SuperflyTNT Loc: Manassas VA

Not entirely true. Even with those tools lighting conditions when I’m kayaking means in pushing ISO’s up to 3200 with the Sony. Any more than that would and I can get rid of the noise but still lack sharpness and detail. It also loses a lot of dynamic range. My OM-1 can give better results at much higher ISO’s. Now those programs could easily handle the noise in that shot but they weren’t used. I actually do think the RX10MIV is an amazing camera for the results I can get in the situations I use it for, I’m just saying it can never replace my other cameras. Not only is it not as enjoyable to shoot but I’d much rather work on those other raw files in post.

Doc Mck Loc: Terrell,Texas

I have a SONY RX10 MKIV. I also have multiple other DSLR’s and an R6 and R5. When making my rounds on my ranch, I’m taking photos of opportunity most of the time. Many are used for marketing of my cattle or wildlife photos or just some flowering plants or a sunset. I usually grab the Sony as it is so versatile and generally quick to use. This is when I have no specific photo plans for the tour of the ranch. The photo quality is good and it is easier. I actually use the scene modes and set it for wildlife (or cattle ) ( moving targets ). Right next to that is the macro mode for the flowers. Or landscape for a particularly stunning sunset. The Canon R5 and R6 provide more stunning colors and greater clarity, but,I have to take multiple cameras and lenses. The cab of my side by side gets awfully crowded.

Red6

Just like the advice I gave someone else today, rent one first to see if that is what you really want.

You have a lot of capabilities in your current gear. If you are just trying to simplify your kit then the RX10 would be a good choice. If you want to simplify AND improve your capabilities then maybe not.

The RX10 packs a lot of capabilities into one package but there are always trade-offs in these all-in-one packages.

Another item to consider is that the technology in your Nikon gear is probably several years newer than the Sony RX10. Sony will release a newer version of the RX10 eventually. If you are seriously considering switching, it may be wise to wait.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

As always, I recommend reading reviews and comparisons. See if anything jumps out at you as desirable or undesirable.

Mileagemaker Loc: Jackson NJ

Thanks again for all of the input.

Harry13

[quote=dennis2146 "but for someone wanting just one camera I cannot think of a better alternative than the Sony RX10IV".

I guess that I'm old fashioned (or maybe just cheap) but I get along fine with my old 5D and a few lens. (the longest is a 70-300 with a 1.4 extender) I usually carry two lens, a 35mm and a 70-200. The zoom on the camera, the prime in my pocket. And although back in the day, I did a few mag covers, these days it's for my own enjoyment - I can't remember the last time that I showed someone any of my work. Harry

bjojade Loc: Wausau, WI

While post production programs certainly can help clean up photos, starting with a better photo will give you better and faster end results than trying to create one out of a pile of mush.

The less you like spending time at your computer, the better your camera needs to be while taking the pictures. :)

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

Maybe what you need is a better lens.

AFAIK, the only 18-400mm on the market is the Tamron and it's not available in Z-mount. So I am guessing you are adapting one in F-mount.

If that's the case, you might want to consider a lens upgrade, rather than a camera upgrade.

There is a Nikkor Z 100-400mm lens that would probably be ideal, but is rather pricey at $2400.

An alternative would be to adapt one of the earlier F-mount Nikkor 80-400mm lenses. (IMPORTANT: I believe you would need the newer "AF-S" version. I don't think the older "AF" version of the 80-400mm would be able to autofocus on your mirrorless camera.)

Here's a comparison of the image quality of the Tamron 18-400mm versus that of the Nikon AF-S 80-400mm VR:
https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1145&Camera=963&Sample=0&FLI=3&API=1&LensComp=915&CameraComp=614&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=1

You can change the focal length of each lens there to compare them. It appears to me the Nikkor lens is quite superior at all the focal lengths they share. Makes sense, in that the Nikkor is a much less extreme zoom and a pro-quality lens costing upwards of $2000 new, while the Tamron is about $650.

Assuming the price of a new AF-S 80-400mm is more than you want to spend, I found several used AF-S 80-400mm ranging from $900 to $1100, depending upon condition (at Adorama and B&H Photo... there are none at MPB.com or KEH.com right now).

By the way, the Sony RX10 IV doesn't actually have a 600mm lens. It's zoom is 9mm to 220mm... but it uses a smaller 1" sensor that has a multiplier effect that makes 220mm "seem like 600mm on full frame". The same is true of your Z50... it's APS-C size sensor has a 1.5X multiplier effect. So on it's 400mm "acts like 600mm on full frame".

FWIW, the Nikkor 80-400mm lens weighs about 3.5 lb. Your Z50 is under 1 lb., so the total will be approx. 4.5 lb. This is more than the weight of the Sony RX10 IV: approx. 2.5 lb. But that's fairly heavy for a "bridge" camera. The Z50 body is smaller than the "body" of the Sony, too. But the Nikkor 80-400mm lens is larger than what's fitted to the Sony.

Scruples Loc: Brooklyn, New York

Why sell a great camera to buy another great camera? While I don’t shoot Nikon or Sony I shoot Canon. I have different cameras for different subjects.