• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Sony RX10 1V the new boy. (1 Viewer)

That does sound like a lot of money for a superzoom.

Niels

Yes but think of all the lenses you would be saving!
In my own case, post spinal surgery, I am unable to lug two bodies with lenses around with me on nature expeditions, so the Sony RX10 iii served well for my purpose. The Mk 4 is even better as it is blisteringly fast to focus and on continuous shooting mode it is superb.

Bridge cameras hold no concerns for me as I used to shoot with an early Panasonic FZ20 which with careful upsizing from it's tiny 4mpx sensor, it was capable of producing A3 size prints good enough for acceptance in international salons. These were usually taken in superb light though, a pre-requisite for good photographs using tiny sensors in my experience.

Cheers, Dave
 
What is the Sony RX10 iii like in low light? For me that is a crucial point. I'm getting fed up of lugging an SLR and lens around but I'm after a camera that can cope with poor light. I realise that it's not likely to be up there with my 7D mark ii but I need it to be not that far behind for it to be a viable option for me.
 
Thanks. I have a M4/3 camera with the 100-300mm (= 200-600mm) but often seem to find the 600mm too little - perhaps because I'm a birder with a camera & not a photographer who likes birds. Hence I'm often tempted by the mega zoom bridge cameras mainly for their better reach but also as you can change down to 24mm without swapping lenses.

Well this camera is basically the same price as the excellent Pana-Leica 100-400mm (200-800mm equivalent) zoom lens for M4/3. I used to use the 100-300mm you reference and had similar feelings about it, but since switching I now feel as though I have pretty much all the reach I'm going to want in most typical photo situations. It's significantly lighter than a typical DSLR setup, but the camera has a significantly larger sensor than a superzoom, so better low light capabilities. So unless you need or want to go ultralight, or need to save a bit of money, I don't see an advantage to a high end superzoom over M4/3.
 
Well this camera is basically the same price as the excellent Pana-Leica 100-400mm (200-800mm equivalent) zoom lens for M4/3. I used to use the 100-300mm you reference and had similar feelings about it, but since switching I now feel as though I have pretty much all the reach I'm going to want in most typical photo situations. It's significantly lighter than a typical DSLR setup, but the camera has a significantly larger sensor than a superzoom, so better low light capabilities. So unless you need or want to go ultralight, or need to save a bit of money, I don't see an advantage to a high end superzoom over M4/3.

Forgive my ignorance about M4/3 but what would be an appropriate body to go with this lens and do you know roughly what the combined weight would be?

The sensor on the Sony is considerably larger than that found on most superzooms, which basically have a similar sensor to that in a phone. How it's low-light capability compare to SLR/M4/3, I have no idea.
 
Forgive my ignorance about M4/3 but what would be an appropriate body to go with this lens and do you know roughly what the combined weight would be?

The PL 100-400 is 2.17 pounds (984g), and the Oly EM-1 mk. ii, which I use, is 1.1 pounds (499g). Another popular M4/3 body on this forum is the G80/85, which is not so expensive and weighs about the same. I don't have any problem carrying this on my shoulder all day. However, when you include the cost of the body, you do spend $1 to 2k more (in the US) for a M4/3 setup than the RX10iv.
 
Last edited:
Compared to many other bridge cameras out there 600mm seems rather modest so why would one buy this camera rather than one with a smaller sensor but a 1200+mm upper range? This isn't, I hasten to add, a criticism but just a question!

Hi John

I bough the Sony RX10iii because I wanted to improve on the image quality I was getting with the Sony SX50HS, which has the reach and the smaller sensor, and I have been delighted that I did so.

Cheers
Mike
 
What is the Sony RX10 iii like in low light? For me that is a crucial point. I'm getting fed up of lugging an SLR and lens around but I'm after a camera that can cope with poor light. I realise that it's not likely to be up there with my 7D mark ii but I need it to be not that far behind for it to be a viable option for me.

Here's some samples Steve of the RX10iii (not iv) in low and adverse light.

http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=328256 post 5 pic 3 and post 7 especially may help.

I've posted a few more below.

Cheers
Mike
 

Attachments

  • DSC07302 Brown Wood Owl @ Lam Tsuen.jpg
    DSC07302 Brown Wood Owl @ Lam Tsuen.jpg
    856 KB · Views: 281
  • DSC06596 Black Drongo @ Po Toi.jpg
    DSC06596 Black Drongo @ Po Toi.jpg
    912.7 KB · Views: 232
  • DSC04088 Saddlebag Glider @ Ma Wan.jpg
    DSC04088 Saddlebag Glider @ Ma Wan.jpg
    64.6 KB · Views: 195
What is the Sony RX10 iii like in low light? For me that is a crucial point. I'm getting fed up of lugging an SLR and lens around but I'm after a camera that can cope with poor light. I realise that it's not likely to be up there with my 7D mark ii but I need it to be not that far behind for it to be a viable option for me.
I have used Leica R9 with digital back and long lenses, Sony Alpha A900 plus longest Zeiss or Sony lenses, latterly I have used Olympus 2x OMD E-M1 with pro lenses.

The RX10 Mk 3 can perform in most southern UK lighting conditions with no problem at all. It is quite useable at higher ISO numbers which is a huge change from earlier bridge type cameras when anything over ISO 400 was a no-no. My minimum setting on both the Mk 3 and Mk4 is 1600 and ISO3200 is quite acceptable. In the real world though so long as you set a maximum limit then Auto ISO produces very good images on an everyday basis.
 
Some of the hardcore photographers see DPreview Sony cybershop forum fix the aperture for the RX10iii at F4 with a min shutter speed of 1/250. I am trying this.

There are also a few sample of birds in flights and other bird pix taken with the RX10Iv coming through on the same forum.

Cheers
Mike
 
Hi John

I bough the Sony RX10iii because I wanted to improve on the image quality I was getting with the Sony SX50HS, which has the reach and the smaller sensor, and I have been delighted that I did so.

Cheers
Mike

I do use my SX50 sometimes but I find it very frustrating after being used to a SLR with 10fps and a big buffer plus the slower autofocusing and poor low light ability. It's not just the quality of the images isn't as good - although it is very reasonable in good light - but more the fact that I miss many more shots.
 
Question: Does anyone know what the shot buffer is in (i) Raw, and (ii) Raw + Jpeg ??

The specs state 249 shots for only the mid level Jpeg setting - Fine - 10MP, but don't say anything else. Thanks.



Chosun :gh:
 
It's out in the UK and getting very good reviews. It would seem it is by a long way the best bridge camera but also by a long way the most expensive. £1510 for a grey important. When I'm feeling less skint, it'll be very tempting.
 
It's out in the UK and getting very good reviews. It would seem it is by a long way the best bridge camera but also by a long way the most expensive. £1510 for a grey important. When I'm feeling less skint, it'll be very tempting.

New models are always more expensive but if you are not concerned about lack of phase AF or weather sealing then a used Mk 3 model would be a great buy for you. There should be a number up for sale as they get traded for the Mk4. Identical lens and sensor with a different processor I believe. The Mk 3 is only over a year so not much mileage either.

I sold mine to LCE but try others .
 
The improved focus is a big selling point. I'll stick with the SLR for now and buy one before the next trip I go on which involves a lot of mountain walking - which the next few don't - or when I'm feeling more flush.
 
Plenty of reviews around now. This is typical: http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/reviews/reviews/sony-cyber-shot-rx10-iv-review/2

The general conclusion seems to be that it is, by some margin, the best bridge camera. Looking at images it does get rather noisy above ISO 800 but for those of us not using a f4 or above lens the fact that it is f4 rather than 5.6 at maximum zoom will make up for one stop of that. If I were to have my SLR gear pinched tomorrow, I'd be tempted to go for this instead.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top