Sony RX10 Reviews

[David Kilpatrick]

The info on NEX is incorrect. They will not be continuing the NEX name, instead they will simply be Alpha cameras identified by numbers. There will still be NEX-type E-mount models, ILC type (A3000) and RX-type FE (A7) models all using the E-mount and there will be SLT type cameras made with the A-mount, but that is most likely to be the line ultimately discontinued. Sony has become the first maker to forsee the end of the SLR design.

 

Just for info - the A7 designs allow you to disable auto APS-C crop and I'm finding that some of the E-mount lenses (even the often criticised 16mm f/2.8) can do an good job making wither 24 x 24mm format square shots or even full frame. My 30mm macro for A-mount, used with an adaptor, turns out to cover full frame which it was never intended for. It makes a decent 30mm wide angle with rather strong vignetting but straight lines and good sharpness. That's just saved me a whole load - it also focuses to 1:1 scale...

[Ed Rooney]

Thanks for the clarification, David. I see that 24-200 f/2.8 Zeiss zoom as a Sony best buy at $1,300 . . . and low and behold it comes with a camera attached. 

[David Kilpatrick]

I've been doing a bit of measuring, including the substantial part of the 24-200mm equivalent lens which hides inside the camera body. If Sony/Xeiss used the same optical design to create a genuine 24-200mm f/2.8 to fit a DSLR, the lens you get on the RX10 would measure 189mm from mount to front rim, would have a barrel diameter of 200mm (trying sticking your hand round that to change lenses!) and a front glass 125mm in size with a filter thread to take 170mm diameter filters. The lens hood would add 95mm in length, and be 220mm in diameter. When fully extended to 200mm, the lens would be 325mm long.

 

Yesterday night I did a complete Adobe Camera Raw Lens Profile at four focal lengths and 2.8, 5.6, 11 for each focal length. After completing the profile and loading it (it has been sent to Adobe for general distribution) I opened a set of raw files and compared profile applied against profile disabled. The difference is so slight at all settings that I had to make the change repeatedly while examining different parts of the image. The vignetting map is almost zero and distortion is either corrected before the raw file is created, or the lens has none.

 

Some of the tests are pretty stunning. At apertures like f/5.6 this lens will resolve detail close to the limit of the 20 megapixel density. I've also just shot a video (talking head/body camera demo) and it's up there with the best video quality I have ever had.

[TABan]

I've been doing a bit of measuring, including the substantial part of the 24-200mm equivalent lens which hides inside the camera body. If Sony/Xeiss used the same optical design to create a genuine 24-200mm f/2.8 to fit a DSLR, the lens you get on the RX10 would measure 189mm from mount to front rim, would have a barrel diameter of 200mm (trying sticking your hand round that to change lenses!) and a front glass 125mm in size with a filter thread to take 170mm diameter filters. The lens hood would add 95mm in length, and be 220mm in diameter. When fully extended to 200mm, the lens would be 325mm long.

 

Yesterday night I did a complete Adobe Camera Raw Lens Profile at four focal lengths and 2.8, 5.6, 11 for each focal length. After completing the profile and loading it (it has been sent to Adobe for general distribution) I opened a set of raw files and compared profile applied against profile disabled. The difference is so slight at all settings that I had to make the change repeatedly while examining different parts of the image. The vignetting map is almost zero and distortion is either corrected before the raw file is created, or the lens has none.

 

Some of the tests are pretty stunning. At apertures like f/5.6 this lens will resolve detail close to the limit of the 20 megapixel density. I've also just shot a video (talking head/body camera demo) and it's up there with the best video quality I have ever had.

David,

 

Can you use Auto ISO in manual mode? You can't with the RX100.

[TABan]

Interesting video review:

 

[Ed Rooney]

I see in this video that the RX10 zoom can be used for micro without a lot of fuss. I wonder if the LR5 convertor works with RX10 RAW, or will we need a Adobe update?  

[Duncan_Andison]

I'm kind of thinking I may take a pass on the Sony RX10 as well. I was out doing an outdoor event in the cold tonight and brought my Canon 60D w/24-105mm f4 using flash and the Fuji X Pro 1 with 18-5mm f2.8-4 shooting at iso1600.

The Fuji blows away the Canon 60D in available light. It's not the easiest thing to focus for a performance but I am happy with the results.

 

I've decided when I want full frame I'll lug the 6D with perhaps the 40mm 2.8 pancake.

 

The Fuji X Pro 1 quality is better than much of what I have seen with other cameras.

 

I will possibly hold off until spring for anything new. I don't shoot much outside in the winter.

 

L

Fuji are rumoured to be releasing a new camera that will sit between the X-E & X Pro cameras (Jan-Feb 2014). It will be based on the X100s sensor/features (plus extras) and will have weather sealing apparently! Could be useful for outdoor events. More or less the same sensor as the X Pro but improved AF.

 

Me, I'm hanging fire for the X Pro2, more than happy with the X Pro1 & E1 that I use at the moment.

[Ed Rooney]

I would like to have a dollar for every time I've said, "This is the very last piece of photography equipment I will ever buy."  Yes, I'm considering purchasing a Sony RX10.  Unrealistically, I always say to the security checkers as I leave Adorama and B&H, "Thanks for your help and goodbye forever."  Alas. . . .

 

The main thing is I might well want to buy that 24-200 f/2.8 zoom with its sharpness and closeup possibilities and its VR at the same price if it were available for my NEX cameras . . . so my faulty 'buy it!' thinking tells me : you are getting a new camera FREE!  Another small detail that I've been missing on my digitals is the screw-in point for a standard cable release; I see more tripod use in my future. 

 

Here we go again.  

[TABan]

I would like to have a dollar for every time I've said, "This is the very last piece of photography equipment I will ever buy."  

You and my wife. :-D

[Allan Bell]

 

I'm kind of thinking I may take a pass on the Sony RX10 as well. I was out doing an outdoor event in the cold tonight and brought my Canon 60D w/24-105mm f4 using flash and the Fuji X Pro 1 with 18-5mm f2.8-4 shooting at iso1600.

The Fuji blows away the Canon 60D in available light. It's not the easiest thing to focus for a performance but I am happy with the results.

 

I've decided when I want full frame I'll lug the 6D with perhaps the 40mm 2.8 pancake.

 

The Fuji X Pro 1 quality is better than much of what I have seen with other cameras.

 

I will possibly hold off until spring for anything new. I don't shoot much outside in the winter.

 

L

Fuji are rumoured to be releasing a new camera that will sit between the X-E & X Pro cameras (Jan-Feb 2014). It will be based on the X100s sensor/features (plus extras) and will have weather sealing apparently! Could be useful for outdoor events. More or less the same sensor as the X Pro but improved AF.

 

Me, I'm hanging fire for the X Pro2, more than happy with the X Pro1 & E1 that I use at the moment.

 

 

 

I'm getting the X-E2 next week but still may be interested in the RX10 later next year when the price has fallen and a few firmware updates have made it a better camera.

 

Allan

[David Kilpatrick]

My exercise with the lens profile wasa bit futile. I merely replicated the built-in profile which the camera embeds in every raw. Using Iridient Developer, I have been able to compare the uncorrected raw (which ACR/LR will not let you do) with my correction and Sony's embedded correction. Compared to the RX100 which uses really strong (huge) corrections for distortion and vignetting alike, the RX10 lens starts out very clean and good indeed and needs only very slight corrections. You can't use without the profile, but if you could, it would be as good as many zooms for larger formats.

[Ed Rooney]

Waiting for a price to drop seems to be a pointless exercise. They don't drop that much until the next model is introduced. And I think of gear as tools; I need the tool or not . . . I surely don't befit by getting along without something. Getting older I see tomorrow as the day after today.

 

http://www.imaging-resource.com/camera-reviews/sony/rx10/

[Gervais Montacute]

Yes I agree about price drops to a point. But that's a bit of a game. For instance, waiting for Nikon G series lenses to drop in price could result in a lot of beard growth followed by serious health issues. Like death.

[Duncan_Andison]

 

 

I'm kind of thinking I may take a pass on the Sony RX10 as well. I was out doing an outdoor event in the cold tonight and brought my Canon 60D w/24-105mm f4 using flash and the Fuji X Pro 1 with 18-5mm f2.8-4 shooting at iso1600.

The Fuji blows away the Canon 60D in available light. It's not the easiest thing to focus for a performance but I am happy with the results.

 

I've decided when I want full frame I'll lug the 6D with perhaps the 40mm 2.8 pancake.

 

The Fuji X Pro 1 quality is better than much of what I have seen with other cameras.

 

I will possibly hold off until spring for anything new. I don't shoot much outside in the winter.

 

L

Fuji are rumoured to be releasing a new camera that will sit between the X-E & X Pro cameras (Jan-Feb 2014). It will be based on the X100s sensor/features (plus extras) and will have weather sealing apparently! Could be useful for outdoor events. More or less the same sensor as the X Pro but improved AF.

 

Me, I'm hanging fire for the X Pro2, more than happy with the X Pro1 & E1 that I use at the moment.

 

 

 

I'm getting the X-E2 next week but still may be interested in the RX10 later next year when the price has fallen and a few firmware updates have made it a better camera.

 

Allan

 

 

Lucky man.... apparently the X-E2 is much improved over the E1 and Pro1 in terms of AF speed.

[Allan Bell]

 

 

 

I'm kind of thinking I may take a pass on the Sony RX10 as well. I was out doing an outdoor event in the cold tonight and brought my Canon 60D w/24-105mm f4 using flash and the Fuji X Pro 1 with 18-5mm f2.8-4 shooting at iso1600.

The Fuji blows away the Canon 60D in available light. It's not the easiest thing to focus for a performance but I am happy with the results.

 

I've decided when I want full frame I'll lug the 6D with perhaps the 40mm 2.8 pancake.

 

The Fuji X Pro 1 quality is better than much of what I have seen with other cameras.

 

I will possibly hold off until spring for anything new. I don't shoot much outside in the winter.

 

L

Fuji are rumoured to be releasing a new camera that will sit between the X-E & X Pro cameras (Jan-Feb 2014). It will be based on the X100s sensor/features (plus extras) and will have weather sealing apparently! Could be useful for outdoor events. More or less the same sensor as the X Pro but improved AF.

 

Me, I'm hanging fire for the X Pro2, more than happy with the X Pro1 & E1 that I use at the moment.

 

 

 

I'm getting the X-E2 next week but still may be interested in the RX10 later next year when the price has fallen and a few firmware updates have made it a better camera.

 

Allan

 

 

Lucky man.... apparently the X-E2 is much improved over the E1 and Pro1 in terms of AF speed.

 

 

Yes but when I get it there is already a firmwear update waiting, unless Fuji have been very quick and installed the firmwear already in my new camera.

 

Allan

[Ed Rooney]

My campaign to pretend to myself that I'm not going to buy the Sony RX10 is losing its thrust.

 

Linda says it's big, not pocketable. But I have no interest in putting a camera in my pocket. (How would it cohabitant with that tuna salad sandwich or my keys and my cellphone?)  I have been carrying a small bag with a UpStrap attached with my NEX cameras; I'm good with that. The RX10 is a bit large but not really heavy, at under two pounds, just heavier than my NEX-6 with the 24 Sony Zeiss onboard. I love this combo, but I'm ready to explore other frames on my images.  As you can see, I am a high-end rationalizer.

 

I love the idea of going back on a tripod using an old-time cable release and the subtleties that suggests. I've been working with a few NEX primes for over two years now, waiting for Sony to award me with an affordable selection of lenses . . . but they have not done that. I use the 24 f/1.8 and the 50 f/1.8 and that's it. I own but don't use (much) the 16 pancake and 30 micro. I bought the 12mm ultra-wide Touit for about $1,200 and returned it.  And I was looking at the new 10-18 for $750 . . . but it seems that three good lens will cost me lots more than the very sharp Zeiss zoom on the RX10, with the camera thrown in free. 

 

To make this move I think I will have to sell all my Nikons, including the D700 and the D90 and the 20, 60 macro and 24-120 zoom I had planned to try and keep. 

[Gervais Montacute]

My campaign to pretend to myself that I'm not going to buy the Sony RX10 is losing its thrust.

 

Linda says it's big, not pocketable. But I have no interest in putting a camera in my pocket. (How would it cohabitant with that tuna salad sandwich or my keys and my cellphone?)  I have been carrying a small bag with a UpStrap attached with my NEX cameras; I'm good with that. The RX10 is a bit large but not really heavy, at under two pounds, just heavier than my NEX-6 with the 24 Sony Zeiss onboard. I love this combo, but I'm ready to explore other frames on my images.  As you can see, I am a high-end rationalizer.

 

I love the idea of going back on a tripod using an old-time cable release and the subtleties that suggests. I've been working with a few NEX primes for over two years now, waiting for Sony to award me with an affordable selection of lenses . . . but they have not done that. I use the 24 f/1.8 and the 50 f/1.8 and that's it. I own but don't use (much) the 16 pancake and 30 micro. I bought the 12mm ultra-wide Touit for about $1,200 and returned it.  And I was looking at the new 10-18 for $750 . . . but it seems that three good lens will cost me lots more than the very sharp Zeiss zoom on the RX10, with the camera thrown in free. 

 

To make this move I think I will have to sell all my Nikons, including the D700 and the D90 and the 20, 60 macro and 24-120 zoom I had planned to try and keep. 

 

Ed I would definitely want to keep the D700 if just purely on nostalgia reasons. 

 

I haven't looked at the RX10 too much, but it does look like quite a big camera. Not like a D4 or even D800. But fairly big. I still can't get over the RX100 II.

[Ed Rooney]

A D700 with the 24-120 f/4 is almost 4 pounds; the RX10 with its 24-200 f/2.8 zoom weighs less than 2 pounds. Decisions must be made. If I were still doing assignments I would need to cut a more professional figure, but these days I want to be the Invisible Man. It's all relative. If this Zeiss zoom wasn't getting such positive reactions I would not consider the RX10.  

[Ed Rooney]

Yeah, Linda, that review by the young Calgary lad is maybe the most helpful. He pointed out the close-focus feature and the cable release port. 

 

I know there's a lot of street crime in Chicago right now; the police broke up some of the big drug cartels, but instead of getting rid of the problem the situation changed to many more smaller gangs.

 

Let me relate a true, first-person "crime" story of modern NYC.  Last September I bought a new home phone answering machine at Best Buy on Lower Broadway. I carried the boxed phone in a plastic bag into Nolita and sat on a bench in front of the McNally Jackson book store on Prince and watched the passing people and their dogs for a while.  Finally I got up and went around the corner to Parm for a sandwich (They always spot me a free beer). I walked two blocks down Mulberry towards home and suddenly realized that I did not have the new phone with me. Damn, I left in on the bench in front of the book store!  It will be long gone, I thought . . . but I'll go back and then go up to Best Buy and get another one. 

 

An hour plus after I left the bag sitting there by itself . . . it was still there waiting for me.  New York a crime center?  Hey, I don't even carry a gun anymore. 

[Ed Rooney]

Wow! Thanks Linda and Jeff for bring up where to make this buy.  As it turns out, Best Buy has the RX10 . . . and they have a store ten minutes away on foot.  I don't buy expensive items if they need to be shipped. I prefer to take possession of my purchase in a store. Adorama works best because they are easier to get to. But Adorama does not have this item in stock at present; this is why they are offering kit extras:

 

http://www.adorama.com/searchsite/default.aspx?searchinfo=Sony+Rx10

 

Reading buyers reviews has quieted my concerns about the slow zooming and slow AF.  Very fast AF or zooming implies that we are reacting to something that is happening. In fact a savvy street shooter needs to anticipate a photo and be ready when it happens.  No camera, no shooter, can get ready as the picture unfolds.  We must be intuitive to get the decisive moment.  

 

If I have a serious problem with this camera it will be going back . . . but I don't anticipate that happening.  I think we're about to enter a new world, folks. 

 

>>> Okay, reality has taken hold. My local Best Buy does not have the RX10 in stock, but I can have it delivered to the store. Blah blah blah. Looks like I'll be making the trip up to B&H tomorrow . . . and they will likely tell me they're out of stock. 

[Gervais Montacute]

Hehe. I just watched a YouTube piece by digital rev on the new Zeiss 35mm 2.8. If I was looking at this camera I would certainly want that lens for it.

[David Kilpatrick]

Not the same camera Gervaise - RX10 has 35mm at f/2.8, but as part of the zoom range. I'm not going for the 35mm f/2.8, no stabilisation; I'll wait for the 24-70mm f/4 OSS and the 70-200mm f/4 OSS, as I want the stablisation. But both those lenses (£2000?) will still only equal the range of the RX10 with its fixed zoom.

[Gervais Montacute]

OK I see David thanks. Apparently it's for the A7 range? Confusion!

[Allan Bell]

Wow! Thanks Linda and Jeff for bring up where to make this buy.  As it turns out, Best Buy has the RX10 . . . and they have a store ten minutes away on foot.  I don't buy expensive items if they need to be shipped. I prefer to take possession of my purchase in a store. Adorama works best because they are easier to get to. But Adorama does not have this item in stock at present; this is why they are offering kit extras:

 

http://www.adorama.com/searchsite/default.aspx?searchinfo=Sony+Rx10

 

Reading buyers reviews has quieted my concerns about the slow zooming and slow AF.  Very fast AF or zooming implies that we are reacting to something that is happening. In fact a savvy street shooter needs to anticipate a photo and be ready when it happens.  No camera, no shooter, can get ready as the picture unfolds.  We must be intuitive to get the decisive moment.  

 

If I have a serious problem with this camera it will be going back . . . but I don't anticipate that happening.  I think we're about to enter a new world, folks. 

 

>>> Okay, reality has taken hold. My local Best Buy does not have the RX10 in stock, but I can have it delivered to the store. Blah blah blah. Looks like I'll be making the trip up to B&H tomorrow . . . and they will likely tell me they're out of stock. 

 

Don't waste time phone to check stock before you go Ed. That's what I do and it has saved many a trip/ time and money.

 

Allan

[Ed Rooney]

I took possession of a Sony RX10 today. Went up to Adorama in person and got the package with $100 worth of extras for $22 over the camera price, that is an extra battery, a 32 GB memory card, a table pod, a cleaning kit and a filter kit and a couple of other things. Not bad. I am at the moment charging a battery. Yes, the battery sit in the camera when you charge it, but there is a choice of plugging it into a computer or plugging a gizmo into the electrical outlet. 

 

I've yet to turn the camera on, but I'll give you all my first thoughts soon. It does feel a bit heavier than I'd hoped . . . that's the rather large lens. I figure I can get back what I paid for this thing by selling that Nikon 14-24 f/2.8 monster that I've never used. 

 

Wise me luck, folks.