1. Reminder: Please use our affiliate links for holiday shopping!

Does anyone have & use an RX100 III/IV?

Discussion in 'Other Systems' started by ijm5012, Mar 11, 2016.

  1. ijm5012

    ijm5012 Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Oct 2, 2013
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Ian
    I'm curious, does anyone here own and use either an RX100 III or IV? I ask because I'm seriously considering picking one up (likely a IV due to the video improvements), but I'd like to hear from users within our system on how they like the camera, image quality (from what I've seen, particularly with the Mk.IV, it's basically on par with m43 sensors), etc.

    I'm seriously looking at picking up a RX100 IV because when I travel, I typically will bring one of my GH4's and the 12-35 in a little LowePro bag (although now that I have the 7-14, I try to bring that as well depending on where I'll be going). The RX 100 IV covers the same range as the 12-35 does on the my, but is over a stop faster on the wide end.

    I'm also really interested in the Mk. IV because of the video improvements over the Mk. III, namely the 4K and 120 fps @ 1080p.

    I'd be curious to get people's thoughts who own and use these cameras what their thoughts are, especially compared to their m43 gear.
     
  2. DennisC

    DennisC Mu-43 Regular

    76
    Jan 24, 2010
    Cheshire UK
    I've had the original RX100 for a couple of years and rate Sony's 1" sensor in that model better than any m4/3 sensor in my possession.
    Can't comment on the later versions or video capabilities but it's a gem and led me to realise the stunted development of m4/3.
     
  3. ijm5012

    ijm5012 Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Oct 2, 2013
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Ian
    Hi Dennis,

    Thanks for your feedback. I compared the Mk. III & IV to the GH4 (my current m43 camera), and was really surprised at how well the 1" sensor performed compared to the m43 sensor (link). The Mk.III is only rated as half a stop worse in dynamic range, and the Mk.IV is less than a quarter stop worse. When looking at high-ISO noise performance, the Mk.III is about 2/3 a stop worse than the GH4, and the Mk.IV is about 1/3 a stop worse.

    The 1" Sony sensor is really quite impressive IMO, and shows what can be done when the sensor manufacturer has a vested interest in the product because they put it in a camera they sell (unlike the Sony-made m43 sensors that end up in Olympus cameras, where there is such a limited market and Sony doesn't offer it in a camera of their own, so why both spending a ton of time developing and optimizing it to compete against their 1" and APS-C sensors?).

    The only thing that really concerns me about the RX100 series is the lack of a touch screen, as it's something I've become quite accustomed to with my GH4's.
     
  4. WT21

    WT21 Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Feb 19, 2010
    Boston
    I have an RX100 mk 1. It's the single camera I've had for the longest time (bought it a few months after it came out). It has replaced any and all kit lenses, and serves as a bright 28mm lens for me when needed. I just did an event shoot, and used the RX100 as my wide angle second body. The pics are used for website top pages and facebook updates. So, quality is not the topmost concern, but they are used as the face of the organization (this is for a school).

    The only reason I haven't upgrade to the III or IV is because I like the longer reach. Sometimes, this is my only camera. Quality to portability ratio is off the charts.

    I don't do video. I would think the body is a bit small to control for serious video??
     
  5. damianmkv

    damianmkv Mu-43 Veteran

    364
    Nov 7, 2014
    Surrey, England
    i have the mk2 and it really does produce some great images ( although I have a romantic, nostalgic view of Fuji's jpegs ). The lack of touch screen doesn't bother me as the RX100 replaced my XF-1, although i do still tap it in times when I'm having a "senior moment".

    Never taken any video as that's not my thing...so that aside, and the fact that i have the 2 not 3 or 4, I've been a great help :dance:
     
  6. ijm5012

    ijm5012 Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Oct 2, 2013
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Ian
    I don't think the body is too small for video (I'm not sure what "serious" video is, but it will not be replacing GH4's for day-long or multi-day shoots, but maybe act as a B-roll cam). What I really like about the video on the Mk.III & IV is that it's a full sensor readout, so no pixel binning, and I can shoot with full manual control (i.e. set the shutter speed/aperture/ISO, and use the ring to control focus).

    In addition to the great video capabilities, the still performance is really wonderful. I like shooting in 3:2 format for landscape images (most of what I shoot when I travel), so that along will give me a native 20MP image over the 12MP image I get with a GH4 cropped to 3:2. Just the thought of having a compact like that replace my GH4/12-35 for travel is super appealing. So much smaller and lighter, yet I really don't give anything up in terms of IQ.
     
  7. A 3:2 crop of a 16mp 4:3 ratio image is little over 14mp.
     
  8. ijm5012

    ijm5012 Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Oct 2, 2013
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Ian
    Turns out it is (14.155776 MP to be exact). Thank you for this wildly insightful piece of information that makes no difference in how I feel about my GH4 (I love it by the way, wonderful camera).

    Since you felt obligated to come in to this thread and share your wisdom, do you own an RX100-series camera, and if so, how do you feel about it compared to your m43 gear?
     
  9. tkbslc

    tkbslc Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Have you seen the DL24-85 from Nikon? It's a lot cheaper than a RX100 4 and has a little more reach, but sadly the VF is an add-on like with a PEN camera. I've been eyeing that one, as I just can't see myself paying $1000 for a compact camera.
     
  10. ijm5012

    ijm5012 Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Oct 2, 2013
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Ian
    I did, but it's bigger in every dimension than the RX100 IV, weighs more, and there's not a chance in hell the video is going to be anywhere near to what the Sony can deliver.

    I'd be buying an RX100 IV used, and they're around $700 so much more reasonable than their current MSRP.
     
  11. tkbslc

    tkbslc Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Sorry to do a semi-hijack, but why would you assume the video won't be as good?
     
  12. ijm5012

    ijm5012 Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Oct 2, 2013
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Ian
    Because Nikon's video in their DSLR's (even their 4K) doesn't hold a candle to Sony's.

    Does the Nikon have full pixel read out, 120 & 240 fps 1080p, gamma-log color profile, and a codec that's better than Sony's XAVC-S? Based on what I've seen from their DSLR's, I'm not holding my breath for much, which is why I don't believe it'll hold a candle to what the RX100 IV can do when it comes to video. I'd love for Nikon to prove me wrong, but I don't believe they'll do so.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  13. Somebody said something wrong on the internet; what else am I supposed to do?
     
    • Funny Funny x 2
  14. ijm5012

    ijm5012 Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Oct 2, 2013
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Ian
    Address the question at hand and not worry about the pedantics?
     
  15. Replytoken

    Replytoken Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    May 7, 2012
    Puget Sound
    Ken
    What qualities/features did you find better in the Sony?

    --Ken
     
    • Winner Winner x 1