superdadplano Loc: Dallas, TX

Awesome pix Gene. Your pictures speak volume! I have the RX10 II and loved it.

Tomcat5133 Loc: Gladwyne PA

I want to debunk the RX10 III (my version) that doesnt have a great lens. Surprise it surprised me.
It is a bridge camera with one of the best lens ever made. The 24 600 works very well. Just look at some images here. I have used it for difficult sports like soccer flat on the field with players. A trip on a cruise ship
a shoot for a client at NASCAR track. He wanted footage without a press pass. A presentation in an auditorium at a university sitting stage right first row. Never left my seat. Did stand a bit to shoot crowd in seats etc. We know about the focus problem with the early models. Only happens once in a well distance when it is a dark shot. Just switch to manual or reset camera. I shoot a lot of video. This camera is a great video camera. 45K. Great! I would rate this camera one of the great innovations in photography history.

Now I have the a6000 and liked it. Got the a6300 and just shot a few test shots around the house outside FL is colorful. Video and stills. Look at the monitor on camera and couldnt believe how good the shots and video looked. Ran in the house loaded into my iMac to see if Sony tricked up the software. The images and video looked so good. Wow.
Now let's get this in reality. I was in advertising in studios with all the big expensive camera's. Had many Nikons from film up to the D800 my last. Love Nikon for the experiences. I admire color science of Canon.
I have the a7s II with some good lens. Sony has been making great cameras as a technology company.
And they have changed the game. I respect a lot of wonderful camera film cameras and studio cameras that are wonderful and better in some ways. Just spend a year with the
RX10 III and up series any one of them.

Paul J. Svetlik Loc: Colorado

I think Xanadu, you are mixing apples and oranges?

I favor to travel with the Sony RX10 IV or even the similar Panasonic ZS1000 - 1" sensor, 20 megapixel, EVF and a fully articulated screen camera because:

You don't have to change lenses.

On the other hand, the Sony a6000 (or Sony a6400) can give you much larger sensor (APS-C) slightly more (25) megapixels and a reasonably good choice of high quality (relatively expensive) interchangeble fixed focus lenses or zooms. Not to mention the fastest focusing, eye focusing, face recognition and a silent shutter.
Think, what is important to you.
With a tilting ONLY screen.

Walt C

I have several expensive Nikons and about $8,000 in lens. I purchased a Sony RX10 IV. One super camera for traveling and even BIF. If the new Sony RXs are better that would be all the better. It is hard for me to get back to my Nikons for general use

azted Loc: Las Vegas, NV.

I have the original RX-10, and have been trying to best it for about 5 years with the Nex-7, Olympus OMDEM-5, Pen-F, and Sony A7ii and A6300. To my amazement, nothing is able to beat the RX-10. The images are sharp, and the colors are bright. I credit the combination of the 1" sensor and the Zeiss lens design. I have tried almost every Sony lens, and am still not beating the images from the RX-10. Now I do not blow up my images to print them, but I do blow them up and crop, and have never had a problem. If I did not have such an investment in other bodies and lenses, I would purchase the RX-10iv to complement the original!

bwana Loc: Bergen, Alberta, Canada

I think you might be thinking about the RX10 IV. At the moment the V is simply rumor, and VI and VII are fiction! Or maybe you've got the RX10 and RX100 confused with each other?

But to the question. Two totally different cameras. I'd keep them both!

I have the RX10 III & IV and an A7S and A7R II. Each has its pros and cons, and reasons for existing.

bwa

KRP

Great captures Gene, very convincing, thanks for sharing

Ched49 Loc: Pittsburgh, Pa.

Comparing a bridge camera to a mirrorless is tricky, but no matter how you look at it, you have to go with more pixels, bigger sensor, faster shooting.

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

Totally agree, I have an A6000 with 10-18 f/4, 18-105 f/4, 18-55 f/var, and 55-210 f/var. I'm tempted all the time to make the leap to the RX10 iv for convenience sake.

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

Thanks! It's a great camera.

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

Faster shooting - the RX10M4 does up to 24fps and acquires focus in a few milliseconds. I am not sure what tech they use in their sensor, but if you look at the sample images I posted, there is no issue with image quality from that tiny sensor. The RX IS a mirrorless camera, only one where you can't change the lens. Oh, yes, that lens is impressive. So you have to go with image quality, utility, handling, weight, lens quality, etc. in addition to pixel count and sensor size. I think you'd have a really hard time coming up with a comparable focal length (equivalent field of view, of course) solution with any interchangeable lens camera that compares with the Sony RX10M4 - and still have it fit in a small gaget bag and weigh only 2.5 lbs. There is clearly more than pixels, sensor size and shooting speed to consider.

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

Thanks!

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

Mark, the singer looks great for ISO 2000.

markngolf Loc: Bridgewater, NJ

Thanks, Gene.
Mark

cucharared Loc: Texas, Colorado

I have both the a6000 and the RX10m4, as well as an A77ii. Since getting the rx10m4, I’ve not used the A77ii. And the a6000 doesn’t get used much, but I still get better shots with it when the Sigma 1.4 30mm is mounted. But, that’s the only lens I have for it that I think exceeds the RX10m4. And, it is naturally limited to 30mm. Otherwise. I always grab the super capable, one-lens-does-it-all RX10m4.
However, my shots with anything don’t come up to the quality and sharpness of Gene’s examples. Those are fantastic!

ron