Sony RX10iii or RXiv: Please help me make this decision. I need a better bridge camera for travel. Landscapes, street scenes, zoom shots, people...travel photos. The RX10 iii or iv...

neco Loc: Western Colorado Mountains

Please help me make this decision. I need a better bridge camera for travel. Landscapes, street scenes, zoom shots, people...travel photos. The RX10 iii or iv both offer great IQ, speed, video, 4K, Zeiss, 25x zoom. However the iv is at least $200 more than the iii. So, the question: Is the iv $200 better than the the iii?

Both cameras cost more than a good bridge camera should cost. Is this where bridge cameras are going?

Thanks for your opinion.

PixelStan77 Loc: Vermont/Chicago

neco wrote:

Please help me make this decision. I need a better bridge camera for travel. Landscapes, street scenes, zoom shots, people...travel photos. The RX10 iii or iv both offer great IQ, speed, video, 4K, Zeiss, 25x zoom. However the iv is at least $200 more than the iii. So, the question: Is the iv $200 better than the the iii?

Both cameras cost more than a good bridge camera should cost. Is this where bridge cameras are going?

Thanks for your opinion.

In my humble opinion I would go with the IV. Why, Iso level 25,000 vs 80 on the 111 and 24 frames a second for action sequences vs 14 on the 111. Well worth the 200 more.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

neco wrote:

Please help me make this decision. I need a better bridge camera for travel. Landscapes, street scenes, zoom shots, people...travel photos. The RX10 iii or iv both offer great IQ, speed, video, 4K, Zeiss, 25x zoom. However the iv is at least $200 more than the iii. So, the question: Is the iv $200 better than the the iii?

Both cameras cost more than a good bridge camera should cost. Is this where bridge cameras are going?

Thanks for your opinion.

The main difference are the AF options. The IV acquires and tracks better, and the accuracy has been improved, due to the hybrid AF and the huge number of AF points. The III uses only contrast detect AF, and only has 25 focus sensors. The IV adds 315 phase detection AF sensors, and a faster processor.

Bigger buffer, faster frame rate, shorter blackout between shots in at the high frame rate, etc all contribute to much snappier "feel".

You can read about the differences here:

https://mirrorlesscomparison.com/preview/sony-rx10-iii-vs-rx10-iv/

The ISO range is identical on both cameras, but the newer processor allows for slightly better high ISO performance. I have used mine up to 3200 ISO. It wasn't terrible, but for practical purposes, ISO 1600 is the highest I would use.

Yes, in my opinion, the difference is well worth the difference in price.

Do check out the free copy of Capture One Sony Express, and if you like it, upgrade to the Capture One Pro Sony. It is really good and does a better job than DXO, Adobe software and On1.

superdadplano Loc: Dallas, TX

Why not consider the ii? More compact and a lot cheaper if you don't need 600mm

pithydoug Loc: Catskill Mountains, NY

neco wrote:

Please help me make this decision. I need a better bridge camera for travel. Landscapes, street scenes, zoom shots, people...travel photos. The RX10 iii or iv both offer great IQ, speed, video, 4K, Zeiss, 25x zoom. However the iv is at least $200 more than the iii. So, the question: Is the iv $200 better than the the iii?

Both cameras cost more than a good bridge camera should cost. Is this where bridge cameras are going?

Thanks for your opinion.

Go for the newer. I'm sure there are comparisons out there. Don't know if it the general direction but Sony seemed headed that way. I shoot with Friend that uses the III and picture quality is fantastic, and the 24-600 Zeiss is one damn fine lens, even at the extremes. You miss a bit on the wide side but going up is fantastic. All that power and feels like a toy even compared to Mirrorless. When I grow tired of hauling around my monster SLR I'm heading there.

Lastcastmike

I’ve been using the “IV” for 1-1/2 years after a rental trial on both. The “IV” focuses much faster I believe because of some kind of contrast focus setup. Much better camera for that reason for stills. There,s something missing for shooting movies although I can’t remember what. The “IV” is a great camera. A real breakthrough.

47greyfox Loc: on the edge of the Colorado front range

As Gene51 says, the RX10iv focusing system is significantly improved and more than justifies the increased cost over the previous 3 variants. Unless you are fiscally constrained, go for the “iv!”

markngolf Loc: Bridgewater, NJ

neco wrote:

Please help me make this decision. I need a better bridge camera for travel. Landscapes, street scenes, zoom shots, people...travel photos. The RX10 iii or iv both offer great IQ, speed, video, 4K, Zeiss, 25x zoom. However the iv is at least $200 more than the iii. So, the question: Is the iv $200 better than the the iii?

Both cameras cost more than a good bridge camera should cost. Is this where bridge cameras are going?

Thanks for your opinion.

No question about the IV being better than the III. Many reviews will verify that. I purchased the IV last July for a Danube river cruise in August. I'm still learning but I can testify that the camera is remarkable and perfect for travel. Here's one review: https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sony-cyber-shot-dsc-rx10-iv

Good luck,
Mark

James56 Loc: Nashville, Tennessee

I've owned both cameras, so can attest...either one will be a great choice. The Mark 3 is pretty darn fast at AF so unless your shooting very fast moving objects, it's just fine. If you want the Mark IV, it's lightning fast and has a few more bells and whistles. I'm still learning what the Mark IV camera can do and do love it's fast response. However, you can see my old RX10 Mark 3 images with its so called "inferior" AF system via the link on my signature line at the bottom of my post.

Bill_de Loc: US

neco wrote:

Please help me make this decision. I need a better bridge camera for travel. Landscapes, street scenes, zoom shots, people...travel photos. The RX10 iii or iv both offer great IQ, speed, video, 4K, Zeiss, 25x zoom. However the iv is at least $200 more than the iii. So, the question: Is the iv $200 better than the the iii?

Both cameras cost more than a good bridge camera should cost. Is this where bridge cameras are going?

Thanks for your opinion.

I have the III. For the most part it gathers dust. The focus once the sun starts to go down, or even on a dark cloudy day, sucks! I don't think I was ever as disappointed in a camera as much as this one.

If you only shoot still or slow moving subjects in bright light you should be very happy with it, otherwise ...

--

markwilliam1

Gene is Right on! I believe the RX10 M4 uses the same processor as the Flagship Sony a9.

47greyfox wrote:

As Gene51 says, the RX10iv focusing system is significantly improved and more than justifies the increased cost over the previous 3 variants. Unless you are fiscally constrained, go for the “iv!”

GeorgeFenwick

Just bought a used IV from B&H. Saved $300. They have more.

bwana Loc: Bergen, Alberta, Canada

neco wrote:

Please help me make this decision. I need a better bridge camera for travel. Landscapes, street scenes, zoom shots, people...travel photos. The RX10 iii or iv both offer great IQ, speed, video, 4K, Zeiss, 25x zoom. However the iv is at least $200 more than the iii. So, the question: Is the iv $200 better than the the iii?

Both cameras cost more than a good bridge camera should cost. Is this where bridge cameras are going?

Thanks for your opinion.

I have both the IV and the III. Both great cameras!

Differences that I've found:

IV's autofocus is far faster! IV's menu system is different than the III's; maybe easier to navigate.

IV does NOT have Camera Apps which I really enjoy and find very useful on the III. No idea why Sony reversed their forward thinking on Camera Apps for their new cameras; dumb move! This change makes the IV somewhat useless for long time-lapse sequences with a wired intervalometer and USB power supply, since both cannot be connected at the same time.

Both have the same excellent 24-600 zoom lens.

Either camera will function very well as a travel camera. Is the extra $200 for faster autofocus a good value? Your call?

bwa

tropics68 Loc: Georgia

markngolf wrote:

No question about the IV being better than the III. Many reviews will verify that. I purchased the IV last July for a Danube river cruise in August. I'm still learning but I can testify that the camera is remarkable and perfect for travel. Here's one review: https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sony-cyber-shot-dsc-rx10-iv

Good luck,
Mark

Ditto

I bought a III last winter and returned it in a week. I did not feel it was worth what I paid. I then turned around bought the IV. The IV has been my go to camera ever since. Wide zoom range, no lenses to lug around, and great images (although the menu can be formidable). IMHO easily the best bridge camera on the market today. If I did not have to take a humongous pounding on my other cameras (wishful thinking for sure) I might be even be tempted to sell one or two.

I also have a RX10MI. This was the first bridge camera for me. I bought it used & cheap. A few scratches and bruises but pristine glass and everthing works. A nice camera, but no long zoom and no speedy bursts. You might try doing something similar before you lay out your $$$ for the top of the line.

bwana Loc: Bergen, Alberta, Canada

Bill_de wrote:

I have the III. For the most part it gathers dust. The focus once the sun starts to go down, or even on a dark cloudy day, sucks! I don't think I was ever as disappointed in a camera as much as this one.

If you only shoot still or slow moving subjects in bright light you should be very happy with it, otherwise ...

--

Really sad to hear a great camera gathering dust. Have you reviewed the various autofocus configurations?

I have both the III and IV, and have never really had an autofocus problem, although the autofocus on the IV is faster. I even use the III for astro-imaging and find its autofocus even works on bright stars.

bwa