Opusx300

I am one who has believed that an image from an aps-c camera will always greatly trump one from a camera with a 1” sensor but with the latest Sony RX 10 IV, i have been wondering if it might make more sense to purchase that camera over the nikon d7500 or canon 80d or even the nikon d500. Has anyone been looking at the same options to purchase as me. Would like to hear thoughts. I generally take all types of pic’s; landscape, family, dog, sports and widlife. Also, i want the camera to be simple for my wife to use for her business as an esthetician; taking up close pics of her work on eye brows abd lashes. Now clearly the aps-c cameras i mentioned are a bit of overkill. Anyhow, i am interested in othe members views and thoughts.

Lastly, please dont post a bunch of links to comparison sites, which all they do is post specs. I know the specs but i am look for real world use feedback. Since the rx10 iv is brand new, i would accept feedback on version iii.

mas24 Loc: Southern CA

The Sony RX10iii is an excellent Bridge camera, that I considered the best of the Bridge Cameras when it was released. I'm assuming the RX10iv is even better. It should be, the price tag is $1700, which cost more than the Body Only Nikon D7500 and Canon 80D. Bridge cameras have a certain function. If you don't like changing lenses, they are perfect to own. I own a Nikon DX DSLR, and a Nikon Bridge Camera (L840) with a focal range to 855mm. It would never replace permanently, my DSLR with different choices of lenses available to attach to it. Both DX and FX. The RX10 series are equipped with a sharp Zeiss lens. Which explains its high cost.

bwana Loc: Bergen, Alberta, Canada

I believe the RX10 IV will be another winner in the RX10 line. Not too sure if it will be noticeably better than the RX10 III, which I own, but it does have a few more bells and whistles. I suspect the III and IV will produce much the same image quality since not much has changed in sensor/lens technology in the IV.

I have three full frame mirrorless cameras, the Sony A7S, A7 II and A7R II, but I find I grab the RX10 III most often when I head out the door for some shooting. The 24-600mm lens is the best zoom I've ever encountered and the camera handles almost any photography situation I find myself in with the possible except of low light; however, I've shot the RX10 III in low light at ISO 6400 with reasonable success.

Good luck in your decision process!

A couple of examples below:

bwa

412mm (35mm eq.), 1/80 sec., f/4, ISO 400

(Download)

Glacier mosaic: 600mm (35mm eq.), 1/1000 sec., f/7.1, ISO 200

(Download)

600mm (35mm eq.), 1/30 sec., f/4, ISO 1600

(Download)

markngolf Loc: Bridgewater, NJ

I'm looking at the III or new IV for a lighter traveling companion. I do not expect either to replace my Canon 7D MII or 5D MIII. I'm going on a Danube River Cruise next August and do not want to carry 2 DSLR's & lenses. I have always carted them, but I feel it is not practical or necessary to capture quality images. Hence, I'm considering the Sony options. I may rent one. Lots of time to make my decision.
Mark

Reinaldokool Loc: San Rafael, CA

The sensor size triumphs. No phony 1 inch nor a 4/3 can give you the quality of an aps-c sensor. I've tried and lost.

lwerthe1mer Loc: Birmingham, Alabama

The RX10ii, which I own, has a lot of plastic parts, such as gears. After a lot of use, the zoom lever is not always responsive. Is the if made better?

a6k Loc: Detroit & Sanibel

I own a RX10m3 and a alpha6000. All the arguments in favor of the versatility and ergonomics favor the RX. The angle of view is a winner for the RX which has f4, 220 actual focal length. But there is no way that image quality compares. I've rented an alpha7Rii, used my alpha6000 with the excellent FE 70-200 f4 and several, longer, legacy lenses. The IQ, especially beyond ISO 800, is best in the FF, good in the crop frame and disappointing by comparison in the RX. In good light, the RX is quite good but the higher ISO settings are a limiting factor for me.

the imaging-resource web site has a page where you can compare actual studio shots between various cameras at various ISO settings. Their images agree with my real world results.

I find that the 4k video makes some wildlife shots possible which otherwise are not. I use VLC to capture a frame. It's easy and effective and yields an 8MP still up to an angle of view equal 1200 mm. Whatever crop frame you are considering, I suggest you include that factor.

All that said, I'm probably going to upgrade the RX10iii to the iv just for the phase detect AF so that birds in flight can be snapped. The AF on the m3 does quite poorly on that. I really like carrying only one camera and being able to take distant birds and close up insects without having to fuss with lens changes or a second camera. I have to choose between that last 2% of IQ versus getting the shot. I'm actually considering selling my a6000 and its lenses since they get little or no use. YMMV.

hpucker99 Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

I have a RX10m3 and use it daily. I like the zoom range and variety of shots I can get with it. Looking at the photos I get, I am happy even with the 1" sensor. I was in Hawaii earlier this year and it was the only camera I took. The only time I wish I had my Nikon gear was some far off shots of Kileau crater and the lava splays. The zoom on the RX10m3 was great, but the camera is more limited in night shooting. I also used it in August to shoot a time lapse of the eclipse. Had it piggy backed on my telescope and the results were great. Also, the auto focus will search if you are trying to photograph birds in a tree or in flight, but that may be solved with the newer model.

tomad Loc: North Carolina

I've owned the RX10 1 since it was released in 2014. I've used it daily since I got it and love the results. I shoot a lot of city, landscape, general wildlife and bird shots so the only thing it lacked was a longer zoom. I pre-ordered the RX10 IV to get the longer zoom and phase detect focusing for moving birds. I can't wait for it to arrive! I was going to order the RX10 III a while ago but read about focusing problems for moving subjects at long zoom. It seems Sony read those reviews too and have responded by fixing that in the IV.

a6k Loc: Detroit & Sanibel

I was curious to see if my earlier tests gave the same results so I shot these this morning out my east window at about 11 am. The attached is a screen capture from my Mac using Preview on ARW files at 100%.

On the left is my Nikkor 300 mm f4.5 on my a6000 at 4.5 and 1/1000, ISO 800. Manually focused. Equivalent focal length should be 450 mm.
On the right is my RX10m3 also at 1000 but at f4.0, ISO 250. Auto focused (not absolutely sure it got the wire just right).

Both exposures were auto ISO. The "info" overlay is for the image on the right. The EXIF for the left shot is attached separately and has no lens information because it's a legacy lens.

I don't think either is very good but there are some surprises here. The big takeaway is that you need autofocus on excellent glass to get the most out of even a good crop sensor camera. To my eyes, the RX10 shot is better in a number of ways. Since the sensor on the a6000 is a lot better than on the RX10, the lens is a big factor in image quality here. Note the color fringing on the left side. Even if my manual focus technique had been better, that red fringe would be there. I have a lot of experience that says so.

This is not a perfect nor comprehensive test but you may find it interesting. The 80D, by the way, produces images which are no better than and perhaps not quite as good as the a6000 when tested under studio conditions. I base that on shots on imaging-resource and etc.

I still think a crop sensor is going to give much better IQ, but only if all else is equal.

(Download)

PHRubin Loc: Nashville TN USA

What it all boils down to is how critical are you about IQ? If the quality of 1" sensors is adequate for your needs, then it should do fine. I'm sure even some cropping will give IQ adequate for a VGA computer monitor. It does have some nice features, especially the DPAF (which I know the 80D has too). As I always suggest, handle one in a store, or, better yet, rent one and see for yourself.

bwana Loc: Bergen, Alberta, Canada

The excellent 24-600mm zoom (optimized for the RX10 III/IV sensor) gives the camera great image quality. Probably better than a lot of full frame cameras with a mediocre zoom/prime. I find the image quality off the RX10 III is quite comparable to my A7S, A7 II and A7R II with a 150-600mm zoom AND a whole lot easier to handhold!!

The camera's image stabilization is also very good which helps with image quality and getting the picture!

bwa

Del25 Loc: Scotland

I have an RX10iii and find the convenience of not having to change lenses a great advantage to me and my shooting style. A great and easy camera to carry around when travelling and when bird watching. I will probably trade up to the Miv in due course but the iii suits my needs at present including Astro solar pics.( with solar filter) Hope this helps with your decision.

bwana Loc: Bergen, Alberta, Canada

Shot the solar eclipse with a RX10 III. Worked very well!

bwa

suntouched Loc: Sierra Vista AZ

I have heard a lot about the RX10 xx over the years and it must be good for so many to report such positive reports. Maybe shortsighted of me but when I look at that camera, I see a small sensor in a fairly large body with a fixed lens at a relatively high price. So when the next improvement comes along, the camera/lens must be replaced instead of the traditional thought process of replacing the camera and keeping the lens. Has never made any sense to me especially since this is not a point/shoot priced product. Cameras come and go but good lenses are like putting money in the bank over time. It's not a choice I would make especially considering other choices available. Everyone to their own.