I compared ACDSee with Lightroom a while back and found ACDSee definitely superior. For instance, it has layers. I have been able to use ACDSee Ultimate to do anything that I have seen anyone actually do in Photoshop. (This is not to say that it has as many features, but I suspect that most Photoshop users make use of only a subset of its features.)

Take a look at the Panasonic FZ300. It is smaller and lighter than the Sony, and much less expensive. As with the RX10 IV, it can double the effective focal length to 1200 mm in computing the JPEG version. But it incorporates the doubling in a natural way; the zoom moves smoothly past the 600 mark, just as if it were being done optically. Also the Panasonic's EXIF file shows the overall effective focal length, while the Sony does not. The FZ300 focuses in 1/10 of a second which is almost always fast enough; Sony is faster, at 1/30 second, but that is really overkill. Finally, Sony has a little better image quality, but in my opinion not enough better to overcome its other issues.

Thank you for pointing out the Digital Zoom Ratio field. I had never noticed it before, because it's found in the miscellaneous section of EXIF, rather than camera info. Sony does set it in correspondence to their enhanced zoom feature; Panasonic doesn't use it because the issue is covered by the way they use the effective focal length in EXIF. I have never found that my FZ300 focuses too slowly for birds in flight. It shortens the focusing time by estimating the amount it has to move the focusing element based on the amount of blurring at the current setting.

The effective photo length value in the EXIF data is intended to show what focal length on a 35 mm film camera, or a digital camera with a full frame sensor, would have provided the same magnification. Normally it's equal to the actual focal length (also shown in EXIF) times the crop factor. However, both Panasonic and Sony provide the equivalent of a focal length up to twice as great (up to 1200 mm equivalent) by manipulating the JPEG generation. At maximum zoom, both the FZ300 and the Rx10 IV produce the same magnification; Panasonic correctly indicates 1200 mm, while Sony indicates 600 mm for anything over 600.

I find this a show stopper because I use the EXIF values a lot in reviewing my photos. It would be very frustrating for me to have no idea within a factor of two what the equivalent focal length actually was.

Thank you for your reply. I do give Sony an edge for quality; at four times the price, I would hope so. The focusing on the FZ300 is very fast, whether or not it does what the Sony A series does. I've found the fZ300 excellent for wildlife. It can take burst shots at 30 frames per second while focusing. However, I find this unnecessarily fast and prefer to use 6 frames per second most of the time for animals and other moving subjects. For me, the fatal flaw in the Rx10 is that it provides wrong information on the effective focal length.

I've been interested in the RX10 IV because of the excellent reviews it's received. I recently compared it with my Panasonic FZ300 at 1200 mm effective focal length. The Sony was slightly better, but not much. I'm not sure it's worth 4 times the price. Also, there is a gotcha: Sony puts the wrong value in the EXIF field for Focal Length in 35 mm Film. Like the FZ300, it can double the effective focal length in generating the JPEG image, but it always shows 600 mm when it does so. The FZ300 shows an accurate effective focal length all the way to 1200 mm.

Such a deal! The last 1200 mm Canon lens that I saw was advertised by B and H for $180,000.

1200 mm is an ideal focal length for wildlife, especially birds. I've been using it for years with my Panasonic FZ300. Furthermore, the FZ300 is still f2.8 all the way to 1200 mm. Of course, this is with a small sensor, but the results are still outstanding. Optically, the camera goes to 600 mm equivalent, but it does some magic in generating JPEG files, enabling it to double the effective focal length with almost no loss of resolution. The Sony RX10 IV does something similar, but it's not f2.8 at the far end.

I've been using Franzis Sharpen Projects as my regular sharpening tool. It's much better than unsharp mask, which even predates digital cameras. Topaz Sharpen AI is even better, most of the time; it totally eliminates noise but it often makes small areas worse. They just trigger the wrong response in the program. The program's disadvantage is that it is very slow-- 50 times slower than Sharpen Projects, and it takes 50 times the disk space.

I have been using Panasonic cameras for quite some time, and as I recall, they have all come bundled with SilkyPix. I've never used this editor, but you might find information about it on the Panasonic web site. Other editors you might try include Franzis Denoise and ACDSee Ultimate. The lastest ACDSee (released just a week ago) does a good job and is a lot faster than the old version.

The ultimate, however, is Topaz Sharpen AI. The good news is that it sharpens amazingly well without leaving a halo or amplifying noise. It actually makes noise disappear. The bad news is that it is 50 times bigger and 50 times slower than Franzis Sharpen 2, at least on my computer.

I've been using ACDSee for about 15 years; it's excellent. Several years ago I looked at Lightroom and found that ACDSee was better. ACDSee has layers, for example, in the Ultimate version, and it has lately added a lot of facial-recognition functions. In fact, it has everything that I've seen anyone use in Photoshop but it's a lot easier to use.

I've been using ACDSee for many years, currently the Ultimate version. A while back I compared it with Lightroom and found it definitely superior. The Light Equalizer tool is incredibly useful. Ultimate (the top version) has layers and most of the features that I have seen anyone use in Photoshop. The only other photo program I use is Franzis Sharpen Projects 2. This uses deconvolution and provides results as good as Topaz AI, 50 times faster.

The problem is that dust gets embedded in the emulsion. At that point there is no way to blow it off. The best thing is to remove the dust specks in post-processing. A program I have used is the Polaroid Dust and Scratch Remover. This was written a long time ago and works as a 32-bit plugin. Other editors may be able to do the same thing.

My Panasonic FZ300 has a similar capability; Panasonic calls it Extended Optical Zoom. I use it a lot, mostly for wildlife, but also for other things as well. It doubles the effective focal length from 600 mm to 1200. Degradation of the image is minimal, if any. The one downside is that works with only a quarter of the original pixels when at the maximum zoom. Therefore further cropping in post-processing is limited before running out of pixels. But where else can you get 1200 mm at F2.8?

Try ACDSee. I've been using it for years. I compared it with Lightroom and found it much better. It has just about everything that Lightroom has, as well as everything I've seen anyone use in Photoshop. If you don't need layers, which the Ultimate version has, you can go with the Pro version and save a little money. It's a one-time payment of $60 vs. $85 currently for Ultimate.

In my opinion, the best feature in ACDSee is the Light Equalizer tool. This can lighten or darken an image based on 9 sliders that range from very dark to very light. This is really equivalent to manipulating the response curve, but is much faster and more intuitive. It can be used over a whole photo or just parts of it, using a brush. I use it on probably 3/4 of my shots. There is also a similar facility based on color.

I also have an FZ300 and can heartily recommend it. The optics are excellent, designed by Leica. It can operate at F2.8 all the way out to 600 mm effective focal length. In addition, it can double the effective focal length to 1200 mm in producing JPEGs (though not for raw). Try to find F2.8 1200 mm on the market: the nearest thing I have seen is 600 mm Canon F5.6 prime, offered by B and H at $180,000.

Despite all the exhortations to shoot in raw mode, I don't, and I don't miss it. The FZ300 does an excellent job of automatic white balance, so there is one less thing to address in post-processing. JPEGs have fewer bits per pixel than raw, but realistically this shows up only in dark shadows, which are seldom the important part of the image.

Yes, a full-frame camera can produce better images, but how much better? Not much, not enough to make up for the convenience of a single lens for everything, more compact kit overall, and lower price. If I wanted to take the next step to better images, it would cost me as much a fairly new used car.

Actually, I do have a second lens: an Olympus C-180 teleconversion lens, which gives a 1.7x greater focal length with little effect on the image or loss of lens speed. Autofocus still works fine. The net result is 2000 mm effective focal length, which is nice for bird photography although at the limit for hand-holding.