TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

Better check your facts on the pixel density. An APS-C sensor is 4x the size of a “1 inch” sensor (which really isn’t 1”). So if the APS-C has 1.5x the resolution of the 1”, it’s not physically possible for the pixel density to be higher. You are correct about the min aperture of the RF 100-400 (I mistyped), but it doesn’t really matter since the high ISO performance of the R7 is so much better. But I get why you shoot wide open even with a minuscule DOF, because the diffraction will kill your IQ if you stopped down. As far as the 24fps goes, that’s the JPEG rate - what is it raw?

Again, NO ONE is arguing that the RX10 isn’t an excellent camera, but trying to compare performance against a much larger sensor is a waste of time - that’s the price you pay for the small size and weight.

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

Now you’re grasping at straws - I believe I said similar - think you can tell the difference holding them?

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

If you only get 1 1/2 stops better sensor performance with APS-C over RX - but the max f-stop of the lens is 2 STOPS slower, that means that the RX can potentially have 1/2 stop BETTER performance ! Wrap your head around that.

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

And what about the DR?

Come on - enough - I get that you love your RX10 and for the 3rd time, it’s an EXCELLENT camera, BUT it’s not the only (or even arguably the best) solution to the OP’s problem. I’m done.

Cheers

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

The pixel density of the R7 is approx equal to a 80 MP full frame

The pixel density of the RX is equal to a 148 MP full frame .......( I know, hard to believe - but I have done the math)

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

Interesting - but as a practical matter camera system, the R7 would have to be using a lens with at least a f6.3 aperture to equal the DR of the f4 capable RX .....

Capn_Dave

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

Of course the density is higher because the pixels are smaller.. A “1” sensor is 9x12 mm=108 sq mm. An APS-C (Canon) sensor is 14.9x22.3 mm = 332 sq mm

So a 21MP 1” sensor has a pixel size of 5.1 sq um (108/21,000,000) and the 32.5 MP APS-C has a pixel size of 10.2 sq um (332/32,500,000), so the APS-C pixel is twice as large in terms of area, and that is the reason for the better DR and high ISO/low noise performance.

Please, let’s stop now.

dick ranez

Use the gear you have. Unless there is a physical problem that limits you, you’re only talking a two/ three pound savings. Forget a new camera, spend the money on a gym membership. :-)

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

That is incorrect. The OM 300 f4 Pro IS (4.1° angle of view) is 2.7 pounds. The Sony, Canon, and Nikon 600 f4 IS lenses (4.1° angle of view) are 6.5 pounds or more. That is quite a bit of difference - and that is not all. The OM 300 is just under 10" in length and $2900. The Sony, Canon, and Nikon 600 lenses are 16" or more in length and $12,000 or more in cost. Those are also quite a bit of difference.

spaceytracey Loc: East Glacier Park, MT

If you're looking to lighten your load, the Sony a6000 is fantastic.

Josephakraig

___________________________________________________________________________________

As I have reached 75 I have also considered reducing weight. I'm a Nikon shooter and the last few years have been shooting with the best camera I have ever had in my hands, the Nikon D850. I shoot with the grip with a long lens it is heavy. Heavy is ok in the middle of the day with plenty of light but 600mm at dusk really requires a tripod. Don't get me wrong the D850 is a truly wonderful camera and can do most anything you ask of it. Recently however I got a Nikon Z7, it is light AND fits my huge hands very well. I like that there is almost no difference in picture dynamics between the two. I take them both out and compare and both are just great. The Z7 does not have all the bells and whistles but it sure takes a fine picture at a great weight savings and size savings. I can't get comfortable with the Sonys because of my large hands so to me the Z7 was the right answer not even to mention all the Nikon glass will work on it with the adapter. So, my recommendation is put the camera you are considering in your hands for a couple hours and see how you like the feel, nearly all FF's will give you a great picture but at our age being in the back country with a big rock that is hard to comfortably hold is not a good idea.

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

Unless you are shooting professionally, the only true way to lose the weight of a camera system is to change to a smaller format. If you are shooting professionally, full frame is probably where you want or should stay. If you are not shooting professionally and have no intention of going large than 30"X40" in print size, you could easily move to 4/3rds or a bridge camera like the RX10 or RX100. APS-C will save one some weight but it will not be that much. And the APS-C lens selection is more limited without using full frame lenses which will save no weight. So for significant weight savings, one should move to 4/3rds or the bridge cameras.

My issue with bridge cameras is they limit one's options. If I had a bridge camera, I would have had to buy another camera to mount my macro lens (capable of 4X lifesize with teleconverter). If I wanted to change my focal length range, I would have to buy a new bridge camera. Bridge cameras, in my opinion, are great cameras - but are only for those that have no intention of changing what and how they shoot. One has no way of changing the body or lens without buying a new bridge camera.

This brings one to the another option: micro 4/3rds cameras. Yes, there are limitations, pros and cons, with all formats. But 4/3rds will save one size, weight, and cost without some of the different limitations of full frame and the different limitations of a bridge camera.

This is where you must decide what is most important to your specific shooting. If depth of field, highest HDR, and the most megapixels are the most important to you, you will probably have to stay with full frame (or even medium format). You will have to also find a way to deal with the weight. If you have no intentions of needing to change your equipment in the future (no matter what new equipment comes out) and do not mind maximum depth of field and reduced low light characteristics, there could be a bridge camera in your future. This would reduce the weight to a single camera. Otherwise, I would suggest looking at 4/3rds to reduce your weight while retaining much of the familiarity of a true camera system.

Canisdirus

This has turned into another circle jerk

bkwaters

Only if you pixel peep. The RF 100-500 is expensive because people are suckers.