• 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. (2 Viewers)

Dr_ADH said:
thanks for all the responses.
Steve i wanted to add that your journey in particular on this forum made fascinating and very informative reading, thanks for sharing that.
I emailed Sony to see if they'd say anything about a date for a new model, but as expected they wouldn't say a word:
With reference to your enquiry regarding the Sony DSC-RX series, we regret to inform you that we cannot confirm any information regarding this. We recommend that you pin our page below and check it periodically for updates:
https://www.sony.co.uk/
Oh well, wait and see
Click to expand...

The time to pull the trigger for a purchase is when you feel "I need an upgrade NOW". Once you have decided, stop looking at announcements, because you will always find the one you bought slightly cheaper or a newer version come out. By not looking you will save yourself some grief.

Niels
 
Hi all. I’ve read bits of this thread and think I may have already answered my own question but I’ll ask anyway:
Is the 25x zoom of this Sony RX10vi sufficient for reasonable quality bird photography? Do the other pretty amazing features outweigh the 65x zoom of the Canon equivalent?
Might be worth knowing that I currently use the canon sx420, so either would be a massive improvement for me...
Many thanks for any pointers
Asher
 
By the Canon equivalent do you mean the SX60? If so they are completely different things. The lens on the Sony is about equivalent to 400mm on a 1.5x crop SLR. Probably the most popular SLR lens for bird photography - at least amongst those that were primarily birders rather than photographers - was the 100 - 400mm. There are many times when more reach is useful but the larger sensor on the Sony allows for considerably more cropping than a Canon compact. This has the functionality of a SLR; I found a a Sony SX50 incredibly annoying to use when used to a SLR. In many ways it is better than my Canon 7d mark ii. 20 fps is probably ott but the ability to keep shooting RAW at that speed to over 50 shots is incredibly useful. It is considerably more noisy at high ISO than a SLR but again closer to them in performance than it is to compact superzooms. Think 80% of SLR performance at 30% of the weight. My Canon I thought of as a very poor substitute for a SLR.
 
Thanks so much Steve. Yes I did mean the Canon SX60 (or SX70 now). Basically I am a primarily a birder but one who also wants quality photos. Budget dictates that I’m buying a bridge camera and my choices are the Canon SX60 or the Sony RX10. Being a confident birder but an inexperienced photographer, my worry was that 25x magnification on the Sony wouldn’t quite cut it (compared to 65x on the Canon).
But if I’m reading this all right it seems the Sony is pretty much the ultimate in birding bridge cameras?
Many thanks again for the reply.
 
Hi Kamba. I’ve got the SX60 and follow a few people on Twitter with the Sony. The Sony looks a definite step up in my opinion. I’ve seen some excellent photos posted.

Rich
 
The Sony is a huge step up but it is in rather a different price range too. It's about £1600 in the UK. You can buy the Canon for around £400. The Canon is great value but just not even vaguely in the same league. Although in the bright Zimbabwean sunshine on ISO 100 they will be times when the Canon would actually be better at getting a shot of a distance bird sitting out in the open if you've got very steady hands.
 
Thanks Rich and Steve.... exactly what I needed to know. My little canon 420sx has served me well, but the time has come....
 
Steve Babbs said:
The Sony is a huge step up but it is in rather a different price range too. It's about £1600 in the UK. You can buy the Canon for around £400. The Canon is great value but just not even vaguely in the same league. Although in the bright Zimbabwean sunshine on ISO 100 they will be times when the Canon would actually be better at getting a shot of a distance bird sitting out in the open if you've got very steady hands.
Click to expand...

I think I paid about £300 for mine Steve. So the Sony should be significantly better. And it is. IMHO. I guess a better comparison would be against the mirror less set ups??

Rich
 
To give you an idea of its lowlight ability, I took this mountain peacock pheasant in very poor light. ISO 12,800 at 1/80 of a second. The ISO is four times the maximum of the Canon and I know my SX50 was horrible over ISO 800 and I tried not to use it over 400. A SLR would be better but it's far from terrible. Also bear in mind that the Sony is much better weather-proofed. My son was using my SX50 on the Malaysian trip which I took this picture on. It died in a rainstorm.
 

Attachments

  • mountain peacock pheasant 2.jpg
    mountain peacock pheasant 2.jpg
    238.2 KB · Views: 138
Yes. The mirrorless set ups are a much closer comparison. They are an improvement in weight on a SLR but still quite a bit heavier and also more expensive than the Sony. It was an option I considered and I may still go down that route one day but it'll be if I can afford to do that as well as the Sony not instead.
 
Last edited:
From Amazon US:
Camera Pana G9 $997, G85 $697, yesteryears models such as G7 a little cheaper
Lens: 100-300 mm (equivalent to 200-600 reach) $547, PanaLeica 100-400 mm $1497.
So a solution of camera plus lens can be had for $1244. (g85 plus 100-300) at a weight of 1025 g (all weights per DPreview.

For comparison the Sony Rx is $1598 at 1095 g

So m4/3 is possible at lower cost and lower weight for same reach as the sony Rx10. With the option of adding a better lens or a better camera body later if you feel urged to do so.

Niels
 
That set me thinking, Niels. I've been dithering over whether to buy the Sony RX10 IV for months now. After reading your post, I did a bit of research online and found I could get the Pansonic G90 + the 100-300 lens for less than the price of the Sony.

The advantages of that set-up are: cheaper, lighter, bigger sensor, fully articulating screen.

The big downside compared to the Sony is lack of phase detect autofocus. I would also think the lens on the Sony is better glass and, of coure, it's a stop faster at the long end.

Am I right in thinking you've used Panasonic micro four thirds cameras for some time now? If so, I'd be interested in your thoughts on the two options I've outlined above.

Malcolm
 
Hello Malcolm, I have only had experience with the m4/3, not with the Sony, so I am not sure I can make a fair comparison.

You are correct that I have used panasonic for quite a while. I chose the system over e.g. Canon dSLR for the savings in weight primarily. I started with the GH2 and the 100-300 mk1. This system was not very good at BIF, but was functional for anything reasonably staying where it was, and I like the way Pana allows for a half-press AF with MF override without changing anything except turning the focus on the lens.

The 100-300 has been renewed as a Mk2 and this is rumored to be better in every way than mk 1 but I do not have personal experience with it.

I later got the G85, which has allowed me to take some good (in my eyes) BIF images. Around the same time, I got the PanaLeica 100-400 which is a significantly more expensive lens with better sharpness than the older one.

I have never used the G9 which should have a much better AF system when compared to my G85. There was a review the other day by DP-review which stated that the G9 had just about the fastest single shot AF of any camera they had tested (and they did not complain about sharpness either, even though they did this in a shootout with the Oly EM1-iii which has PDAF).

Hope this helps
Niels
 
Many thanks for taking the trouble to give me your thoughts, Niels, although it's not the G9 I'm thinking of getting, it's the G90. It's smaller, lighter and cheaper than the G9, and although the G9 is probably a better camera, I think the G90 has everything I would need.

I also like the idea of being able to get a lightweight dedicated macro lens, and when I'm not using the camera for birds/wildlife, I could put on a pancake lens or small zoom and have an everyday camera which is much more compact and lighter than the Sony. It's just the Sony AF system that really tempts me.

Anyway, I really must stop dithering soon and make a decision.

Thanks again for your input.:t:

Malcolm
 
Another thing to think about, especially if you use it for general wildlife, is the Sony has better close focusing than the Panasonic lenses. But on the other hand you can't fit a dedicated macro lens. Probably not much help but if I were in your position, I'd be dithering too.
 
Last edited:
MalR said:
Many thanks for taking the trouble to give me your thoughts, Niels, although it's not the G9 I'm thinking of getting, it's the G90. It's smaller, lighter and cheaper than the G9, and although the G9 is probably a better camera, I think the G90 has everything I would need.

I also like the idea of being able to get a lightweight dedicated macro lens, and when I'm not using the camera for birds/wildlife, I could put on a pancake lens or small zoom and have an everyday camera which is much more compact and lighter than the Sony. It's just the Sony AF system that really tempts me.

Anyway, I really must stop dithering soon and make a decision.

Thanks again for your input.:t:

Malcolm
Click to expand...

Think the Sony RX-10 IV does a lot of things very well, usually not quite as well as dedicated lens setups, but really close, in an always available weather sealed package. That deserves recognition imho.
My only gripe about the Sonys is the sadly inadequate user manuals. They eventually cover the major capabilities of the gear, but don't help the novice learn how to really take advantage of it.
 
Thanks Steve and etudiant for your comments. One thing that does bother me about the Sony is that (I hope I've got this right) you can't zoom the lens when using continuous focus tracking. Have you found that to be much of a problem? I don't suppose it's something I would use that often, but it would be good to have the option when needed.

Malcolm
 
MalR said:
Thanks Steve and etudiant for your comments. One thing that does bother me about the Sony is that (I hope I've got this right) you can't zoom the lens when using continuous focus tracking. Have you found that to be much of a problem? I don't suppose it's something I would use that often, but it would be good to have the option when needed.

Malcolm
Click to expand...

I have the Mkiv and I would have said you can do this. However I'm not a photographer, so someone more techy than me might be able to confirm.

I have had this camera for two years now and have never regretted the day I bought it. Yes, it's expensive and unless you demand top end DSLR results you can't be disappointed with it.
 

Similar threads

Swissboy
Battery problems RX10
Replies
3
Views
830
njlarsen
njlarsen
Stu57
Sony rx10 iv screen saver issues
Replies
0
Views
449
Stu57
Stu57
W
Battery options for Sony RX10-IV?
Replies
2
Views
927
Swissboy
Swissboy
A
Help needed with RX10-iv workflow
Replies
11
Views
1K
andrewsheerin
A
R
Sony RX10 IV for a beginner?
Replies
14
Views
4K
kb57
kb57

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 3 (members: 0, guests: 3)
Back
Top