Buying guides 2015

News Reviews Articles Buying Guide Sample Images Videos Cameras Lenses Phones Printers Forums Galleries Challenges

RX aeternus? Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX10 II review

Published Oct 13, 2015 | Dan Bracaglia, Samuel Spencer, Rishi Sanyal

1 Introduction

Key Features

20.2MP 1" Exmor RS BSI CMOS Sensor
BIONZ X Image Processor with integrated DRAM chip
Internal 4K Video capture
Video capture at up to 960fps
ISO 100-12800 (Expandable 64-25600)
24-200mm equiv. stabilized F2.8 lens
2.36 million dot XGA OLED EVF
Tilting 1.23 million dot rear LCD
Weather-sealed magnesium alloy body
Approximately 12fps burst in 'Speed Priority'
Wi-Fi with NFC

The Sony Cyber-shot RX10 II is the follow-up to the original RX10 bridge camera and shares the same magnesium alloy, twin-dial body design and fast, sharp 24-200mm F2.8 equiv. lens.

Under the hood, the RX10 II uses Sony's latest 20.2MP 1-inch Exmor RS BSI CMOS Sensor and a Bionz X processor. This stacked backside illuminated sensor is laid out with its circuitry positioned beneath the photodiodes, giving more room for both components and enabling faster processing and ultimately - Sony claims - better image quality. It is likely the same sensor used in the Sony RX100 IV.

The sensor also features an integrated DRAM chip to help buffer all of the information coming off it. The result is longer bursts of still images before hitting the buffer, and impressive video capture capabilities.

On the video front, the RX10 II pushes the envelope hard, adding 4K capture, as well as 240, 480 and 960 fps high frame-rate modes (capture time is limited when using these higher frame-rates). Additionally, the RX10 II features Picture Profiles and a long list of pro-level video offerings.

Like its predecessor, the camera features image stabilization to assist in hand-held shooting. It also has an Anti Distortion Shutter mode, as well as a new top shutter speed of 1/32,000 sec. One big upgrade comes in the form of a new electronic viewfinder, sporting 2.36M-dots, as oppose to the 1.44M dots of its predecessor.

Interestingly, the RX10 II falls into a class of camera in which its biggest competition is its predecessor, and Panasonic's FZ1000. We've compared the three in-depth below:

Compared to the RX10 and Panasonic FZ1000

	Sony DSC-RX10 II	Sony DSC-RX10	Panasonic DMC-FZ1000
Sensor	20.2MP Exmor RS BSI CMOS	20.2MP BSI CMOS	20.1MP MOS
Electronic viewfinder	2.35M dot XGA OLED EVF	1.44M dot OLED EVF	2.36M dots XGA OLED EVF
Equivalent zoom range	24-200mm	24-200mm	25-400mm
Aperture range	F2.8	F2.8	F2.8-4.0
Equivalent aperture range	F7.6	F7.6	F7.6-10.8
Video recording formats	XAVC S 4K, XAVC S HD, AVCHD, MP4	AVCHD, MP4, XAVC S HD	AVCHD, MP4
Maximum video resolution	3840x2160	1920x1080	3840x2160
Top video frame rate	960fps	120fps (720p)	120fps
Top shutter speed	1/32,000 sec	1/3200	1/16000 sec
Built-in ND filter?	Yes	Yes	No
Dimensions (WxHxD)	129 x 89 x 120mm	129 x 89 x 120mm	137 x 99 x 131mm
Weight	813g	813g	831g

As you can see, the RX10 II is quite a capable camera when compared to the competition. Then again, when 50% of a product's competition is represented by a predecessor model, we'd expect nothing less.

Tags: review, enthusiast-compact, sony

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Comments

Total comments: 269

Sold American ! lol

0 upvotes

Since I already have the RX100M3, I'll wait one more year for the DSC-RX10M4 - to leap frog every other year. It'll probably have a flip-screen, improved auto focus, longer zoom, touch screen.

1 upvote

Q: Been looking at the RX10 & now the Rx10-II ups it to 4k, etc. Wish the screen flipped 180 for shooting video. (Biological_Viewfinder) Curious if you stand by your switch from interchangeable lens cameras to this one. I travel frequently and really don't want to pack a bag of lenses. (I will primarily use the camera for headshot photography, some travel photography, live events, and would like to shoot a short film with it. I know I'm asking for a Swiss Army Knife of a camera) I used to shoot everything with a small Lumix FZ cam and have a good eye, and am getting hired off those photos, but I need better quality. Am I doing myself a disservice by not getting an interchangeable lens camera? (Also looking at the comparable Lumix 1000 with flip screen and longer lens, but it doesn't maintain 2.8 like the Sony which, I heard, gets better bokeh with the built in ND Filter. Still learning the technical aspects of photography. Thanks and Happy Holidays.

Edited 3 minutes after posting

0 upvotes

I hope Sony try to improve the AF.
and consider lowering the price so more will buy

2 upvotes

I'm thinking of buying this camera primarily for the video since I own an A77ii for stills. Is there a dedicated video camera for $1300 that is as good as this?

1 upvote

You could try the Sony AX100 - http://www.sony.com/electronics/handycam-camcorders/fdr-ax100

0 upvotes

Too expensive. I've got my eye on the Panasonic GH7 with 14-140 lens now.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1148513-REG/panasonic_dmc_g7hk_lumix_dmc_g7_mirrorless_micro.html

Edited 56 seconds after posting

0 upvotes

The Panasonic is ok, but I would have the Sony. No shutter shock issues, the lens is faster (which makes up for the smaller sensor and then some), constant aperture, leaf shutter, MUCH better IS (the 14-140mm has quite a few issues here), has Log profiles (only the GH4 does in the G series), does really amazing slow motion, is better built, can get an XLR audio adapter, has a headphone socket, power zoom, much better auto ISO, click less aperture, weather resistance, no big crop factors (AFAIK)...

Built in ND!!

The list goes on and on.

Edited 1 minute after posting

1 upvote

Really could use advice on purchasing the RX10ii for my sweetie for Christmas. I own the a7rii and rx1rii, so needless to say like Sony cameras. We are on vacation and she has been using the rx1 here and there. She loves macro shooting and is very creative. She use to photograph birds and I'm not sure what lens she used. We're not talking serious super-power tele bird shooting needs. The 200mm is probably sufficient. I think a good all around camera is a great idea. I know the rx10ii is great for video but that's no really a priority. The price of the rx10ii is max budget. What do you think? Is this a good choice? Is the Panasonic fz1000 a better idea?

2 upvotes

The Panasonic offers better AF accuracy and acquisition speeds, which is handy for photographing birds. It also offers a greater zoom range. Take a read through the AF soccer shootout (page 5), as well as the AF page, where we directly compared the two.

1 upvote

Thank you so much for your thoughts. It's funny- We pulled out the Sony and used it for about an hour and then boxed it back up. The camera is probably great but the 200mm reach isn't going to work. I just received the FZ100 and we will put it through its paces. I'll ready your referenced article now. :-)

1 upvote

There's a deal-breaking con that's not listed. You can't use SteadyShot with Active Mode while shooting 4K.

2 upvotes

Why is that a deal breaking con?

1 upvote

Could DPR please have someone quick shoot the RX10 II studio sample to be sure the focus and camera steadiness were correct? Comparing the RX10 II blurry results (on the monochromatic bearded man's ear for example) with the far sharper RX100 IV result (with supposedly the same sensor) gives me concerns that the RX10 II was not focused properly. I own both cameras and in a simple newspaper on a wall test (in mixed fluorescent and window light at same tripod position at similar focal length and aperture) at about six feet I see negligible difference in full size jpg sharpness at 100% on my Apple Cinema Display. Nothing at all like the substantial RX10 II inferiority I see on the DPR studio test scene. I see two short threads below reacting to this same possibility. Frankly if I didn't already own the RX10 II, I'd be loath to buy it given the results in the studio shot. Of course my quick test is NOT the exact setup, but I think the RX10 II may be getting a raw deal here. Please check?

1 upvote

Just a historical curiosity. About 10 years ago there was a very great antecessor of these machines. The Sony R1, that I know quite well, with CMOS APS-C sensor + 16 – 80 mm Zeiss lens (F2.8 – 4.8). A kind of first time in several points. A pity that Sony didn’t follow up developing that path and took some time to come back to it.

1 upvote

Actually the NEX series cameras were very much the replacement to the lovely R1.

0 upvotes

This camera is really, really good for professional 4K/HD video on a budget.

2 upvotes

I agree wholeheartedly.

See my recent post in the Cybershot forum - "RX10 II 4K"

2 upvotes

I'm not a photographer anymore haven't bought a new camera in years since the M9 came out. My daughter brought one of these home the other day and I decided to have a play with it I must say I was absolutely SHOCKED and I mean SHOCKED ! at just how much sheer performance this camera offers from a 1" sensor. It's ridiculous just how good these Sony chip's are. It actually caused me to pause a bit and order one for myself. It really was THAT good.

5 upvotes

I hope sony and other camera manufacturer keep improving the fast focus speed. it is important to take kids, sport and other photos

1 upvote

This is a bridge camera. It is what it is. I would not have one, but I appreciate it and in fact recommend this camera to my friends who know nothing of photography but want to have a great camera and not learn the art. If they wanted to learn the art I would tell them to get a Fuji XT-10 or some other Mirrorless ILC. My Pet Peeve with these "1 inch" sensor rigs is that they are really far less than one inch. I did the math a few months ago on some other thread and it is actually .76 inch (or was it .67 inch --I forget). But no matter. It is way smaller than 1 inch and way way way smaller than APS-C (but bigger than a smart phone sensor, so good there). The sensor has to be very small or this fast lens with that extreme FOV range would make this camera three or four times bigger than it is. Nice camera for enthusiasts. Full of trade-offs, but still great technology. I will give one to my son for Christmas so he can treat it like the point and shoot he really wants.

1 upvote

Greg - I think you need to look at the sizing scale and realize that 1" doesn't mean one inch. The fact that you don't know this, frankly makes me question your opinon here. I'll have you know that I'm making a 30x45 inch gallery print for sale from the original RX10, and it's selling for $900.00. This camera is far more capable in image quality than you may realize, and you'd be equally surprised at the equipment that I know some pro's use for fine art sales. It's all about picking the right tool for the job, and this is a tool that definitely has the capability of filling some professional roles very well - especially in the right hands.

Edited 50 seconds after posting

9 upvotes

Greg, the terms "1 inch", "2/3 inch" and so on are hangovers from the *very* early days of digital cameras. They relate to the size of the tube in a then-contemporary video camera, which were classified not by their imaging area but by the diameter of the tube itself. So a "one inch" chip is the same size as the *imaging area* of a 1" video camera tube, i.e. less than an inch. ;-)

Here's the Wikipedia explanation:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_camera_tube#Size

1 upvote

i wanna a buy a camera..but i don't no anything about the camera but i can capture good photos...please any one can suggest me which one shall i buy..please guide me

1 upvote

There's something not quite right at all about the studio shot - it looks to be out of focus.

2 upvotes

Not the first time, and honestly inexcusable !! I guess it is 'still hard to get good help', even for DPR, and quite honestly very easy to see so not a hard thing to verify!

Obvious is easy !!

1 upvote

I have been taking snaps for pleasure and profit for about 40 years - owned and do own all sorts of film and digital cameras and all sorts of image capturing devices - from a 5"x4" to an I-Phone. and all the usual marques Nikon / Canon / Pentax / Minolta (Sony) Voigtlander / Leica etc. I am a professional video maker. The RX10II in my opinion is the best camera I have owned -does the lot, compact, robust and reliable. Not the best in the world perhaps, but my idea of what a camera should do -allow you to take pictures and / or video without too many worries.

1 upvote

"Equivalent aperture range", I think this is about the Depth Of Field only.
Not equivalent about LIGHT.
F2.8 = F2.8 (not = F7.6).

1 upvote

None of these 1" 20mp cameras show 20mp resolution !
They are out-resolved extremely by old 18mp Canons (700D, 100D)-which I am sure DXO ranks them as inferior.

So either the 50mm f1.4 lens is fabulous or the RX100/FZ1000 have lousy lens OR their sensors do not give 20mp resolution !!

Easy to see in the center-left wood carving, zero wall details vs old 18mp Canon sensors, ODD !!

1 upvote

It is definitely less quality compared to a DSLR with a much larger sensor.

But I also don't have to wear a backpack just take pictures. I *NEVER* have to change lenses. I rarely need a tripod.

And that burden of dealing with all that gear is worth the compromise in image quality that I need to make to own this camera.

And when technology finally can make a camera I can carry in my pocket that does this good, then I'll stop carrying the Rx10 as well. Maybe the L16 will be all that it claims and that can happen next year. We'll see.

Edited 2 minutes after posting

1 upvote

So then what does that say about DXO rankings and measurements ?? Better pic IQ or better #'s, I will take better 'real' IQ any day of the week.

I did NOT mention that the Canon M3 also massively showed more resolution, but a 24mp should & a MILC, small with 22mm but not so with other lens.

So what is the 'real' value of DXO #'s when it is obvious of lesser quality pics ???

You want small fine, but you want the best IQ, then not a 1" sensor!

Ask her, size matters ??? ;)

1 upvote

DXO and DPReview measure the camera against its peers. There are $100 cameras that get good ratings, but you'd never want to pay a wedding photographer to use them. However, people still need to know if their $100 or 1" sensor cam or DSLR is good compared to the others in that price/capability range.

I'll tell you a true story. I've purchased about $100,000 in camera gear in my career. My last DSLR was the Nikon D800e. And I sold it and all my lenses and filters and remotes, backpacks, and batteries, everything; and I purchased the Sony Rx10.

I will never, ever, ever, EVER wear a backpack just to take pictures. NEVER AGAIN!

Over the years I've come to realize that my very favorite cameras were not full-frame. They were 4/3rds and APS-C and one smaller than my current 1" Sony.

The camera does matter, but what matters far more is the photographer behind the camera.

Combined convenience & I'm happier with the Sony Rx10 than I was with the Nikon D800e.
Now I have the Sony Rx10-ii.

Edited 2 times; latest 1 minute since posting

1 upvote

DXO sensor measurements are absolute, not relative. What governs DPR's reviews seems more relative as you say.

I never mentioned DPR did I? Be careful about jumping ! ;)

0 upvotes

Are you still drinking coffee??

1 upvote

So $1300 for this camera, vs. Pentax K3-II and the 18-135mm zoom (24-200mm equivalent) for $200 less. 24MP and much sharper than the 20MP from the RX10II. Admittedly video quality is less, but stills quality will be far, far higher. And you can switch lenses on the Pentax.

1 upvote

Which is EXACTLY why I would never want the Pentax.

Wearing a backpack just to take pictures is not something that I will ever do again.

I would have spent $2000 for the camera.

0 upvotes

Has Sony indicated that they will update firmware for lossless raw files on this and/or their RX100 IV camera?

1 upvote

nice pic

1 upvote

On my second set of Sony rx10 ll, rx100iv, a7rll, I don't need a touch screen like on my Samsung g6. What I do need is the fun and great pictures (to me) All the time wasted on trying to bring down Sony is to me nonsense. Pana, Nikon, Canon all great and we should live in the world of buy what you like.

4 upvotes

From a Panasonic FZ1K owner, and pro daily newspaper photojournalist:
Sony pro-features are that 1000fps ability, built-in ND filter, higher shutter speeds, headphone jack and f/2.8 throughout, but the limitation to 200mm really hurts. The only thing I can imagine is that Panasonic will also raise their bar. I need the reach that Sony currently doesn't provide optically.

Still awaiting Nikon to do something, and what I'd LOVE (in a perfect world) is a full frame sensor camera such as the D4S-equivalent, to have removable prism to allow an optional EVF finder. Can that happen at all?

1 upvote

"removable prism to allow an optional EVF finder"

Ouch! Reminds me of my only Nikon, a used F with a photomic removable prism. Its loose latch and sharp corners which hurt my fingers made me go back to Pentax some forty years ago.

1 upvote

nice cam

1 upvote

Good camera but a premium price over the MK 1 model, would wait a year or so for the price down to nearer the current MK 1 price.

4 upvotes

I am a Sony fanboy, but Sony's reluctance to add touch screen in its video oriented hybrid cameras is terribly frustrating. On the other hand Sony's video department makes excellent touch screens (AX100, X70). The touch-to-focus or touch-to-magnify feature is so brilliant on these cameras as it is on the A5100, the only touch-screen Sony camera today. Even Leica just released its full frame SL model with excellent touch screen, the first FF camera with touch-screen, GPS, 11fps and 4K. Panasonic made a huge mistake when they decided not to make cameras with APS-C or FF sensors. Again it's terribly frustrating that Sony is churning out great cameras without touch operation. I am terribly disappointed with Sony's anti-touchscreen policy.

6 upvotes

Because of people's use of smart phones, I can understand why they would like to that technology expressed with their cameras.

However, I'm anti-touchscreen. And the reason why is simple. Pick up your smartphone and look at it. Chances are that there are smudges and oils and fingerprints... it looks like it needs to be wiped after going to the bathroom.
A camera, unlike a phone, has a primary function of creating photographs. The LCD is used to visualize the end result as well as displaying information toward that end.
Making a camera with a touchscreen that is going to be a disgusting mess that must be peered through is not my idea of photography. It's just gross.
I don't really care if there is somewhat useful technology to be used from the smartphone or otherwise. If they could make a cloth-like LCD overlay that still displayed media very well, then maybe I could deal with it. At least that way I wouldn't have to try to look past all the grungy, awful, stuff just to take pictures.

Edited 2 times; latest 3 minutes since posting

5 upvotes

Because of people's use of screens, I can understand why they would like to that technology expressed with their cameras.

However, I'm anti-screen. And the reason why is simple. You don't think anymore when taking pictures, because you can review the picture immediatly and then delete it if you don't like it or take a new one.
Obviously I'm also against reusable high capacity SD-Cards.

2 upvotes

Exactly, Zamber! Millions of brilliant phtographs were taken for many dacades on film SLRs, and they had no screens, no SD cards. On the other hand, from purely business perspective, assuming a smart phone owner would like to upgrade from her phone over to a Sony camera, she might be quite disappointed without a touch screen, and she may look for elsewhere.

1 upvote

I'm anti-touchscreen. I. Me.

I really don't care what other people think or how they feel about it. All I can do is speak for myself. Me.

And I think it's a TERRIBLE IDEA!

1 upvote

Are you guys for real? If you dont want to use a touch screen, you dont have to. I dont have a need for burst mode on my camera, but that doesnt mean i want Sony to remove it because i know there are thousands of photographers who make use of that feature to further their creativity.

2 upvotes

Touch screen allows greater control over the focusing system that is not great with any Mirrorless camera. It could easily be turned off for those who don't want it. I had the RX10 for 2 years, it is a great cam, but would be even better with a touch to focus option.

0 upvotes

Exactly, RnF! The Sony A5100 has brilliantly fast, snappy and accurate focusing system in AF-C, on par with any DSLR. It works absolutely great with touch-to-focus, touch-to-shoot and touch-to-magnify (in MF) photography. For candid photography absolutely brilliant with its huge APS-C sensor in its small body with excellent low-light performance. If only Sony made at least the A7S and A7Sii with touch screen.

1 upvote

I've owned (for work) all three big name superzooms: Canon G3x, Panasonic FZ1000, and now the Sony RX10ii and the Sony has by far the best build quality, actual working photo quality, and the best video for a working photographer. Not to mention the quality of the lens that comes attached to this camera, the reason the price might seem a little lofty, but how much does a 24-200 2,8 Carl Zeiss Lens cost on it's own?

2 upvotes

"how much does a 24-200 2,8 Carl Zeiss Lens cost on it's own?"
- Can't be that much, as the old RX10 comes with one too and costs half as much as the RX10II in Europe.

Edited 16 seconds after posting

5 upvotes

speaking as one with sony gear which i love dearly i highly doubt the claims you made .

reality shows as people can see in the review test side by side..that sony extra sharpness is not that great and comes with artifacts attached to it ..thank you ..but i know better apps to handle that.
as for glass..leica glass is just as good and the ziess ..speaking from personal experience.
given the choice i would take the fz1000 for the bigger reach for far lesser money ..on the 1inch category it is the perfect bridge cam in my opinion . and as for build ..i owned far lesser panasonic cams...declared or not declared they are tough as hell .
still think a good old Sony APS-c DSLR is a better choice overall ..but for those who seek these kind of solutions..fz1000 still rules .

1 upvote

What "claims" did I make? I'm giving you an opinion based off of actually owning the camera and working professionally with each one. You haven't actually worked with any of the cameras your talking about. You've just dreamt about how great they would be in your camera bag. The FZ1000 is a great bridge camera but I'm always choosing a dedicated aperture ring, a blazing fast shutter, and a constant 2,8 with good glass over a bigger zoom and a cheaper price with moderately better video.

Edited 3 minutes after posting

1 upvote

I would love to see these reviews add a color calibration component to the JPEG section. Or atleast comment on it. My Sonys always have a slight color cast that my Olympus, Panasonic, and Canons never have. I think this is an important part of the story since they mention JPEG quality and wifi for immediate sharing.

1 upvote

A list of cons nearly s long as the pros, useless AF for anything that moves, EVF still not a scratch on OVF, sky-high price. This is a 70% camera at best but hey it seems 4K video puts people in a trance and makes them lose their mind. Sony has become the new Apple it appears.

1 upvote

I really don't mind about the size of cons when all I need (and more) is on the pros.
4K is not my game, yet ... but it shines on video.
I do prefer EVF.
This is a high quality camera, although expensive.

3 upvotes

$1300 for a 1 inch sensor? That's a tough sell.

4 upvotes

I think it's $1000 for the 1" sensor + EVF, $300 for the fabulous lens! But yeah, I think it's a tough sell too.

But it would be a fun rental!

1 upvote

It's a 2nd generation camera, which also sold for $1300.

It's easy to see why this camera sells for that much, when you understand what you are getting.

#1: You can ditch the backpack and tripod.
#2: No lenses to swap.
#3: Terrifically fun 960 frames per second video capability.
#4: Extremely high video capability for any camera, easily beating almost all DSLR cameras currently available.
#5: Pro-style feature functionality with dual-wheel design and almost all the buttons are customizable.
#6: The only 1" sensor cameras with a true f/2.8 lens.
#7: Extremely fast write speeds, on par with high-level DSLRs.
#8: Robust and Weather-sealed.
#9: Electronic Shutter.
#10: Shoot photos while making movies.

It's peerless and one of the best cameras in the world for what it does.

2 upvotes

In US maybe. In Europe the 2nd Generation costs 300€ more than the first upon introduction here.

2 upvotes

how much would a 24-200 2,8 lens cost on it's own?

0 upvotes

Especially when you consider that you can get a Panasonic G7+14-140 and get most of the functionality at a lower price.

0 upvotes

i don't call those shots real world samples

0 upvotes

So they weren't taken in the real world then?

5 upvotes

Does anyone know if RX10II can use Active Stabilization in 4K mode?

It’s little brother RX100IV can use only the Standard optical stabilization which produces very shaky video. The lack of active stabilization in combination with the rolling shutter artifacts makes the camera pretty much unusable for 4K unless used on a tripod or expensive gimbal stabilizer.

I’ve read several reviews of RX10II but I couldn’t find any information on this major problem.

For the record the RX100IV Active Stabilization in 1080p mode is impressive.

0 upvotes

It can not use Active Stabilization in 4K mode.

1 upvote

I realize that this is kind of a lost cause at this point, but rather than using "35mm equivalents" when discussing the effective focal lengths of smaller-sensor cameras, maybe you could just normalize to angular fields of view.

I also find it inconsistent that you use "35mm equivalent" focal lengths, but not "equivalent" focal ratios!

0 upvotes

nice

0 upvotes

Where is RX10 II in your Video Stills Comparison?

0 upvotes

Scroll halfway down the video page and you'll see it in there. We've compared it's 4K still to the FZ1000 and RX100 IV.

0 upvotes

Do you really see the page?
Here is full screen link
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison/fullscreen?attr29_0=sony_dscrx10ii&attr29_1=panasonic_dmcfz1000&attr29_2=sony_dscrx100m4&attr29_3=sony_dscrx10&attr72_0=4k&attr72_1=4k&attr72_2=4k&attr72_3=1080&normalization=full&widget=284&x=0.00472633028&y=0.010828821

Note the first camera tab is empty, and you can't select rx10 II from it

0 upvotes

Bah, sorry for the mix up, it should be visible now!

0 upvotes

Thanks.

I think dpr should put Video Stills Comparison into menu, so I don't need to dig into a review to find it. and not all review have this tool.

Also I think New Studio Comparison tool should be Studio Comparison tool now, and the old one should be renamed to legacy tool

0 upvotes

Dan, it's still slightly broken.

I saw that the Rx10 had 1080, and so I tried to change the drop-down for the Rx10-ii and could not. I could change the drop-down for the FZ1000 to change it to 1080 from 4k, but not the Rx10-ii.

0 upvotes

Sorry, we only did a 4K still for the RX10 II.

0 upvotes

I love my Sony RX10 "originale" it makes decent stills and good HD video with xavs-c codec in 24,25,30,48,50&60 f/sec and it invites you to take take along by its weight, form factor and easy handling.
Purchased it this year for €750 and the price drop brought it to the same price level as Panasonic, but honestly when you ask me will you pay for the RX10 II double the price €1548 - €1599 with all those new features like 4K video and slowmo, etc, I say very nice but not worth an extra €800. Sony had/have videocams with 4K video with exact the same sensor & processor as the RX10, so there's a lot of marketing blah, blah to justify the high price for the RX10 II with 4K video that wasn't possible without the new sensor. ;-) Don't get me wrong the RX10 II has evaluated a bit and offer more features, but the sixty-four thousand dollar question is: will you pay twice the price?

"In der Beschränkung zeigt sich erst der Meister - J.W. von Goethe "

Edited 13 minutes after posting

4 upvotes

Yes. I did in fact.

I took both cameras out during the recent lunar eclipse. The new camera performed excellently and I have useful photos of a very dark blood red moon.... from the new camera. The old Rx10 wasn't even capable of dealing with that light at all. None of my photos from the original Rx10 turned out, but almost all of my Rx10-ii images did.

And I have to tell you, the slow motion is really fuN!!!!

The speed is amazing. I can click off a bracket of 9 like it's a 3. The buffer clears soooooo fast.

1 upvote

Okay, the RX10 II works great for you, but I wasn't there at the eclipse. Depends all on settings, camera are tools and some you use this way and the other you use that way, but most important thing please use them! Slomo is fun, I agree, but I do it in software with every camera without time restriction. Little example shot with my tiny GoPro https://vimeo.com/95289554

0 upvotes

The settings on both cameras were the same.

I liked your video, but that's not the same animal. The 960 frames per second changes reality. Water, fire, clouds, bouncing hair, a plane's propeller in the sky, EVERYTHING looks new and different; like looking at the world with fresh eyes.

1 upvote

panoDirk; I don't think you understand the difference between your SloMo and what is possible with with the RX10. If you were using the RX10 your 2 minute video would be more like 20 minutes, much slower than what you are showing. In addition if you are using software to slow the image down the computer must be filling in the gaps somehow to eliminate jerkiness which in turn reduced fine detail. Your video is pretty cool though.

0 upvotes

i owned panasonic at the past and i own a sony dslr at present ..saying it so i won't be seen as biased ...now having said that..panasonic in my opinion makes the best bridge cams around , and the fz1000 is a kind of a super bridge cam .
i think Sony with its a6000 mirrorless area dominates that category . but on the 1 inch level ,maybe aside from the QX detachable novelty they got going ,
panasonic simply puts out a far more attracting and useful solution.

the rx's reach is simply too small and with the 1 inch size u can't crop too much yet . the pana spoils you in that regard with the superb leica glass . so if i was on the market for a bridge cam that would definitely be my first choice .

4 upvotes

It surprises me that you own equipment which suggests that you should realize the importance of f/2.8 glass.

Do you honestly think that people would pay $1000 more for a lens just to say they have a f/2.8 lens that allows for more light? That's not the only thing f/2.8 stands for.

The highest quality zoom lenses in the world are f/2.8 and they reduce all of the distortions one gets from barrel, pincushion, fringing, vignetting, flaring, etc.

Additionally, it's weather-sealed, allows the user to take pictures while shooting video, has dual exposure controls, and more. It just surprises me that someone who owns DSLR equipment cannot or refuses to see the much higher quality of the Rx10 series.

0 upvotes

since i am no stranger to PP my friend ..that 1 stop is really not a big issue for me . further more ..panasonic are very very hardy cameras to begin with in my experience . and as much as i love me sony , its a more delicate construct to begin with .

so in a swoosh of magic any distortion issues are solved if they exist in the first place...
but things i can't solve are not being able to AF on my object which is an RX issue . and being an avid PP guy and a pixel peeper supreme :P ..i can spot very well the artifacts in the so called "sharper' image of the rx . on the 1 inch i would rather get the fz1000 picture to work with so i can use some quality softwares like nik sharpener that won't create those ugly artifacts.
i will not pay an arm and a leg for that 1inch cam ..the original fz1000 price was too high in my mind as well ..now its more "logical"

0 upvotes

I bought my FZ1000 and a year later and even though this is another nice offering by Sony I dont see a reason to change that anytime soon. Nice is not impressive enough.

1 upvote

no B shutter setting?
if not, then it's a No-No for me at least!
any camera without such a setting is just a 'limited toy' for amateurs no matter how many fancy features incorporated into it!
(yes, i know how to trick this kind of camera to 'emulate' some limited long exposure for me but that's not B setting, is it?)
some really nice features though, especially the top shutter speed of 1/32`000", which is probably the only camera in its class that does it ...

Edited 2 minutes after posting

1 upvote

What a stupid thing to say. I've been a photographer for 50 years and have used the B setting maybe once 40 years ago just for the hell of it. It is simply not an area of photography I'm interested in. What would be accurate to say would be that the B setting is something I need so it's not the camera for me. I would imagine that very few pro photographers use the B setting so such stupidity as saying the lack of it makes it a "limited toy for amateurs" makes you look like some kind of fanboy.

6 upvotes

just because you are so "stupid" not to make use of a certain feature some other smart photographers (like MYSELF) do use almost regularly doesn't give you enough credits to make such a "stupid' reply as you did here now but i'm glad you did and showed just how 'STUPID' you are! :D :D :D

didn't i just say that: "if not, then it's a No-No for me at least!"

do you read other people's comments "accurate"ly or you're just so self-absorbed you read your own comments more than one time enjoying your own "stupidity" like hell? if so, then what a "stupid" person you are indeed although i didn't need to say that again, did i?! :D

btw: you have been doing photography for 5 decades but used the B setting only once? that's also very "stupid" because it shows clearly what a "stupid" amateur (or maybe even a pro sports photographer perhaps?) you are! so, why not just STFUP and make your "stupid" comments elsewhere they belong in your own "stupid" category you "stupid" jerk!? :D :D :D

Edited 55 seconds after posting

0 upvotes

Edited 33 seconds after posting

0 upvotes

I'm sorry I hurt your feelings but next time don't be so over the top with your comments. If you had stopped at "it's a no no for me at least" I wouldn't have had a problem. Then you called it a "limited toy" for amateurs which was an insult to a huge number of highly experienced photographers who have no interest in making very long exposures. Did you say that in an attempt to make your self feel superior? It that's the only thing you can find wrong with the camera it must be great.

5 upvotes

good for u tbcass.

but look who's talking about making comments only to "feel superior" ... :D

whatever the impression u had of my comment, u could let it just pass, especially if it didn't hurt ur feelings!

but u didn't and u reacted! and you did that in a very childish manner too! not so befit of someone claiming to be in the business for five decades, PROFESSIONALLY!

btw, i have been in and around the same business for more or less the same amount of time and mostly professionally too.

but i still call myself a semi-pro, enthusiast, professional hobbyist etc not because of false modesty but because it's the simple truth!

i have met many amateurs with much better knowledge AS WELL AS more experience than i have in photography and related fields! so, is there anything wrong with being an amateur?

good luck with ur "professional" photography and no need for the B setting! hope u'll never need it, especially if the only camera available to u is like this one: a TOY not a TOOL!

0 upvotes

I've been using a Nikon D600 + 28-300mm Nikkor lens as main go everywhere camera for a while, very good image quality but way too heavy to enjoy on a hiking trip, walk around town and I could never find the space in my luggage to take it on business trips.

I bought the RX10 Mk2 for the portability and very pleased with it, there is an increase in iso noise compared to the D600 but overall the camera is taking sharp images, superb video, dslr-like manual controls, an amazing EVF and very good build quality - most importantly, it easily fits in my backpack and has joined me on several hiking trips, every business trip i've been on since buying it as well as each weekend on nature and city walks. I find myself taking far more pictures than with the D600, some great high frame rate videos too and overall having a lot more fun shooting. If Sony continues to improve on this sensor/form factor in future versions, I can easily see it posing a threat to heavier APS-C prosumer cameras.

3 upvotes

Great camera, I was surprised by the quality of the stills. I bought it for video but unfortunately, I had to return it after 4 days. When zooming in or out, the lens was wobbling at around 135mm. We opened another box and it did exactly the same thing. Apparently, this issue was present on the previous version of the RX 10. Too bad

0 upvotes

Equivalent aperture range "F7.6-10.8".

Ha! The math deniers will surely fume about this. Mathematically, it is true though.

1 upvote

Apparently you're do not know how to to define f numbers? Several webpages for photographic absolute beginners can help you understand what's all about.

7 upvotes

So you disagree with the dpreview specifications for this product as listed? Are they not experts?

0 upvotes

The aperture and focal length cannot be mathematically separated. When you multiply one by the crop factor, you must multiply the other.

0 upvotes

Good discussion of equivalent aperture here: http://www.dpreview.com/articles/2666934640/what-is-equivalence-and-why-should-i-care

How that matters is illustrated on the 4 and 5th pages:
http://www.dpreview.com/articles/2666934640/what-is-equivalence-and-why-should-i-care/4

This is an 8.8mm-73.3mm f2.8 on a 1" sensor (crop factor 2.7). A 35mm equivalent aperture is 2.7*f2.8 = f7.56 on a full frame camera. The pictures at the top of the second link will show what you lose with a smaller sensor.

Conversely, you can guess at how big a win the Sony 1" sensor is compared to the 1/3" sensor on something like an iPhone 6.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_sensor_format#/media/File:Sensor_sizes_overlaid_inside_2014.png

0 upvotes

I sold my Alpha 6000 with 24-70 and got this one...good decision. Iam still on a 2 weeks vacation trip in Italy.........no lens change no need to think about what should into the bag.......rain no problem.....its wheather sealed cloudy days 2.8 lens so no problems.....sunny days..perfect view finder....autumn, so harsh light differences....5 stops raw dynamic advantages...so no problem.....never need more than 200mm...price yes high but so what..it is the perfect vacation and everyday tool. Together with my RX100 iv and A7II a good setup.

0 upvotes

In the table there is an equivalent aperture range. I dont understand this. Are the pixels affected if you put them closer together in a smaller sensor? Does that lower their sensitivity ?

0 upvotes

Closer together isn't exactly the problem, but if you make the pixels smaller (so you can fit 20 megapixels on a 1" sensor), each pixel gathers less light, so there's more noise.

So these small cameras get a double whammy in terms of noise - they get less total light because the sensor is smaller, and they pack the sensor with small pixels that don't gather as much light as the fatter, deeper "light buckets" found on big sensors.

You can use a formula to estimate how much noisier these cameras are, if you already know what full-frame image quality looks like. Let's say you wanna know how noisy the cybershot's ISO 800 looks... You square the crop factor (2.7) and then multiply the result by 800. You get ~6000.

So at ISO 800, the cybershot will look as noisy as ISO 6000 on a full frame.

The aperture table isn't about how bright or noisy the image is, it's to show the equivalent depth of field. So this "f/2.8" can't give shallow DOF.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DtDotqLx6nA

0 upvotes

Useless noisy images ( even iso 400) for 1600€...ridiculous
Just buy it XD

1 upvote

Dunno if anyone cares, but I love my RX10. It is in no way a competitor to my high end stuff, but you know what? I love shooting at concerts, and none of them let you enter with ILCs, even tiny NEX bodies. They all let me go in with the RX10 and I get great photos.

(And before someone complains, everyone's holding their damn phone up anyway. At least I'm getting something for the trouble.)

1 upvote

typo : "(noticeably sharper than the Panasonic's FZ100's lens at 24mm)" ="FZ1000" --there are both 100 & 1000, but surely you mean the latter (as the other lacks 24mm, reaching down to 25mm only).
-d.

1 upvote

Well I should think the RX10 would be sharper at 24mm. The FZ1000 only goes as wide as 25mm :)

0 upvotes

Teardown really! I'm on my second RX10 just got the RX10II. Who cares what the parts cost are! Sony buys in mass, if you had to buy the parts and hire people to put it together that's the only cost you need to worry about.
Does a Cadillac really need to cost that much more than a Chevy. But if it performs as you need buy it.
You are buying a great lens and a great home for it. After traveling and using the RX10's. I can assure you I have no issues but great pics and videos. Are they going into a magazine or to make me money... no. But the look great in print and on my 65 inch Samsung. Is the Panny better I don't care I know it is also a great tool. If you are going to comment on one buy one then comment.

2 upvotes

Is it really pricey? Someone needs to do one of those teardowns like they do for iPhones and tell us the cost of the parts and the likely amount of time for building. Then we'll know for sure the relative value.

1 upvote

Teardown would be devastating for Sony:

Body and lens are the same as in the RX10II so they use the old prodction lines. AFAIK the image processor is the same too. And I suppose Sony is reusing most of the circuit board design and minor electronic components of the RX10.

So only EVF, sensor and software are really new.
And I dont believe they cost 700€+X.
Yes the sensor is all fancy, but Sony is a big chip manufacturer and 1" is still tiny so the yields can't be that bad.

I believe the lens is the most expensive part of both cameras, and the RX10II price is only that high, because Sony somehow thinks they are premium now. I guess FZ1000 still sells a lot better than either RX10 or RX10II.

Edited 1 minute after posting

0 upvotes

I don't care.

0 upvotes

The beginning of the end of the traditional SLR/ Mirrorless SLR for the average user?

1 upvote

It's the lens folks.
And hence the price.

0 upvotes

No its not the lens.
RX10 has the same lens and costs half as much.

2 upvotes

Funny error in the text under the "Studio comparison"

"The Panasonic seems to employ more context-sensitive nose reduction than the Sonys"

I think you mean "noise" and not nose ;)

0 upvotes

Nah man, the Panasonic just has a special feature that reduces the perceived size of your subjects' nose.

3 upvotes

hehe...that should be a standard feature on all cameras ;)

1 upvote

Total comments: 269

www.dpreview.com

Editorial content

Product database

Community

About us Work for us Advertise with us FAQ Feedback Interest-Based Ads Privacy Legal

All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved. Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.

Mobile site


2016 Roundup: Enthusiast Long Zoom Cameras May 3, 2016	Benchmark Performance: Nikon D810 review May 12, 2016	Two in one: LG G5 camera review May 6, 2016	The ultimate hiking partner? Sony's RX10 III goes the distance May 10, 2016

Sony DSC-RX10M2 SLR-Digitalkamera (20.2 Megapixel, 7,6 cm (3 Zoll) LCD Display, 40-fach Super-Zeitlupe, Anti-Distortion Verschluss) Kit inkl. 24-200 mm Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T* Zoomobjektiv schwarz●	EUR 1.345,89
Sony DSC-RX10 SLR-Digitalkamera (20,2 Megapixel, 7,6 cm (3 Zoll) Display, BIONZ X, 1,4 Megapixel OLED Sucher, NFC) Kit inkl. F2,8 Zeiss Sonnar T Zoomobjektiv schwarz●	EUR 749,00
Sony DSC-RX100 II Cyber-shot Digitalkamera (20 Megapixel, 3,6-fach opt. Zoom, 7,6 cm (3 Zoll) Display, Full HD, bildstabilisiert, NFC, WiFi) schwarz●	EUR 491,16
Sony DSC-RX100 III Digitalkamera (20.1 Megapixel Exmor R Sensor, 3-fach opt. Zoom, 7,6 cm (3 Zoll) Display, Full HD, WiFi/NFC) schwarz●	EUR 660,91
Sony DSC-RX100 IV Digitalkamera (Stacked Exmor RS CMOS Sensor, 40-fach Super-Zeitlupe, 4K Video, Anti-Distortion Verschluss, Pop-Up-Sucher, 24-70 mm ZEISS Vario-Sonnar T) schwarz●	EUR 999,00
Sony DSC-RX100 Cyber-shot Digitalkamera (20 Megapixel, 3,6-fach opt. Zoom, 7,6 cm (3 Zoll) Display, lichtstarkes 28-100mm Zoomobjektiv F1,8 - 4,9, Full HD, bildstabilisiert) schwarz●	EUR 342,99

	I’m thinking of buying one but will wait a while
	I’m definitely buying one within the next year
	Nope, not buying one anytime soon
	I already have one

124	* This Week Through Your M4/3 2016.05.14 *
82	**This week with your A7x, 05/14/2016**
62	Probably bricked camera by hacking - please help
56	The Sunday BIRD Volume 11 Issue No. 41, May 15, 2016
52	♣ ♣ Bootstrap's Sunday 'Scapes ♣ ♣ 15 May 2016
44	PART 2 This Week Through your m4/3 2016.05.15
38	Hi guys anyone know what the problem is regarding these black marks/spots on my photo on my Fuji XT
36	Moving from Fuji X to Micro 4/3 - Camera/Lens Recommendations ?
34	••0•• Weekly "Is it ART?" Thread May 14-20, 2016 ••0••
31	Damn Physics.......
29	Sharpest 35mm lens for D810
28	Has this happened to anyone else?
28	*Weekly Wildlife Thread: May 15th - 21st*
27	E-M1 strap lug failure.....is the Olympus fix permanent?
27	No D500 For Me? (Keep My D7200?)
26	Trying to decide between the olympus cameras
26	I guess i ran out of ultra wide lens options.
24	Anyone want to play with an eagle?
24	Grim Nikon Financials
23	What is your second favorite gear review site?


Socks by nuvolozzo from Cat challenge II	FLYING BOOK by dvasilog from Abstract Photo of Books