Jump to content
Andrew Reid

Sony RX10 M2 - first part of my review and a mini-comparison with the A7S and Canon 1D C

Recommended Posts

EOSHD Pro Color for Sony cameras EOSHD Pro LOG for Sony CamerasEOSHD C-LOG and Film Profiles for All Canon DSLRs

And exposure is what matters. Would be pretty messed up if manufacturers stated the equivalent aperture.  If I told an assistant "could you please stop that lens down to f22." it would be pretty dark :)

​Yeah, the actual physical specification should be be given.   In this case its an 8.8-73.3mm f2.8 lens.  Any equivalents should be given afterwards in brackets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think its interesting to compare the new RX100 M4 / RX10 M2 sensor to the non-BSI version (announced June 2012) and see the regression in picture quality.

Sony RX100 vs Sony RX100 M4 http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison/fullscreen?attr18=lowlight&attr13_0=sony_dscrx100m4&attr13_1=sony_dscrx100&attr13_2=panasonic_dmclx100&attr13_3=canon_g7x&attr15_0=jpeg&attr15_1=jpeg&attr15_2=jpeg&attr15_3=jpeg&attr16_0=800&attr16_1=800&attr16_2=800&attr16_3=800&normalization=full&widget=1&x=0.29692982456140365&y=-0.6079499860035459

Change around the from 800 to 125 to see that the picture has gotten worse over the last 3 iterations in the entire ISO range.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Adrew wrote: "That is quite a lot for $1298 and I’m not even scratching the surface."

Where can I buy the RX MII for $1298?

Best, Rod

Looks like next Wednesday, http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?Ntt=rx10ii&N=0&InitialSearch=yes&sts=ma&Top+Nav-Search=

Where I live it's sitting on shelves for a pickup since about a week, but sadly for much more money. To much for me atleast.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think its interesting to compare the new RX100 M4 / RX10 M2 sensor to the non-BSI version (announced June 2012) and see the regression in picture quality.

Sony RX100 vs Sony RX100 M4 http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison/fullscreen?attr18=lowlight&attr13_0=sony_dscrx100m4&attr13_1=sony_dscrx100&attr13_2=panasonic_dmclx100&attr13_3=canon_g7x&attr15_0=jpeg&attr15_1=jpeg&attr15_2=jpeg&attr15_3=jpeg&attr16_0=800&attr16_1=800&attr16_2=800&attr16_3=800&normalization=full&widget=1&x=0.29692982456140365&y=-0.6079499860035459

Change around the from 800 to 125 to see that the picture has gotten worse over the last 3 iterations in the entire ISO range.

​At ISO 6400 the Mk IV clearly has less blue noise and blacker blacks, probably because the sensor's backside circuit generates less heat and there's a cleaner pathway between the sensor and image processor.

But yes the Mk I does look a tiny bit sharper. Won't notice the difference in real life though.

I'd rather have the faster readout and 4K than 5% improvement in stills performance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Except the completely different sensor size, extreme slo-mo, and amazing built in lens.

​Sure. Could be that A7s ii will be the increased size of this sensor or downsizing the 42M - however hopefully we get the fast readout in a FF format sensor. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh man, i am enjoying all this new tech and models coming out almost each month but its making me thought process on my next upgrade a mess lol.

I ve been using a canon 600d with a canon 35mm f2 is usm as my main rig but i seriously need to upgrade now.  

My. Main wants are 

1. Sharper as the 600d has serious sharpness issues

2. Better dynamic range 

3. Better iso especially up to 1600

If its possible usable caf for moving shots etc.

I was between the nx1 with the 30 and the gh4 used with an adaptor and my canon 35 but this seems at least as good, better price with more extra and from what i read it covers my 1-4. Thought getting a fixed lens camera kinda bugs me thought its probably just my issue.

 

How does it compare to the other 2 in image quality?

I m mainly Making things like these:

 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5s67RuipH7E

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R9_-LYsJ5bY

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So I realize this is a pretty basic question that I probably knew the answer to at one time, but 24-200mm, is that FF equivalent, or 35mm equivalent? I know it says 35mm equivalent, but for some reason I'm just confused. (I always get confused with this lens equivalent stuff). For instance this chart says 35mm Full Frame as though they are the same http://petapixel.com/assets/uploads/2012/10/allsensors.jpg So what is this lens equivalent to in FF? Roughly 36-300mm? Or is it 24-200mm? 

Also, what is the minimum focus distance of this lens? Can't seem to find that.

Also, what is the DOF equivalent? I think someone said f8. Really? I'm not a shallow DOF guy but that seems more like the ultra tiny 1/3" sensor days pre 2009. Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So I realize this is a pretty basic question that I probably knew the answer to at one time, but 24-200mm, is that FF equivalent, or 35mm equivalent? I know it says 35mm equivalent, but for some reason I'm just confused. (I always get confused with this lens equivalent stuff). For instance this chart says 35mm Full Frame as though they are the same http://petapixel.com/assets/uploads/2012/10/allsensors.jpg So what is this lens equivalent to in FF? Roughly 36-300mm? Or is it 24-200mm? 

Also, what is the minimum focus distance of this lens? Can't seem to find that.

Also, what is the DOF equivalent? I think someone said f8. Really? I'm not a shallow DOF guy but that seems more like the ultra tiny 1/3" sensor days pre 2009. Thanks.

35mm is full frame. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So I realize this is a pretty basic question that I probably knew the answer to at one time, but 24-200mm, is that FF equivalent, or 35mm equivalent? I know it says 35mm equivalent, but for some reason I'm just confused. (I always get confused with this lens equivalent stuff). For instance this chart says 35mm Full Frame as though they are the same http://petapixel.com/assets/uploads/2012/10/allsensors.jpg So what is this lens equivalent to in FF? Roughly 36-300mm? Or is it 24-200mm? 

Also, what is the minimum focus distance of this lens? Can't seem to find that.

Also, what is the DOF equivalent? I think someone said f8. Really? I'm not a shallow DOF guy but that seems more like the ultra tiny 1/3" sensor days pre 2009. Thanks.

​Its 24-200 full frame equivalent.   Whenever they say 35mm they mean "full frame". What they should be saying is "135 format equivalent feild of view".  People usually say "super 35mm" if they are refering to the cinema standard. Although that could be anything from crop factor of 1.4 to 1.7 depending on how loose you are with the definition. So it wouldn't have much meaning or make much sense to gives equivalents in super 35 for a stills camera.  And I have never seen such an equivalent given.

DPReview gives the "Macro focus range" as 3cm.  I asume this is the minimum focus range from the front of the lens as opposed to the sensor.  And I would guess that would be at the widest angle.

The 135 format maximum depth of feild equivalent is about f7.5.  The APS-C maximum depth of field equivalent is f5.   Don't worry.  200mm f8 on 135 and 135mm f5 on apsc and 73.3 on " "one inch" type" will give you a blurred background.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems pretty exciting. This next to my a6000 would be a killer 2 camera setup. Would love to see how the lens performs too!

If Sony could totally sort out their colour science to be closer to Canon's then they would be unstoppable

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope they bring this sensor and lens over to the X70/AX100 form factor fairly soon. Although if the AF is fast and accurate enough, and the zoom control is fine enough (and there're zoom speeds above a glacial crawl), you could probably just get away with adding a loupe and the XLR unit to this camera.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems pretty exciting. This next to my a6000 would be a killer 2 camera setup. Would love to see how the lens performs too!

If Sony could totally sort out their colour science to be closer to Canon's then they would be unstoppable

​In the future Canon will have to work out their color science to be closer to Sony's, once the Pavlovian conditioning effect wears off as more and more move to Sony equipment.

People think Canon color looks "organic" and "filmic" (and all those other ridiculous buzzwords) because they have seen it so much and therefore want to emulate it so that they can demonstrate to the other Pavlovian dogs that they are worthy of respect as well ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can anyone link to some specific cards that work for 4K capture? I figured I'd need one of the super fast ones the GH4 uses, but was able to get 4K using my friend's 80MB/s card. My 95MB/sec card doesn't work though. Also, does it have to be SDXC over SDHC? My understanding was that the difference between these two is capacity, not speed. 

Anyway, loving the 4K footage I've been getting from my RX100 Mk IV. And S-Log2 .. praise jeebus! Used it as the A Cam over my A7s on a Vogue Taiwan makeup tutorial I did, so the editor can crop into the footage when outputting to 1080p. 

I love this camera in almost every way, but do have a few complaints:

  • Size bump over my (recently deceased) Mark II. That extra couple millimeters makes a ton of difference when pocketing this thing. I get that it's a lot more impressive in so many ways, from the lens to the EVF, but size is ultimately the reason I'm buying the RX100 over, say, the RX10: a carry everywhere camera as well as a capable B cam. I find I'm carrying it around my wrist rather than in my pocket because it's tricky to wrangle out, which kind of defeats the purpose.
  • ND3 is not powerful enough. Why not ND6 instead? When I'm often in a bind and need to use it (midday light), ND3 doesn't cut it. In midday light I can maybe shoot with the aperture completely stopped down, which gives it that shitty infinity focus video look anyway. Limits the flexibility.
  • I have the function menu and other function buttons maximally assigned, but there's almost not enough to not have to pop into the menu system more than I want to. Wish there was one more dial or button.
  • Flash on my Mk II was a lot cooler looking. This seems like it was designed to be more flattering and more of a fill flash, but I like the harsh quality of the old one. Gave me that Terry Richardson/Yashica T4 look that I liked. 
  • This could be wrong, but my first impressions are that the image stabilization is not as impressive in 4K as the 1080p in my Mk II.. No idea why. Maybe it has to process so much more data? But I think the footage on my Mk II was super stabile compared to this.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

​Yeah, 35mm is full frame and Super-35 is APS-C innit

​Well, Super 35 is roughly APS-C. APS-C is actually a 90s film size Kodak tried to introduce as an amateur alternative to 35mm film. But then digital cameras came out, and APS was adopted by early advanced digital cameras because it was so expensive to make large sensors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Ebrahim Saadawi

​Well, Super 35 is roughly APS-C. APS-C is actually a 90s film size Kodak tried to introduce as an amateur alternative to 35mm film. But then digital cameras came out, and APS was adopted by early advanced digital cameras because it was so expensive to make large sensors.

​Why don't we get down and just state measurements in millimetres micrometres, to be more exact in our wording. 

Share this post


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...