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

Just played with it a short while today. It felt good to hold. Iris ring is smooth just as the zoom. A bit uneven motorized zoom. EVF is good but not as good as the A7R or GH3.
 
From your cinema5d review:

"Most important, picture quality. This camera DOES have strong aliasing and even worse, kind of micro blocking in “low light parts of the picture” or when it comes to “fine structure” like hair."

Not what I was hoping to hear. But thanks for posting your review.
 
Mark Williams said:
From your cinema5d review:

"Most important, picture quality. This camera DOES have strong aliasing and even worse, kind of micro blocking in “low light parts of the picture” or when it comes to “fine structure” like hair."

Not what I was hoping to hear. But thanks for posting your review.
Click to expand...

Well it is only 1,300 bucks. The footage looks really good so far. I see it's 800 bucks to add XLR audio connections. That's not to bad I guess, total package with sound is 2100? Would be nice to have something faster than f2.8.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/892383-REG/Sony_xlr_k1m_XLR_Adapter_Microphone_Kit.html
 
Last edited:
loved the piece.

regarding the comments: this is still a photo camera were talking about, and should be referenced to other photo cameras, so by 'strong', how strong is it in relation to canon dslrs, gh2/3, NEX, etc...
 
Mark Williams said:
From your cinema5d review:

"Most important, picture quality. This camera DOES have strong aliasing and even worse, kind of micro blocking in “low light parts of the picture” or when it comes to “fine structure” like hair."

Not what I was hoping to hear. But thanks for posting your review.
Click to expand...

At higher ISO the NR selects regions of low light to alter, it is not global, don't like it turn it off and do NR in post. Frequently better.
 
Mark Williams said:
From your cinema5d review:

"Most important, picture quality. This camera DOES have strong aliasing and even worse, kind of micro blocking in “low light parts of the picture” or when it comes to “fine structure” like hair."

Not what I was hoping to hear. But thanks for posting your review.
Click to expand...


The blocking is what one would expect to see if the codec is being over stressed by detail in the shot. I wonder if an external recorder would remedy that?

The aliasing is dissapointing and counter to what would be expected from a full sensor readout. It must still be dumping image samples somewhere along the chain, just not necessarily at the sensor readout stage.
 
http://www.eoshd.com/content/11581/exclusive-review-sony-rx10

EOSHD says AVCHD codec breaks apart at 50/60p with motion.

I have been testing a team member's RX10 and you can extend DR at least a stop and a half, perhaps more, with the Deep and Portrait setting with contrast dialed down to -3. I shoot 24p and have not tested 50/60p.

Do trust the HDMI out port, it is a micro HDMI connector, not mini.

I have a suspicion about where the 50/60p breakup may be coming from, and will try to test it but we are getting a winter storm and outdoor shooting may be limited.
 
Last edited:
Dear friends.

I can confirm the following regarding Sony’s RX10 SteadyShot as stated by Sony’s technical marketing manager:

-Optical SteadyShot Active Mode: roll correction is achieved by crop-out of the picture.
-Optical SteadyShot Standard Mode: pitch and yaw correction are done only with optical stabiliser function, therefore no cropping.
-OFF: Neither optical nor electrical stabilisation is processed.

The resolution of Active Mode is a bit worse than the other 2.
Standard mode and OFF should be the same image quality.

Thank you!

Johnnie
 
That's useful info Jonnie, and good news as well because it suggests that we can still use OIS on the RX10 with standard mode. That's no different than the Panasonic X920 - you can use OIS with no penalty, but if you turn on level shot then the resolution suffers.
 
philiplipetz said:
http://www.eoshd.com/content/11581/exclusive-review-sony-rx10

EOSHD says AVCHD codec breaks apart at 50/60p with motion.

I have been testing a team member's RX10 and you can extend DR at least a stop and a half, perhaps more, with the Deep and Portrait setting with contrast dialed down to -3. I shoot 24p and have not tested 50/60p.

Do trust the HDMI out port, it is a micro HDMI connector, not mini.

I have a suspicion about where the 50/60p breakup may be coming from, and will try to test it but we are getting a winter storm and outdoor shooting may be limited.
Click to expand...
One point worth noting on this review, and it might be of relevance. Andrew Reid speculates about the Zeiss 24-200mm f2.8 being corrected in camera, and he is correct in this speculation. However, it is easy to see just how much correction is going on yourself. All you have to do is to download some of the still RAW file samples on the web, and convert them with software like RAW Therapee (a free download) to see just how much distortion and CA there is without in camera corrections. There's quite a lot because the view is much wider, distorted and there is visible CA noticeable at screen size on a normal sized monitor.

I seem to remember with the GH1 and it's initial mud problems, that there was a lot of debate about whether lenses which the GH1 corrected for in camera, caused worse video quality, than manual lenses, which weren't corrected in camera. So this is a possible answer for what's being observed. Unfortunately being a fixed lens camera there's no work around for this.

My interest in the camera has waned. It looked a good concept but I'm not sure the implementation is solid. Maybe they can fix this with a mkII version. I can see how this would still be a useful cam and I think the price is likely to drop a lot. It's just got too many niggles. Unfortunately whilst Sony is very innovative with consumer cams they have a tendency to repeatedly produce novel cameras, which they then fail to refine when they produce another innovative design, hoping this will be the breakthrough for them. Whereas if you look at other consumer cams like the Panasonic GHs, they have been refined with each further model and problems ironed out - even if the latest model still has a few deficits.

Edit: I should have pointed out before for those unaware that commerical still RAW file conversion software like that from Adobe adds the same type of corrections as applied in camera by default. You can't switch it off. So to see what an uncorrected file looks like you have to use independent RAW conversion software that doesn't apply these corrections by default.
 
Last edited:
SteB said:
Edit: I should have pointed out before for those unaware that commerical still RAW file conversion software like that from Adobe adds the same type of corrections as applied in camera by default. You can't switch it off.
Click to expand...

Uhm no it doesn't. For example the Sony powerzoom 18-55mm NEX lens does have a lot of barrel distortion and CA which is fixed in the cameras JPEG's. Lightroom does see it as is. There is a separate tab in Lightroom that enables profile corrections.

Why would ANY raw converter automatically fix a "barrel distortion"?
 
maarek said:
Uhm no it doesn't. For example the Sony powerzoom 18-55mm NEX lens does have a lot of barrel distortion and CA which is fixed in the cameras JPEG's. Lightroom does see it as is. There is a separate tab in Lightroom that enables profile corrections.

Why would ANY raw converter automatically fix a "barrel distortion"?
Click to expand...
Many of them do, because they use the manufacturer's software to interpret the raw files. So, for example, Silkypix most definitely applies corrections to the raw files from Panasonic cameras, including barrel distortion.
 
noirist said:
Many of them do, because they use the manufacturer's software to interpret the raw files.
Click to expand...

Except that for example Adobe reverse engineers the raw support for many major manufacturers. That's why they interpret quite differently the Fujifilm trans-x sensor stuff (with a lot of problems in the beginning) and Canon stuff from Canons own software. That's also why it sometimes takes a bit for a new camera to be supported.

It would be weird if Sony was somehow different.

My lightroom / ACR has never corrected any distortions from sony nex-5n, d800, canon 7d or 5dmarkIII without specifically enabling it. It does take out bad pixels though.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top