RX10 IV vs. microFT

A question for anyone who switched to an RX10 mk IV from a micro four thirds setup: are you happy with the performance? Worth it in terms of trade-off?

A bit of background: I mostly shoot wide to normal subject matter. Landscapes. Travel. Low light candid shooting. Way back, I was shooting a Canon 5DII, sold it all for an E-M5 setup due to cost, added a Sony A7r because I missed the resolution and subject isolation at wider focal lengths in particular.

Right now I have an A7rIII for my 'wide to short tele' needs, i.e. 16mm to 85mm. This is a very acceptable size/weight/quality trade-off for me.

For the times I indulge my wildlife shooting (on vacation, mostly, but I do enjoy it a good deal those times I do it) I currently use my Olympus E-M1. Tried the more compact, slow glass, but now using what Are probably the best value and one of the nicest telephotos available (old 43 50-200/2.8-3.5 SWD and the 150/2.0 with teleconverters). I have little to no doubt the quality I can get from these lenses and the E-M1 would be difficult to match with anything in a similar price range. But they are bulky, and I don't use them a whole lot. And the quality of my RX100 mark I sensor is still very impressive. So I'm considering adding an RX10 mk IV as a telephoto replacement to the MFT kit.

Anyone shoot similar systems side by side care to comment on their experience?

Mattia Valente wrote:

A question for anyone who switched to an RX10 mk IV from a micro four thirds setup: are you happy with the performance? Worth it in terms of trade-off?

A bit of background: I mostly shoot wide to normal subject matter. Landscapes. Travel. Low light candid shooting. Way back, I was shooting a Canon 5DII, sold it all for an E-M5 setup due to cost, added a Sony A7r because I missed the resolution and subject isolation at wider focal lengths in particular.

Right now I have an A7rIII for my 'wide to short tele' needs, i.e. 16mm to 85mm. This is a very acceptable size/weight/quality trade-off for me.

For the times I indulge my wildlife shooting (on vacation, mostly, but I do enjoy it a good deal those times I do it) I currently use my Olympus E-M1. Tried the more compact, slow glass, but now using what Are probably the best value and one of the nicest telephotos available (old 43 50-200/2.8-3.5 SWD and the 150/2.0 with teleconverters). I have little to no doubt the quality I can get from these lenses and the E-M1 would be difficult to match with anything in a similar price range. But they are bulky, and I don't use them a whole lot. And the quality of my RX100 mark I sensor is still very impressive. So I'm considering adding an RX10 mk IV as a telephoto replacement to the MFT kit.

Anyone shoot similar systems side by side care to comment on their experience?

I use both systems. The lens and sensor of the RX10M4 combine to give remarkable image quality for an ultra zoom bridge camera. It doesn’t match my E-M1ii plus 300mm f4 pro lens but in good light and ISO 800 or less it is fairly close if not cropped too much, certainly very acceptable to my picky standards. I do have to use a higher shutter speed as the IBIS is not as good. When I have time I will compare it with the 40-150 2.8 pro cropped to the same size.

I tried two other cheaper bridge cameras (including the Lumix F2000) and the Sony has by far the best image quality. As a walk around camera with flexibility of FL to capture anything that crops up I love it. If you want to make the most of wildlife shooting though I would invest in either the Pana LEICA 100-400 or the M.Zuiko 300 pro which is the finest long lens I have ever used.

I use my A99ii side by side with an RX 10iii. There are many times I prefer the RX10iii for convenience. Since you own an A7Riii the RX10iv would be a better choice than M43 because the IQ is 95% as good and it’s impossible to get 24-600 fov with a single lens in that format.

I've shot with the G85 with the PL100-400 and currently have the E-M1 II with the 40-150 pro with a 1.4x tc. I love the IQ that the Oly gives me, but it's bulky and really not long enough for birds. Pretty much, the Oly stays in the drawer now and the RX10IV goes with me. I must admit though, I just purchased a new A6500 and will be picking up a FE 100-400 with 1.4x tc, (as soon as I sell the Oly) because at times I want a really serious birding rig. One suitable for pixel peeping. ;-).  I regularly take trips to the local wildlife reserve specifically for the purpose of photographing birds.

For me, the big rig is a tool that allows me to do something I enjoy and do it well. The RX10IV is a companion. I shoot birds, flowers, wide or long landscapes, and the grandkids with it. Sometimes all in the same day. Basically anything that strikes my fancy.  And it does it pretty darn well.

So, I'd say, if you want wildlife to be an incidental part of your vacation, the RX10IV is your best bet. If the wildlife is an important part of your trip, maybe stick with your Oly gear. Wanna buy a slightly used E-M1 II? LOL

I am contemplating pretty much the same at present. I am going to Korea and Japan next month and I don't feel like carrying my D800, big lenses etc on my trip. I have a FZ1000 which has done a great job in the past except low light and dim places.

I have been researching microFT as well as the RX10IV. I am torn shelling out for the new G9 with the Leica 12-60 2.8-4.0 and take my FZ1000 if I need more reach or go and buy a RX10IV.

I was first thinking of the OMD E1.2 but I am sure they release a MK3 soon to compete with the G9.

such a hard decision. the advantage of the larger sensor vs the stacked 1" sensor are slim from what I have read.

Sadly the A7R3 is too much money and when adding the proper lenses I could almost take the D800 instead.

decisions decision....

I find myself in a similar situation. I'm renting an RX10 IV this weekend to compare it with my m43 stuff, which includes the Oly 12-100 and the Panny 100-400, both great lenses. I have both attached to Oly OMD-10 II's, because those are very capable and light (although one has a grip extension because that Panny 100-400 is quite front heavy). I backpack a lot, and greatly desire a camera that can do everything, or instead 2 cameras that are as light as possible. I will NOT consider swapping lenses on the trail, as much of the things I photograph are birds or bears or what not, and animals appear and are gone again within seconds. I had decided a while back that m43 was the physically smallest sensor to what I could tolerate in noise, but here I am, trying this RX10 IV with a significantly smaller sensor. 10 pounds of camera junk hung off my neck and torso is just brutal when I've already got 45 pounds on my back and hiking many miles through mountains.

Mattia Valente wrote:

A question for anyone who switched to an RX10 mk IV from a micro four thirds setup: are you happy with the performance? Worth it in terms of trade-off?

This is hard. I'll say that if you don't use it for wide landscapes, then maybe. See below.

Right now I have an A7rIII for my 'wide to short tele' needs, i.e. 16mm to 85mm. This is a very acceptable size/weight/quality trade-off for me.

Good, because the RX10 IV is too soft at 24mm at the edges. In addition to that loss of resolution, there is also a falloff in contrast toward the edges. It cleans up some above f5, but not enough for me.  Some people will be more tolerant of this than others, but it really bothers me.  Also consider that the f2.4 is really not much help in subject isolation, as zooming to 35mm already drops that to f3.2  Also consider that I am judging it against the level of equipment that I see that you already own, and not against other super zooms.  Against other super zooms, the RX10 IV is easily superior.

And the quality of my RX100 mark I sensor is still very impressive. So I'm considering adding an RX10 mk IV as a telephoto replacement to the MFT kit.

I'm noticing about 1.5 more stops of noise than my Oly's. It's... Well it's a lot better than all the other super zooms (except the 1" Panny's). The luminance noise is tolerable to me. But the chroma noise is bothering me. HOWEVER, you also say you are happy with the sensor in your RX100. So I say, yes, I think overall, your plan is solid.

Do keep in mind that this camera is neither small nor light.  It's loaded with glass.  Consider that you may not be saving much weight vs your current Oly's setup.

I'm somewhat disappointed at my trials with it this weekend, because I wanted this camera to truly do everything, and it doesn't.  I've got some thinking to do. 

I managed to get access to a RX10 IV and take it out for some shots at an indoor soccer game. I became frustrated with a few things:

1) I was so used to the outstanding touch interface on the GHx cameras that it was a pain not being able to hit the quick button and just choose settings using the touch screen.

Sony is just so weird about some things like this.  They dig in their heels and just refuse to budge.  They're years behind on these touchscreens.  How can a modern camera not even have touch-to-shoot?

3) I HATED not being to adjust zoom during burst shooting.

In 2003, my Minolta DiMage A1 had a manual 7x zoom on it (absolutely fantastic camera for its time).  I've not seen a manual zoom on a bridge camera since.  The RX10 iv would be much better if it had that.

I started the day and immediatly hit the first snafu with the GH5. I wanted to compose a shot of the kids, but needed to stop and change lenses. Then needed to change back to get some shots of the animals I wanted. This continued throughout the day. As the day progressed my pictures went from 50/50 with each camera taking approximately the same images to 90/10 in favor of the RX10 IV because I found I could compose such a wide variety of shots without changing the lenses.

A lot of photogs just don't appreciate how much of an advantage this is!  And especially if you are with other people, and you don't want to be slowing them down.

When I got home I was sure the GH5 images would outshine the RX10 IV and I would need to make a tough decision. Versatility versus image quality. I was extremely surprised when I compared images side by side / zoomed / not zoomed to find that I overwhelming liked the RX10 IV pictures better. I often found myself looking at the images thinking "I really like this one, it must be the GH5", only to find it was the RX10 IV.

What software do you use, if you please?  I'm noticing the noise to be worse than my Oly's when I look at RAW files with all NR turned off.  But I would definitely like to use the best software I can with the RX10 iv.

If the M4/3 system had a 14-200 2.8-4.0 I would probably have stuck with the M4/3 system.

Me too.  Although I've noticed too many situations where I really need 12mm.  So mine would need to be 12-200.

However, it does not and probably never will.

A few such lenses exist in the APSC world (made by Tamron), so they are certainly possible.  The problem is that they produce some of the softest pics you've ever seen.  Truly not worth having.  I feel that a quality m43 12-200 could be made and sold for about $3,000, but it would weight something like maybe 4 pounds.  I don't know that there would be a market for such a lens, although I personally would be the first to buy one.

Kids dont wait for lens changes.

Neither do in-laws.  Nor my friends.  Nor my wife.  Neither does the bear I just saw, nor the pine grosbeak that just visited the feeder.  Nor the rain and snow.    It's a truly huge advantage to not have to stop everything that's going on just to change a lens.

For any who doubt the Oly M1ii's ability for BIF please glance through my better-half's BIF album via M1ii+300Pro.

It will be obvious BIF is very possible with the Olympus.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/114407047@N06/albums/72157686225817362

That said I'v found the RX10iv outstanding for BIF in decent light. I too have Oly M1ii and there is no doubt the RX10iv's tracking is better....truth is the AF-C tracking of the 10iv is almost as good as the a9's.

OK with all of that the inability of the 10iv to rack zoom quickly like can be done with say the Pan-Leica 100-400mm is a sad feature of the 10iv.....why didn't they think of their own Sony 18-200mm with the manual override switch on the lens barrel ?????

More to ponder. The IQ possible with the 10iv is amazing. I've embedded this image of an eagle here before so won't again but rarely have I exceeded that with mFT-

https://www.flickr.com/photos/medicineman4040/37889469155/in/album-72157687987476912/

Still I use and love the Oly M1ii because it has the best ergonomics of any camera I have or have owned (and that is quite a few)....I just enjoy shooting it.

Bottom line decision between the Oly and the 10iv is convenience vs. need to switch lenses vs. size and weight of the kit needed for your goal(s).

I have a RX10III and A6300 but most of my photography is currently shot with an EM1.2 and 12-100 Pro augmented by a handful of other μ4/3 lenses.

While the RX10III is a wonderfully flexible camera, and has good image quality, it’s simply not the best IQ at any focal length. Between the 12-100 and the pretty humble 75-300II, I have the full range of the RX10III covered with better IQ and a much more enjoyable setup ergonomically albeit with some lens swapping from time to time. In all seriousness, at 24-200mm eqv, I really don’t find I need to change out for longer focal lengths all that often.

Don’t get me wrong, I used my RX10III very successfully on a 2 month trip last year and was pretty satisfied with the results. But I knew there were some issues with a 1” sensor that left me wanting even more. And my A6300 didn’t have a lenses at the time to satisfy my needs. The move to μ4/3 has on the other hand been a rewarding experience in every respect, not the least of which is “fun”.

You are exaggerating the shortfalls of the RX10iv lens IMO but that said I think the compromises are worth it. I personally am willing to put up with those minor shortcomings because I want a highly portable all in one solution for everything from landscapes to sports and wildlife and good IQ without needing to change lenses. As a point of comparison I would never own an M43 camera because I would have to change lenses to cover the range of the RX10iv and, compared to my Full Frame camera and lenses, the IQ is mediocre. In addition no M43 camera has PDAF AF that can compete with the RX10iv. If someone ever produces an M43 camera that has a single 12-300mm f 2.4 - 4 lens (24-600 equiv) as good as the RX10iv, has on sensor PDAF as good as the RX10iv and is about the same size and price, then you would have a good argument. Until then it's apples and oranges.

Your experience is a good argument for the fact that no single camera can satisfy all needs. I came to that conclusion so I actually own 3 completely different cameras that will satisfy any situation. RX100 for maximum portability, RX10iii for maximum single lens range with adequate for me IQ and Full Frame for maximum IQ and low light use.

For me having an M43 system wouldn't hit any of those needs.

BIF is possible with any camera if you know how to overcome the shortcomings. People did BIF with manual focus in the old days. However there's no doubt that the RX10iv would give you more keepers easily.

Foto4x4 wrote:

Don’t get me wrong, I used my RX10III very successfully on a 2 month trip last year and was pretty satisfied with the results. But I knew there were some issues with a 1” sensor that left me wanting even more. And my A6300 didn’t have a lenses at the time to satisfy my needs. The move to μ4/3 has on the other hand been a rewarding experience in every respect, not the least of which is “fun”.

Yes I agree that a 1" sensor does indeed leave me wanting more sometimes but for me that 'more' does not come from M4/3 or even APS-C, it can only come from FF. That's how good I think the Rx10iv is.

David

I own an E-M1 (previously an E-M5 and a Panny G3) have used the Oly 40-150 f2.8 (plus 1.4x TE), the 12-40 f2.8 and the 9-18 f4-5.6. I also own an RX10 IV (previously an FZ200 and FZ1000).

If your interest is wide to normal subject matter, landscapes, travel and low light shooting..my advice is to use a m43 kit. The advantages re wide shots (especially <24mm, which is not possible with the RX10 IV unless you consider panning an option) and low light are considerable. Of course if you dislike carrying a kit, changing lenses or have long zoom shots as a priority, the RX10 IV is the way to go.

With respect to comparisons, I think the RX10 IV matches my m43 gear using the 40-150 f2.8 and the 12-40 f2.8 across the shared focal ranges. The key differences are the  better low light performance of of m43 (which I think is considerable) and that the m43 sensor files tolerate cropping better than the 1" sensor files. Also, there is the UI to consider...I like the Oly and Panny UI's much more than Sony's (note that I also own an RX100). Just my opinion based on my preferences. I know there are others who have the opposite opinion about UI and appreciate their views.

For myself, I would never switch from m43 to just owning the RX10 IV.. the RX10 IV low light performance is not great, one cannot zoom while shooting, the UI is inferior and it's not possible to shoot WA/UWA. That said, I love owning the RX10 IV. The lens is spectacular, as is the AF.

The good news? You can assemble a m43 kit pretty cheaply these days, there are some great Panny and Oly bodies that are just a few years old and can be had for 30-60% less than when first on the market. Also, there are some really great m43 lenses! I like owning both 1" and m43 systems and have FF equipment as well for good low light/DoF performance. Cheers.

Horacecoker wrote:

Foto4x4 wrote:

Don’t get me wrong, I used my RX10III very successfully on a 2 month trip last year and was pretty satisfied with the results. But I knew there were some issues with a 1” sensor that left me wanting even more. And my A6300 didn’t have a lenses at the time to satisfy my needs. The move to μ4/3 has on the other hand been a rewarding experience in every respect, not the least of which is “fun”.

Yes I agree that a 1" sensor does indeed leave me wanting more sometimes but for me that 'more' does not come from M4/3 or even APS-C, it can only come from FF. That's how good I think the Rx10iv is.

David

I agree 100%.

OneLeggedCat wrote:

In 2003, my Minolta DiMage A1 had a manual 7x zoom on it (absolutely fantastic camera for its time). I've not seen a manual zoom on a bridge camera since.

Fuji made them all the way into 2013.

I had an HS50EXR (1/2" sensor) that had a 24mm- 1000mm manual zoom, and I still have an X-S1 (2/3" sensor) that has a 24mm - 624mm manual zoom.

The problem with what you are saying is I don't think M43 is all that much better than the RX10iv in the areas you are comparing. You have to go to FF to see a considerable improvement. If you ever get to use a FF system you will see that the IQ is much closer to 1" than FF. The only advantage M43 or even APS-C has over FF is size. At least with the RX10iv you eliminate the need to change lenses.