Anyone used or own a Sony RX10 ?

chaparral

chaparral

chaparral

Caporegime
Joined
27 Nov 2005
Posts
25,391
Location
Guernsey
Guys am thinking of maybe buying a sony RX10 bridge camera..
Do any you guys own or have used an RX10 camera and can tell me what do you think of it ??

I be very interested if anyone knows it be a good camera or not for taking pictures of moving objects like car/bike or powerboat racing ?



(Note: I already own a sony RX100m2 that uses the same 20.2MP 1.0-type Exmor R CMOS sensor as the RX10)
 
Last edited:
I have an RX10 and I'm very pleased with it to the point where my Nikon DSLR isn't getting used most of the time. I wouldn't consider it ideal for action photography as the AF isn't as good as most modern DSLRs but someone in the DPReview CyberShot forum has posted some good panning motorsport shots to prove it can cope. It's worth having a look at the photos posted on DPReview to get an idea of just how good the RX10 can be.

There are a few niggles, of course. The standard complaint is the speed of the zoom but it's not that bad if one learns to work with it rather than trying to turn it too fast. My main gripes are being forced to buy Sony's remote release and not being able to attach an intervalometer.

One must-have accessory is the HVL-F43M flash as the on-board flash is barely noticeable. There aren't any third-party flashes for Sony's current flash shoe and the convertor for the previous version seems to be unavailable at the moment.

A couple of OOC JPG sample shots from our local May fair:

DSC00077.JPG


DSC00098.JPG
 
Last edited:
The RX10 seems expensive for what it is? For the same price you can get a APS-C based mirrorless system with a bigger sensor or a dSLR with better AF as well. It doesn't look as though there's much difference in the size or price between them?

I have the RX100 and think it's a great compact camera, where having the 1" sensor makes perfect sense.
 
aMb said:
The RX10 seems expensive for what it is? For the same price you can get a APS-C based mirrorless system with a bigger sensor or a dSLR with better AF as well. It doesn't look as though there's much difference in the size or price between them?

I have the RX100 and think it's a great compact camera, where having the 1" sensor makes perfect sense.
Click to expand...

Yes you can, but you try sourcing a 24mm to 200 lens with a constant aperture of f/2.8 throughout its range and see how much that would set you back (thing is no-one makes such a lens). To get that sort of reach you would need a 24-70mm f/2.8 and a 70-200mm f/2.8.

Not having to change lenses and the f/2.8 to some are worth the price of the RX10.

Admittedly there are some cons to the Camera, but hopefully Sony will iron them out with a Mark 2 version as per the RX100.
 
Andy90 said:
Yes you can, but you try sourcing a 24mm to 200 lens with a constant aperture of f/2.8 throughout its range and see how much that would set you back (thing is no-one makes such a lens). To get that sort of reach you would need a 24-70mm f/2.8 and a 70-200mm f/2.8.

Not having to change lenses and the f/2.8 to some are worth the price of the RX10.

Admittedly there are some cons to the Camera, but hopefully Sony will iron them out with a Mark 2 version as per the RX100.
Click to expand...

But the small sensor largely neglects all of that. A standard 18-200mm f/5.6 zoom is doing much the same thing in terms of pixels and DoF.
 
D.P. said:
But the small sensor largely neglects all of that. A standard 18-200mm f/5.6 zoom is doing much the same thing in terms of pixels and DoF.
Click to expand...

Exactly, I was just trying to figure this out. If I shot at f/2.8 at 8.8mm on the Sony and at f/7.6 at 24mm on a FF body, I would get the same depth of field and field of view.
 
aMb said:
The RX10 seems expensive for what it is? For the same price you can get a APS-C based mirrorless system with a bigger sensor or a dSLR with better AF as well. It doesn't look as though there's much difference in the size or price between them?

I have the RX100 and think it's a great compact camera, where having the 1" sensor makes perfect sense.
Click to expand...
I thought a DSLR camera with a 24-200mm lens fitted would have been bigger then a RX10 :confused:
Plus are DSLR cameras & lens dust and moisture resistant ?

So can you guys recommend me which DSLR cameras and 24-200mm lens to look at instead of the RX10 ? (Note: I am a bit of a sony camera fan ;))
 
Last edited:
chaparral said:
I thought a DSLR camera with a 24-200mm lens fitted would have been bigger then a RX10 :confused:
Plus are DSLR cameras & lens dust and moisture resistant ?

So can you guys recommend me which DSLR cameras and 24-200mm lens to look at instead of the RX10 ? (Note: I am a bit of a sony camera fan ;))
Click to expand...

The camera bodies are similar size, although the length of the lens of the Sony is a going to be shorter. In either case, they won't fit in a pocket like the RX100 does, so I'm not sure what you achieve by saving a bit of length, other than sacrificing AF and sensor size.

I have the Canon 5D, Fuji X100 and Sony RX100 and whilst the Sony compact is great, I'm not sure I'd limit myself to Sony across the range for the other cameras.

I'd consider the Canon 70D with 18-135mm lens, I'm pretty sure it has weather sealing, and will have a better AF system to cope with motion whereas the Sony uses just contrast detection I believe.

I'd maybe look into the Fuji X series as they have a 200mm lens and will have phase detection for the AF, but unlikely to be as good as the Canon. Plus they have some other beautiful lenses for other shooting.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom