Eric Westpheling

My friend took delivery of his RX10mk2 today. I played with it for about an hour. The image quality is superb. Sony has really fixed almost all my issues with the first version. Namely the zoom speed while recording is variable based on how much you toggle the switch- and it can be quite fast if needed.  There is a full Picture Profile menu, but with only Cine1 and Cine2 from the cine-gammas. Not a big issue but I will miss Cine4.
As for people saying you can't get bokeh with this camera- you can definitely get bokeh and good focus is actually quite critical even on wider shots. I kept the lens at f2.8 the entire time, and it is softer there than say f5.6. The internal ND is helpful but you'll need additional ND 0.6 to hold wide open in direct sunlight at ISO 100, do the math out if you want to shoot Slog2 at 400/800.
These are frame grabs from resolve. I shot 1080/24p, f2.8 at ISO100/200, Cine1/Pro, added filmconvert. 
It is a solid camera and I wouldn't hesitate to take it anywhere. I can see it being a great option for Doc 1-man band shooters, it is quite manageable once you have it programmed. The intelligent-active steadishot was very impressive too. I think paired with a tight little cage to hold the xlr audio adapter and the SmallHD 502/Sidefinder you could really work quite hard with this thing.
 

My friend took delivery of his RX10mk2 today. I played with it for about an hour. The image quality is superb. Sony has really fixed almost all my issues with the first version. Namely the zoom speed while recording is variable based on how much you toggle the switch- and it can be quite fast if needed.  There is a full Picture Profile menu, but with only Cine1 and Cine2 from the cine-gammas. Not a big issue but I will miss Cine4.
As for people saying you can't get bokeh with this camera- you can definitely get bokeh and good focus is actually quite critical even on wider shots. I kept the lens at f2.8 the entire time, and it is softer there than say f5.6. The internal ND is helpful but you'll need additional ND 0.6 to hold wide open in direct sunlight at ISO 100, do the math out if you want to shoot Slog2 at 400/800.
These are frame grabs from resolve. I shot 1080/24p, f2.8 at ISO100/200, Cine1/Pro, added filmconvert. 
It is a solid camera and I wouldn't hesitate to take it anywhere. I can see it being a great option for Doc 1-man band shooters, it is quite manageable once you have it programmed. The intelligent-active steadishot was very impressive too. I think paired with a tight little cage to hold the xlr audio adapter and the SmallHD 502/Sidefinder you could really work quite hard with this thing.
 

My friend took delivery of his RX10mk2 today. I played with it for about an hour. The image quality is superb. Sony has really fixed almost all my issues with the first version. Namely the zoom speed while recording is variable based on how much you toggle the switch- and it can be quite fast if needed.  There is a full Picture Profile menu, but with only Cine1 and Cine2 from the cine-gammas. Not a big issue but I will miss Cine4.
As for people saying you can't get bokeh with this camera- you can definitely get bokeh and good focus is actually quite critical even on wider shots. I kept the lens at f2.8 the entire time, and it is softer there than say f5.6. The internal ND is helpful but you'll need additional ND 0.6 to hold wide open in direct sunlight at ISO 100, do the math out if you want to shoot Slog2 at 400/800.
These are frame grabs from resolve. I shot 1080/24p, f2.8 at ISO100/200, Cine1/Pro, added filmconvert. 
It is a solid camera and I wouldn't hesitate to take it anywhere. I can see it being a great option for Doc 1-man band shooters, it is quite manageable once you have it programmed. The intelligent-active steadishot was very impressive too. I think paired with a tight little cage to hold the xlr audio adapter and the SmallHD 502/Sidefinder you could really work quite hard with this thing.
 

​Here are some graded versions of this footage. A compressed version is available to download from vimeo. Just playing around, but it looks very nice.

​Here are some graded versions of this footage. A compressed version is available to download from vimeo. Just playing around, but it looks very nice.

​Here are some graded versions of this footage. A compressed version is available to download from vimeo. Just playing around, but it looks very nice.

This is the test footage I have been waiting for; ungraded S Log 2 in 4K. Camera still, outdoors:

This is why they sell light meters.

​I've had my Rx100 mk1 from the first day it was available to consumers in 2012. Its been around the world in my pocket and thrown into my bag without a case. It has lost some paint on the edges but it is certainly not a fragile camera. My mother dropped hers straight onto the lens from 5' and yes that broke it, but barring that its as solid as you can get short of a gopro.

This would be near useless for me and most folks I work with. Any modern production lens will resolve enough detail to keep you from getting a pink slip. I wouldn't project some lenses 40' tall but for youtube or even broadcast I would rank a lens' resolution numbers near the lowest of important characteristics for my uses as a cinematographer. The overall aesthetic performance of a lens is what matters, followed closely by ergonomics. The former is not something a lens review will tell you much about. You might be able to spot some bokeh and vignetting characteristics, but short of renting it and pointing it at a person and looking at them in a few sizes you won't know much about a lens. The only reviewer I see doing any work like this is Lloyd Chambers of Diglloyd.com: his in-depth reviews, aperture series, and expert commentary are worth every penny of his subscription costs.
When the Sigma art 35mm 1.4 came out I rented it for a comparison to my beloved Zeiss ZE 35mm 1.4, and yes the Sigma could have an edge in resolution in some scenarios, but the Zeiss trounced it in terms of pure image harmony. Switching blind A/B on the monitor my crew all settled on the Zeiss. Just goes to show you DxO mark resolution numbers should not be a huge consideration in your purchases unless you are in the business of photographing and making reproductions of test charts.

This would be near useless for me and most folks I work with. Any modern production lens will resolve enough detail to keep you from getting a pink slip. I wouldn't project some lenses 40' tall but for youtube or even broadcast I would rank a lens' resolution numbers near the lowest of important characteristics for my uses as a cinematographer. The overall aesthetic performance of a lens is what matters, followed closely by ergonomics. The former is not something a lens review will tell you much about. You might be able to spot some bokeh and vignetting characteristics, but short of renting it and pointing it at a person and looking at them in a few sizes you won't know much about a lens. The only reviewer I see doing any work like this is Lloyd Chambers of Diglloyd.com: his in-depth reviews, aperture series, and expert commentary are worth every penny of his subscription costs.
When the Sigma art 35mm 1.4 came out I rented it for a comparison to my beloved Zeiss ZE 35mm 1.4, and yes the Sigma could have an edge in resolution in some scenarios, but the Zeiss trounced it in terms of pure image harmony. Switching blind A/B on the monitor my crew all settled on the Zeiss. Just goes to show you DxO mark resolution numbers should not be a huge consideration in your purchases unless you are in the business of photographing and making reproductions of test charts.

Could not disagree more. It would be the second coming of the Megapixel race in pocket cameras for dumb consumers.
I give you an example as to why. Say you have a lens thats listed it as 40 mp on it. Yea it may resolve that, but hows the image? Bokeh? Chromatic Aberration? When sharpness becomes the main concern for manufacturers (more than it is now) then we all suffer creatively for it. 
As someone that uses Cinema glass on his GH4 you know that resolution is not the most important aspect of an image :)

No they really shouldn't. A lens does not "resolve 6MP".
A lens renders a certain spatial frequency at a certain contrast ratio. It might take detail at 20 line pairs per millimeter and produce 70% contrast, detail at 50 line pairs per millimeter results in 30% contrast etc. This relationship is captured by the modulation transfer function (MTF), a quantity which varies according to the distance from the image centre, and the direction you measure in (sagital vs tangential). Manufacturers already publish MTF charts for their lenses, which is the equivalent of what you're suggesting, only much more meaningful. There are some differences in how these charts are computed (e.g. whether diffraction is included or not) so they're not always directly comparable, but they aren't anywhere near as misleading as trying to attach a single "megapixel" rating to lenses.
The other reason stating "this lens resolves 6MP" is meaningless is that the important thing in determining how you images will look is not the lens MTF itself, but the system MTF. The system MTF is the product of MTFs of each part, the lens the filter stack and the sensor (and image processing to an extent). Because it's a mathematical product (a lens delivering 80% contrast combined with an AA filter that delivers 95% contrast results in 76% contrast (0.8 x 0.95 x 100)) you can improve the system MTF by improving the MTF of any component in the system. Hence you "6MP" lens will give you more resolution on a 24MP body than on a 6MP body.
 
It's exactly this thinking that leads people to declare that there's no reason to have a 50MP sensor as there are no 50MP lenses in existence. Even the kit lens in your example produces some contrast in the centre of the image at 50MP.