sony rx10?

I am actually more interested in this rx10 then the a7 from Sony. As I think about it... This camera maybe what I am looking for in terms of my daily 3 mile walk.. there are some trials which has some steep climbs.

I like to take a dslr w/ me for some nature shots. A 300mm equiv or better for the birds.. From my experience w/ rx100, 50% crop still gives a good results.

Gary
 
sdotkling said:
Why, one must ask, is this thing so god-awful ugly? Surely one can make a smaller, more elegant lens these days? Look how tiny a Canon 35/2 rangefinder lens was, in 1960. These cameras just keep getting more and more front-heavy, like electronic Dustin Hoffmans.
Click to expand...

beauty is in the eye of the beholder…the rx10 reminds me of the porche designed contax cameras…a thing of beauty.
 
jsrockit said:
It's funny, but I use my RX100 II only at 28mm and 100mm most of the time (i.e. nothing in between).
Click to expand...

It's strange... I use zooms rarely, but when I do, I almost always use them at the two extremes of the range. A psychiatrist would probably be able to make a great deal (of nonsense) from that piece of information...😉😀

Back on-topic, for me the RX10 is looking quite interesting... expensive, but interesting...
 
RX10 seems to be first 'bridge' camera that actually bridges something 🙂

I think it looks great and first reports are very positive. It is pricey, but if it delivers on all accounts that price would be justified.
 
I am going to keep a close eye on this camera. If the iq is good at the wide, middle and tele end plus the high iso is good up to 1600 or 3200, then lets c if Sony puts this on sale during the Xmas season.

I have the rx100v1, for those who upgraded from the v1 to v2, how much better is the high iso on the v2?? Did u get a one or two stop improvement in high iso? I have heard in the past.. But would like to get some confirmation about this since I can't remember how I heard sbout this.

For the purpose of my daily walk, up to iso 400 is good enough.. But I was really wondering about the higher iso for times I may use it on vacation.

Gary
 
Last edited:
The only thing keeping me from posting the shots is the amount of time I have to process them. I had a busy couple weeks leading up to PhotoPlus and am working to play catch up on some reviews that have been lingering in my queue for a while...

But I did manage to get the first full day of shooting with the three new Sony cams online. Hope to be finished with the rest over the weekend.

The RX10 shots I've got online so far are here : http://jimfisher.smugmug.com/keyword/sony cybershot dscrx10

And the general Nashville-week shots will be added here as my free time and energy allow : http://jimfisher.smugmug.com/2013

Hope this helps... Jim
 
jpfisher said:
The only thing keeping me from posting the shots is the amount of time I have to process them. I had a busy couple weeks leading up to PhotoPlus and am working to play catch up on some reviews that have been lingering in my queue for a while...

But I did manage to get the first full day of shooting with the three new Sony cams online. Hope to be finished with the rest over the weekend.

The RX10 shots I've got online so far are here : http://jimfisher.smugmug.com/keyword/sony cybershot dscrx10

And the general Nashville-week shots will be added here as my free time and energy allow : http://jimfisher.smugmug.com/2013

Hope this helps... Jim
Click to expand...

Thanks Jim, much appreciated.

Gary
 
From what I read about the RX100 mk1 vs mk2 difference the sensor was supposed to be 40% more sensititve.

which sounds like a lot, until you put it into stops.

For me I couldnt justify the mk2 over the mk1, especially since I expressly didn't want the additional bells and whistles like wifi, nfc, hotshoe, and the tilt screen.

I could just about see using the tilt screen on the RX10 very occasionally, because it's a bigger camera.

I just wish the RX100 lens zoom turned the other way.
 
Any updates on the RX10? Anyone give it a try?

I was thinking I might get this for my father as he needs a new camera and a new video camera. He hasn't had a modern video camera, and I know Mum likes to have one around.

I was considering the Sony A7 for him (small, full frame camera is finally comparable to the old 35mm AF vacation cameras we had). But this RX10 actually looks rather perfect (minus the sensor size). Just an amazingly designed camera with a great menu system and nice physical controls that don't overwhelm.

Hell, even I'm interested for myself. But I'll quell the GAS until I see what Sigma is cooking up, come 2014.
 
jsrockit said:
The sensor is quite better than its size would indicate. This is probably the ideal camera for them.
Click to expand...

It really probably is the ideal camera for the folks, but I might wait until they actually have use for it (after talking, he seems adamant that they just want me to capture all the old miniDV and etc to a digital file for them--not a new camera).

Back onto the topic of this camera: the more I research it, the more this camera seems to be the most well-designed digital still/video camera that's ever been designed.
 
My cousin just bought one yesterday for her 6 week trip to China in February. She has been playing w/ my rx100 for the last three weeks and decided for her needs the rx10 would fit better.

Hope to get a chance to play w/ it soon...

Gary
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

A
Does Voigtlander optimize their mirrorless lenses based on M designs?
Replies
8
Views
698
mrtoml
mrtoml
Muggins
What exciting ways have you found to screw up negatives?
2
Replies
29
Views
1K
Muggins
Muggins
Ken Ford
Hoping for a Sigma BF followup
2
Replies
24
Views
1K
lynnb
lynnb
boojum
The new SONY A9 III
2
Replies
29
Views
4K
joe bosak
J
D
Keep grain lose dust and scratches?
Replies
14
Views
1K
willie_901
willie_901
Back
Top Bottom