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

Here is my dilemma. I already have a Gh4 & 2 BMCC, so buying the rx10 seems redundant. I like all the features of the rx100, and the fact it's right in my pocket. But spending 1k on a speciality camera is tough to justify. I like that it would always be with me, but just dont know how reliable of an A cam for run and gun it would be. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
EOSHD Pro Color for Sony cameras EOSHD Pro LOG for Sony CamerasEOSHD C-LOG and Film Profiles for All Canon DSLRs

I realize this is probably a lame question but I could use some guidance on this please.

Talking about video only (not stills) - is the RX10 M2 considered an upgrade or at least on par with the video coming out of the Sony AX100? I shoot mainly video and want to get something that would be an upgrade from my Canon XA10. I like the smaller form factor of the RX10M2 vs. the AX100 but at the end of the day video quality is the key here.

Any thoughts? Thanks so much!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I realize this is probably a lame question but I could use some guidance on this please.

Talking about video only (not stills) - is the RX10 M2 considered an upgrade or at least on par with the video coming out of the Sony AX100? I shoot mainly video and want to get something that would be an upgrade from my Canon XA10. I like the smaller form factor of the RX10M2 vs. the AX100 but at the end of the day video quality is the key here.

Any thoughts? Thanks so much!

 

I would have considered it an upgrade because of s-log. Not having that was enough for me to have no interest in the AX100. That and it's imo weird colors and low DR.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The camra is great, the only problem is that A7s ii will have all this and the 5 axis stabilization - then you have to buy that too.   -:)

​LOL You're fully right... :-)

That it, if it arrives...

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?

​Always FF equivalent. 35mm because it is still photography world, not cine standards. Cine 35mm or S35 is normally associated to crop in still photography. Crop format (1.3x, 1.6x etc) came much later than FF. So, 24-200mm in FF.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Ebrahim Saadawi

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.

 

Just to clarify and state all the information: 

 

35mm is the film type used in photographic cameras in the 20s century for almost a century. The size of that film sheet was 36x24mm. 

Motion picture cinema cameras used the same film, 35mm, however the film was used rotated (vertically instead of horizontaly) so although it's the same film (35mm) the size of the area used on the film was smaller on motion cameras. somewhere around 22x16mm-ish, then this was modified to ''super 35mm'' increasing the size slightly to 24x18mm-ish. 

 

Digital photography came, and sensors inside digital SLRs were all APS-C size format, which happens to be close/identical to s35 motion film window size. 

Then Canon released the Canon 1Ds. A digital camera that has the same size format as photographic 35mm film photographers were used to, and Canon cleverly called this size ''Full-Frame'', making all professionals feel they have non-full cameras, the Canon 1Ds and later 5D made record-breaking sales due to having that Full Frame 35mm film size sensor. Nikon followed the trend and also produced their cameras with that size sensor, but called it FX format and called APS-C DX format. .

 

Then video came to these photographic cameras, while the highest-end digital cinema camera has the standard s35/APS-C size sensors, suddenly the 5D became the largest sensor video camera in existence and the only way to shoot video in with a large photographic 35mm format look, similar size to film stocks larger than s35 that were available anciently that were called VistaVision films. 

Having that large sensor is a new aesthetic to video and does have benefits in getting shallow depth of field and wide angles. But nonetheless, APS-C S35 IS the standard cinema size today, so they are favoured by cinematographers. Using an APS-C digital camera gives cinematographers their traditional focal-length/depth of field they are used to for decades, a 50mm lens behaves like they're used to, unlike on FF where it suddenly looks like a 35mm to them. And cinema lenses are designed to cover that size image not FF so that's a big factor. S35 is considered the sweet spot standard for cinema/video production, going larger gives shallower depth if field and going smaller givers deeper depth of field and both are compromises for the standard. That's not to say that many love the new Fullframe video aesthetic and many love the smaller sensor deep aesthetic, it's a personal artistic choice after all. 

So APS-C video shooting DSLRs took off, 550D, 600D, 60D, 7D, D7000, D3300, D5200, Nex series, Alpha a5100/6000, and much more. and to this day, s35/APS-C is the standard size of most video cinema cameras, like the Canons C100/300, Sony FS100, FS700, FS7, F5, F55, F35, F65, Panasonic Varicam, Arri Alexa, Arri Amira, Red one, Epic, MX, Blackmagic cinema 4K cameras, Ursa, Phantoms, virtually all cinema cameras, with exceptions of cameras having larger sensors closer to FF like the new Alexa 65, Red Weapon Vista. (There are size variation between all these S35/APS-C cameras but not worth mentioning, you can check each camera's sensor spec size in millimeters if needed)

 

 

When it comes to Crop factors, it's now a common standard to use photographic 35mm (Fullframe or FX) as a reference to know what a lens will look on smaller or larger sensors, Fullframe is considered 1X crop, none.

FF is the standard mentioned on release specs (like the RX10 here). 

To get the FF equivalent, you multiply the crop factor by the focal length to get the field of view, and multiply the aperture to get the depth of field, but you don't apply that to exposure, just DOF. 

-S35/APS-C: 1.5x crop.

So here a 50mm F/2 s35 lens on a s35 camera looks like an 85mm F/3 FF lens on a FF camera, in terms of field of view and depth of field, but exposure/brightness is still F/2. 

-Micro Four Thirds: 2x Crop. (GH4 in 4K is 2.3x)

-1" Sensor size: 2.7x Crop. (RX10, XC10)

-S16 sensor size: 3x Crop. (Bolex, Pocket Camera)

Using and calculating the FF equivalent of your lenses is only relevant if you are used to the FF standard as a photographer, but as a cinematographer who always worked with s35/APS-C, he knows how a 50mm looks and doesn't really care what the equivalent lens on FF.

It's however nice to know the facts behind it and helps if you ever need to use a smaller/larger sensor camera and be able to multiply the crop factor to know how your lenses are going to look. 

For someone used to FF, the RX10 looks like a FF lens that's 24-200mm F7.6 in depth of field and field of view, and F/2.8 brightness/exposure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is my dilemma. I already have a Gh4 & 2 BMCC, so buying the rx10 seems redundant. I like all the features of the rx100, and the fact it's right in my pocket. But spending 1k on a speciality camera is tough to justify. I like that it would always be with me, but just dont know how reliable of an A cam for run and gun it would be. 

I don't know how nobody seems bothered by the curious 5 mins recording limit on the RX100 IV. It's such a weird thing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just got this camera and so far i am in love! did some filming of a police helicopter searching in the park close by here in Oslo, Norway. And the camera handles motion perfect! almost no rolling shutter! insanely good :) 

 

Here is a 4K video i shot on Auto downscaled to full hd : https://vimeo.com/133804417

- There was not much time to grab a tripod or anything, so this pretty much all handheld on auto, and no grading.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just got this camera and so far i am in love! did some filming of a police helicopter searching in the park close by here in Oslo, Norway. And the camera handles motion perfect! almost no rolling shutter! insanely good :) 

I think I need this, screw the 100, that reach is awesome and the image looks really solid, nothing brittle about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Just to clarify and state all the information: 

 

35mm is the film type used in photographic cameras in the 20s century for almost a century. The size of that film sheet was 36x24mm. 

Motion picture cinema cameras used the same film, 35mm, however the film was used rotated (vertically instead of horizontaly) so although it's the same film (35mm) the size of the area used on the film was smaller on motion cameras. somewhere around 22x16mm-ish, then this was modified to ''super 35mm'' increasing the size slightly to 24x18mm-ish. 

 

Digital photography came, and sensors inside digital SLRs were all APS-C size format, which happens to be close/identical to s35 motion film window size. 

Then Canon released the Canon 1Ds. A digital camera that has the same size format as photographic 35mm film photographers were used to, and Canon cleverly called this size ''Full-Frame'', making all professionals feel they have non-full cameras, the Canon 1Ds and later 5D made record-breaking sales due to having that Full Frame 35mm film size sensor. Nikon followed the trend and also produced their cameras with that size sensor, but called it FX format and called APS-C DX format. .

 

Then video came to these photographic cameras, while the highest-end digital cinema camera has the standard s35/APS-C size sensors, suddenly the 5D became the largest sensor video camera in existence and the only way to shoot video in with a large photographic 35mm format look, similar size to film stocks larger than s35 that were available anciently that were called VistaVision films. 

Having that large sensor is a new aesthetic to video and does have benefits in getting shallow depth of field and wide angles. But nonetheless, APS-C S35 IS the standard cinema size today, so they are favoured by cinematographers. Using an APS-C digital camera gives cinematographers their traditional focal-length/depth of field they are used to for decades, a 50mm lens behaves like they're used to, unlike on FF where it suddenly looks like a 35mm to them. And cinema lenses are designed to cover that size image not FF so that's a big factor. S35 is considered the sweet spot standard for cinema/video production, going larger gives shallower depth if field and going smaller givers deeper depth of field and both are compromises for the standard. That's not to say that many love the new Fullframe video aesthetic and many love the smaller sensor deep aesthetic, it's a personal artistic choice after all. 

So APS-C video shooting DSLRs took off, 550D, 600D, 60D, 7D, D7000, D3300, D5200, Nex series, Alpha a5100/6000, and much more. and to this day, s35/APS-C is the standard size of most video cinema cameras, like the Canons C100/300, Sony FS100, FS700, FS7, F5, F55, F35, F65, Panasonic Varicam, Arri Alexa, Arri Amira, Red one, Epic, MX, Blackmagic cinema 4K cameras, Ursa, Phantoms, virtually all cinema cameras, with exceptions of cameras having larger sensors closer to FF like the new Alexa 65, Red Weapon Vista. (There are size variation between all these S35/APS-C cameras but not worth mentioning, you can check each camera's sensor spec size in millimeters if needed)

 

 

When it comes to Crop factors, it's now a common standard to use photographic 35mm (Fullframe or FX) as a reference to know what a lens will look on smaller or larger sensors, Fullframe is considered 1X crop, none.

FF is the standard mentioned on release specs (like the RX10 here). 

To get the FF equivalent, you multiply the crop factor by the focal length to get the field of view, and multiply the aperture to get the depth of field, but you don't apply that to exposure, just DOF. 

-S35/APS-C: 1.5x crop.

So here a 50mm F/2 s35 lens on a s35 camera looks like an 85mm F/3 FF lens on a FF camera, in terms of field of view and depth of field, but exposure/brightness is still F/2. 

-Micro Four Thirds: 2x Crop. (GH4 in 4K is 2.3x)

-1" Sensor size: 2.7x Crop. (RX10, XC10)

-S16 sensor size: 3x Crop. (Bolex, Pocket Camera)

Using and calculating the FF equivalent of your lenses is only relevant if you are used to the FF standard as a photographer, but as a cinematographer who always worked with s35/APS-C, he knows how a 50mm looks and doesn't really care what the equivalent lens on FF.

It's however nice to know the facts behind it and helps if you ever need to use a smaller/larger sensor camera and be able to multiply the crop factor to know how your lenses are going to look. 

For someone used to FF, the RX10 looks like a FF lens that's 24-200mm F7.6 in depth of field and field of view, and F/2.8 brightness/exposure.

​Full informative post *thumbsup* classy, very well! I guess next time, better to wait for your input before to even dare to post or yours will always put ours at dust LOL : ) It is a pleasure to read your posts all the time any time though, keep up the good work! (E :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello

 

is it possible to have a 1080p monitoring via hdmi, during the recording in 4k XAVS on the internal sd of the rx10 II?

The Rx10 II have the capacity to downscale 4k to 1080p for monitoring?

 

Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Digital photography came, and sensors inside digital SLRs were all APS-C size format, which happens to be close/identical to s35 motion film window size. 

Then Canon released the Canon 1Ds. A digital camera that has the same size format as photographic 35mm film photographers were used to, and Canon cleverly called this size ''Full-Frame'', making all professionals feel they have non-full cameras, the Canon 1Ds and later 5D made record-breaking sales due to having that Full Frame 35mm film size sensor. Nikon followed the trend and also produced their cameras with that size sensor, but called it FX format and called APS-C DX format. .

​100% false.  5 seconds on the google machine reveals THIS.  Canon did not invent full frame... neither the technology nor the nomenclature.

Full frame is just a handy short hand that everybody understands.  It is not a religious term.  I have always found it peculiar that videographers get so religious about it.  Clearly full frame is SUPERIOR to what videographers have worked with for decades and so called full frame is INFERIOR to what a lot of photographers have worked with for over a century.  But as photographers we don't seem to mind using the term.  When I shoot film I usually shoot 6cmx6cm.  In fact full frame is referred to as "small format" by photographers.  As far as camera makers go APS-C (so called "super 35) was late to the party and the format that had the most marketing voodoo... because it was clearly inferior but made business sense for camera makers and people like Kodak.  If you want to talk about horrendous marketing BS in the late nineties by camera manufacturers and film makers look no further than APS-C.  I've heard really messed up stories about that format's introduction.

 

Having said that as far as digital I happily use APS-C with no ill effects.  I use a BMPCC with a speedbooster... again with no ill effects.  Frankly without a crew, controlled lighting, and a dedicated focus puller the extra depth of field is welcome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Ebrahim Saadawi

​100% false.  5 seconds on the google machine reveals THIS.  Canon did not invent full frame... neither the technology nor the nomenclature.

Nope nothing false here sorry. No one said Canon ''invented'' Full Frame, Full-frame is lingual term, it's not a Trademark or patented owned by anybody, the roots of the word can be traced back endlessly. In fact, FF in not an ''invention'' by any means, the idea of scaling up the digital chips to match 35mm film were there since the beginning of digital photography. The term Full-frame is a language-originated term, it's not really an invention, it simply implies that 35mm size is Full when compared to the existing (then) digital sensor, it means Full 35mm Frame (in fact Full 35mm Frame was stated in the Contax PR).

It's not a patented invention or a clever new idea, Contax in 2001said they made one (sensor made by Philips) but started shipping the camera a year later, when Canon had already made the 1Ds, and Kodak already made FF digital back, both hugely superior sensors to the Philips and marked its withdrawal from the market. 

I believe it's a clever marketing trick used by Canon to use the term so violently in the days of the 1Ds and 5D, I remember back in the day everyone felt they were not ''full'', they were not shooting on the real ''full'' professional photographic format, they were less than full. Full means maximum, not full is obviously inferior. For example had they called it "Sub-Medium Format'' the impact would have been much lower. In anyway, it was an accurate term at the time, it was the maximum size available so Full is appropriate naming, but later when bigger sensors came out, the term suddenly became inaccurate, it's not Full/maximum size. 

However ''FF is superior to what videographers have worked with for decades'' is false,

mainly due to the fact that just like film photography, there were larger cinemtography motion film than 35mm, Vistavision, 65mm, 70mm, in fact when the very common practice of shooting with an anamorphic lens on 35mm motion film results in photographic FF size usage as it uses the whole 36x24mm film, that's first and second a larger/smaller sensor is not superior/inferior, this is not a correct assumption, different film/sensor sizes merely give different characteristics today and many smaller sensors out power larger ones and vice versa, there are SO many other elements that make a sensor superior or inferior. 

This is related to marketing and nomenclature of sensor sizes though, not the subject here so better stick to the thread or open a new one. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a newbie question: I decided to try and do the maths on how much sensor size is used for different cameras when shooting in 4K...

I got 15.6mm x 10.9mm (=170) for the GH4 and 11.4mm x 7.6mm (=86) for the RX10II. The latter is more likely to be wrong as I am just guessing at a 0.86 crop of the 1 inch sensor based on this quote from Andy: "The RX10 II only has a small crop in 4K from 24mm to 28mm at the wide end". I couldn't find anything else on Google to help me figure it out so I just said 24-28 is 6/7 = 0.86

Does anyone know if I got that right. If so it seems the GH4 uses twice the sensor size for 4K video. I know size isn't everything, but twice the size seems to me like it would make a large difference in video quality?

I also checked the Samsung NX500 and got 14.75mm x 9.9mm and the NX1 23.3 x 15.6 (=363- so more than twice the size of the GH4). I have likely got these numbers all wrong as I am pretty much guessing as a newbie.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Ebrahim Saadawi

As far as I know, the 4K mode sensor size on these cameras are as follows 

GH4: 2.3x (1:1 4K crop from a 16mp m43s sensor)

RX10/II: 2.7x (full sensor readout & downscale from a 1" sensor) 

NX100: 2.77x (1:1 4K crop of 30.3mp s35 sensor)

I think the 24/28mm remark on the RX10 is due to the top and bottom crop to go from 3:2 to 16:9 aspect ratio and not a crop into a smaller center area. This is the case with the XC10 for example which doesn't crop in 4K, but in phptography mode at 3:2 it's 24mm and at 16:9 video mode it's 27mm. 

In short, GH4 4K is largest sensor size of them, and the one most capable of getting extremely shadow depth if field, due to larger sensor in 4K, ability to use faster than 2.8 lenses, and ability to go s35 size with the Speedbooster, so it's shallowe DOF, that's what it only means. Lowlight and DR and colour quality are dependent on other sensor quality elements which we'll have to wait and see. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Same thing on my 4K Sony Smartphone. It gets hot as hell. So not very weird at all imo.

Wth. It's terrible in 2015 that they still have issues with heat. Hmmm ... 

 

​Full informative post *thumbsup* classy, very well! I guess next time, better to wait for your input before to even dare to post or yours will always put ours at dust LOL : ) It is a pleasure to read your posts all the time any time though, keep up the good work! (E :-)

Ebrahim Saadawi writes some of the best posts in these forums. And no arrogance or rude behavior. It's always a pleasure to read his posts. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as I know, the 4K mode sensor size on these cameras are as follows 

GH4: 2.3x (1:1 4K crop from a 16mp m43s sensor)

RX10/II: 2.7x (full sensor readout & downscale from a 1" sensor) 

NX100: 2.77x (1:1 4K crop of 30.3mp s35 sensor)

I think the 24/28mm remark on the RX10 is due to the top and bottom crop to go from 3:2 to 16:9 aspect ratio and not a crop into a smaller center area. This is the case with the XC10 for example which doesn't crop in 4K, but in phptography mode at 3:2 it's 24mm and at 16:9 video mode it's 27mm. 

In short, GH4 4K is largest sensor size of them, and the one most capable of getting extremely shadow depth if field, due to larger sensor in 4K, ability to use faster than 2.8 lenses, and ability to go s35 size with the Speedbooster, so it's shallowe DOF, that's what it only means. Lowlight and DR and colour quality are dependent on other sensor quality elements which we'll have to wait and see. 

I think you may be confused about the NX1 which you have called the NX100.

The NX1 has a 1.5 crop which means it is recording to a much larger sensor size than the GH4.

edit: I am sure I read the NX1 downscales from 6.5K somewhere, plus I just found this quote from the blog; "I questioned Samsung on the readout resolution, because 28MP is a long way from the 8MP of 4K. 28MP is more like 7K! The answer had my jaw on the floor. Their sensor is able to do a full pixel readout at up to 30fps in 7K and so there’s no  crop  in 4K video mode. The image processor appears to be doing a very good job of scaling the 7K raw output from the sensor to 4K and Ultra HD."

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...