Sony RX10 user experience thread

[Noa Put]

ok, I have allready discovered something, my tv, (a led samsung tv) has a "tools" option on the remote which opens a screen where you can dial in image presets like dynamic, standard, film and natural, all presets display the flickering on screen, only the film preset not, it's not completely gone but it looks the same as on my computer screen which for me is on a "ok" level to use. So it looks like the tv is adding some kind of enhancement which can't cope with the very fine detail.

edit: I just browsing through the rx10 photoshoot footage and eventhough next time I will decrease the contrast to -1 or maybe -2 (a bit too much crushed shadows with the standard preset, all values set to 0) the handheld footage looks just great, even with the crop from the active stabilization, still plenty sharp (though ax100 users will disagree :)). Colors are very nice, natural looking skintones and how easy it was to set my exposure and focus, eventhough it was difficult to look in the viewfinder or on the lcd screen because of the full sun. I definitely need a eyecup next time, have been experimenting with a sony fx1000 eye cup and while it does not fit exactly right it's usable and most important will block out all incoming sunlight. Will see how it works next wedding. Bokeh also looks nice if you zoom in, was able to get enough quick handheld shots at longer focal lengths and stabilization is good enough, I have been complaining about the slow zoom but at least I didn't have to switch lenses during the shoot, I was a bit worried yesterday before the shoot where this camera would fit in but it already has become a perfect photoshoot camera.

[Jeff Harper]

Noa, first thing I did was set creative style to -1 -1 -2. My footage from camera is very very nice.

Not a fan of the photos coming from the camera at all. Very disapointing. Extremely happy with video, in low light it crushes the CX900 due to the higher gain needed when zoomed.

Love the ergomonics of the CX900, for the most part, but prefer the video from the RX10.

[Noa Put]

I hope to make some time available this week to tweak the presets for a better match with my other camera's, I do like the fact that I get a "what you see is what you get" preview when I make photo's, last 2 weddings I shot several photos during a photoshoot in raw and after some grading in lightroom they actually look great to me, but I"m just a novice when it comes to photography. Big improvement though compared to just using a video frame.

[Noa Put]

Originally Posted by Jeff Harper

Not a fan of the photos coming from the camera at all. Very disapointing.

Jeff, I have some photo's I toke with the rx10 from the last wedding, I only can't share them publicly as I don't have a approval, but if it's ok for you I"d like to send 2 of them over to you so you can have a look, like I said photography is not my thing but the photos I took look nice enough to me. Just want to know what you think of them. I am a bit surprised that you find the photo capability of the camera very disappointing but it could also be that I "m very easy to please. :)

[Jeff Harper]

I'm a novice photog also, but am spoilt from using the GH2s with nice prime lenses and touchscreen focus. Not pleased with lack of touchscreen focus ability on the camera and I find the camera more trouble to work with overall for photos.

I have yet to become efficient working with the camera but am getting better.

[Jeff Harper]

Noa, I feel exactly the same about the camera as many reviewers felt, it's great for video, but it's not spectacular for photos.

In the right light with a gorgeous subject, any camera can take a stunning photo. I have taken a few nice photos with the camera, but overall it seems very lackluster. Not horrible, but nothing special by any stretch of the imagination.

Sure, send me your photos, love to see them!

[John McCully]

My experience: I find the RX10 spectacular for both video and photographs. My NEX 5n gathers dust (as does my BMPCC by the way). The slow zoom does not bother me but I do understand how for certain uses, such as you describe Noa, it is problematic. I have read reviews wherein it is stated that within the specifications of the camera it is capable of delivering excellent photographs. I agree.

I am so happy with the RX10 that I have more or less lost interest in new machines.

[Dave Blackhurst]

@Jeff -

Under what conditions are you finding the stills to fall short? I'm very happy with the results from mine, but I'm coming from long experience with Alphas and the RX100. It's not an APS-C or FF, but the f/2.8 lens gives you some pretty good stuff to work with. There are a lot of "pro" photographers who find it to be very acceptable. I'm confident shooting with it, both stills and video, and seldom get a "bad" or even "so-so" result.

The zoom hasn't bit me yet, I can live with it.

And yes, other than a future Mk2 or Mk3 with higher bitrate XAVC S (that could be a FIRMWARE UPDATE, if Sony cared to do it!!), or 4K, the RX10 is my main "go to" camera as it covers 90+% of what I "need" out of a camera. Not a lot of room to "improve" upon the design, other than minor tweaks. It also replaced enough other cameras to make the price seem "almost" reasonable.

The only "new machine" that caught my interest was the AX100, simply as a video-centric variation on the design. So far I'm liking it, but the RX10 (or an RX100M2) will do most times.



@Noa - about that flickering - try reducing any "sharpness" setting on the TV I repro'd flickering that another user reported with the AX100, Haven't seen it with the RX10, but there seems to be something bad that happens to video with a lot of detail already when you try to sharpen it some more...

[Jeff Harper]

Dave, pretty much all of the time. I've used it a lot at weddings lately. I just don't find my photos pop as I would like. They seem soft.

As long as I have decent light, photos are ok. Not great, but acceptable.

To me, it's images are NOT pretty above 800 ISO. They start to suffer at about 400, but they are ok up to 6-800. After that they are not so good.

Video is very good, love it, but the photos, not so much. They seem soft for my taste.

My previous still cameras were the Canon 40d with prime lenses, including L lenses, then the GH1 (hated it), several GH2s and a few prime lenses.

I'm not photographer by any stretch of the imagination, so it may be I'm not using the camera properly.

My biggest complaint currently is the focus ring, takes way to many turns to adjust and I find auto focus to be too slow at times.

I did not buy the camera with specific expectations for photo quality but I expected a bit more. It seems that a couple of years of shooting with the GH2 combined with prime lenses has ruined me for bridge cameras.

As much as I dislike shooting video with a DSLR form factor, I like the video from the camera so much I may keep it!

[Noa Put]

I send you a few photos Jeff, curious what you think of them and if these are in line of the results you are getting with your rx10? My last photographic experience dates back to 30 years ago so what looks fine to me might look like an amateur shot to a pro.

[Dave Blackhurst]

OK, so you're shooting without flash then? I can see where it's tough sometimes in lower light, you'll get noise as ISO ramps.

I guess I'm used to having flash or a small LED "fill" light (or both) as part of the package, though I don't "like" flash, as it adds other potential problems. I prefer bounce/diffused flash as well, and haven't picked up anything compatible with this MiShoe yet... but I've had surprisingly decent results using one of those silly cheap "puffer" diffusers that takes the edge off the pop up flash.

Not often you'll see a 'tog without a flash, even if they have a good "low light" rig. Heck, I even prefer using "fill" flash outdoors when shooting in bright/shadow conditions!

[Jeff Harper]

Noa, the photos you sent me were were excellent, of course! You have a great eye and know how to set up a great photo!

Dave, I guess the quick detail shots I like to take at the church and reception disappoint due to the 1" sensor. I am probably expecting too much from the camera.

I do use a supplemental light as needed, when I have time, but even then the detail I'm accustomed to seeing in my photos is just not there.

I strongly prefer natural light or to use a video light handheld off to the side from an angle, but I often shoot alone so I don't always have the ability to do that. Flash is cool but I don't use it, don't have room in the bag for more stuff.

[Dave Blackhurst]

I know that the GH series produce some very nice output, so maybe that's part of it, I think you're onto something with the higher ISO's, that ALWAYS softens things up, same as "gain" does. There's only so much you can squeeze out of limited photons! That f/2.8 does a whole lot, but there are limits!

I'm also trying to travel small and light (thus the RX10!), but there are a few things, like a polarizer, a small folding bracket to help stabilize video and mount a light if needed, a small dimmable LED if I know I may need supplemental light, and for now, the aforementioned "puffer" style diffuser... yeah, the bag starts to fill up fast! And I just potentially added cold shoe adapters and maybe a mic... most of that is "optional" unless I'm getting paid though!

I know "real" photographers tend to sneer at the puffer, but it was a Gary Fong "invention", and I've actually found it takes the "edge" off the built in flash enough to make it worth the sub $10 cost (if you order from China direct, a couple bucks more from a US supplier). I HATE on camera and "direct" flash, but have found the puffer diffuser useful, FWIW. Cheap and not terribly large or heavy, might be worth a try if you don't want a "dedicated" external flash!

[Jeff Harper]

Re: puffer, I have one. I have taken photos with and without and can see absolutely no difference. I read someone say they saw no difference. So I tried it, and in fact just did it a minute ago for kicks, no difference.

I have to admit though I have not used the onboard flash once on a job, but thanks to your encourgement I will try it. The onboard flash has seemed fine when I've played with it.

Thanks for mentioning the flash, Dave! Can't believe I didn't think of it. Setting the strength of it to the right setting could give me much more usable photos!

[Dave Blackhurst]

Hmm... not sure about what shooting situation would show "no difference"... a diffuser will soften shadows and usually improve on overall harshness by spreading the light from a single source. It's most obvious with a subject closer to the camera where the background can show harsh shadows. I've found a diffuser (preferably on a bounce flash) to be a big help for stills, but YMMV...

At the very least I'd expect a bit of change to the exposure settings...