sony rx100 IV

[Michael L]

298 g (0.66 lb / 10.51 oz) including battery

dimensions: 102 x 58 x 41 mm (4.02 x 2.28 x 1.61″)

[d k]

Well, this will save me some money. I was all excited about the rumors of a larger sensor, but luckily for my wallet it is not in the IV.

[Franco Darioli]

Details here :
http://www.dpreview.com/articles/7826270294/sony-cyber-shot-dsc-rx100-iv-shoots-4k-uses-a-stacked-sensor

[Ian]

…as to why they are releasing a pocketable camera that has internal 4k capabilities and selfie screen (carry over from the iii) that doesn't have an audio jack. I realize that there are post production solutions out there but seems like it would have been little trouble to add one. With the EVF, being so well received, I don't see the hot shoe from the ii ever making a comeback.

[Nick Gatel]

"..as to why they are releasing a pocketable camera that has internal 4k capabilities and selfie screen (carry over from the iii) that doesn't have an audio jack."

Ian,

They are following Apple's lead. Release a new model every year and the faithful will dump the old one and buy the new. It's residual income with a twist. Very smart of them. That is why I still have the i and may or may not get the iii. The only thing I would like is a view finder once in a while. When I think I need one, I bring the ClearView I bought. So, I figure I've saved $1,600 the past two models… more than enough to buy a Spectra McHale and a few dozen cases of beer. Wait a minute, I already have one and rarely drink alcohol. Might as well keep putting the $$ in the retirement plan ;)

[Jeff Jeff]

The IV also gets an auto focus upgrade. How is the autofocus on the III? Quick enough to take photos of biking or skiing?

[Serge Giachetti]

Sort of relieved that the rumor wasn't true about the larger sensor, although I'm sorry to get people excited about it. There's little to tempt me away from my 3 here. Having gone from a 1 to a 3, I think the best reason to upgrade at all is the flip screen of the 2 and the wider/sharper/faster lense of the 3 over the 2. I loved files from the 1, but the edge to edge quality is noticeably better on the 3. The auto focus on my 3 can get a little confused with high contrast and I suspect I might be something wrong under warranty with my particular model. Auto focus was better on a whole on my 1. As much as I like the viewfinder, I dont' use it all that often. I do like the wifi though, because I like the simplicity of transferring and editing selects on a tablet. Auto

[Adam Kilpatrick]

If that max shutter speed is correct, that's phenomenol. We might find use for it on our UAVs for work purposes. Maybe.

[Charlie W]

I don't want to divert the subject of the thread, but just some highlights of the a7 here in case someone doesn't know or is on the fence. If interested, bring discussion over to my thread in this subforum.

*The Sony a7 is now <$1000 (for body only) and I've seen them used for as low as $600.
*The "international" version of F2.8 35mm ZA is $600 (rather expensive but good lens especially from UL point of view; zoom is cheaper but heavier)
*The total weight of the two above (+battery) is 21 oz., which is more than my tent but still amazing for full-frame camera.

The other thing that I didn't know until I had one (thanks to incredible stupidity from someone at Sony) is that the battery charges quite well in-camera from USB. You will see in reviews that it takes 5-6 hours. But it's really 2 hours from any modern 2 amp wall/car USB charger w/ USB2.0 cable, and 3 hours from my Suntactics sCharger-5 with good sun (rated at 1 amp). For some strange reason the box packers at Sony packed it with a 0.5a USB wall charger (maybe because that was the 1994 USB spec???). This is clearly in conflict with the electrical engineering of the camera and battery itself: all Li-ion battery devices have charge/discharge regulators on-board and I trust this more than I trust the box-packers. I came within a hairs breadth of not buying into this system for this very reason.

[Nick Gatel]

I think the focus on the RX100, for most folks here, is the fact it is a compact camera that takes high quality pictures. I have had pictures published in paper magazines that were taken with a RX100 i and the publisher was thrilled with them. One was even spread across two facing pages. I sent him the RAW files.

It is not an ideal camera for wildlife, unless one develops stealth skills to sneak up to things like grizzlies and mountain lions :)

[Charlie W]

Nick, I know. I'm not one to subscribe to the notion that a photo is better because the camera is more expensive. It is very unlikely that an a7 or a7r will get you a better photo unless you are prepared to bring a tripod and take other steps to make a better photo. I thought my post above and the thread might help others who are presently on the fence (as I was 6 months ago), possibly even to convince them that full-frame is NOT a good idea.

[Nick Gatel]

Charlie,

No disrespect meant. I think most people interested in an a6, or a7, or a nex are probably more than the casual shooter like me.

So for me, weight is the primary consideration along with quality. My first camera was a Kodak box, then a Brownie. Still have my old SLR with an assortment of lenses and my TLR, neither of which I ever took backpacking due to weight. For a few years I used an itty bitty Canon SD1200IS, which under 5 ounces was awesome — it even has a view finder in addition to a small screen.

Yes, for those who are serious about photograpy and combine that hobby with backpacking, a full frame camera is going to be of interest, and for those, something like the RX100 might be a good backup camera to supplement things.

All of this is good discussion.

[bradmacmt]

Franco, I read the review link you posted… I think it's a good one, but there are other considerations.

Here's a more in depth review:

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/panasonic-gm1/panasonic-gm1A.HTM

And a good comparison with the RX100:

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/panasonic-gm1/panasonic-gm1-image-quality.htm

At the end of the day, P&S cameras will eventually collect dust on the sensor rendering them crap. I've been there too many times. Do a little google-foo on the Sony RX's and sensor dust and you'll see what I mean. The beauty of a mirrorless is it's a snap to clean, even easier than a DSLR.

This aspect seldom enters into the discussion, but with backpackers it should… it absolutely should.

[Chris Chandler]

http://www.imaging-resource.com/cameras/sony/rx100-iii/vs/sony/rx100-iv/

I got the mk3 a few months back to take on a month long Iceland trip. I knew there'd be a mk4 released pretty much as soon as I got back. I'm happy to say that I don't feel any need to upgrade. The majority of the changes come to improved super ultra HD 4k slo mo and 16fps burst shooting. Neither of which I use

wins for the mk3 in my book:
– wished the batteries lasted longer on the mk3. The mk4 uses the exact same battery but is CIPA rated at fewer shots with the LCD (same ratings using EVF)
– the mk4 is ever so slightly heavier
– $150 cheaper

wins for the mk4 (insofar as these are differences that would make a difference to me)
– I only used the EVF a few times in extremely bright conditions or when I wanted to stabilize the camera better. When I did, I found the resolution perfectly sufficient, but technically the EVF is a win for the mk4. Couldn't hurt having a higher res EVF
– there were a couple of times where I would have liked a faster shutter (in lieu of stronger ND filters), but I survived. Still, that's a win for mk4
– it's newer? I don't know

[Dave G]

Brad,

I think you might be blowing things out of proportion, you seem proud of your "google-fu", but you need to be aware that google takes your browsing history into account when providing search results ie. the more you look for something, the more common it seems. When I searched "rx100 sensor dust", your comment was the third result (not surprising as I visit often), but of the top ten results, there were lots of people asking whether it (dust) would be a problem, the few first hand reports were mostly apparent when new, and exchanged under warranty.

I have never notice the evidence of sensor dust in real world images produced by my well (ab)used RX100mk1 (3 yrs old, mostly used in the Sierra and UK, but also in the GC, Zion and Bryce) kept in hipbelt pockets, some of which were mesh)

As a test, I took some f11 shots of plain backgrounds, played around with contrast and clarity in Lightroom. No problems were evident.

Dave

[Michael Gunderloy]

Amazon currently shows the III at $798 and the IV at $948. For you people who actually know things, if you were buying today which would you pick?

[Chris Chandler]

Kind of a cop out answer, but only you can really decide what the verdict is. There are comparisons in this forum and around the web, just list the things that the extra $150 would get you on a mk4 and decide if they would even pertain to your use of the camera, and if so, are they worth the $150? I have the mk3, which had significant enough improvements over the mk2 that I justified the extra expense (lower ISO, newer processor, wider lens, viewfinder). If I were looking to buy right now, it would come down to the mk3 or mk4 and I couldn't justify the added expense of the mk4. Since you're considering the mk4, that means that it's within your budget. If it were me and that was my budget, I'd buy the mk3 and take that extra $150 and get a Squaretrade drops and splashes coverage plan. Take it into the backcountry worry free. My mk3 got a bit wet in Iceland one extremely rainy day when I stupidly neglected to move it from my external water resistant shoulder pouch into dry safety inside my pack. It dried out and still works like a champ, but at that moment of "oh crap my expensive camera is wet," I was really happy to have the piece of mind of having an accident coverage plan on it

[Author]

Posts