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

Michael Schrengohst said:
OK I got the RX10 today and have figured most of it out.
I was playing with the app to control the camera with an iPhone.
I can only get it to take still photos?
I have the camera switched to movie?
Is there a secret to switch to wireless movie mode?
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, the App doesn't yet support RX10 video. Strange, because it does support RX100II video.
 
fellas... are you just doing a 235 output correction, or are you also doing the black output correction to 15 as well? might be missing some of your shadows
 
So this RX10 intrigued me enough that I totally surprised myself.
After finishing a few long projects the last several months I needed to add and upgrade some gear.
I finally decided to get a C100 and to keep a GH3 and add the 12-35mm and 35-100mm lenses for fast doc stuff.

I went as different a direction as I could have imagined yesterday and ordered an RX10 and a BMPC package with a cage, VF etc.
They're about as different as two systems could be.
Now I've got to play with two cameras this week.

Curious what you guys think about the RX10 VF compared to the C100 and GH3.
 
How are you setting up your viewfinders? On auto outside it was too dark. I was testing it in manual at 0 but I think +1 would be a better representation after seeing the footage.
Still tweaking with the RX10 but overall I like it.
 
dustylense said:
The RX10's viewfinder is really quite good. I'd pay $1500 to have it on my C100.
Click to expand...

That's good to hear Christopher.
Not that the C100 VF sucks, but that you like the RX that much.
I'd love to try shooting it bare and simple.

What do you think of it vs the GH3 VF Dan?
 
jimagine said:
That's good to hear Christopher.
Not that the C100 VF sucks, but that you like the RX that much.
I'd love to try shooting it bare and simple.

What do you think of it vs the GH3 VF Dan?
Click to expand...

For now, I should disqualify myself from the GH3/RX10 EVF comparison. I rarely used it with the GH3 and RX10 for only several hours. Wearing eyeglasses makes EVF use a drag. I can say, the GH3/RX10 are far better than any traditional video camera I've used.

Tomorrow I may be shooting resort Xmas displays using the RX10 EVF. Maybe I'll have useful info then.
 
Darren Levine said:
finally had a chance to assemble some random clips

Click to expand...

Some good low-light & long zooms Darren. On the two bridge pans, was one with SteadyShot on? I saw some consistent jumps in the first, and none in the second.

Early on, we wondered if this lens was par focal. Still not sure it's true par focal, but sure operates like one. The RX10 produces zooms like I haven't seen since going video DSLR six years ago.

Many thanks for the Jammin.
 
With a fully fly-by-wire lens, if it's not parfocal, it is because the engineers were lazy. But there are lots of non-parfocal fly-by-wire zooms out there, so testing this would be a good idea...
 
For jammin', i left steadyshot standard on the whole time, even on the tripod, it seems to handle very well, im wondering if it is either just very refined or maybe has a detector to know if it's on a tripod and adjusts accordingly, kind of like some lenes which have 2 different stabilizer modes. it isn't perfect, you can notice some micro jumps in the girl zoom out, nothing that warp can't usually smooth out.

i also had AF on most of the time, but definitely found it's limits several times and had to switch AF modes or go to manual in numerous instances. not surprising for low light stuff, but there were certainly enough hard lights for it to grab on to. will have to see if there are any other adjustments that can be made.

It was also obviously an ISO push, most of the shots in the 800-2000 range, but i favored a 1/30 shutter over iso3200, as with underexposed areas that contain motion 3200 can start to get nasty.

the auto white balance didn't seem to appreciate much of the lighting from that night, the dark bird stuff has significant correction which degraded it a bit, and the tree stuff in the end also needed a significant shift to get it close to correct, which led to some degradation.

and good spot on that odd motion jumping in the bridge shot dan, it's not in the original and must have been an encoding error. im rendering a new version which also stabilizes the zooms with some light to medium warp. i'm a big fan of warp and will never switch on the active stabilzer mode since i can do basically the same thing but with more fine tuning later on with warp. all the outside shots are handheld, and the combination of standard stabilizer plus a little warp 2 out of 3 times equals a dead smooth shot. warp had a difficult time with the outside girl zoom out, but no problem with the zoom out of the lamp post
 
figured it was time for a vimeo group: https://vimeo.com/groups/219595

an important detail i think anyone considering an rx10 should keep in mind is the manual focus limitation, that it cannot be used for repeatable pulls, markers won't work at all. it seems like something sony can fine tune more in firmware, but who knows if they will.

The CIZ is a funny thing too, some shots i see as obvious digital zoom(though i'm peeping), and some shots like the ECU of the girl in Jammin' look brilliant in CIZ. It's important to keep all the considerations in mind, that if using a higher iso, the CIZ is going to look worse and should probably be avoided, but at iso 800 and below it can look very good.
 
Darren Levine said:
figured it was time for a vimeo group: https://vimeo.com/groups/219595

an important detail i think anyone considering an rx10 should keep in mind is the manual focus limitation, that it cannot be used for repeatable pulls, markers won't work at all. it seems like something sony can fine tune more in firmware, but who knows if they will.

The CIZ is a funny thing too, some shots i see as obvious digital zoom(though i'm peeping), and some shots like the ECU of the girl in Jammin' look brilliant in CIZ. It's important to keep all the considerations in mind, that if using a higher iso, the CIZ is going to look worse and should probably be avoided, but at iso 800 and below it can look very good.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the group Darren.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top