Jump to content

Exclusive review - Sony RX10


Andrew Reid

Recommended Posts

It would be nice with a bit more details on your impression of the 24p mode - I think it's gonna be a few more years before good looking 60p becomes a thing in non-Panasonic cameras. Is the vimeo video shot in 60p or 24p? How bad is the motion blur pixellation in normal use? I'm just looking for something with good image stabilization and nice looking 24p footage and this seems like the best bet at the moment, the alternative is a GH3 and the 12-35mm but that becomes pretty expensive.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 56
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

We've been there already. Andrew had a brief look at the camera - see this thread:    '?do=embed' frameborder='0' data-embedContent>>   It looks like a great camera. The best evolution of th

I'd love to see you pick up the new Nikon d5300. You liked the d5200, this new model keeps all the good stuff from the previous, but removes the anti-aliasing filter and adds support for 60P... AND it

Well yeah, I'm genuinely sorry that this is off topic and won't pursue it any further on this thread. But you do have readers who are interested in the camera for legitimate reasons (and you had 2 peo

Andrew, Did you shoot your 60 fps footage with SteadyShot?  From the slashcam.de review and others, it looks like SteadyShot Active Mode uses crop out for roll correction, which is responsible for moire and loss of resolution. But the SteadyShot standard mode is entirely optical, with no moire or loss of resolution.

 

I would like to know this too, it is extremely important.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been eyeing the RX10 for a while, and even made the hasty move to sell off my existing gear in preparation for it (GH2 and 35-100mm!).

 

The thing is my needs are rather limited.  Professionally I do live camera projection through wireless HDMI on a shoulder rig (the fact that I can easily use an external battery to this thing that charges the internal one is actually very good for me), and seminar talking head recording, and other locked down stuff (safe shot for weddings etc).  I already own an Atomos Ninja 2, which AVCHD issues aside I'd need to use as takes are over 29minutes anyway.

 

For me this still sounds a go-er, making some bucks in the way that I do, as I use the camera to also slowly improve my videography skills (slow-mo for family stuff for eg.).  Only potential concern is the mediocre low light ability, but I need to invest in better lights anyway :)

 

I just wish I didn't back myself into this corner.  No doubt this thing will be MUCH cheaper in a very short time (at least there will be a few secondhanders under warranty still on ebay for a discount very quickly).

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Administrators

I would like to know this too, it is extremely important.

 

Yes aware of the Slashcam test, and they are in Berlin, good guys. Active SteadyShot gives you the crop. I turned this off and just shot with SteadyShot (optical, no crop).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Andrew, thanks for the great review of the RX 10. My Questions:

 

- did you try the 25p MP4 Codec Option? It runs at 24Mbps. Could it be any better then the AVCHD options?

- does the RX10 have a useable tele crop mode in video mode like the GH2/3 or has it a digital zoom of bad quality like normal?

 

I have to shoot a short documentary in Egypt next March. I have an EX3 which I would usually use for that in combination with a DSLR. Because I work on my own in this case I´m thinking about leaving the EX3 at home, save some weight and can use a smaller tripod as well. I´m looking of a capable camera that can replace the EX3 in this case. Do you think the RX10 could do it? In terms of quality: the documentary is for internet use only, no upper class quality required but should look decent.

 

A general question also - if it could be answered generally :) if the camera has the ability to shoot 25p and 50p at nearly the same bitrate - what should I use? The final project in 25p. Does 50p only have advantages if I want to generate slow motion e.g. with twixtor?

 

Thanks for your help!

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Administrators

Andrew, thanks for the great review of the RX 10. My Questions:

 

- did you try the 25p MP4 Codec Option? It runs at 24Mbps. Could it be any better then the AVCHD options?

- does the RX10 have a useable tele crop mode in video mode like the GH2/3 or has it a digital zoom of bad quality like normal?

 

The 25p MP4 option isn't 24Mbit, it's just 12Mbit. Not much difference in quality to the AVCHD though.

 

No tele crop like GH2.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been shooting 1080/60p with a RX100 for the last year. I'm so impress that now it is all I use now for video. My only issue with the RX100 has been the 105mm zoom limitation -- enter the RX10! However your review has me concerned. Is the video going to muddy compared to the RX100? You mention the RX100 briefly. Can you offer any more insight? It would be greatly appreciated.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Someone else beat me to the history lesson but I did want to add, Super8 was introduced for the sound strip.

 

The handheld 16mm cameras were available for war time documentary newsreel work, much earlier than the 60's. They would shoot, and print film for local news broadcasts until the 70's.

 

Bolex wasn't Super 16mm, just 16mm.

 

Super 16mm was a delivery format, created for anamorphic blowups to 35mm, for theatrical distribution.

 

Documentaries rarely shot this. The intermediate work prints, and final blow ups were Super expensive. The lab and post costs and other complications, rivaled 35mm, but the production handling allowed for more stripped down crews. It wasn't a low budget accesible format, shooting Super 16 meant your production was pretty involved. You didn't shoot it unless you knew you were doing a costly blowup to 35mm. DP's also pushed for it, because they had invested a lot in the equipment, as the so called future. There was a point where going to video and posting in Avid/Media Composer made it practical, but DV was already introduced by then. Beta, Beta SP, and even Hi8 were more likely to get used than Super16.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A couple of corrections:
 

Bolex wasn't Super 16mm, just 16mm.


The Bolex H16 was convertible to Super 16, and round-trip conversion between regular 16 mm and Super 16 could be done in the field.
 

Super 16mm was a delivery format, created for anamorphic blowups to 35mm, for theatrical distribution.


Super 16 has an aspect ratio of roughly 1.66:1 and blow-ups have usually been to spherical widescreen 35 mm. Vantage's Hawk V-Lite 16 1.3:1 anamorphic lenses allowed a 2.40:1 image to be captured on Super 16.
Link to post
Share on other sites

A couple of corrections:
 

The Bolex H16 was convertible to Super 16, and round-trip conversion between regular 16 mm and Super 16 could be done in the field.
 

 

Well. You could modify just about any camera if you really wanted to, but Bolex H16 (created in the 30's) predates Super 16 (late 60's for cameras) though. It's more common to modify an Arri sync camera instead.

 

There's a difference between it being a professional indie favored format, and the days of processing in your bathtub. Labs, upright/flatbed editors, projectors, take up reels, all had to be modified too.

 

The Hawk lens you're talking about wasn't released until the very late 90's, if I recall?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well. You could modify just about any camera if you really wanted to, but Bolex H16 (created in the 30's) predates Super 16 (late 60's for cameras) though.


Except that Bolex, not a third party, did the conversion and pretty loudly promoted it once Super 16 became somewhat popular. 
 

The Hawk lens you're talking about wasn't released until the very late 90's, if I recall?


You could say it was the very, very late '90s -- in fact, 2009.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Except that Bolex, not a third party, did the conversion and pretty loudly promoted it once Super 16 became somewhat popular. 
 

 

Right, but I'm not following the signifigance in that. The Bolex market was mostly film schools by then.

 

Was it really popular though? It was out of reach for most filmmakers, and a fantasy format, considered a headache by a lot of those who used it. Most wished they could just shoot 35mm instead.

Link to post
Share on other sites

S16 was adopted and adapted for television delivery in the 70's through the present, the highly influential NFL films still shoots S16 (as of 2012) to Walking Dead.  If you shot a doc through the 90's for the BBC you used S16.

S16 was kinda the 5D revolution of the day, as a filmmaker you sensed it was possible to make a film on low budgets.

There is a tendency to romanticize the Bolex, truth is it was a nightmare to use certainly if you only had the spring loaded version. Like you said pretty much only used in film schools and hobbyists although great for animation.  The 80's it was trying to get your hands on a 16mm Arri, Eclair npr (the great doc camera of the 60's) or the S16 Aaton to make your short films.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Andrew, on your twitter you mentioned "RX10 to HyperDeck is producing some stunning images. I think we have a winner here!"...

 

So basically, assuming one is fine with the RX10 and external recorder setup, these problems mentioned are eliminated:

 

- compression and mud

- macroblocking and pixellation

 

..but it doesn't help at all with:

 

- aliasing and moire

- medicore low light performance

 

Is that a good summary?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Right, but I'm not following the signifigance in that. The Bolex market was mostly film schools by then.

 
You said that the Bolex was not a Super 16 camera. The significance of Bolex doing the conversion (i.e., it wasn't simple a third-party, aftermarket service) is that, in effect, there was a Super 16 Bolex offered by Bolex.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Andrew, on your twitter you mentioned "RX10 to HyperDeck is producing some stunning images. I think we have a winner here!"...

 

So basically, assuming one is fine with the RX10 and external recorder setup, these problems mentioned are eliminated:

 

- compression and mud

- macroblocking and pixellation

- medicore low light performance

 

..but it doesn't help at all with:

 

- aliasing and moire

 

Is that a good summary?

 

I believe this image is from the externally recorded video.

 

rx10-prores.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...