Sony Cyber-shot RX10 IV sample gallery updated

I am betting a pile of samples sans exif with FZ1000s and RX10s mixed together would be about impossible to sort out if you were not allowed to see the file extensions.

"tkbslc Compared to what?"

Compared to nothing else. It's just an overpriced bit of plastic that is really not that awe inspiring for the dollar.

It's a weathersealed bit of plastic that covers 24-600mm equivalent and now has great AF. I can't think of how you'd build that setup anywhere else in the photography world for less.

@tkbslc
It's ok for 6x4 prints. So it's overpriced. FL is irrelevant when you're not getting your bang for buck.

When a product is 55% more expensive, SRP wise, than its competitor of 3 and 1,5 years ago respectively, it's silly overpriced. Especially if it is offering arguably usable improvements for this very niche. I like its performance as I like the smart segment of bridge cams which they practically cover all the needs of an enthusiast, but my likes tend to an end when it asks some $600 more than its rivals.

@aris can you name that product that has 24 to 600 mm lens and sony A9 type autofocus system and is 500 dollars cheaper.

I wait.

Ok for 6x4 prints? Gimme a break. They look great at full screen size on my 27" monitor. That's very similar to a 18x24 print.

I'm not defensive, I just don't like silly illogical comparisons and complaints. I don't even own the camera, nor am I shopping for one.

I'm just discussing those differing opinions, same as you. I'm not taking it personally though and trying to attack you, that's the difference.

They sure do, all the more reason to feel (as most reviewers have) that the MkIII was superior to end results than a FZ1000. Sure you can argue about the focus speeds, but in the end it's all about the files quality. In THAT regard there was little doubt the FZ fell a bit short of the RX.

Not to mention a different handling and user experience. So few talk about those important issues here. 😉

I've never seen a camera that I couldn't get used to the "Experience and handling" within a week or 2. It's not like Sony put their shutter button on the bottom and the menus are only in ancient greek or something.

I've had the opposite: cameras that felt okay in hand at first, then gradually drove me crazy.

Tkb you are right so not going to argue.

But subjectively speaking the top lcd and the form factor for ME is better on r1.

I don't feel like buying rx10 just for this reason. For me rx10 thus does not destroy r1 in every category.

@tkbslc - OK lol, I never suggested it should be a replacement for the RX10, jeez, defensive much? It's only a camera dude, CHILL.

Like zxaar said, the form factor is what the R1 was about, very different and for some people like me, it is very comfortable to shoot with...

Of course the tech is better now, that's why I suggested a REPLACEMENT for the R1.

Take a breathe and read what people say instead of just reacting with your pissy attitude.

I've got a 30"x40" print from the original RX10 on my wall. Nobody can tell what I shot that with. It's a fantastic print.

I have an RX100m3 with same size sensor and it produces very high quality images.

Definitely printable as long as you remember while shooting that you need to do all your cropping in the viewfinder.

I think not a lot of cropping will be required, given the focal length range.

Printable, 8x10 yes. But I dont expect sharp results for a bird picture on a 24x36 with a 1" sensor, for example.

even full frame sensor, for 100% zoom looks terrible as well. lol! you don't want to pixel peep to the extreme, it's bad for your eye&brain :)

the len is very sharp, you can improve sharpness by post processing

in good light, low iso, the camera can do 24x36 print nicely

the technology has come a long way, don't worry, just shoot and be happy

@ Ben ... Hogwash! You can go larger than 8x10 if you're evaluating the print at normal viewing distance instead pixel peeping it with your nose an inch away.
Heck, I've got a 20 x 32 inch print hanging in my living room that people gawk at and it came from a Canon G11 (1/1.7" sensor). The thing to remember is that most people don't look at a photo print with their nose an inch away from the print.

It's important to note that a lot of these pictures were shot at surprisingly high ISO values... several at 2000, 4000, even 6400. At those values, yes, you're really pushing the limits of being printable at larger sizes. But at anything ISO 800 or less, the 1" sensors are clean enough for 24 x 36, maybe even larger.

I know its a quality camera and the image quality is good. But its still a 1" sensor, you see the big difference when you compare with a APS-C. Like I said, when zoomed-in at 100%, otherwise it looks great downsized on screen. I may buy it myself, so I dont totally hate it ;-)

With 24-600mm available, I can't imagine there will be a lot of cropping needed if you frame right in the first place. Just sayin'.

How big is The print from this 1 inch sensor? if printed 100%?

The original RX-10 DOES have a built-in ND filter. While I don't know for certain, there seems little reason for deleting that feature in any of the later models.

Well it says "updated gallery" not new gallery.

Ha ha.

Well, it can't replace my ILC because it isn't versatile enough. The focal length range isn't wide enough, the lens isn't fast enough, it doesn't have an optical viewfinder and the battery life is too short. So it's just a supplement for limited situations. I already have a hyperzoom for that, for which I payed $129. This one is better in most ways, but it's still just a supplement to be used in certain, relatively moderate situations. And that makes it worth about $400-$500 to me - more than my current hyperzoom, but no where near what it actually costs.

There is no doubt it's a versatile camera with a good lens. But the comparison to DSLR ends the second you try cropping or printing large. This does not detract from the camera. As someone said above, make sure you do your cropping in the viewfinder.

sandy b:

I'm sorry, provided a good file from this Sony RX10 IV, why would one not be able to print large?

Also why can't one crop in the centre at least?

1" is smaller than an APS-c dSLR, but it's still a decent sized sensor, and you can both crop and print large, just under a narrower range of situations. For me the comparison to a dSLR ends when you need an f/2.8, f/1.8 or f/1.4 lens, or when you need either wider (I have two lenses than go wider than 24mm equivalent) or longer (I have two lenses that go longer than 600mm equivalent).

Would you spend $1700 for a REALLY good f2.4 -4 24-600mm lens?
'nuff said

It's not 24-600/2.8-4. It's 24-600 equivalent f/7.6-f/10.8 equivalent. The Tamron 18-400/3.5-5.6 is say, 29-640 equivalent and f/5.6-f/9 equivalent (on Canon), and $650.

This is why I constantly argue against these deceptive manufacturers using equivalents for focal length but not for f/stop. It confuses most consumers. It started with, what was it, the FZ10, claiming something like 400mm and f/2.8?

Lee:

It's still an f/2/8-4.0 lens--unless you're specifically talking about DoF characteristics.

I'm specifically talking about both total light gathering and DOF. That's why I said "equivalent". Don't argue with me unless you like being wrong.

L. J.

For this "1 inch" sensor, shot wide, this camera has an f/2.8. There's no equivalent about it, unless you're limiting your comment to DoF.

As for "light gathering" that's highly dependent on things like the sensor design--which is independent of the f/stop number. In other words, light gathering is not simply the f/stop number, and pretending it is says you don't care about this kind of thing.

I'm getting sick of explaining equivalence to people after doing it a thousand times over the last 10+ years.

It is NOT a 600mm/4. It's a 220mm/4 (it says so on the front). Since the sensor is smaller than a 35mm sensor, that lens does the exact same thing for that smaller sensor as a 600mm/10.9 lens does for a 35mm sensor. They have the same angle of view, total light gathering, diffraction effects and every other important parameter.

Same with wide end - 8.8/2.4, not 24/2.4. Equivalent to a 24/6.5 on a full frame camera.

Lee:

And one of the reasons you're likely sickening is you're wrong about a goodly part of it.

It's absolutely a 220mm/f4.0 for purposes of DoF.

However, total light gathering is very sensor, or film, dependent. Just like as your Nikon from 1974 aged you weren't stuck with using 1974 Kodak 400 ASA colour film. Film improved, and sensors do today--read/register/gather light better.

Now one does have to buy a new camera in the digital era, so that's unlike the Nikon SLR analogy.

Diffraction limits is a real thing, but it's not real material in this situation.

Howard you don't know what you're talking about. Light gathering is just about the lens. Total system performance has sensor efficiency in it but modern sensors of similar generations are all about the same so it's really just about light gathering by the lens. And light gathering goes just like I said it does. A 72/2.8 doesn't magically match the performance of a 400/2.8 just because you make the sensor behind it smaller. I can't believe I even have to say that.

Look, everything I said is true. DPReview even has an article confirming it. Look it up and educate yourself.

LeeJ:

"Howard you don't know what you're talking about."

You can start by learning to read.

You've confused lens light gathering capacity with system light gathering capacity.

"A 72/2.8 doesn't magically match the performance of a 400/2.8 just because you make the sensor behind it smaller."

For "reach" it sure does. Can't believe I have to point that out to you.

"DPReview even has an article confirming it."

No, actually DPR doesn't.

@Lee Jay have you taken a shot on both ff and apsc camera using the same lens? have you noticed that the focal length and dof will change but the brightness remains (more or less) the same?

You two go read page 4 of "What is equivalence and why should I care?" That way you might not be ignorant anymore.

HAR: I think you already know this but, this so called, 1 inch sensor 116mm2 vs 860mm2 for FF. That’s approximately 641% larger. Yet the small sensor has 24 million pixels which is approximately half that of the a7rm2. So if you reduce the area by 86 1/2% you’re going to need smaller pixels. Smaller pixels hold less data. Less data equals less detail. Since this camera is reputed to have a very sharp lens, it won’t make much difference whether you try to enlarge at the middle or elsewhere.

In other words, Fill up the frame if at all possible!

@Lee Jay don't be stubborn. just try shooting ff and apsc with the same lens with exactly the same settings and then tell me if the image's brightness changes. its an easy test that anyone can do.

<< Don't argue with me unless you like being wrong. >> - Lee Jay

Really? Who died and made *you* the king of photography?

<< Smaller pixels hold less data. Less data equals less detail. >> - NoMirror99

That's your problem right there: that statement is wrong. A smaller pixel will have a lower signal-to-noise ratio than a larger one, which is why bigger sensors have better noise performance, but it will hold exactly the same amount of detail - one pixel - as the bigger one. 20MP is 20MP, however big the sensor (also, pixels don't hold "data" at all; they're analog. The analog signal only becomes data once it's been digitised).

Smaller sensors lose "detail" compared to bigger ones, especially at higher ISOs, because of a) their lower signal-to-noise ratio and its effect on apparent detail and b) the processing the camera manufacturers do to reduce it. Some are much better at this than others; Sony are arguably not the best, but that's a whole 'nother argument for the fanboys. ;-)

... I could, but I don't want to. :-)
I prefer my cameras having some yummie color built-in.

Create some colour profiles you like and... done. Or use some someone else made.