Looking for a more versatile kit - Fuji x Switch to Sony

Don't overlook the fantastic RX10M4. It has a great zoom range and excellent image quality for a "1-inch" sensor. Better than the Nikon P9000.

Check out the image galleries on FB RX10 user group for great examples.

And-roid wrote:

Yes, I have had the A7IV and rate it very highly except,

1 The e-shutter is close to being unusable, the rolling shutter is very bad

2 In burst the lossless compressed reduces you to 5-6fps, compressed (lossy) can achieve 10fps in some situations but its 12 bit

3 The camera has very loud shutter sound in burst efcs/mechanical, annoying

4 No long shutter above 30secs without bulb,

5 No double exposure modes

6 No focus stacking

7 No rolling buffer, would be useless anyway as the e-shutter is bad

8 No 4k60 unless in crop

9 The evf definitely drops resolution in burst/c-af

10 There is an aa filter, but images are still fairly crisp

11 In timer modes, the af is locked at button push, can be an issue if people move, ie no real time eye-detection at that point of shot, 10 seconds people can move.

12 IBIS is still behind competitors

13 Noise on the high side for a FF sensor

14 AF boxes are still extraordinary large and box outline is very bold/thick, no pin-point af option

15 No top lcd info panel

16 Low light awb is just ok

I did extensive testing with raw files in DXO PL5 and found the iq remarkably similar to the X-S10 and X-T4 with little to no discernible difference in highlights/shadows etc. The sensor in the X-S10/X-T4 are the highest rated aps-c sensors ever by DXO, in case you aren't aware?

Thanks for this list of observations.  I have the XT4 and like it, but do ponder an A7R4.  I would only be interested in the A7R4A as a high res landscape stills shooter.  I suspect that  few of these observations would matter in that role.  It doesn't surprise me that the highlight/shadow performance offers little discernible improvement over the XT4 - it has exactly the same pixel pitch as the XT4.

I'm interested in your general comment that you found the IQ remarkably similar to the XT4.  The camera offers a linear increase in res of 50% (at the same pixel density because the sensor is larger).   In theory, once one starts printing beyond paper sizes where the paper's resolution limits detail, one should see improvement from the higher res sensor.  It should offer the same detail level when the print size is 50% larger.  Not so?

Were the lenses of comparable quality?  How big did you print ?  And how did the two cameras compare at different (large) sizes?  If there was little discernible difference, where do you think the 50% advantage in linear resolution was lost?

Thanks.  Cheers, Rod

Rod McD wrote:

And-roid wrote:

Yes, I have had the A7IV and rate it very highly except,

1 The e-shutter is close to being unusable, the rolling shutter is very bad

2 In burst the lossless compressed reduces you to 5-6fps, compressed (lossy) can achieve 10fps in some situations but its 12 bit

3 The camera has very loud shutter sound in burst efcs/mechanical, annoying

4 No long shutter above 30secs without bulb,

5 No double exposure modes

6 No focus stacking

7 No rolling buffer, would be useless anyway as the e-shutter is bad

8 No 4k60 unless in crop

9 The evf definitely drops resolution in burst/c-af

10 There is an aa filter, but images are still fairly crisp

11 In timer modes, the af is locked at button push, can be an issue if people move, ie no real time eye-detection at that point of shot, 10 seconds people can move.

12 IBIS is still behind competitors

13 Noise on the high side for a FF sensor

14 AF boxes are still extraordinary large and box outline is very bold/thick, no pin-point af option

15 No top lcd info panel

16 Low light awb is just ok

I did extensive testing with raw files in DXO PL5 and found the iq remarkably similar to the X-S10 and X-T4 with little to no discernible difference in highlights/shadows etc. The sensor in the X-S10/X-T4 are the highest rated aps-c sensors ever by DXO, in case you aren't aware?

Thanks for this list of observations. I have the XT4 and like it, but do ponder an A7R4. I would only be interested in the A7R4A as a high res landscape stills shooter. I suspect that few of these observations would matter in that role. It doesn't surprise me that the highlight/shadow performance offers little discernible improvement over the XT4 - it has exactly the same pixel pitch as the XT4.

I'm interested in your general comment that you found the IQ remarkably similar to the XT4. The camera offers a linear increase in res of 50% (at the same pixel density because the sensor is larger). In theory, once one starts printing beyond paper sizes where the paper's resolution limits detail, one should see improvement from the higher res sensor. It should offer the same detail level when the print size is 50% larger. Not so?

Were the lenses of comparable quality? How big did you print ? And how did the two cameras compare at different (large) sizes? If there was little discernible difference, where do you think the 50% advantage in linear resolution was lost?

Thanks. Cheers, Rod

And-roid was talking about the A7IV, not the A7RIV. Blame Sony and their silly names

I shoot both Sony and Fuji.

I had the Tamron 28-200 and sold it. Tried several copies and all had quite bad chromatic aberration. It's on ok lens, but not a fantastic lens like the fuji 16-55 or 70-300.

I wouldn't base a switch just on this lens.

"I need a very versatile kit to be inspire me to actually go out and take pictures"

I doubt you will get that from a new camera.  You will play with it for a while but you will be left with the same level of inspiration.

Hi Zinch,

Thanks.  My mistake, and misplaced questions....  I've actually used my son's A7III, which is 24mpx, and (forgetting about the 2mpx difference compared to Fuji's 26mpx sensor) I wouldn't switch to FF for the same resolution level just to gain sensor size.

Cheers, Rod