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

Exporting a RX10 to Ninja2 test now guys. Will upload to vimeo ASAP. IMPRESSIVE SH*T boys! And if you all ask nicely, I will dropbox the Prores file for you all to put into your editor.
 
ha,

dusty... back away from the saturation button... slowly... no sudden movements!

this baby is indeed looking more than capable. think i might make it to the park tomorrow for a run. How do you feel your settings were holding up? deep-3/0/-3? im thinking dro might make faces a bit plasticy. wife just got home, i'll see how long i can shoot her face before i get beaten
 
Darren Levine said:
ha,

dusty... back away from the saturation button... slowly... no sudden movements!

this baby is indeed looking more than capable. think i might make it to the park tomorrow for a run. How do you feel your settings were holding up? deep-3/0/-3? im thinking dro might make faces a bit plasticy. wife just got home, i'll see how long i can shoot her face before i get beaten
Click to expand...

That saturation is on purpose. It's why I called it and "aggressive" saturation tweak. It's too see if the signal is carrying the info to push to the upper limits. I feel it held up to "aggressive" tweak quite well.

On the DRO. I tried it the other day and I think I'm steering clear of it. It was a higher ISO shot, but the DRO was not pleasing at all. I will play with it some more and see "IF" there are any surprises or benefits with DRO. But so far I'm good with just looking for the right profiles without it.
These are the things that we will learn here in the coming weeks as we find the sweet spots....
 
yea i'd have to agree, i lit a high contrast scene just now and DRO seems to do the same as roughly making an inverse U shaped post curve. Odd, just doesn't seem to bring up the shadows as directly as it was advertised to.

anyways, since you're gettin all that good weather stuff, over here in 30 degree weather NY i'll shoot some nighty/indoors/tungsten tests.

all neutral -3, which i'm starting to liken to wide DR on the c100. girl iso800, bird iso2000
 

Attachments

  • rx30.jpg
    rx30.jpg
    31.8 KB · Views: 0
  • rx20.jpg
    rx20.jpg
    41.2 KB · Views: 0
  • rx10.jpg
    rx10.jpg
    51.7 KB · Views: 0
Looks good Darren. Speaking of the C100. I'm starting to liken the RX10 to the C100 as a whole. Maybe even think of it as a baby C100, or even a C50 16mm flavor.
 
a niggle that i don't think anyone thought of which is a rather significant annoyance: manual focus, being fly by wire, does not allow for repeatable pulls. there might be some programmable thing, but setting markers on the lens or using a follow focus with a marker wont work at all on this. i tried setting markers and it wasn't even close. I know now what initial reviewers were talking about when they said the FBW felt much less 'connected' than mechanical. i'm wondering if a firmware update can calibrate it a bit better, i'm hoping theres a setting i'm missing, because it seems some of the time like my turning the focus ring isn't doing anything, or that it responds more to quick turns and dismisses some slower pulls. odd.

I finally started turning to the manual, and dear lord everyone was right, it's completely useless, it's basically an index with no real explanation of use. the help guide online aint much better. it's 2013 sony, what gives?

another niggle: when starting to zoom in or out, there's a jolt in the image, i thought it might have something to do with the stabilizer, but no, tried that off. can anyone verify that theirs does this too? it's a little jiggle in the image as you start to zoom in or out, most prominent when at 200 and starting to zoom out.

and still haven't figure out how to tame the zoom lever, sometimes can get a super slow craw, most of the time it's much faster
 
Darren Levine said:
a niggle that i don't think anyone thought of which is a rather significant annoyance: manual focus, being fly by wire, does not allow for repeatable pulls. there might be some programmable thing, but setting markers on the lens or using a follow focus with a marker wont work at all on this. i tried setting markers and it wasn't even close. I know now what initial reviewers were talking about when they said the FBW felt much less 'connected' than mechanical. i'm wondering if a firmware update can calibrate it a bit better, i'm hoping theres a setting i'm missing, because it seems some of the time like my turning the focus ring isn't doing anything, or that it responds more to quick turns and dismisses some slower pulls. odd.

I finally started turning to the manual, and dear lord everyone was right, it's completely useless, it's basically an index with no real explanation of use. the help guide online aint much better. it's 2013 sony, what gives?

another niggle: when starting to zoom in or out, there's a jolt in the image, i thought it might have something to do with the stabilizer, but no, tried that off. can anyone verify that theirs does this too? it's a little jiggle in the image as you start to zoom in or out, most prominent when at 200 and starting to zoom out.

and still haven't figure out how to tame the zoom lever, sometimes can get a super slow craw, most of the time it's much faster
Click to expand...

From another forum: Sony tech support reports an RX10 "Handbook will be out shortly".

My unit zooms much more slowly, with no stutter while recording.
 
* that parrot shot was a great bokeh test. It looks as expected from this kind of lens: not bad, but not awesome either, those circles have some internal structure that will show up as somewhat-nervous background (as in Dusty's still from the previous page; gorgeous skin there, btw)

* on my NEX, DRO is dangerous: move it more than one notch and you start moving towards a nasty ungradeable light response function (scroll down here)

* is anbody interested in actually measuring DR on this baby? Dustylense would be the best equipped here, since my usual method works best on a sunny day, and he can also test if external recording makes a difference (if anyone is interested, write to similaar.feedback@gmail.com and I can send you some simple instructions; I can take the time to process the results)
 
Samuel H said:
* that parrot shot was a great bokeh test. It looks as expected from this kind of lens: not bad, but not awesome either, those circles have some internal structure that will show up as somewhat-nervous background (as in Dusty's still from the previous page; gorgeous skin there, btw)

* on my NEX, DRO is dangerous: move it more than one notch and you start moving towards a nasty ungradeable light response function (scroll down here)

* is anbody interested in actually measuring DR on this baby? Dustylense would be the best equipped here, since my usual method works best on a sunny day, and he can also test if external recording makes a difference (if anyone is interested, write to similaar.feedback@gmail.com and I can send you some simple instructions; I can take the time to process the results)
Click to expand...

email sent
 
Thanks for the sample videos. What is low light performance like? My Panasonic G6 & OM-D E-M5 both have an upper limit of ISO 3200 in video mode but are nicely noise free at that level. I see that the specification of the RX10 has up to ISO 12800 i.e. 2 stops better but is it usable?
 
nigelbb said:
Thanks for the sample videos. What is low light performance like? My Panasonic G6 & OM-D E-M5 both have an upper limit of ISO 3200 in video mode but are nicely noise free at that level. I see that the specification of the RX10 has up to ISO 12800 i.e. 2 stops better but is it usable?
Click to expand...

No it is not. Find a hard limit of 1600, and even then there are selective areas of smear from the processor. I look only at film mode and that is much worse than still mode,
 
Last edited:
yea 1600 looks to be where im going to draw the line as well. 3200 doesn't look BAD, so if you need it you need it, it just won't look quite as crisp
 
Darren Levine said:
yea 1600 looks to be where im going to draw the line as well. 3200 doesn't look BAD, so if you need it you need it, it just won't look quite as crisp
Click to expand...

Well the Canon 5D2 doesn't look BAD at 3200 (6400 for the 5D3) but I would still rather use 320.

ISO 3200 with an F/2.8 lens is probably going to be around the same sensitivity as the human eye & we can always squeeze out another stop by dropping the shutter speed if absolutely necessary.
 
nigelbb said:
Well the Canon 5D2 doesn't look BAD at 3200 (6400 for the 5D3) but I would still rather use 320.

ISO 3200 with an F/2.8 lens is probably going to be around the same sensitivity as the human eye & we can always squeeze out another stop by dropping the shutter speed if absolutely necessary.
Click to expand...

Don't make the camera into something it is not. it is great in light, has a nice HDMI feed, and is highly portable with good lens, but it is not the low light camera you are describing. not even close. Everyone who has one says this, and it is the dreamers who try to make it something else. it is time to explore the limits if what it can do, not try to force it to do what it cannot do.
 
Last edited:
Well, i put this together, and found it remarkable how little difference there was between netural, standard, portrait, and deep profiles with contrast/saturation turned all down. I'm sure there's some color nuisance differences, but shadows and light seem not too far apart between them. the sharpness control also doesn't seem to have much of an appreciable difference, not much artifacting difference between -3 and +3. i'd venture to say that portrait is the flattest by a smidgen, but i haven't peeped quite that much

of course download the original for the full experience


 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top