dan.carter
Well-known member
Graphic example of MFT vs Sony 1.0" sensor.
RX100II and RX10 use backlit sensors which offer low-light advantage.
RX100II and RX10 use backlit sensors which offer low-light advantage.
or Sony RX10: What we've been looking for from Panasonic?
- Thread starter dan.carter
- Start date
A m43rds sensor is 1.35 times longer in linear dimensions and 1.8 times larger by area, which is roughly twice as large.
I think a lot of us are seeing it as a great tool for a number of situations, not the perfect camera for your next film or TV spot.
Think of the focal length and f2.8 in a situation (fast paced location docs, no/small crew) like I produce all the time.
In these situations you don't want to switch lenses or screw on ND filters - so a fixed lens with ND that covers 24-200mm is kind of ideal.
Now consider that it's part of a system that's more video-centric than a 1D-C or GH3 and in some ways (60p) a C300.
And it all costs $1300.
Not hard to understand the interest IF the IQ is there.
dan.carter
Well-known member
In full agreement jimagine. Also, if Sony's "Clear Image Zoom" on the RX10 works anything like ETC on the GH3, we'll have massive zoom capacity. Fingers crossed for no fatal flaws.
Yeah Dan, I'm not familiar with what they mean by the "Clear Image'.
Is it optical like the basic crop sensor approach that the GH3 uses?
I've used that on the GH3 a number of times to grab a quick close shot in a pinch and it looks very clean.
You can get a lot more movement issues because of the crop but on a tripod it works fine.
Is it optical like the basic crop sensor approach that the GH3 uses?
I've used that on the GH3 a number of times to grab a quick close shot in a pinch and it looks very clean.
You can get a lot more movement issues because of the crop but on a tripod it works fine.
dan.carter
Well-known member
Sony CIZ appears to be the GH3 ETC equivalent. However, on the RX100II CIZ works well with stills, but video quality suffers. I'm hoping the full read-out sensor of the RX10 will solve this.
Rolf Silber
Veteran
I'm not criticizing it per se. I am a fan of cameras (and other things) that work a bit out of the usual "field of expectancy". I just think it's a strange combination of features. I own some of such exotic things myself... ;-)
If it works for people - fine. I did scratch my head though about a 24 - 200 zoom range for a sensor smaller (?) than MFT. Seems to lose a bit on the wide side.
Rolf,
Sony specs make it clear that it is 24-200 in 35mm equivalent. With a 2.7x crop, I calculate that it's really ~8.9 to 74mm.
See specs here: http://store.sony.com/dsc-rx10-digi...DSCRX10/B/cat-27-catid-All-Cyber-shot-Cameras
This is exactly the same 35mm equivalent range as the Panasonic 12-35 and 35-100 lenses combined. Not a coincidence, in my view. This camera is aimed squarely at Panasonic - maybe the GH3 - but almost certainly the G6.
Would you rather have a $699 plastic G6 plus $2450 in Panasonic manual zoom lenses - or a $1300 metal, weathersealed camera with a de-clicked power zoom, built-in NDs and a headphone jack?
I will be buying one of these as a C cam to my BMPCC and GH3.
Cheers,
Bill
Last edited:
Rolf Silber
Veteran
Remember the crop-wars? The "my 25mm becomes a 50mm"? When a major producer now introduces "equivalents" for measuring focal length then this will become reeeeaaal fun again .... and don't attempt to use a depth of field calculator..... ;-)
"My 500 Fiat has 100 hp equivalent, compared to a Ferrari ....".
Else you may be right. Not the GH3 though - for most GH3 users possibility of changing lenses and using glass from different manufacturers rules.
But most consumers want it figured out for them.
Rolf Silber
Veteran
Then this is settled - thought I've seen a picture where 24-200 was written on front. Anyhow: Almost no modern camera produced today is really bad - just a question what we want and see in it and which specs are the right one for us. Good shooting, anyhow.
Yes it rules when I'm shooting narrative.
It's an encumbrance when shooting documentary and fast changing scenes.
I don't understand why this perplexes you Rolf - this is what video cameras are all about.
It's why you don't see broadcast cameramen changing lenses in the middle of covering live action.
This camera is looking attractive to a lot of us BECAUSE it has the form and size of a DSLR (that lot's of us have evolved toward) and virtually all of the benefits of a traditional video camera that we've been asking for since the 5D came out.
dan.carter
Well-known member
Rather unscientific test using RX100II (same sensor as RX10) as baseline compared to GH3. Lumix 12-35 f2.8 & 20mm f1.7. Same low-light scene. Both cameras 24p, Manual Movie Mode, Exposure meter set to "0".
Scene 1:
f2.8, 1/40, ISO1600 RX100II
f2.8, 1/40, ISO2500 GH3
Scene 2:
f2.8, 1/40, ISO3200 RX100II
f2.8, 1/40, ISO5000 GH3
Scene 3:
f1.8, 1/40, ISO1600 RX100II
f1.8, 1/40, ISO2000 GH3
I might have expected the larger sensor GH3 to require lower ISO than RX100II.
Wow. That's very, very surprising. My thought exactly - it's a smaller sensor...
malibudutchie
Well-known member
That's incorrect on two counts: Firstly broadcast cameraman do change lenses, usually to a wide and secondly, the reason they don't change often is because they have a power zoom with a rocker for smooth operation, so they can cover a wide range of shots. Try zooming in and out with any DSLR M43 kits lens and working quickly with scene changes such as sports....nearly impossible. The whole reason DSLR or M43 has been a hit is because of the ability use fast lenses to enable shallow DOF while outputting broadcast quality pics. As much as I love my GH3 it falls down severely in areas such as the viewfinder, audio, ergonomics on the run, shooting in daylight. But that's not what I bought it for. The RX10 is just another release which addresses a few basic problems and having a fixed lens is a BIG mistake.
I would have expected the ISO to be the same. If it's not then one or other camera has the wrong ISO readings. ISO is the scale that measures the sensitivity at which your camera's sensor reacts to the light. For the same amount if light then to get the same exposure in different cameras the aperture shutter speed & ISO should all be the same.
Comparing two cameras for low light performance we need to use the same exposure i.e. same shutter aperture & ISO then pixel peep to see how much noise there is.
FrameFarmMedia
Veteran
As much as I would love to see this camera as everything people are billing it as I can't help but be really skeptical. Something has to give. To get all these features in a camera that is more light sensative that a larger chip camera with a fixed mega zoom at this price point something has to give. There has to be some drawback here.
When something is too good to be true it often is. I would love to be proven wrong.
When something is too good to be true it often is. I would love to be proven wrong.