam
Forum Pro
Not "this" $200 software: the exact name changes regularly and also depends on who is posting.
tbcass
Forum Pro
That's because it's true. I rarely use flash any more. This would hold true to other RAW software as well, not just Photo Lab. Want better IQ? Forget buying a new camera and shoot RAW with what you have.
--
Tom
Last edited:
tbcass
Forum Pro
I assume you shoot JPEG. If the JPEG images make you happy then you don't need to shoot RAW. For those of us who shoot RAW the JPEGs did not satisfy us. As far as flash, unless you use multiple flashes and reflectors it's totally impractical for most of us, On camera flashes are almost always less than desirable even when using bounce.
Dak on cam
Forum Pro
Not in my book. A -2EV fill-in or a -1EV bounce defuse a lot of otherwise unsatisfactory lighting situations. Modern cameras do magic at bringing the overall light level up. But they don't help at all with the balance. There is a large difference between composing and controlling the complete light situation, and in improving what you have by working on the shadow situation.
Some kinds of social photography make it unfeasible to employ flash, but when that is not the case, a photographer who does not use light modifiers is like a cook who does not use seasoning.
The purpose of processing should be to complete your photography, not to salvage it.
I agree. Obviously people can shoot however they're comfortable, and some specifically want a more naturalistic/neutral look, but that's generally not what I'm going for.
I will add that you do not need a crazy kit to get good off camera flash shots. When I'm doing a mobile shoot, I will bring a lightweight light stand, a speedlight, and a 24" soft box. It elevates the photos I can take exponentially compared to just using available light, and fits into a small duffel bag.
At night with the way-too-warm available artificial light as edge lighting
In a poorly lit but open air parking garage because the rain stopped our initial plans
With the setting sun
In a relatively dark stairwell
If you have a big bright wall to bounce the bare speedlight off of, you can get a giant bright light source that overcomes the shadows from the placement standard light fixtures.
Bouncing off the grey or white paper background on the other side of the room. I use the same basic concept at home in a spare bedroom with white walls
For quick/casual things, on camera flash from a speedlight with a small modifier on it can diffuse and spread it enough for decent results, though you'll still get pronounced hot spots in many situations.
A security guard made it seem like bringing a light on a stand to this area was not allowed
Dak on cam
Forum Pro
Any stylist/visagist/photographer/gardener will tell you that the naturalistic/neutral look is the hardest look to achieve, not the easiest.
Looking artificial is beginner's work.
tbcass
Forum Pro
Beautiful photos but you mostly confirmed what I said. You have to bring and use extra equipment which takes time to set up to achieve your excellent results. Most of us don't do the type of photography you do.
tbcass
Forum Pro
In your opinion.
What you said, which you conveniently highlighted, was "multiple flashes and reflectors".
The examples I provided were with a single speedlight, either on a stand or mounted on the camera. I can provide thousands of examples of great looking pictures that were just taken with a speedlight mounted on my camera with a little MagMod modifier attached. It's not "totally impractical" if it is what you are setting out to do.
I agree that only carrying an RX10IV, with zero accessories of any kind, would be more convenient than having a speedlight and modifier on the hotshoe, but an RX100 in the pocket would be even more convenient than just an RX10IV. And a smartphone that you already have is even more convenient than the RX100 as an additional device.
It all just depends on what kinds of pictures you're trying to take, what amount of inconvenience you're willing to endure to get them, and what level of quality you're willing to accept as the result.
DenverSteve
Senior Member
It doesn't matter what camera you add external flash/lighting to, it becomes less convenient than the camera alone. Also, it's not about which camera is pocketable or not, the RX10 is neither compact or pocketable. I happens to be not only the most convenient 24-600 "range" camera as it doesn't require any lens changes or even lens purchases or carrying. The RX100 isn't in the class, category or convenience of the RX10. Lighting, of any kind, can be done with any camera but is an entirely different discussion.
Dak on cam
Forum Pro
Fill-in flash to shallow up shadows from a backlit situation usually does not mean more than popping up the built-in flash (which you can have pre-wired to -1EV, or which may even put itself somewhere in that vicinity in "Auto" mode).
If "that is an ugly lighting situation, let's let the camera help" is too inconvenient, one really has to question why you are dragging such a large camera around. In particular if the camera would pop up the flash anyway when left to its own devices via "Auto".
The discussion is spiraling somewhat and slowly got to where it is, and I accept much of the blame for that. To summarize it a bit and get it back on topic:
- I love my RX10IV for its versatility, but one thing that I feel it does worse than older, smaller Cybershot cameras I had before was close to medium distance portraits with flash.
- My solution was, and still is on my a7IV which has no flash, to use a speedlight, usually with a modifier.
- tbcass's solution is to instead shoot in RAW and process with advanced software.
- Both are valid options, with their own pros and cons
Dak on cam
Forum Pro
Another case of "same premise, different conclusion" for me: for anything serious I always go the route via raw processing (actually using $0 non-AI processing software). But not for salvaging photographs but polishing them: you can pretty much always improve on a standard rendering by adapting the process the individual photograph, not because the photograph is bad but because it is deserving of the effort.
"Salvaging" makes sense for forensic photography, but I find it rarely worth the trouble if you intend to end up with something worth looking at. When you start out with something bad, you tend to end up with something meh.
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum