Great RX10 review with tons of samples

[YiannisPP]

Just use raw with LR/C1, I stop judging camera quality from OOC jpg a long time ago.

 

[otoklikBG]

When I look at hair it looks like it's case of classic JPEG compression effect. If it is, that there is hope that it will be updated, ir they used strong compression.

I'm rather more worried about dragonflies back leg that is out of focus. Whole leg is one big chromatic aberration...

 

[Ed at Ridersite]

But I do not like what I see at pixel level in many photos and I don't understand why that would be. It almost looks like the lens is too good for this sensor. But I like my RX100's output. I know this has the newer back-illuminated sensor, but it that sensor worse?! Is the jpeg engine really badly configured on the RX10? I think so. There's colour bleeding in many of the flower close-ups. And some shots at base ISO look, well cheap, as if they came from a 1/2.3' superzoom. Look at the dragonfly for example at 100%... (beautiful creature by the way, had never seen one in this colour..)

I'm very impressed with the camera & lens based on these samples. Many are very sharp at 100% within the pane of focus. Some have a little motion blur, some missed focus, but several are quite sharp across the entire photo. If these were shot RAW, with attention to focus and settings and processed adequately, I don't think anyone would be complaining.

It's an amazing package at 1.8 pounds.

 

[Red5TX]

But I do not like what I see at pixel level in many photos and I don't understand why that would be. It almost looks like the lens is too good for this sensor. But I like my RX100's output. I know this has the newer back-illuminated sensor, but it that sensor worse?! Is the jpeg engine really badly configured on the RX10? I think so. There's colour bleeding in many of the flower close-ups. And some shots at base ISO look, well cheap, as if they came from a 1/2.3' superzoom. Look at the dragonfly for example at 100%... (beautiful creature by the way, had never seen one in this colour..)

I'm very impressed with the camera & lens based on these samples. Many are very sharp at 100% within the pane of focus. Some have a little motion blur, some missed focus, but several are quite sharp across the entire photo. If these were shot RAW, with attention to focus and settings and processed adequately, I don't think anyone would be complaining.

It's an amazing package at 1.8 pounds.

I agree with you, particularly combined with the Imaging Resource comparison shots. The lens/sensor combo looks excellent, as expected for $1300. Someone here said Sony wouldn't have priced it so high if Sony wasn't convinced that the RX10 is a home run. Most of what I'm seeing so far bears that out.

 

[Ed at Ridersite]

Well, maybe he missed focus - easy to do shooting closeups. Here's a 100% crop - 200mm at f2.8 & ISO-125.

RX-10, 200mm at f2.8 & ISO-125

--
AEH

Zenfolio | Photos by Ed Hass

I got fairly serious about amateur photography in the early 1970’s. I used an Olympus OM-1 with 50mm f1.4, 24mm f2.8 and Vivitar 70-210mm f3.5 for about 20 years. I still have the OM-1, but it’s retired – like me. I do mostly family, travel and wildlife photography. I shoot RAW and post process...

aehass.zenfolio.com

Zenfolio | Photos by Ed Hass | Blog

Welcome to my blog pages. I will occasionally document some of my unusual wildlife photography experiences using this format. When relevant, I'll try to include field notes and other information that might prove interesting to readers.

aehass.zenfolio.com

Question: What do you do all week?
Answer: Mon to Fri. Nothing, Sat & Sun I rest!

 

[Tapper123]

Just use raw with LR/C1, I stop judging camera quality from OOC jpg a long time ago.

--
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/25457298@N04/sets/

I agree, I also have stopped using JPEG (except for certain things).

But I do think the RX10 produces some very nice looking, pretty clean JPEGs.

Maybe in the studio...the outdoor jpegs are not that great looking in my opinion, at least compared to those from the RX100.

Hmm, I guess that's true. I looked at the dragonfly one at 100% and it was not great.

Glad someone agrees, I thought I was the only one!

Well, yes I agree at 100% this photo is not great, i.e. looks smeary.

But, I don't necessarily think it means the camera is bad. Consider the speed was only 1/125 sec, and a combination of user shake and insect jitter could've caused what we see at pixel level.

Dragonflies can be very hard to photograph in general; very smart and pay close attention to what goes on around them. So it's not always easy to get a great macro shot, which is why great macro shots are so awesome to see!

I think we should reserve judgment until we get many more samples in both jpeg and RAW from multiple sources to consider.

 

[doctorxring]

When I look at hair it looks like it's case of classic JPEG compression effect. If it is, that there is hope that it will be updated, ir they used strong compression.

I'm rather more worried about dragonflies back leg that is out of focus. Whole leg is one big chromatic aberration...

That shows just how thin the depth of field can be with this lens when

shooting at f2.8 and 200mm together. Only the central part of the body of the

dragonfly is in focus, the wing tips on the far side and the the wings toward

the camera are out of focus. It will take some practice getting to know this camera

to manage depth of field using f2.8 and longer focal lengths. What is good is that there

is decent sharpness at f2.8 and long focal length, even better at smaller aperture. and

shorter FL.



.

 

[harold1968]

if any interest:

Advantage
● Convenient equivalent 24-200mm lens, quanjiaoduan picture sharp.
● constant F2.8 aperture telephoto shallow depth of field so well.
● Electronic viewfinder display to good effect.
● colorful lovable.
● DC better than the average tourist a sense of control.
● Focus smooth sensitive.
● Drip and dust.
● Support WiFi and NFC.

Shortcoming
● volume almost equal to monocular camera.
● weight over 800 grams, carrying no pockets DC convenient.
● The screen does not support touch.
● Suggested retail price 35,980 yuan difficult to close.

 

[phazelag]

Thanks.

I read the review thru google translate and it was very positive, concluding that the RX10 is a better choice for travel than an APS-C DSLR with 18-135 kit lens.

Kind of just what I'm trying to decide - RX10 or A Nikon D7100 with an 18-140 zoom lens. Have lots of Nikon bodies and lenses and have sworn to never to carry a bog of lenses on travel again.

 

[YiannisPP]

Well, yes I agree at 100% this photo is not great, i.e. looks smeary.

But, I don't necessarily think it means the camera is bad. Consider the speed was only 1/125 sec, and a combination of user shake and insect jitter could've caused what we see at pixel level.

I don't think I've given this impression, given that I've raved about the RX-10 IR samples. Just trying to make sure everything's fine before I spent that money. There's a second dragonfly pic shot at 1/1600sec, which should rule out any user or insect jitter. Same impression more or less.

Dragonflies can be very hard to photograph in general; very smart and pay close attention to what goes on around them. So it's not always easy to get a great macro shot, which is why great macro shots are so awesome to see!

I think we should reserve judgment until we get many more samples in both jpeg and RAW from multiple sources to consider.

I agree, I've been saying this in many comments here.

 

[YiannisPP]

But I do not like what I see at pixel level in many photos and I don't understand why that would be. It almost looks like the lens is too good for this sensor. But I like my RX100's output. I know this has the newer back-illuminated sensor, but it that sensor worse?! Is the jpeg engine really badly configured on the RX10? I think so. There's colour bleeding in many of the flower close-ups. And some shots at base ISO look, well cheap, as if they came from a 1/2.3' superzoom. Look at the dragonfly for example at 100%... (beautiful creature by the way, had never seen one in this colour..)

I'm very impressed with the camera & lens based on these samples. Many are very sharp at 100% within the pane of focus. Some have a little motion blur, some missed focus, but several are quite sharp across the entire photo. If these were shot RAW, with attention to focus and settings and processed adequately, I don't think anyone would be complaining.

It's an amazing package at 1.8 pounds.

Yes, there are excelent images among those samples. It's just that the majority of early users are not doing a great job it seems. I mean if there's camera shake or missed focus then don't publish the photo, or retake it. That said Sony's not very effective IS might be behind some of these shots.

 

[YiannisPP]

When I look at hair it looks like it's case of classic JPEG compression effect. If it is, that there is hope that it will be updated, ir they used strong compression.

I'm rather more worried about dragonflies back leg that is out of focus. Whole leg is one big chromatic aberration...

That shows just how thin the depth of field can be with this lens when

shooting at f2.8 and 200mm together. Only the central part of the body of the

dragonfly is in focus, the wing tips on the far side and the the wings toward

the camera are out of focus. It will take some practice getting to know this camera

to manage depth of field using f2.8 and longer focal lengths. What is good is that there

is decent sharpness at f2.8 and long focal length, even better at smaller aperture. and

shorter FL.

.

You seem to have a good point there. If anything all these samples shot at 200mm and f2.8 in an attempt to isolate the subject, show that you can't really do that when you're close (and the in-focus range is so narrow). All these close ups should've maybe been taken at f3.5 as I don't see the point having one leg of a dragonfly in focus only, or one leaf or petal of a flower.

 

[Najinsky]

Yes, the lens is sharp, but there is noise in the out of focus areas. One thing that might help to put things in perspective is what Tom Hogan says in his RX100 review:

"20mp seems like a lot in a tiny camera. It is. Be careful not to think of it as 20mp. Between diffraction and other attributes, I'd say that the RX-100's shoot like a really great 12-14mp camera. If you try to push it as a 20mp camera and maybe even take that a bit further and try to get bigger than 18" prints with this camera, I think you'll be slightly disappointed. But certainly for smaller work you can do some impressive things with this camera."

I noticed when reducing the RX10 images to about 13mp, a lot of the rough edges disappear and you have a pretty nice image at pixel level and still plenty big.

--
http://photogenic.asia

I honestly do not agree with Tom. I am pretty happy with the pixels from the RX100 in good light. And I don't think anyone would be dissappointed with a print bigger than 18'...At least base ISOs can easily print "non-disappointingly" at quite larger than that in my opinion.

As for the noise in the shadows..I do not recognise this lever of shadow noise either from my experience with the RX100. It's a bit confusing how they can mess up the jpegs so badly from the RX100 to the RX10.

I agree, the RX100 at certain aperture and certain FLs in good light can produce good pixel level detail.

But at the wrong apertures, or the wrong FLs or the wrong light, it can produce noisy mush too.

There are some truly excellent samples in the review. Just look at the detail captured in the big wheel shots at F/5.6. It is fantastic and sky noise is very well controlled.

This is superb news! Two full aperture stops of usable high IQ, perhaps a touch more, and a 3 stop ND filter!

So I really don't see anything to worry about.

In these review samples there are a lot of variables going, harsh Asian lighting (avoiding clipping the highlights leads to darker mids and shadows that need raising to to bring out detail, but also extra noise), questionable aperture choices, and so on.

But more importantly, some of these samples show just how extraordinarily good the camera can be. I'm seeing quality I've never seen in a travel zoom before.

It will need shooting with great care, balancing the Aperture to avoid diffraction, getting the right DOF, keeping the ISO down, and avoiding the steep clipping of this sensor.

But I just can't wait to get my hands on it now and see what I can do with it.

-Najinsky

 

[YiannisPP]

I agree, the RX100 at certain aperture and certain FLs in good light can produce good pixel level detail.

But at the wrong apertures, or the wrong FLs or the wrong light, it can produce noisy mush too.

There are some truly excellent samples in the review. Just look at the detail captured in the big wheel shots at F/5.6. It is fantastic and sky noise is very well controlled.

Yes, that is the shot that most impressed me, together with the one of the fountain, both shot at smaller apertures than f2.8. Is the lens performing better at f4-f5.6, or the f2.8 samples look worse just because the user got more things out of focus than he intended?

This is superb news! Two full aperture stops of usable high IQ, perhaps a touch more, and a 3 stop ND filter!

So I really don't see anything to worry about.

In these review samples there are a lot of variables going, harsh Asian lighting (avoiding clipping the highlights leads to darker mids and shadows that need raising to to bring out detail, but also extra noise), questionable aperture choices, and so on.

But more importantly, some of these samples show just how extraordinarily good the camera can be. I'm seeing quality I've never seen in a travel zoom before.

It will need shooting with great care, balancing the Aperture to avoid diffraction, getting the right DOF, keeping the ISO down, and avoiding the steep clipping of this sensor.

But I just can't wait to get my hands on it now and see what I can do with it.

-Najinsky

I like your optimism, I'll share it I'd add that the video samples look pretty amazing and for me, even if I don't use it a lot, this capability adds to the wow factor of the camera.

 

[phazelag]

When I look at hair it looks like it's case of classic JPEG compression effect. If it is, that there is hope that it will be updated, ir they used strong compression.

I'm rather more worried about dragonflies back leg that is out of focus. Whole leg is one big chromatic aberration...

That shows just how thin the depth of field can be with this lens when

shooting at f2.8 and 200mm together. Only the central part of the body of the

dragonfly is in focus, the wing tips on the far side and the the wings toward

the camera are out of focus. It will take some practice getting to know this camera

to manage depth of field using f2.8 and longer focal lengths. What is good is that there

is decent sharpness at f2.8 and long focal length, even better at smaller aperture. and

shorter FL.

.

I will go with that based on my experience. This is a dragon fly I took with a canon t1i at 200mm which is 300 equiv but had to go to f5 to get it in focus. I still think the parts the RX10 got in focus were mushy.

 

[YiannisPP]

I still think the parts the RX10 got in focus were mushy.

Yes I agree, but didn't want to insist being a party spoiler I think that at f4.0 it could have come out better, maybe the lens loses something at f2.8 (apart from deep focus that is), don't know..

But your pic below is not a 100% crop no? Doesn't look like it.

 

[Ed at Ridersite]

... Sony's not very effective IS might be behind some of these shots.

Where are you getting that from? It has always worked great on my A-100 and A-77. I haven't noticed any problems with my RX-100M2 either. I know a few CaNikon fanboys make that claim, but I've never seen it substantiated.

 

[YiannisPP]

... Sony's not very effective IS might be behind some of these shots.

Where are you getting that from? It has always worked great on my A-100 and A-77. I haven't noticed any problems with my RX-100M2 either. I know a few CaNikon fanboys make that claim, but I've never seen it substantiated.

I'll ignore that fanboy thing. I got that from my RX100 which has by far the least effective IS of all the compacts I've had (Canon and Panasonic). "Haven't noticed any problems" doesn't say much, does it? I haven't noticed any problems as such with my RX100 either (love it, best camera I've ever had), but I know it doesn't go as low and steady as my other compacts and I am pretty confident saying that.

 

[phazelag]

No its not 100% I can post one later when I get home but the original is my site homepage and will allow 100% with exif data. It's a smug mug based site. www.scottzinda.com

 

[phazelag]

That mushyness in the dragon fly even in the faster shutter speed photos on Flickr doesn't look like image stabilization problems it looks like noise reduction or jpeg processing softness.