High-end bridge cameras: Sony RX10, Panasonic FZ1000 etc

paul.w said:
Hi Jim, I get a bit fed up of people going on about differences in low light performance, The fact is there is virtually no difference whatsoever, So why don't we just get on with taking pictures?
Professionals don't worry about ISO performance, they just sell their pictures, job done......... Period
Only amutures worry about specs! It's all b.s.
After 25 years in the wedding industry I get tired of the same old arguments day after day. I started off with a tlr camera and 400 ISO maximum film, so low light discussions is of no interest to me anymore, I leave that to people who don't take photography seriously.
Modern cameras, and modern sensors are far more capable than the people who operate them, the sooner we all realise that the better.
Here's a thought, ...... If the pictures you take aren't good enough, Is it your cameras fault, or yours ?
Click to expand...

One of the most sensible posts I have seen on here for a long time. Well said.
 
I'll get some more shots up tonight. I've been fiddling with my web site and I want wifey's approval as she's my artistic consultant before I update the live version.
 
As threatened..... We visited the church of St Mary the Virgin in Shipton-under-Wychwood after we'd been to the mill there to buy a load of flour. Compressed by JAlbum again and the light was really flat. I lifted the shadows on the first and fourth but that's about it.

<edit on 06/02/17> I don't understand why these pics have disappeared as I don't think I've done anything to cause it. It would be helpful if the forum software showed the path so one could check or even let one delete the old place-holders. :( I'll try to work out what they were and re-instate them.

DSC00101.JPG


DSC00116.JPG


DSC00126.JPG


DSC00127.JPG

DSC00101.JPG

DSC00116.JPG

DSC00122.JPG

DSC00127.JPG
 
Last edited:
First few with the new beast, I usually shoot RAW but these are jpegs, tweaked with LR 6. The 600mm macro is quite stunning.

DSC00975-2_zpslt0omlgi.jpg


DSC01142_zpsm2dtkdn1.jpg


DSC01085_zpsqmqsipmc.jpg


DSC01049_zpsgqwpuzkb.jpg


DSC01015_zpsaxpvj2h1.jpg
 
Glenn Surtees said:
First few with the new beast, I usually shoot RAW but these are jpegs, tweaked with LR 6. The 600mm macro is quite stunning.

DSC00975-2_zpslt0omlgi.jpg


DSC01142_zpsm2dtkdn1.jpg


DSC01085_zpsqmqsipmc.jpg


DSC01049_zpsgqwpuzkb.jpg


DSC01015_zpsaxpvj2h1.jpg
Click to expand...

600mm macro would be a microscope wouldn't it [emoji3]
 
Really impressed with those images, Mike and Glenn! The only thing putting me off is the weight, and unfortunately I think it's probably a couple of hundred grams too heavy for my Rheumatoid Arthritis! Mind you I'm so impressed I will continue to watch what you post on this thread, and be ever hopeful for a miracle cure! Glad you're both pleased with the camera!
 
Thanks Marcia, quite pleased with the results. I see you have the Panasonic FZ1000, I do too (at least until I can sell it) and I can tell you the Sony feels much weightier and more substantial. If I could have anything the Panny has that the Sony doesn't it would be the fully articulated screen, they are just so useful, especially when, like me, the photographer is not very flexible. I can usually get down for a low shot, but can't get back up again!

Keep your eyes peeled for more from the Sony when the sun comes back.
 
Thank you Glenn for the comparison between the FZ100 and the Sony. The words "much weightier" confirms my doubts as to whether or not I could manage it for longer periods of time. It's a shame because as I said, the images look stunning, and the fact you are going to sell the FZ1000 suggests you think the Sony is the better of the two. We live quite a way from a camera retailer, but if and when they have more in stock I will go and try one in the flesh so to speak to see if the weight around my neck is bearable or not. The other camera whose announcement caughr my eye is the Nikon DL 24-500, especially as it has PDAF in addition to contrast detect. It also appears to be a similar weight to the FZ1000. However availability has been pushed back to late Autumn/Winter apparently. Seeing the images on here has ingnited my GAS, but as lack of either in stock means I'll have to be patient.......not one of my traits really!! ;)
Anyway, please do keep the images coming and if you have anymore thoughts on the Sony please let us know!
 
I previously owned the RX10 MK1 and loved it. I do lust after the Mk3. I now have a Panasonic FZ1000 I wanted the extra reach. I consider the image quality of the FZ1000 at least the equal of the RX10 Mk1 and the AF performance is far superior.

For balance here is one of my dog Jess taken with the FZ1000.


i-hwT3Pmt-X2.jpg
 
Thnk you for that Roy. Lovely image of a gorgeous dog!
I was very pleased with the FZ1000 initially, but anything at a distance, like birds, or anything small like a Damselfly close up, now don't seem that sharp. I am quite willing to believe that it's user error, because as my health has got worse, I'm sure I am less steady holding the camera, which would explain the lack of sharpness in both those cases. If that's true then I guess unless a camera has super image stabilisation, I will get the same problem, and it's often quite hard to increase the shutter speed too much on a bridge camera. All very frustrating and worrying too as birds, butterflies and Dragon/Damselflies are what 90% of my photography is, other than my dogs.
If anyone has any ideas how I can improve, other than a tripod, I would be very grateful. I suppose I was hoping that the Sony with a faster lens may help at the long end!
 
wellyboot said:
If anyone has any ideas how I can improve, other than a tripod, I would be very grateful. I suppose I was hoping that the Sony with a faster lens may help at the long end!
Click to expand...

This will sound totally nuts, but it works for me:)

I use a Panasonic TZ60, which in a lot of ways is similar to your FZ1000, but not so much to grip onto.
To help hold it steady at longer focal lengths, I use a cheapo poundland selfie stick. When there is something high enough to rest it on, it can act like a mini monopod. Alternatively, freestanding I tuck the base of it into my belly/waistband to act as an anchor point. It surprised me how it helps to hold the camera really steady, was certainly a good investment, all £1 of it for me. Might be worth a try???
 
wellyboot said:
Thnk you for that Roy. Lovely image of a gorgeous dog!

If anyone has any ideas how I can improve, other than a tripod, I would be very grateful. I suppose I was hoping that the Sony with a faster lens may help at the long end!
Click to expand...

But Marcia, the Sony is not a "faster lens at the long end" the RX10 Mk3 and FZ1000 are both F4 at the long end. If you are struggling to get sharp images with the FZ1000 at the 'long end' (400mm) and it is " user error " then you are going to find it even more difficult with the RX10 MK3 at the 'long end' (600mm) ? In fact if you see my post on page 1 you will see that the Sony reaches f4 at 100mm and the FZ1000 at approx 170mm so from 100mm to 170mm the Panasonic is the faster lens. ;) However too insignificant to make much difference really. It is at the wide end where the Sony is a little faster 2.4 v 2.8 but of course at these apertures you should have sufficient shutter speed to compensate ?

I would echo Steve B's post. A tripod is ideal for those long shots but who wants to carry a tripod everywhere. A quality monopod maybe with a fold down foot stand used properly can be a big help in overcoming camera shake (user error) You can get them with a sling that makes them easy to carry ?
 
Marcia, here are a couple of quick comparison shots of the two together. The Sony feels more solid than the Panny but the reason it seems much heavier (1051g against 831g) is that the Sony is front-heavy with the lens retracted, presumably because there is a lot more glass at the front. However it is well-balanced with the lens extended and you don't seem to notice the weight quite so much.

comparison2_zpskgnhtlmt.jpg


comparison_zpsaofnmqdj.jpg


I'm selling the Panny not because it doesn't perform well but because I want the reach of the Sony and don't need both. I have a Sony RX100 IV and I think all three cameras have the same sensor so there is little difference in quality. I reasoned that most lenses are least good at the maximum range so the Sony at 400mm would be better than the Panny at its full stretch of 400mm, and that's the case in my experience. What I didn't reckon on is that the Sony is as good at 600mm as at 400mm.

The steady shot is pretty good and at its best when the lens is at full reach but focussing close up as in the butterfly shot. The focussing is not as fast on the Sony as the Panny for fast moving objects, although I haven't tried focus tracking yet. All the above is my opinion based on only three days with the camera.

SON01381_zpsl0vsek58.jpg
 
Last edited:
Interesting Glenn, if the MK3 is as good at 600mm as it is at 400mm then Sony have 'broken the mould'

I'm sure I will get a Mk3 one day ? but I do think it's overpriced at launch and will wait until the price falls. Current camerapricebuster prices Sony £1249.00 Panasonic £549.00.

I'm guessing Panasonic's FZ1000 MK2 will arrive before too long and the competition will force Sony to reduce the price of the RX10 mk3 ?

Of course while I wait for the price to drop you will be busy taking Pulitzer prize winning images with your Mk3 :puke: c'est la vie.
 
Thank you for the selfie stick idea Steve. One for me to explore!
Sorry Roy, my mistake. I really thought it was f2.8 throughout the range. A definite senior moment there from me!
Thank you Glenn for the comparison photos for me. Interesting about the AF, but if the focus tracking is good that would certainly be a plus. If the "Steady Shot" is good at full reach, then I think I really need to give one a try. The way I look at it is that it doesn't matter how fast the AF is if I get blurry shots because of my less than steady hands.
I really appreciate everyone's help here, because I would hate to have to limit, or give up a hobby that means such a lot to me. Once the Sony is back in stock, I will be taking a trip to Digital Depot and having a good long play! In the mean time if you do try out focus tracking Glenn, I would love to see the results. Thank you
 
Taken hand-held at 600mm, heat haze has affected the image but it is pretty sharp

SON01429-Edit_zpsuq8883hj.jpg
 
Glenn Surtees said:
I have a Sony RX100 IV and I think all three cameras have the same sensor so there is little difference in quality.
Click to expand...
The FX1000 has the same sensor as the original RX10 but not the RX10M2/3 and the RX100M4 which have the later version with on-chip readout. This has almost zero affect on image quality, however, but does improve video.
 
How much vignetting did you get with the Raynox? I thought it was too much even on the M2 so didn't bother trying with the M3. The M3 does play nicely with Marumi Achromats however.
 
Snapsh0t said:
How much vignetting did you get with the Raynox? I thought it was too much even on the M2 so didn't bother trying with the M3. The M3 does play nicely with Marumi Achromats however.
Click to expand...

If don't go too wide you shouldn't see any vignetting?
 
odd jim said:
If don't go too wide you shouldn't see any vignetting?
Click to expand...
On a 72mm objective, I think that's just a little optimistic to put it politely. In fact, I've just taken the 72-67mm step-down ring off my Marumi 200 so I could try it and I reckon the Raynox vignettes to at least 500mm. I suspect Mike has cropped his fly a fair bit. My 67mm Marumi 200 stops vignetting around 50mm so I'll be using that or treating myself to a 72mm.
 
Snapsh0t said:
On a 72mm objective, I think that's just a little optimistic to put it politely. In fact, I've just taken the 72-67mm step-down ring off my Marumi 200 so I could try it and I reckon the Raynox vignettes to at least 500mm. I suspect Mike has cropped his fly a fair bit. My 67mm Marumi 200 stops vignetting around 50mm so I'll be using that or treating myself to a 72mm.
Click to expand...

That's strange. I don't get vignetting even on 'wider' lenses on FF?
 
Snapsh0t said:
On a 72mm objective, I think that's just a little optimistic to put it politely. In fact, I've just taken the 72-67mm step-down ring off my Marumi 200 so I could try it and I reckon the Raynox vignettes to at least 500mm. I suspect Mike has cropped his fly a fair bit. My 67mm Marumi 200 stops vignetting around 50mm so I'll be using that or treating myself to a 72mm.
Click to expand...

Yep, spot on - the Marumi vignettes to about 500mm as you say. It's only 49mm filter size whereas the RX10iii is 72mm so not surprising.

Didn't know there was a Marumi alternative! Are they any good? It would be very helpful to have one that went straight on the front rather than faffing with stop down rings and vignetting :)

Off to google ....
 
Nick (Gardenershelper) has a comparison of Raynox and Marumi close-up lenses in his massive thread in the macro photos section. The Raynox was definitely better but I think that will be counteracted for us by the Marumi allowing us to use more of the frame.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top