Sony RX10 with 24-200mm constant f2.8 zoom and 1" sensor !

It also does STILLS don't forget. I'm very interested in this camera for docs and ultra low budget web series. Somebody please buy one and do some serious DR tests and pixel peeping.
 
Doctor Wu said:
It also does STILLS don't forget. I'm very interested in this camera for docs and ultra low budget web series. Somebody please buy one and do some serious DR tests and pixel peeping.
Click to expand...

Anyone have a DR chart they can loan, or we could use at your place?

With its high res it is perfect for web series. They don't require as much DR as film. Most monitors and laptop,screens are 8 stops DR or less.
 
I'm trying to remember when the last time I shot in 30p was, but I can see how that is a bit weird that they didn't include it.
 
Ok guys I understand the benefits but keep in mind a video camera has a form factor designed for run and gun shooting and has a lens more ergonomic for zooming and focusing while shooting.

The lens is also only the equivalent of 12-100mm on the GH3. While a great range to work with is nowhere near what some video cameras can give for zoom range. 100mm on the GH3 isn't a lot of reach. The Canon G30 is not much more money has a 1/3" which is actually not bad in low light and has a 27-576mm zoom lens. That would be like 13-288 on the GH3 or a heck of a lot of reach. All with f1.8-f2.8 through the zoom. On the wide end the aperture is faster than the Sony so the sensor size benefit may be canceled out due to the faster lens. The G30 also has mic in, headphone jack, uncompressed HDMI output and a bonus of lanc to use focus and zoom controllers.

Not saying there may not be some low light advantage to the Sony just that it may not be as much as some of you hope and that the camera when used in a live video environment still may not be an optimum tool. For me 12-100 would never be enough range in a stage production environment.

I know some of you want to barf when you think of a video camera but you should really do your homework and compare a good 1/3" video camera to the Sony and see exactly what you will gain.
 
philiplipetz said:
Anyone have a DR chart they can loan, or we could use at your place?

With its high res it is perfect for web series. They don't require as much DR as film. Most monitors and laptop,screens are 8 stops DR or less.
Click to expand...

You are mixing display DR and scene DR acquisition. They aren't directly connected. Cinema projection is much worse than monitors in terms of contrast/display DR. :)
 
Thomas Smet said:
Ok guys I understand the benefits but keep in mind a video camera has a form factor designed for run and gun shooting and has a lens more ergonomic for zooming and focusing while shooting.

The lens is also only the equivalent of 12-100mm on the GH3. While a great range to work with is nowhere near what some video cameras can give for zoom range. 100mm on the GH3 isn't a lot of reach. The Canon G30 is not much more money has a 1/3" which is actually not bad in low light and has a 27-576mm zoom lens. That would be like 13-288 on the GH3 or a heck of a lot of reach. All with f1.8-f2.8 through the zoom. On the wide end the aperture is faster than the Sony so the sensor size benefit may be canceled out due to the faster lens. The G30 also has mic in, headphone jack, uncompressed HDMI output and a bonus of lanc to use focus and zoom controllers.

Not saying there may not be some low light advantage to the Sony just that it may not be as much as some of you hope and that the camera when used in a live video environment still may not be an optimum tool. For me 12-100 would never be enough range in a stage production environment.

I know some of you want to barf when you think of a video camera but you should really do your homework and compare a good 1/3" video camera to the Sony and see exactly what you will gain.
Click to expand...

And a 12-100 on the Gh3 would have the FOV of a 24-200 on a FF camera. Which is why Panny makes two lenses. The 12-35 and the 35-100 to get you a FOV of a FF camera 24-200.
 
cpc said:
You are mixing display DR and scene DR acquisition. They aren't directly connected. Cinema projection is much worse than monitors in terms of contrast/display DR. :)
Click to expand...

No, I am not. I want a chart for acquistion, and I stand by my statement that most web consumers do need 13 stop DR delivery. So why spend the money?
 
Last edited:
Please Thomas, we understand lens equivalence, and many of us have produced years of high end work on the best video cameras.
I've made countless films and TV spots with them and major documentaries using lenses that cost more than any Canon C camera.
My team always shot with an average $80k camera setup for years.
And in recent years, I've done even higher level work, much of it on a number of DSLR form cameras.
Thanks, but we know what we're discussing and why we're interested in it.
 
Getting back to the RX10, these extensive technical reviews show that the RX10 has worse image at higher ISO than the RX100 MK II that uses the same sensor. Even at iSO 800.

The Korean tests show the Signal to noise ratio charts fall off drastically even at 800. Have to wait an extremely long time for the images to load, but it worth it. The test images at the bottom of the page are sweet.

MTF and resolution charts nice. And the lens has an amazing seven aspherical elements.

Only problem is higher ISO behavior, which is extensively tested. 100% pixel images at ISO 125 are great, but small drop visible at ISO 225. Judging from the singnal to noise chart the image test must have been done with NR off, since it shows noise is highly controlled by NR well into the ISO 1600 range but of course with IQ degration. However, with NR off noise rises dramatically starting about ISO 400, and is nearly double by ISO 1600.

WB maintained fairly well throughout range, with slight error creeping into blacks, but nothing troubling.

With NR off grain creeps in by ISO 225 according to test series. With ISO off the image degradation is really visible starting at ISO 800 according to test series. Not sure 1600 is usable, and 3200 is definitely not, but IQ loss starts much earlier.

However, test images at ISO 125 are spectacular, and while there is visible noise in the highly compressed images shown the IQ at higher ISO is acceptable up to at least 500, and Pehaps even higher but I cannot tell from the compressed images shown.

the grain patterns at higher ISO with NR may be acceptable, hard to tell.

I am still trying to guess IQ in video, not RAW still. My ipad is not downloading sample movies. But the images at lower ISO are amazing. Image detail loss from NR appears well controlled but not at higher ISO but lower DR is also visible.


http://www.slrclub.com/bbs/vx2.php?id=slr_review&no=367


This French test confirms difference with RX100. My French is rusty but this is what I read.


http://www.lesnumeriques.com/appare...x100-mkii-meme-capteur-meme-image-n31807.html


more center detail in RX10 at full aperture but less difference at f8. Corner superiority of RX10 is pronounced at all apertures with much less Chromatic distortion. At f11 diffraction makes RX100 superior. Perhaps this problem with diffraction above f8 is why Sony included a ND filter. You absolutely need to keep this camera below f11.


however, the test clearly shows more detail is lost by processing in the RX10 at ISO 800. not even subtle.


Contrast in the RX10 processing is denser than the RX100, but detail clearly lost at higher ISO.


The denser image is reported to be due to tendency of RX10 processor to constantly under expose. This could be an attempt to counter the well known tendency of prior Sony sensor packages to over expose. However, this should be a huge cautionary warning for those who think that the blown highlights on many test movies can be controlled with EV compensation. It is already built in.


So, what we have is a camera that gives great lower ISO images and falls apart at higher ISO and smaller f stops, exactly like the new Sony 4k camcorders.


Yet, the lower ISO images are really very good. amazing for an all in one camera.
 
Last edited:
Photos at low ISO settings look really great. The test videos still show those blown out highlights though the sensor seems to be capable of better images.

The NR will allow ISO 6400 at lower resolutions, for web publishing for example. Considering that lots of photos will end up in Facebook, Flick and sites like that, it's not so bad.

The videos didn't mention the camera settings so we still don't know where the camera stands on the video side. My guess for ISO is, that 3200 is really clean but at 6400, though still usable, there will creep in some oil-paint-effect.

I hope that the somewhat worse perfomance in still mode compared to the RX100 exists because the RX10 is geared more toward video and that filmographers will benefit from it.
 
joe 1008 said:
I hope that the somewhat worse perfomance in still mode compared to the RX100 exists because the RX10 is geared more toward video and that filmographers will benefit from it.
Click to expand...

It may be wishful thinking, but I'm right there with you. Sony went a long way to show off low light with the first test volcano shoot. Official sample footage should of course be taken with a grain of salt, but it would be odd to show sample footage that brought attention to the camera's weakness.
 
Since thomas brought up consumer video cameras, i realized i hadn't even looked at what those things were up to these days. I'm rather surprised at how well a camera such as the x920 stacks up against the rx10:

1/2.3", about half the rx10, BUT x920 is a 3 chip
$800 vs 1300
wide aperture of f1.5 nearly 2 stops better than rx10, 2.8 on the long end still good
both have BSI
x920 has 50% more optical reach
rx10 can go shallower, but 1.5 on the x920 can make things happen to.
rx10 has nd filter

of course the one big factor for the rx10 is that it's also a capable stills camera, but i think most of us here are focused more on the video part.

call me curious as heck to see just how the IQ/noise tests stack between such cameras.

i need to pay more attention to this edit....
 
Darren Levine said:
Since thomas brought up consumer video cameras, i realized i hadn't even looked at what those things were up to these days. I'm rather surprised at how well a camera such as the x920 stacks up against the rx10:

1/2.3", about half the rx10, BUT x920 is a 3 chip
$800 vs 1300
wide aperture of f1.5 nearly 2 stops better than rx10, 2.8 on the long end still good
both have BSI
x920 has 50% more optical reach
rx10 can go shallower, but 1.5 on the x920 can make things happen to.
rx10 has nd filter

of course the one big factor for the rx10 is that it's also a capable stills camera, but i think most of us here are focused more on the video part.

call me curious as heck to see just how the IQ/noise tests stack between such cameras.

i need to pay more attention to this edit....
Click to expand...

These consumer camcorders, especially the new Sony 4K, do not use all the chip, so chip size is misleading.
 
I have and RX100. For those of you that have not shot with and RX camera, they capture one hell of a mean still image. So lets imagine the RX10 next to any of the consumer video cameras and say that the video in on par with each other. Why would you not want the RX10 that is capable of taking a sharp wonderful still image? Then the RX10 also has an adapter for pro level XLR sound. Add the factor that it looks like a still camera and go out and get guerrilla shots in places video gets frowned upon. Add to that the ability to record uncompressed out.

Obviously this camera is already interesting. It's going on page 19 at DVXuser. Hoping to see some quality tests shot by a quality shooter real soon so I can make a decision on buying the camera or not.
 
Darren Levine said:
Since thomas brought up consumer video cameras, i realized i hadn't even looked at what those things were up to these days. I'm rather surprised at how well a camera such as the x920 stacks up against the rx10:

1/2.3", about half the rx10, BUT x920 is a 3 chip
$800 vs 1300
wide aperture of f1.5 nearly 2 stops better than rx10, 2.8 on the long end still good
both have BSI
x920 has 50% more optical reach
rx10 can go shallower, but 1.5 on the x920 can make things happen to.
rx10 has nd filter

of course the one big factor for the rx10 is that it's also a capable stills camera, but i think most of us here are focused more on the video part.

call me curious as heck to see just how the IQ/noise tests stack between such cameras.

i need to pay more attention to this edit....
Click to expand...

Yeah, its sort of funny. I haven't seen anything (in a post situation where I could really eyeball it) out of a new 3 chip camera in 2 or 3 years. I assume that a lot of the reality stuff on cable is still being shot on Sony and Canon 3 chip camcorders but I don't work on any of that. The RX10 just has run-n-gun and 'blogographer' written all over it, I'd really like to see what it looks like in a sit-down interview setup, I was able to lose BG focus pretty easy with a GH3 as the #2 cam in that type of application using a 12-35, I suspect the RX10 might not work as well. Of course the RX10 is just a little more than the price of a 12-35 and as it has been mentioned you would also need the 35-100 to match the range.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top