So what do we think? Our video review of the Sony RX100 IV

What is your link supposed to show? Which camera has more mass appeal?

In that case, the smaller, less-expensive Sony with the better name recognition and more of the all-important megapickles is probably going to win over the larger camera with manual controls and dials that will likely confuse many camera users.

Mass appeal is not high on my list when shopping for a camera. I owned the RX100-II and then the RX1, and for me the LX100 is a better camera. Not to take anything away from the RX100, but it's not the best camera for everyone.

"the smaller, less-expensive Sony ... is probably going to win".

"less-expensive Sony". Really?

On the TOP of the list is SONY RX100.M4, which is almost $1K.

The "less-expensive" LX100 is way out of TOP 100.

BTW, RX100.M3 is $800 in TOP 20 while the cheaper RX100.M2 is out of TOP 50.

Check the LIST again. LX100's selling point is CHEAPER, but still less people are buying it even it is $200 cheaper than RX100.M4, and same priced as RX100.M3.

I forgot about the price increase of the M4, but the bulk of my comments, which you did not address in your haste to correct me on the price of the M4, still apply.

The various RX100's are probably more approachable for the average camera buyer than a camera like the LX100. My point is that mass appeal or relative sales figures don't make a camera better or worse.

I bet that 99% of the people I know would not know what to make of the aperture ring, shutter speed dial, or exposure compensation dial on the LX100. Most people would probably find the camera intimidating, so I am not surprised at all that it would move less units than a camera like the RX100, which looks about like any other digital camera from the outside.

My post is for OP's "the LX100 seems like stiff competition".

No, LX100 is way out of TOP 100 while all RX100s are in the TOP 100. RX100.M4 is in TOP 3, and RX100.M3 is in TOP20.

LX100 is no a "stiff competition" to all RX100s in the other words.

Oh, OK. I can still see the same behavior around 0:57, for example, which is actual video.

I mean - with all this talk about 4K, the 1080p that I see on my computer looks lousy.

Is the whole video shot with another Sony? I can see a person holding the RX100IV most of the time. Is person shooting using another RX100IV?

The bulk of the video was shot with the a7 II, some of the cut-aways were shot with the Panasonic G7 (in 4K). The only shots taken with the RX100 IV are the panning of the plane coming in to land, the detail on the building and the slow-mo bees.

Part of this could be because we shot in 24p but I wonder whether part of it is down to YouTube's re-encoding.

Actually I am asking you the very same question. Can't you see I was joshing?

Jim, I agree with you. I don't want to hear about the RX100 IV, I want to hear more about the RX10-II! ;)

It's not about conspiracy, I totally agree with Jim Evidon. Multiple news, expedited full review, now a video review to explain ad nauseam that it is the best compact camera ever (until mark V) ... What else? I don't say that the camera is bad, but if Sony does not sell a lot, we won't blame DPReview/Amazon :-))) Almost as sickening as an iPhone launch.

It's an interesting camera that we've built coverage of as we've had access. Note that the X-T10, despite being reviewed later, was the first to get a review summary video.

It still feels weird being criticized for doing 'too much' camera review content.

@Barney Britton - It still feels weird being criticized for doing 'too much' camera review content.

Well, other than the reviews, forums, DP Review Connect, video's, sample images, camera database, galleries, news updates and studio scene comparison tool, what have <strike>the Romans</strike> has DP Review done for us lately?

Whine Wine.

CA Chardonnay or Ch. Petrus?

You KNOW Sony did it on purpose?! Wow! Can you tell me the Lotto number this week please?

I don't understand your logic. This camera is a completely different ergonomic concept to a high end video camera. I can't imagine the market has many people swithering between this camera and a high end video camera. So I can't see what Sony would have to gain from behaving as you say.

To understand my logic you simply have to be logic yourself. Now where exactly I've said this camera is high-end video camera? Nowhere. All I said is that Sony could have easily placed mic in. And that would opened immense 4K video capabilities with good lav mics to chose from and to do a 4K descent video for 95% of usual users.
I never said anything about Pro Videographers and Holywood producers. So please check your logic before replying to a post that contains facts, not some assumptions. It's a fact that mic in is missing. It's a fact that Sony could have put it in if they wanted.

@Silmarion: Easily? Really?! They even have difficulty centring the tripod screw thread at the bottom of that cam, presumably because of space constrains. It is a very SMALL (and increasingly heavy for its size) camera, and clearly this time they try to add some heat-sink in there somewhere and the 4K full sensor read-out overheating issues is only partially resolved, and you are so sure they could have easily add a mic and headphone input somewhere? Your logic is presumptuous, therefore it's illogical.

illogical bec. he is stupid. For a small camera like that then it is expected to use it as non-pro video work. It's for CONSUMERS but not stupid consumers. And what do you need mic for when doing slow motion? if you want to do 4k more than 5mins of recording then get yourself a video cam or iphone stupid!

@Lightcapture: have you ever open electronics and looked at mic in? Sony can put 4 mic in if they want to at space near hdmi port. That will however pull buyers from other Sony cameras, simply because for 99% 5min 4K clips is enough to do a youtube review or important shooting. A lot of people would buy rx100m4 for that feature only. Most of 4K videography today uploaded to net is under 5min. If you want more you can take several 5min clips. Sony knows it. Yes, IMHO they omitted mic in on purpose.

Here's a question for you: how many people who need 4K and mic in will buy rx10ii if rx100m4 had mic in? Not many, maybe like 20% from all buyers who bought rx10ii for that reason (so Sony would get 80% drop in sales of rx10ii). Not many videpographers need 200mm reach. Majority (vast majority) of video is done under 70mm reach AND peopel prefer to use compact cameras if they can, instead of bulky rx10ii.

@Silmarion: More presumptions/opinions said as if they are facts. Have you opened the RX100iv to verify there are space in there for not one, but four (!) mic inputs? Are you simply saying people are using the videos just for 4K selfie vlogging? If so, how many run-and-gun daily vloggers require professional mic-in sound recording (where did you get the 80/20% figures from)? I know that Louis Cole (Fun for Louis) didn't care about wearing mics, he uses the RX100iv since its release and had been posting daily vlogs with it since. If you are Philip Bloom or doing studio recording, then I can understand how a mic input is more convenient. But even so, there is a workaround. You can use a cheap external recorder (even your mobile phone!) and then sync during post. Do I want mic in? Why not? Is it a deal breaker, not really... And lastly, do tell me which compact (up to 1-inch sensor size) cameras out there has mic in?

Buy a video camera, not a stills camera that shoots video.

@Lightcapture: easy - Fuji x30 has mic in - look how small space is required for that - 2.5mm - hope you realize it was possible to put it in rx100m4 too. Stop that nonsense about not enough space and how do I know it. Gee. Take your smartphone - even smallest and thinnest smartphones have mic out ports (same 2.5 or 3.5 mm jacks). What's wrong with you people? Suddenly laws of physics became false and you will die defending Sony "not been able to put tiny hole jack in rx100m4"? Come on - you can do better than that. I can accept the fact that they didn't wanted to do it, but please don't tell me again about not enough space. Ugh. And self vlogging is not what I was talking about. You can use indoors rx100m4 just fine. I was talking about outside video. It gets unusable instantly due to wind noise. At least Sony could have come up with wind protector add-on. Or you will be arguing now that this is also impossible blah, blah, blah?

Go check cyber-shot forum and read why most of people bought rx10ii instead of rx100m4 - it was due to mic input - I may surprise you, but sound is as important for videographers as video is. Yes, many wanted to buy more compact camera, but they were forced to go with more bulkier rx10ii. And for users saying go buy a videocamera - you guys are stuck in 90's - welcome to reality - rx10ii is actually more videocamera, than photocamera. Even Sony admits and presents it as videographer tool. Watch reviews for rx10ii - why people buy it? At least half (if not more) are videographers. Most of them will gladly buy rx100m4 if it had mic in - as it would have served them well enough for their goals. And again, no I'm not talking about Pro videographers or Phillip Bloom, how many times I have to say it. People only notice what they want to see and omit what they don't. That's enough for me. I can't argue with people blindly saying what they think they know, not what they see and the facts.

Hey Sil, I think folks just don't realize how important sound is for us video dudes. I agree it wasn't hard making it microphone input. Could have worked, but what can you do now? Still shooters will not get it, no matter what you say to them.
Fortunately there are some other cameras coming out with 4K and simple mic in jack.
Cheers,
small

Don´t like people who comment. without knowing the basics and obviously not even having read the article...

Thanks Richard Butler.
Just did a quick search on YouTube, I realised that the footage in this video is pretty much how 960fps looks like with the RX100 Mk4! Sony's demonstration videos and Philip Bloom's video "call the cleaner" have misled me to believe that the 960fps would look much cleaner than it really is. Personally I find it unusable and rather gimmicky.

SamTrekker - it's not our job to make it look cool: it's our job to demonstrate it. If that helps you conclude that it's not suitable for your needs, then it's done its job.

Given that the 960fps footage comes from either 1136 x 384 or 800 x 270 capture, it shouldn't come as much of a surprise to find that it's not ideal for stills captures.

Having to use a frame rate of around 1/1000th of a second is likely to mean lots of shot noise in most instances, too.

Thank you for the clarification Rich! Well done on the video review as well! Cheers!

Lucky.....in the UK it's been a bit different to that this summer, luckily my cam is weather sealed......

The climate change that definitely probably isn't happening, would be my guess.

Refrigerators in colors. Also a small one with Hello Kitty. Abd bring back Elcassette!

Sony MD player

so, if i have a panasonic tv, i should switch to panasonic? :D

Canon wants to protect the large margins they get from their Cinema line of cameras. The lowest priced Canon with 4K is the XC10 with slow fixed zoom and 1" sensor for $2,500. Panasonic, Samsung and Sony are the only companies making 4K cameras under $1K.

Part of this video was shot in 4K, which allowed us to zoom-in on the footage, while retaining excellent levels of detail.

GX8 compact?

They are in different classes imho, one is a pocket size and the other is a compact, and for a pocket camera I will take a pop-up flash and a articulating screen over extra dials and buttons any day...

You can always make the same adjustments in the RX100, just slower..

The controls are not to small for me. I have never had an issue handling my RX100. Now the GM1 is another matter.

@papa..Actually when buying an RX100 series camera I am buying a compact camera and I have never been to a sushi bar.

Some weird posts out here.

^ You really should give it a try. Here are some pointers, from THE most famous chef: https://www.facebook.com/HappyPeopleHappy/videos/853025888084808/?pnref=story

I have 4k but never use it. File sizes are too big for the general family videos I do. Remove 4k and sell the camera at a lower cost please

@bmwzimmer: You don't have to remove anything. Just buy the RX100iii and you're done.

Joseph, he does not need a Canon 4k compact. He is just trolling.

Any adults here? Any video resolution has its uses, the RX100 slo-mo is not at 4khd, as diff slo-mo rates rize, the rez goes down - 101 thinking adults no?

That point has nothing to do with Canon's incapability to have 4khd in their non-pro cams!

And quit apologizing for Canon. A recent interview told why Canon has no recent non-pro 4khd cams - thermal issues !!

Either the sensor or DSP or both put out too much heat.

The 1D C has a heat sink, and it is too large for normal DSLRs let alone smaller cams.

Canon has multiple problems needing to be solved, mostly their sensors and their TI DSPs - rumor of a quad-core for the 5D IV and 2 for the 1D XII but rumors.

They will eventually solve the issues, or just let all the other makes rule 4khd, as it is coming, ludite ones it is coming, and it is glorious. well if head is out of sand hole !!

4K capabilities push for better 1080P output too. Just look at the RX100 IV native 1080P output or even better, 4k scaled to 1080P. More usable resolution, more color information, far less artifacts.

So it's a cool theory about Canon cameras, or rather a convenient excuse instead.

More likely is that their dependency on a 3rd party manufacturer for 4K capabilities in their compact cameras, forms a bottleneck.

Joseph, you may be right (ok, you are right from a point of view) ...

BUT from a user, or a potential buyer, point of view ... it's all about features, specs, usability, build quality ... if I have to choose between two cameras, and everything is equal ... i like both designs, controls, IQ, etc ... same price.. i have to make a decision, right?
And the only difference is that one have some abysmal feature that i will never use as a plus.... do you guess what 99% of the buyers in this exact position will buy?

Troj, it's not really an excuse, it is just an explanation of their lack of involvement in 4K ... it is probably true, they will gain little money, but that doesn't mean that it is better for me, as a user, not to have the feature. Especially one that is as least very interesting, if not very useful.

Agreed badi. In the US alone, one out of 3 large TV's sold today is 4K capable. It is expected that within 5 years, more than half the households have a 4K TV. In other words, the adoption rate of 4K is faster than that of 1080P, which means that dragging your feet in supporting it in your dedicated cameras, could actually be harmful. Especially with more and more people owing phones that already support it.

I didn't miss the point at all. You claimed cost savings for not supporting 4K, defended by the argument that there's hardly a market for it.

I pointed out that there is a good market for it and one that is growing rapidly. And I also pointed out that the majority of the market would still see benefits from pushing for higher resolution video, even if their TV's don't run that higher resolution natively. Canon isn't exactly the brand to push for the lower end of the market either. Again I point out that 4k video is already becoming mainstream for phones. Consumers are getting aware of that. A rapidly shrinking market such as the one for compacts, needs to provide good arguments to justify the purchase. If customers discover than their dedicated $650 compact is lacking video resolution compared to their $400 phone (even at 1080P...), the cost argument suddenly loses a lot of value.

Of course allowing for better 1080P isn't besides the point for a dedicated camera. Denying the importance of video capabilities is living in a bubble.
Thinking that 50% market penetration in 5 years isn't rapid growth, is another weird statement. It's about as fast as it gets in the tech industry. Smartphones saw a similar adoption rate (4 years instead of 5) for example.
If you don't want to play ball in the mid and higher end of the compact camera market, it's best to give up today, because the bleeding numbers should tell you that skimping on features to save cost, isn't going to help you. The tech war in smartphone land, isn't one to ignore for dedicated cameras either.

I believe when 1080p was at its infancy there were a lot of myoptic numpties bleating "what's the use of that? DVD resollution not good enough?!"

Why wrong? Just like people bleating digital will never gain traction because film will rule for-eva, how mirrorless will never compete with DSLR (not in a million years!), that sort of thing. So myopic. Technology will continuously move and improve, and those who wishes to remain stagnant will find themselves left behind sooner or later...

The majority argument is a fallacy to begin with, since the majority will not be looking at dedicated cameras, especially with phones becoming more capable. So dedicated cameras are de facto the niche that has to set itself apart from those phones and at least offer similar features where possible. If you're looking for a dedicated camera, you're less and less likely looking at one that covers basic features alone.

@JACS: I am not trolling. I find excuses and justifications for companies (who are still arguably major players) sitting on their posterior refusing to offer better video spec when it's already doable (even in a smartphone sensor) plain lazy and arrogant. That's all. They'll lose out when they lost market share (they are already losing market share as we speak). Inertia and greed (thinking only about maximising profits ALL THE TIME at the expense of innovation) in a competitive digital imaging industry is just asking for it. When they fade into obscurity because of this then they deserve to be there...

"I that is not the point anyway because I did not see here anybody saying that 4K is too much quality (when it is)."

Not sure what that last part is based on, with average TV size growing every year (when there's no such strong trend in room size...).

@joseph black: it's not Canon's feeble mindedness, I bet they don't have the technological know hows and/or thinking it's cutting into their profits, so they don't care.

@Joseph Black: Nice opinion, but no can do. No matter how small, technological companies must always strive to innovate and be seen to push products to create the 'manufactured need'. Who needed an expensive ipod (when mp3s players were available already)? Who needed an expensive and swanky ipad (when there were other tablets in the market already)? Apple became the behemoth now because they dared to push the boat out with something that lots of people thought to be merely 'niche' product. Sony had the same philosophy, though they were historically less successful and profitable with some innovations failing to take off, like mini-disc players. But they kept pushing the envelope. Canon seemed to have lost steam after 5dMkII...

I think in many ppls minds, 4kHD is very much like using Raw for stills, it does add a bit of future proofing. I for one keep cams a long time, as I do not chase 'just because it is new'.

If buying today, I would insist on 4khd, it looks great on 2khd sets or 4khd, stills of the 4khd are 8mp, very usable in size and the ones I have seen are nice, better than cell phone pics!!

Some have no use for video at all.

But why are netflix, amazon and many others ALL using 4khd NOW, for current and future use.

How many older shows do you wish were filmed/recorded in 2khd or even 720p ? I know many !! They look very old now, but subject matter is as current as today.

Oh well, take a horse to water........

Note that Apple has a fairly small share of the smartphone market (18.3%) and by far the largest smartphone profits (92% of all profit produced by the entire industry) of any company currently making phones....and they create new technologies, but absolutely do not push the technological envelope until it becomes profitable. E.g. no wireless charging, not the highest res screens, not the largest phones, not the best battery life, barely any NFC to speak of save for their Apple Pay-only implementation, closed ecosystem, conservative camera, etc etc. Apple kills it precisely because they don't invest in what people think they want, they invest in what will work extremely well and make them money. Reputation matters, not having the latest of every spec.
Apple made the initial push and then chose to dominate in other ways as the market got crowded, and from what I can tell they keep on winning. Sounds like Canon.

Yet, even iPhone has 4K option now... Canon on the other hand...

A lot of apps offer native 4K shooting and video playback on iphone6 I believe (but I am not an iphone user, so I can't be sure). Check out this link: http://www.redmondpie.com/how-to-record-4k-video-on-iphone-6-and-iphone-6-plus/. So it's not costing them any thing, my friend, only need to get the apps, and they are software-driven. The hardware in iphone 6/6+ are already more than capable (they have their 8MP sensor for years, and it's all that's need for 4K) Meanwhile, Canon has this misguided notion that no 4K should be in their compacts 'because there is no need for it'...