or Sony RX10: What we've been looking for from Panasonic?

Looks like a very interesting camera indeed. I really like the video centric features. I will wait and hold judgement till we start to see some footage roll out. It wouldn't be the first camera that looked amazing on paper but failed to deliver and it wouldn't be the first camera to be thought of as too cheap to be good and hit it out of the park. Only can wait and see.
 
dan.carter said:
Love my GH3, but am having an affair with the Sony RX100II I purchased for portability.

Now the Sony RX10 appears:

24-200 f2.8 lens
Built in ND filters
Peaking
Zebras
XLR
Total sensor readout
$1299
Click to expand...


The RX10 does not come with XLR ports. You have to buy an XLR adapter that Sony sells.
 
RatLabProductions said:
Looks like a very interesting camera indeed. I really like the video centric features. I will wait and hold judgement till we start to see some footage roll out. It wouldn't be the first camera that looked amazing on paper but failed to deliver and it wouldn't be the first camera to be thought of as too cheap to be good and hit it out of the park. Only can wait and see.
Click to expand...


Here's a sample video released by Sony:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YaTmI2x0FO8
 
Functionally this is the exact camera that a lot of us have expected from Canon and Panasonic for quite a while.
It just amazes me that it get's figured out and put into a $1300 camera by Sony.
IQ will tell everything, but as far as functionality, it's the most video centric DSLR that any one has developed.
It hits every box on the checklist - ND, Zebra, Peaking, real audio metering, XLR inputs, uncompressed HDMI out, fully assignable custom buttons, and a 24-200 2.8 w/OIS.

Seriously, if this lens is of real Zeiss standards, it would cost twice the RX10 just to cover 24-200 2.8 with the Lumix zooms.
Again, IQ is everything, but on paper (and I love our GH3s) this dwarfs anything that Panasonic offers.
All of the features that their "high end" video hybrid is lacking with a Zeiss lens for the cost of one of their zooms.
 
vtwiz said:
Hang on, fixed lens?

I'll pass.
Click to expand...

Being a fixed lens I see this not as much as something that would replace a DSLR for indie filmmaking but more of something that will undercut small camcorders in that segment if the image quality is up there. Its not like a 2.8 lens on a small sensor is fast and is limiting in ability to control DOF. for a lot of intv and narative stuff I am often shooting F2.0 and below due to M4/3 sensor size and 1" is smaller (what is 1" anyway?). For Multimedia journalists and anyone who wants a very compact run and gun camera without many of the 'pro' features of a bigger camcorder this looks like a great option at a great price.

I am skeptical that the lens will perform amazing with that range and that speed but who knows. The cynic in me feels something has to compromise to hit the range and price but I really want to be proven wrong.

We are all winners when companies push ideas of what can be done in a sub $1500 camera.
 
Last edited:
jimagine said:
Seriously, if this lens is of real Zeiss standards, it would cost twice the RX10 just to cover 24-200 2.8 with the Lumix zooms.
Click to expand...

Which tells us the Lumix lenses are seriously overpriced. C'mon Panasonic? If Sony can deliver an entire camera with three of the five required video features (below) on a 1" sensor for $1300, then surely you can give us a 4/3 28-200 lens for that same price.

'Video' lenses should have the following:
1. Constant 2.8 or better
2. Declicked iris ring
3. OIS

Zoom lenses for 'video' should also have:
4. Inner focus/zoom
5. Parfocal
 
Jim Simon said:
Which tells us the Lumix lenses are seriously overpriced. C'mon Panasonic? If Sony can deliver an entire camera with three of the five required video features (below) on a 1" sensor for $1300, then surely you can give us a 4/3 28-200 lens for that same price.
Click to expand...
The m43rds sensor is twice as large as the 1" sensor in the RX10/RX100, so the lenses must be bigger and more expensive to manufacture. The RX10 lens is equivalent to a 12-100mm f3.8 lens on a m43rds sensor. The constant aperture is nice, but it's only a stop faster than the Panasonic 14-140mm f4.0-5.6 lens at the far end. Anyway, Panasonic sells two excellent lenses that cover that range, the 12-35mm f2.8 and the 35-100mm f2.8. Together they have twice the light gathering capability of the Sony RX10, but they are (quite reasonably) more expensive.
 
Right, the 24-200 at a comparative f3.8 is a bit faster and considerably longer than the Canon 24-105L - my favorite run and gun lens for film making and photography.

By default I'm a prime lens devotee, but a lot of my work has me in constantly challenging and changing environments where time and "the moment" are the critical factors. That's exactly why I've hedged on the two Lumix primes - because in those situations I need more than either of those can deliver and needing to change them becomes the same as using primes under theses conditions. Plus I get a much larger difference (1.2s to 1.8s) from my primes to an f4 zoom than the less than a stop difference between the Sony RX10 and Lumix zooms.

It's exactly the one zoom that can cover it all in doc and "extreme" production that makes the RX10 so potentially attractive.
And the difference in cost between a lens that comes as part of the most feature filled hybrid I've ever seen, and some $2300 in Lumix glass is enormous - but the speed difference isn't.

I just really hope the IQ is great and that it does well with skin tones because on paper, at least, this is the camera I've wanted for a lot of circumstances.
A few years ago I was spending $1300 for batteries for cameras that couldn't touch the IQ of any of this gear. Today it buys an entire HD production system with glass.
 
I started watching Sony again during the RX100 release, but waited for the RX100II and its tilt LCD & hot-shoe. I fully expected it wouldn't compare to my GH3 and be returned. In three months, I haven't put the thing down. It's the first of many cameras I've owned to actually WOW with IQ and low-light performance. Particularly due to its small size. Because of my good experience with the RX100II, and the fact it uses the same sensor as the RX10, I'm eagerly anticipating more information on this new video-centric RX10.

Comparing the RX100II to the GH3 may reflect on what to expect from the RX10. Or not:

I have a collection of Lumix lenses, but with the exception of a longer lens, haven't missed them. The RX10 24-200 (RX100II 28-100) will provide the longer lens.

The RX100II LCD set to "Sunny Weather" beats the GH3 in bright sun hands down.

For lazy or fast pace shoots GH3 "P" Mode is a crap shoot (no information displayed). RX100II displays "P" Mode data and is close to what I'd choose.

Color IQ is so close to the GH3, I'd be hard pressed to tell the difference.

RX100II and RX10 LCDs tilt but don't fold out. Thought I'd miss this, but now don't have to worry about damaging the folded out LCD when carrying the camera on tripod.

RX100II photos are super sharp.

RX100II HDR photos beat GH3 hands down.

Sony has a low-light, hand-held multi-frame photo mode which takes a series of frames at up to ISO25600, then combines them to reduce noise. Very impressive.

Two GH3 items I miss are no touch focus (Sony has flexible spot), and the GH3 50Mbps codec.

Since the RX100II and RX10 share the same sensor, these projects may provide some IQ evaluations. Hopefully, the RX10 full read-out sensor will be yet another improvement:

Biltmore Resort: https://vimeo.com/73986939

Majestic Dude Ranch: https://vimeo.com/75039346

Durango & Silverton Railroad: https://vimeo.com/76247979
 
Ömf....? Fixed zoom lens? And didn't all people complain even about X Zooms "only" being 2.8? This camera is a bit of a mystery to me.
 
Last edited:
dan.carter said:
I started watching Sony again during the RX100 release, but waited for the RX100II and its tilt LCD & hot-shoe. I fully expected it wouldn't compare to my GH3 and be returned. In three months, I haven't put the thing down. It's the first of many cameras I've owned to actually WOW with IQ and low-light performance. Particularly due to its small size. Because of my good experience with the RX100II, and the fact it uses the same sensor as the RX10, I'm eagerly anticipating more information on this new video-centric RX10.

Comparing the RX100II to the GH3 may reflect on what to expect from the RX10. Or not:

I have a collection of Lumix lenses, but with the exception of a longer lens, haven't missed them. The RX10 24-200 (RX100II 28-100) will provide the longer lens.

The RX100II LCD set to "Sunny Weather" beats the GH3 in bright sun hands down.

For lazy or fast pace shoots GH3 "P" Mode is a crap shoot (no information displayed). RX100II displays "P" Mode data and is close to what I'd choose.

Color IQ is so close to the GH3, I'd be hard pressed to tell the difference.

RX100II and RX10 LCDs tilt but don't fold out. Thought I'd miss this, but now don't have to worry about damaging the folded out LCD when carrying the camera on tripod.

RX100II photos are super sharp.

RX100II HDR photos beat GH3 hands down.

Sony has a low-light, hand-held multi-frame photo mode which takes a series of frames at up to ISO25600, then combines them to reduce noise. Very impressive.

Two GH3 items I miss are no touch focus (Sony has flexible spot), and the GH3 50Mbps codec.

Since the RX100II and RX10 share the same sensor, these projects may provide some IQ evaluations. Hopefully, the RX10 full read-out sensor will be yet another improvement:

Biltmore Resort: https://vimeo.com/73986939

Majestic Dude Ranch: https://vimeo.com/75039346

Durango & Silverton Railroad: https://vimeo.com/76247979
Click to expand...

I haven't used my RX100 MII for video very much but I have to agree with your opinion. It's an incredible camera. Seriously, it's as close to a perfect camera (for me) as I've owned. The IQ for stills is astounding for the size. I'd say it's probably better than any camera I've owned so far, including the GH2. It operates quickly, has generally very good autofocus. The auto dynamic range function is fantastic. Photos that I would never be able to recover from GH2's raw are well within range on the RX. I mostly shoot photos of my kids. I don't want my kids' lives to be documents by a phone camera. But other cameras were just too big and cumbersome to be able to capture quick moments. I love the RX100.

It really changes my perception of Sony cameras as well. I started getting into photography with a Sony 717 "bridge camera" but then moved on to a Canon DSLR. The RX might convince me to switch systems to Sony.
 
noirist said:
The m43rds sensor is twice as large as the 1" sensor in the RX10/RX100, so the lenses must be bigger and more expensive to manufacture. The RX10 lens is equivalent to a 12-100mm f3.8 lens on a m43rds sensor. The constant aperture is nice, but it's only a stop faster than the Panasonic 14-140mm f4.0-5.6 lens at the far end. Anyway, Panasonic sells two excellent lenses that cover that range, the 12-35mm f2.8 and the 35-100mm f2.8. Together they have twice the light gathering capability of the Sony RX10, but they are (quite reasonably) more expensive.
Click to expand...

M4/3 isn't twice as large as a 1" sensor, it is only 54% larger, the crop factor difference would be something like 1.3, so a 24-200 would be 18-150.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top