p.7 #1 · I Don't Understand the Sony RX10 V Release
scottfillmer wrote:
... I love the full frame, I can tolerate the APS-C, but if I'm picking up a 1" that runs the same price as my full frame I might as well grab my iPhone, it's close enough to a 1" now.
...
A full frame with lenses to cover the same 24-600mm range would not be the same size and price as the RX10V.
The iphone would also not come even close close to 600mm. I used to own 1" sensor cameras like RX100 and GX7 and I agree that for 24-100mm type of range there is not much benefit in using a 1" compact instead of a phone, which is why I sold the 1" compacts and switched to my phone for the everyday shots. However RX10V with 600mm equivalent FL, high FPS, fast AF etc is a completely different beast.
p.7 #2 · I Don't Understand the Sony RX10 V Release
jaybr wrote:
You did in your earlier post:
"It will serve the purposes of many people, and some of them will get 'better quality' images than many get with their FF cameras"
Then you posted the link to the review that stated the opposite in their con list.
No need to reply, I'm done with this thread.
J
Good, because you just don't get it. I also notice you don't post any images.
A competent photographer can get better quality images using a camera with a smaller sensor than an incompetent photographer can get using a camera with a larger sensor.
p.7 #4 · I Don't Understand the Sony RX10 V Release
curious80 wrote:
A full frame with lenses to cover the same 24-600mm range would not be the same size and price as the RX10V.
Correct - if someone wants an all in one solution that will give decent results in good light, the RX10 is a good way to go. My point above is that for people that already have a FF camera but want the 600mm reach, there are better options that will result in less of an outlay (e.g., just get a Tamron 50-400). That would cost about $1,000 vs. $2,300. Imagemaster says the reach with the 400 on FF or APS-C isn’t as great as the RX10, but that is only true if you have no understanding of equivalencies.
The arguments being made that Photogapher A may be able to take better photos with a 1 inch or m4/3 sensor than Photographer B with an APS-C or FF sensor are totally non-sensical. When you evaluate a camera, the issue should be does the same photographer in the same conditions get better results with Camera set up A vs. Camera set up B.
For me, this is not theoretical. I have had a RX100vii for 7 years and have a lot of experience with the 1 inch sensor. In really good light, it can take decent photos, but the quality deteriorates quickly when you have to turn up the ISO as light drops off. If you don’t believe me, read the reviews.
p.7 #5 · I Don't Understand the Sony RX10 V Release
Imagemaster wrote:
Traveler, boy are you a radical trouble-maker.
Na not at all. In reality after working as a professional now for over 25 years I've had too many cameras and lenses to count for all manner of work. From landscapes to weddings to portrait work. My opinions are based on certain realities regarding what is the end product in a given photograph. With proper post processing what can be accomplished as well. Between the likes of a Luminar and DXO (forget about anything Adobe but that has also been a bone of contention for many) you can take a noisy image that in the RAW is anything BUT impressive and turn it completely around. Some argue that point as well. Let them argue. All I'm concerned about is end results. And these days that is NOT something hard to achieve.
p.7 #7 · I Don't Understand the Sony RX10 V Release
Jeff Kott wrote:
Correct - if someone wants an all in one solution that will give decent results in good light, the RX10 is a good way to go. My point above is that for people that already have a FF camera but want the 600mm reach, there are better options that will result in less of an outlay (e.g., just get a Tamron 50-400). That would cost about $1,000 vs. $2,300. Imagemaster says the reach with the 400 on FF or APS-C isn’t as great as the RX10, but that is only true if you have no understanding of equivalencies.
The arguments being made that Photogapher A may be able to take better photos with a 1 inch or m4/3 sensor than Photographer B with an APS-C or FF sensor are totally non-sensical. When you evaluate a camera, the issue should be does the same photographer in the same conditions get better results with Camera set up A vs. Camera set up B.
For me, this is not theoretical. I have had a RX100vii for 7 years and have a lot of experience with the 1 inch sensor. In really good light, it can take decent photos, but the quality deteriorates quickly when you have to turn up the ISO as light drops off. If you don’t believe me, read the reviews.
I second it. This was my exact case - I replaced all-in-one versatility of RX10 IV with A7V and Tamron 50-400. BTW, 1" + 600MM is equivalent of full frame + 220MM, when taking crop factor into consideration. I get better reach, greater dynamic range, and all sorts of benefits which translate to better pictures and greater keeper rate in the hands of the same photographer. A little bulkier but very manageable hand-held. And obv. options of other lenses.
That's not to say there is no place for RX10 - not everyone needs these benefits, and if it works, if works. One can get very respectable results with RX10. Just let it be clear there is a difference.
