imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

I've just started using mine - mostly wildlife so far - very impressed ! !
.

a6k Loc: Detroit & Sanibel

As you probably know, the RX10 Lens is not interchangeable. Excellent but not IC.

With my a6500, any lens that I keep is good enough to make the obvious difference. Subjectively, my Sigma 30 mm and my old Minolta 50 mm macro are the sharpest. Almost their equal is my Sony FE 70 to 200 F4 zoom. In tripod testing of objects a few hundred feet away, my Minolta 500/8 mirror lens also outperforms noticeably.

This pelican was shot with that. I deliberately did not make it downloadable. The cat was shot with the 30 mm Sigma F 2.8, also deliberately not downloadable.

The "equivalent" focal length of the (actual) 500 is 750 vs 600 for the (actually 220) RX10iv. That is nominal but in reality the difference is somewhat greater.

I do love using the RX10iv but I find the IQ difference very noticeable. FWIW, when I rented a Sony a7R3 I found it to be better than my a6500.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

Without down loads these show us nothing ! .......So far, I see the RX10 at least as good as my A99 or Canon 80D - and yes, I have the Minolta 50 macro and 500 Reflex........
.

a6k Loc: Detroit & Sanibel

I am not trying to prove something to your satisfaction. I was trying to answer the question that was asked. Reasonable men may disagree.

Ollieboy

Deleted

joecichjr Loc: Chicago S. Suburbs, Illinois, USA

Outstanding shooting 👁️🌟🌀🌟👁️

joecichjr Loc: Chicago S. Suburbs, Illinois, USA

Awesome 👍👍👍👍👍

SuperflyTNT Loc: Manassas VA

And of course while pixel density affects IQ it has nothing to do with resolution. The pixel density of my iPhone will blow that away.

a6k Loc: Detroit & Sanibel

Just to prove my affection for my RX10iv, here is one I took with it. Sometimes it's the perfect camera for the job. Moderately high ISO, probably using aperture priority but not sure. If not then full auto. Good DR in my opinion. Daylight through window to my right. You can see reflection of window in cat's eye. This would have been shot as raw originally.

Edit: something for pixel peepers.

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

I still use my big cameras for most of my wildlife, but I do love the portability and very high quality. Yes, a full frame camera and big assed lens is the right gear for fine art work. But so much stuff is viewed online and on phones and tablets, that the quality of the Sony is much more than just adequate, and the downsides very easy to deal with - it's as close to a perfect camera as I have yet had the good fortune to use. I can still print very nice 20x30s as long as I am careful with composition and I don't end up cropping much. I am glad you finally got one, and I do look forward to seeing some work you've taken with it.

MDI Mainer

Congrats, anything with CIZ yet?

a6k Loc: Detroit & Sanibel

Responding to the question even though it was asked of the OP: I have used CIZ with my RX10iv with good results but its greatest value is for video simply because CIZ precludes the use of raw or of raw+JPG.

CIZ is best, btw, with shapes that Sony's engineers and designers built into its AI. It is not merely a digital zoom. It works better, for example, with vehicles and buildings than with nature. For stills, I have had better results with raw, crop and sharpen, with or without some tricks such as specialized software. That's a subject for a different post and it is not just for the RX10iv.

I have found that the excellent handling, zoom (powered & fast) lens, good image stabilization and reasonable "reach" make wildlife video a nice option. From that video I have sometimes plucked some really nice stills. For that reason my camera settings enable CIZ. Since it's automatically disabled for raw and I shoot raw stills, the camera automatically will do it when I zoom past the equivalent of 600 mm during video. I don't need to remember to do anything.

I recommend this highly. This is a good example of using video with the RX10iv but I don't recall if this particular shot was with CIZ or not.

And just for kicks, here is some simple math (with rounding off) about the resolution as expressed in MP's.

600/220 is the nominal equivalent focal length divided by the physical one.
= 2.72 or the "factor"
×20 actual MP's
= 54.5 equivalent MP's if it were a full frame camera.

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1361560-REG/sony_sony_rx10iv_digital_camera.html

(Download)

SuperflyTNT Loc: Manassas VA

Once again, the pixel density has NOTHING to do with resolution! 20 megapixels is 20 megapixels! I have an RX10MIV. Great little camera for its uses although it has its limitations. It does NOT compare to my 45mp FF Nikon Z7. It doesn’t even really compare to my 20mp Olympus OM-1.

a6k Loc: Detroit & Sanibel

You are correct in your limited statement that 20=20. But you are ignoring that the same Xmm lens on a crop frame camera is making the same size image as on a FF camera but the crop frame camera only uses the inner area. In that case, then, the pixel density has everything to do with it. But "resolution" ≠ IQ.

If you download the spreadsheet that I posted earlier in this thread and look at the bottom of the rows of calculations you will see that there is a calculation for how big a print can be made at 300 DPI, assuming 1 pixel to 1 "D". That is a valid way to compare a sensor & lens combination. Another way (which comes out in the same proportions) is to look at how many pixels are in the image of the same object at the same distance. Of course, this varies with the lens length. The spreadsheet is completely unlocked. you can supply your own camera's numbers if you like. Meanwhile, here are two columns to illustrate my point.

You can define resolution any way you want to. It's a little like Lincoln's question about the number of legs on the dog. It used to mean (and still does in some contexts) lines per mm.
https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/abraham_lincoln_107482

By no means, btw, would I compare the RX10 to a Nikon Z7, a Sony a7R4, etc. There is much more to IQ than cramming in a lot of pixels in an image. My wife's Nikon P1000 is the champ for that.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

No, no CIZ yet - but I am thinking about it ! The 600mm equiv. is nice but, ultimately for what I like to do, I need to be able to get to 840mm. FWIW, Gary Friedman is very complimentary of the RX10's CIZ in his RX10 IV book !
.