User ID

Didn’t give up my other stuff, various reasons why, but my Olympae (and Lumix) are absolutely my most useful, affordable, and remarkable gear. And acoarst m4/3 is easy to carry around.

Olympus stuff is so endearing that I tolerate its one serious design blunder. Using BBF means giving up AEL. Those who don’t live by BBF will never notice. (My BBF solution is using full manual exposure all the time.)

RolandDieter

Asking for advice on a "travel" camera is too vague. What kind of travel? If going with a group (such as cruise and shore excursions) you do not want to keep changing lenses unless you want to make enemies and/or get left behind. If going alone with no schedule you can accept all the inconvenience of all the massive gear you can accumulate. My solution is two small bodies, each with a different lightweight lens, that I usually find more convenient that the RX10-IV which I also have. Good small gear can be m4/3 or the Canon M system. The M system doesn't have as many lenses, but for travel that's actually an advantage.

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

Either camera, in the hands of a skilled photographer, will deliver a great 11X14 print.

SuperflyTNT Loc: Manassas VA

My RX10MIV is my most used camera because I kayak a LOT and it’s my kayak camera. It’s very capable and great for that but it would never replace my Olympus E-M1X or my Nikon Z7. First I don’t love Sony’s ergonomics and especially having electronic zoom instead of manual. I often have to push ISO’s with it and with that 1” sensor it means I need to run almost everything through Topaz Denoise and in general the raw files take a lot more work to get the results I want, (nothing comes close to those Nikon FF raw files). It really depends on your expectations. The Sony’s focus tracking at 24fps and that Zeiss lens that gives me 24-600mm equivalent at f/2.4-4 are amazing in a bridge camera and get me shots from a kayak where my other equipment would be too cumbersome. I don’t get the same joy shooting it as I do the Nikon and the Olympus.

stevefrankel

I too have owned an Olympus M5 a Sony 6400 and a Sony A7 -- all of them with two zooms and a fast fixed lens. I sold all of them off (in turn) and bought a Sony RX10 IV which is now the best camera I've ever used. Its advantages are less weight and bulk, no lens changes in the field, the 24-600mm lens, and tack-sharp 16x20" images every time. I suspect that 20x30" shots would be spectacular, especially if used with Adobe Lightroom's new Enhance feature that raises RAW image sizes to 200 Mb+.

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

If you are tired of changing lenses, the Sony makes sense. Personally I have traveled with Hasselblad, Canon, and full frame Olympus. Now I travel only with 4/3rds. I am not sure why you held back traveling with the 4/3rds. I shoot in wind, rain, salt spray, dust, and snow with no camera protection other than the system itself. There is not even a chance that I would consider doing so with my Hasselblad, Canon, and full frame Olympus equipment. Not sure that I could treat the Sony the same as I treat my 4/3rds system. The only other issue would be dealing with the characteristics of a smaller sensor than the 4/3rds, smaller apertures, and the inability to change the lens to capture a special shot. But the ability to capture an 11X14 is a no brainer; they are both capable.

Ed Chu Loc: Las Vegas NV

I bought a GFX & 3 lenses; i use them for landscapes and when i take my car on toad trips; i have Sony FF & APS-C for birding; don't really know why; someone on UHH BOUGHT one of my MFT lenses, so that is a start towards weaning myself off of MFT $ keep the Sony

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

Yes, I was too slow in going after your Olympus12-100 f4 Pro IS lens. With my Olympus E-M1 mkII it has 5.5 stops of stabilization and with the mkIII it a minimum of 6.5 stops of stabilization. I took that lens for nearly two weeks in Germany and wanted for nothing with just that lens. 1/2 lifesize close-ups, shots from the Rhine River of shoreline and castles on the hillsides, snow in the Alps, insides of churches, narrow streets lined with great architecture, the ability to take 2 second over-the-head train station shots, handheld nighttime shots, and many, many more scenes of interest. This was just using that one lens. Thomas Stirr says it's like the Swiss Army knife of photography and he is right. What other lens in any format covers the 24-200 angle of view at f4 with a minimum of 5.5 stops of image stabilization and sharp wide open for every focal length. I only wish I had gotten to you first.

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

As long as it is a Pro lens, you should be in good shape. My suggestion for getting the water off the front element is artificial chamois, followed by a microfiber towel, and followed by a microfiber lens cloth. The chamois and microfiber can be wrung tight to remove most of the water such that it can immediately be used again to remove more water from the front element. Do not remove or change the lens until you can totally dry the camera. You can choose to leave the camera wet or remove most of the water when the opportunity presents itself. But do not change out the lens until totally dry.

Barbonbrown

Print quality, I print up to 24" wide from an OMD em1 mk1, and the quality is very good using Qimage so wouldn't worry about not being able to print large on any of your systems.
(Can't see the point in having APS C and full frame gear? M43 really good for travel, walking, just carrying around town. FF with any sort of long lens becomes very cumbersome.

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

We have to remember that saving weight was not the question for this OP. Image quality at 11x14 and not having to change lenses was his question.

Having had Olympus in my film days, and relishing the smaller and lighter weight Olympus system than Canon and Nikon back then, I knew that I would buy 4/3rds digital when it came out. I was still saving my pennies when micro 4/3rds came out. The size, weight, and cost for a weatherproof system were right for what I wanted in a camera. But just before I bought my E-M5, I had the Olympus all-in-one SP-500 which has the basic same range as the Sony RX10 the OP is looking at. Initially I thought it was neat that I didn't have to change lenses. But then there were shooting situations that I knew could be done better with interchangeable lenses. And then the new models came out and the only way the get the new tech was to buy a new all-in-one! That future looked costly to me.

I am only 72 years old and sometime in the far future maybe I will consider an all-in-one again. For the OP, he has his reasons for an all-in-one and I applaud him knowing his mind.