Follow by Email


Saturday, September 8, 2018

Sony Cybershot RX10 IV Review (Bonus)- Worth the High Price?

Sony Cybershot RX10 IV Review (Bonus)- Worth the High Price?
 September 2018, Carl Garrard
It's year 2008, and I'm photographing tenaciously. Any type of photography in the outdoors intrigued me greatly; whether it was the micro world of macro, the vastness of space, and everything in between. The year of 2008 I grew tremendously as a freelance 'artistic' photographer. I can't recall a year I was more active with personal photographic projects than this year. I wasn't  a father back then, so time was in abundance. I was photographing nearly everything with equipment of all types but mainly Sony bridge cameras and the A100 DSLR, making images of any subject that captured my imagination and fascination.

Sony Cyber‑Shot RX10 IV Current Prices

Sony Cyber‑Shot RX10 IV Current Prices
Sony Cybershot RX10 IV Review- A Bit of History

Back then, the digital camera industry was just starting to grow at a very rapid rate. Money continuously funneled into the R&D departments of camera companies, and technology and overall capabilities of cameras grew quickly. Yet many of us were impatient with the digital camera market because it wasn't yet mature like the film industry had become. Whereas in the 'film era' you were more likely to rely on one or two camera types, digital was different. Not all areas of camera technology were advancing at the same rate, and this caused many short comings in digital camera design that left many of us frustrated.

What we consumers ended up with, was a sort of chaotic array of digital devices available for purchase. For example, all in one 'bridge' cameras, weren't truly all in one cameras. For one reason or another they lacked performance characteristics we needed that other cameras excelled at, whether or not promises were made from marketing departments to the contrary. And no matter what type of camera you bought, it came with a list of strengths and weaknesses that either you had to live with, or, had to purchase another camera or two (or three) to compensate for. Many photographers ended up purchasing multiple digital cameras as a result, because they wanted tools that excelled at particular types of photography. This was the only way to have a balanced system, and even then that solution left much to be desired.

Cameras like the Sony DSC-F828 and DSC-R1 helped to pave the way for the RX10 series we have today. Truly a brave step forward showing a hint of what bridge camera's could be. More pro's owned them and used them than admitted it, by far.

What photographers were really hoping for (and asking for), was a single camera that could do nearly everything well, one perhaps that could be relied upon for professional use. And while we were told (often by other photographers ironically), that this was an impossibility, I never believed it. We weren't crazy. Many of us had a reasonable expectation of an all in one camera. We never expected it to be perfect, but rather capable enough to do many tasks with a high level of performance and a professional quality output. We really didn't get a glimmer of hope until Sony and Panasonic came out with the RX10 (in 2013) and FZ1000 (in 2014). These cameras had excellent and fast lenses with much larger sensors, but even those cameras weren't quite fully realized. Yet we all knew Sony and Panasonic were truly on the right track, and these cameras opened the eyes to many other consumers of what a bridge camera could truly be. Redemption was soon at hand.

Enter a new era for the bridge camera, the Sony RX10 and Panasonic FZ1000

These two new cameras pushed past boundaries many thought were impossible. I never did. I even recall making a wish list back in 2007 that was very similar to what Panasonic came out with in 2014. Back then, I was ridiculed (and even insulted) for my ideas and forward thinking. Eventually I stopped speaking about it because I could tell many people just didn't have an open mind to the possibility of future advancements the digital world would eventually realize.

When Sony announced the RX10, I knew many of the 'absurd and impossible' ideas I had voiced were truly realistic after all. Then Panasonic followed up with the FZ1000, and pushed the boundaries further out. I purchased both cameras, including Leica's version of the FZ1000 (the D Lux Typ 114). In many ways my needs were fulfilled and my dreams realized, however I knew that an even better camera could be designed that would fully realize the potential of the bridge camera. Either way, these cameras were truly game changing designs, a term way over abused in this industry.

Enter 2012, with the RX100 (above) and the RX10 Sony's Cybershot Division were showing its true potential and a brand new path. Back when the RX100 was unveiled, I was in denial about their future. You can't blame me. Why? Since 2005 not a single true enthusiast camera came out of the Cybershot division. Turns out, this was because of a Sony Corporate decision, the simple fear of cannibalizing the new Alpha DSLR divisions sales by competition. Turned out to be a bad move. Had Sony Corporate left Cybershot alone, it would have only helped their Alpha sales.

In 2015, technology had plateaued in multiple areas to the point that at least they were all on a more equal level. Prior to that time in late 2013, Sony's RX10 and RX100 (2012) line up were evidence of a new and upcoming Cybershot division that would (ultimately) end up sharing technology with its newest mirrorless Alpha division. Shortly after 2015, Sony's corporate headquarters would 'officially' spin off the Cybershot and Alpha camera divisions into their own separate entities. Now free from any binding or 'conflicting' design restrictions, Sony had all pistons firing. Finally free from decisions made above them,  they developed and introduced technology which finally gave them the freedom to make cameras as they saw fit.

Sony Cyber‑Shot RX10 IV Current Prices
Sony Cybershot RX10 IV Review - Introduction

As a result of this aligning of the planets if it were, Sony's 'ultimate bridge camera' finally came to consumers in 2017 with the introduction Sony's Cybershot DSC-RX10 IV.  Let's take a look a this camera in depth to see if it can live up to its marketing and specification sheet in every day practical terms. There's no doubting the RX10 IV is packed, but is it worth the extra money over the RX10 III or its competitors?

Sony improved on the MK III version with the MK IV version in the following ways:

  • A new sensor capable of dual Phase Detection and Contrast Detection auto focus
  • Slightly better high ISO performance (very slight)
  • 24 frames per second shooting vs 14, much larger buffer capacity (250 jpgs vs 50)
  • Longer ultra high speed video recording times
  • Touch screen for auto focusing features
  • Slightly more detailed rear LCD screen 
  • More video settings
  • Enhanced, slightly more organized Menu System
  • Addition of Blue Tooth  
  • Addition of Auto mode for focus, which shifts between continuous and single AF
  • Additional/Improved Weather Sealing (see weather sealing diagrams further down in review)
  • Highlight Prioritized Metering setting (really works!)
  • New Custom Menu Settings
  • Focus Limiter Switch
  • Aperture Ring Improved with more knurled area (finally much easier to use, my favorite change!)

 Sony took a step back from the MK III version in the following ways:

  • Slight drop in battery life (400 shots CIPA vs 420)
  • Slightly heavier (44 grams heavier)
  • Higher Price (unjustified, see below)

Basically everything else is the same with the two cameras, which is quite a bit to the untrained eye. The viewfinder, body size and grip, resolution of the sensor (20mp, 5472×3648), battery type, and lens (24-600 f/2.4-4) are identical. External controls are all nearly the same. What you end up with on the MK IV is a supposedly progressively developed improved camera. And I'll admit, a few changes made to the camera were well implemented, generated by quite a bit of repetitive feedback given to Sony. Overall I'm not yet convinced that the MK IV is worth its higher price tag based on what I've seen so far.

With its touted PDAF, Focus Range Switch, Sony wants you to think this is a great action camera.
Sony Cyber‑Shot RX10 IV Current Prices
Sony Cybershot RX10 IV Review- Important First Impressions

In terms of changes with the MK IV vs the MK III, my favorite change of all (ironically) was the addition of the extra knurling on the aperture ring. For me, this change makes the aperture ring implementation heads and tails easier to use than the MK III, MK II, and MK I versions. Sony had the same 50% knurled design on its first three RX10's and it absolutely irritated me because you had to pinch the sides of the aperture ring to change it, the top and bottom were too slick.

In a pinch, you can even dare to use the higher ISO's in low light. ISO 12,800.

 The MK III version was a bit easier to use than the I and II only because the lens was longer and the grip larger, so I had more room to maneuver my left hand and, a larger grip to help make the adjustment. But the MK IV is nearly perfect now.  It is much easier to change the aperture ring's 1/3 stop increments, finally. You know its funny that I have to get excited about this but in the world of Sony cameras, any change for the better is welcome. This is something that should have been fixed in the first design, not the IVth iteration.

Sony are painfully slow to change sometimes. Hmm no, they are just slow to change always.

Three changes in this photo, the knurling on the aperture ring extends through the bottom of the ring, the addition of the focus limiter, and the A setting for the AF mode added to the AF mode dial.

Another area of improvement is the seemingly improved weather sealing. Sony didn't make light of it ironically (they do with everything else), and all the reviews out there that I read missed it too. Yet I was paying close attention. If you look closely at the image below, you'll notice that more areas were sealed on the MK IV version than the MK III, at least based on their marketing. Sony slightly changed the way they described the weather sealing too in their nomenclature online, especially on Sony Japan's website.

This is how the MK III was defined in terms of weather sealing on the Sony USA site, and the size that comes up when you click on the interactive body icon:

And this is how the MK IV is defined in terms of weather sealing on the Sony USA site:

An added detailed sealing diagram for the MK IV showing on the interactive icon for the body?

Secondly, they added a dedicated section to the features page on its sealing, completely omitted on the MK III page. Secondly pay attention to the big diagram above and the verbiage they added on the new dedicated section to weather sealing on the MK IV page below:

Notice the additional verbiage? Also that Sony added a dedicated section, plus more confident verbiage, and lastly a more detailed diagram, tells me that perhaps the MK IV is at the least slightly better weather sealed than the MK III. But can't they just come right out about it and not make us "guess"?

Now, I won't be looking to make videos in the shower of myself, or chasing tornado's with the MK IV, but the seemingly added confidence Sony has in the MK IV sealing is welcome if I'm in the field shooting and the shit hits the fan. And for this review, I wasn't confident enough to take the $1,700.00 MK IV to task, but I've read testimony it handles light rain just fine.

Another benefit of weather sealing is that fixed lens cameras are more impervious to dust getting inside the camera and onto the sensor. Once this happens, you have to have the camera serviced in order to get it removed since the lens is attached, I'd never attempt doing that myself. It's rare, but it does happen with some fixed lens cameras, and its a real pain. So cheers to Sony for at least attempting to weather proof its RX10 series.

Sony Cyber‑Shot RX10 IV Current Prices
Sony RX10IV Review: PDAF Autofocus, Sensational Marketing and Press? Yep, Yet Again.

Sony make great claims about its new tracking AF. I lost count on how many press articles made huge praise of Sony's advancement of the new sensor adding PDAF. But I would caution you to read the fine print VERY carefully. All the press and Sony propaganda read nearly the same; you almost come away thinking that the new PDAF autofocus is as good as the new flagship A9. Looks like Sony's press events had a lot of wining and dining. The press were equally all raving about this new feature and Sony put a ton of advertising out there about it, patting themselves on the back. So I tried it out. And my findings are below.

Tenacious? I don't think so Sony. And read the fine print, carefully. Using is believing, trust me.

First of all, you do not get to use PDAF in Single, DMF, or MF modes. Yes I know, at first it seems silly to cite that PDAF doesn't work for the MF setting but many DSLR's will give you AF confirmation in MF mode on the AF points using PDAF 100% of the time. So, it's not really silly after all especially how hyped and pumped up everyone made this out to be.

Secondly, the PDAF on the MK IV is not nearly as sensitive or reliable as the PDAF on any DSLR's. The reason is this: The sensor on the MK IV has dedicated, tiny pixels for PDAF, whereas DSLR's have a completely dedicated larger SENSOR for PDAF. However, the MK IV is the only bridge camera to ever have PDAF off the sensor, and in good light, with lots of patience, it tracks and works pretty well. But only in that circumstance.

Third, there is no comparison in good light or lower light to a DSLR. My Canon 6D, Pentax K70 etc. work about ten times better for indoor focusing in terms of speed and lock rate and sensitivity than the MK IV. Not a fair comparison? Okay I compared it to DSLR's in my inventory that go back as far as 2003 (Olympus E1), and still, the older DSLR's work better in lower light. This is because Sony's on sensor PDAF is not nearly as good as they tout it to be, and that is synonymous on all of their cameras.

I've had to assign the AEL and Focus Hold button to allow for AF lock because I focus and recompose all the time with the center AF point. If I don't lock the focus, it will refocus when I recompose. Sigh. It's that,or I use the single af mode and stick with Contrast detect AF, which works as good as the MK III. So why get the MK IV then??? Doesn't make sense, right? But,I bought the MK IV for the better AF, so no, I don't want to use that mode Sony.

In good light, the continuous PDAF system works well enough. You can lock a subject and track it, and it will definitely do that, most of the time if you do your job right.  It takes some practice, but you'll get used to using it especially with the touch screen. Remember however that only one focus area type will show the little PDAF points actively when you focus, and that would be the "Expand Flexible Spot" setting.

Frankly I was surprised that Sony did this, and that I didn't read a single review that outlined this as an issue (there may be one out there). But it is an issue. I guess when you get to go to a paid resort for a press announcement, that's how other media sites do.

As I said, I'm giving it to you straight, that's how a Carl do.

Test Sample: In decent mid-level light at an indoor swim meet for my daughter, the MK IV just failed to track accurately enough to give me keeper shots, even though it appeared though the viewfinder and LCD screen to be doing so. Reviewing images when I got home was a supreme disappointment. Out of about 150 images, I think about three or four were nailed and of good enough quality to be happy about.  Most images were front or back focused and few locked onto her face.

Here is an example of front focusing, and I'm at ISO 400 which is the max ISO I'll use for quality images. I could only muster 1/80th of a second, so the image is blurry too. A DSLR at ISO 1600 would have nailed the focus and had a higher shutter speed of 1/320th of a second with equal or better sensor image quality. In other words, I would have had plenty of excellent shots, whereas with the Sony I had only a few.

Now outdoors in bright light at the park/field/pool, it did pretty well as I tracked her kicking the ball around with other kids, playing, or swimming. The hit rate was much higher, about 50-75% or so, and this to me is acceptable, for a bridge camera. But I realized really quick, that this camera was not going to be one I'd rely on for action shots, or birding, because it is so limited to needing very bright light.

Now I also used the RX10 IV to shoot birds in flight in good light and near sunset. For single AF I was able to get plenty of keepers, but that was contrast detect AF, not PDAF focusing. If you rely on contrast detect, you might as well get the RX10 III and save money. What is the point then?

So it's time to pop the balloon. I'm here to set the record straight.

This is a bridge camera, and in very restricted circumstances it has a decent implementation of continuous autofocus compared to most bridge cameras to date. But honestly my Leica Typ 114 (Panasonic FZ1000 clone) does way faster auto focusing more reliably and in more circumstances. Yes, the older Panasonic/Leica are better and faster for autofocus with their DOD (Depth of Defocus) system in both single and continuous modes. That will be an unpopular fact to many people, but I don't write them to be popular, just informative and honest.

It may not sound like it, but I do want Sony to succeed with this camera. Maybe they could issue a firmware update allowing for PDAF in Single and MF modes, throw the owners a bone or something. But they probably won't. That's not how Sony do. They will make a fifth version so you'll have to buy that. What Sony needs to do is put a gag order on their marketing department and be more realistic about the practical performance of its cameras in the future. I don't think there is any maker that is a worse repeated offender in this regard.

If you are buying this camera thinking you will get great PDAF performance like a DSLR, take the camera out of your cart and save yourself $1,700.00. It does not perform like a DSLR, you do not get to have your cake and eat it too, for almost all circumstances.
My advice, save your money and get the RX10 III, or, get the Panasonic FZ/1000/2500 or Leica Typ 114 for faster AF speed in all categories. Panasonic's system is superior practically speaking.

Sony Cyber‑Shot RX10 IV Current Prices
Sony RX10IV Review: Conclusion
Where the RX10 IV shines: Optical quality, absolutely stellar. Optical range, absolutely stellar. Video quality, no equal, extremely impressive. Portable zoom range, great all in one stills and video camera.

Where the RX10 IV fails: It fails to live up to Sony's press propaganda in its continuous focusing system for stills. It's high price; is therefore not justified. Go with the MK III.

I've got some marketing for Sony. Under RX10 IV it should read "Barely better than the MK III"

Sony's RX10 IV is mostly what I think the final realization of a complete bridge camera should be, in terms of its physical capabilities. I also think that the Cybershot division finally have all the technology and freedom to finally express what they are really capable of. From here onward, only tweaks to the design are necessary to keep it as an active model. As good as the sensor is, time marches on, and I'm sure that Sony can improve the noise and overall image quality of the sensor in the future- they will need too.

For a 1" sensor it's got good color and dynamic range, something I've always raved about with the RX10 before it. This is what the RX10 series are good for, and shame on Sony for trying to market it as an action camera.

Paying attention to further details about handling, adding an ND filter, and improving the menu systems further are other progressive considerations. I'm not so sure I'd redesign the optics on a future model, but a manual zoom lens would be a stellar addition (no matter how improved the motorized zoom has become). Perhaps one with a clutch and switch to go back and forth between mechanical and/or motorized? I'm really grasping at straws though when it comes to suggesting improvements here, the IV is as near as a complete bridge camera as you can get, in most ways.

What it does well is give you stellar optical quality with its 24-600mm lens, very good image quality (below ISO 400), awesome video quality (frankly it's better as a video camera than a stills camera), and an overall excellently contained do-many-things package.  But so does the RX10 III. And in my opinion the RX10 IV has a long way to go to convince me that its worth near double the price of the III. Using both camera's in real life will open your eyes. Especially when you compare it to a DSLR and lens. 

Excellent optical performance and high speed electronic shutter give you a lot of creative latitude.

I think a person would be better served to get a DSLR and good zoom if you want to shoot action shots. The RX10 IV is not there yet for anyone with high expectations, and it shouldn't have been marketed that way- the way the camera works and performs does not live up to it. It's borderline unethical. I think the marketing and press did more damage than good for its reputation because it makes you think it can. And yet I've seen many examples of Sony making bold claims only to let you down when you use the cameras in practical circumstances. Quite frankly, this is one reason why Sony don't have as good of a reputation as other makers.

My advice, try the RX10 III and IV for yourself, then save a lot of money and get the RX10 III, because that is a great camera for the price. If you really want a fast focusing bridge camera for continuous shooting, get the Panasonic/Leica options, they are even more affordable.


Stay Focused.

-Carl Garrard

Sony RX10 IV Bonus Section: Comparing to a DSLR System

In this section of the review I'm going to compare the Pentax K70 and two lenses (any DSLR and lens combo would be fine really) to the Sony RX10 IV as an all rounder outdoor or vacation photographers choice. This section will not include detailed video bits, but know already that the Sony RX10 IV has superior video capabilities than the K70, so it will get higher marks immediately for this section of the comparison.

Zoom Range- Sony's RX10 IV has a range of 24-600mm equivalent, and the combo I chose for the K70 is the 18-55 DA WR and new 55-300mm PLM, effective focal length is 27-450mm 
  • Winner: RX10 IV (slight wide, and slight tele advantage)
Retail Price- Price (new): Sony RX10 IV Total: $1,695.00 (price paid Amazon)
Price (new): K70 and DA 18-55mm WR, and 55-300mm PLM Total: $1,100.00 (price paid Amazon)
  • Winner K70 ($600.00 lower, allows for swap of 16-85mm w/18-55 WR, still $200.00 winner)
Size of System- Lens dependent

  • Draw
Image Quality- There's no way to match the optical quality of the Sony for the price

  • Pentax K70 (winner sensor, much more DR, much less noise)
  • Sony RX10 (winner optical, wide angle quality edge to edge sharpness, max tele detail)
Auto Focus Speed - K70 overall. No contest really.

  • Pentax K70 (winner almost all, low light and bright light lock on rate, speed, and accuracy- overall superior either lens for eye level focusing only)
  • Sony RX10 (winner only for one specific circumstance: bright light central locked/high contrast subjects in controlled situations)
Ease of Use- K70 overall better menus and ergonomics

  • Pentax K70 (Winner, superior easier to use menu system, speed and reliability of single AF and continuous AF on eye level finder focusing (direct PDAF sensor), faster zooming, versatility of system, menu systems and ergonomics)
  • Sony RX10 IV (Winner, no lens changes, compact overall package)
Weatherizing- K70 trounces the Sony

  • Pentax K70 (winner, much superior sealing, can clean the sensor)
  • Sony RX10 IV (winner- okay sealing, likely no dust to settle on sensor, if it does, servicing is necessary) 

Overall Comparison

When compared to the K70 DSLR combo in practical testing and use, its clear that the K70's PDAF used with the optical finder is much more superior system in speed of focus, lock rate, and even in continuous mode with the 55-300mm PLM. Even with the "kit" 18-55mm WR, focus acquisition is faster using the optical viewfinder. Sony wins only in one limited controlled circumstance.

Sensor image quality is much superior with the K70. No contest. Optical image detail and distortions are better on the Sony through the range, but that's mainly in the extreme corners. There is not much field of view difference between 450mm and 600mm equivalent once you get that far out in telephoto territory, and for moving subjects I'd much prefer the K70 using the OVF. Trying to match  or exceed the optical quality of the Sony lens for the money would be a big ask for the Pentax. But you do have the options out there (16-85mm for the wide to mid tele end).

While the Sony is to be commended as a bridge camera leader, there is no comparison between a dedicated PDAF unit and PDAF on sensor... the latter is trounced. I was really let down by the Sony because of how much hype it got in the press. I am not impressed with moving subjects, since PDAF only works in continuous AF, and only on one focus area type (expand af area, in the center of the frame). Why didn't the press cover this much more? Practically speaking it's extremely limited, and performance wise I think its a waste compared to the RX10 III.

Optically, had I tested the K70 with the 16-85mm, it would match the Sony on the wide to mid telephoto range in optical quality, and beat it in speed, weather proofing, and bokeh. Price wise, the K70 plus the 16-85 and 55-300mm PLM combo would cost $200.00 less than the Sony, and cover 24-450mm equivalent. Sony's RX10 IV can be more convenient because there are no lens changes but how often will you need too? That depends on the user and the type of photography. There is no question that not having to make lens changes is an advantage, but there are pro's and con's to both sides of the situation here.

Convenience wise, the Sony will win depending on your needs, and of course for any kind of video it is vastly superior. I mean, it has killer video and all the right sockets etc. But overall image quality, handling and ergonomics, and weather sealing are handily won by the K70 and at a lower price, even with a higher end wide to mid zoom. For video users, get the Sony no doubt. For still shooters, it all depends on your needs and type of photography. Mostly though, the K70 system is more capable than the Sony in many respects and reading reviews will not give you the hands on experience that is far more telling than any review could ever be.

But trust me, I'm right.


  1. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

  2. Actually everything you just said is completely untrue. I made it very clear that any brand DSLR has a better PDAF system. The Pentax was just one example. Also, the Panasonic and Leica work better, so I'm a Panasonic fanboy too? And I have an RX10 still too. So I much be a Sony fanboy as well.

  3. Also, your comment was made minutes after I posted the review. You had time to read everything I wrote already? You're fast!

  4. I agree with your assessment Carl, which is why I returned mine and got the RX10 III. Are you going to do a review on that camera?

  5. I may yes. I had both at the same time so I wrote much down about the RX10 III. My only concern is being repetitive to what has already been said so many times about it. It's a phenomenal camera that I like very much!

  6. Carl, dont know of you Still read replies on your DPR post. But to be Frank, Im a bit worried. Are you well? For many years I read your posts and blogs. Always very infomative and well balanced. As of late (your recent DPR post in particular) you seem not so balanced anymore. Having strong opinions doesnt mean pushing them. Be well! Sincere regards Perry

  7. Perry, I'm not sure why you think I'm not well. Of course I'm well. :) Did you read the replies to the posts here? Did you read my review here? I'm not sure how you could miss either things. If you read the review, you'd see there are quite a lot of positive things I said about it, and it is very fair and honest as all my reviews have been. Thanks for your concern.

  8. Maybe, just maybe, the replies to my review there aren't fair and balanced! Just a thought! :)

  9. Serious? You say the M3 is better compared to the M4 At a time you now say you didnt yet review the M3?.?! And I read all the replies here and on DPR. That was what got me worrying about you. Feverishly crushing the M4. For what? Did Sony at any time offend you or insult you? And Please read my first repy again.

  10. Perry, how am I supposed to reply to that comment? Can you tell me what my one criticism is in the this review I posted here?

    Try reading the review here with an open mind, relaxed, and you might come away with a different more realistic perspective. We are all people, all photographers.


  11. "a time you now say you didnt yet review the M3?"- Perry, I'm not sure I understand if you making a point or not? Can you elaborate?

    I used both cameras at the same time. What does not preparing a review mean to you?

    "Feverishly crushing the M4" I did no such thing. I have a single contention with Sony and the Press, that overhyped one aspect of the camera's performance. I was very very clear about that Perry. I gave the camera high marks in almost every other single category. How exactly, is that "feverishly crushing the M4"?

    Perhaps, that's more of an emotional responses to a misguided understanding of my review... ?

  12. Here is my conclusion for you Perry, and others who may have not read my review in its entirety:

    Sony RX10IV Review: Conclusion
    Where the RX10 IV shines: Optical quality, absolutely stellar. Optical range, absolutely stellar. Video quality, no equal, extremely impressive. Portable zoom range, great all in one stills and video camera.

    Where the RX10 IV fails: It fails to live up to Sony's press propaganda in its continuous focusing system for stills. It's high price; is therefore not justified. Go with the MK III.

    1. I really don’t understand your logic when you talk about continuous focusing.
      How can you choose Mk3 with only 25 focus points against the Mk4 with 315 focus points which are virtually edge to edge, combined with phase detection. Every review I’ve ever read and watched unanimously declare the Mk 4 miles ahead of the Mk3 in terms of focus speed and accuracy.

    2. READ THE REVIEW? If you cant understand after reading the review, go out and get a good DSLR and lens, and try to compare both yourself. :)

  13. So Perry, please let me know if you wish to have a fair and balanced conversation. And wish to address my replies without further accusation to which there is no evidence.

  14. I sold my RX10III and bought the RX10IV. I never regretted it. I don't use my A7RII with 70-400GM anymore because autofocus RX10IV is a lot better. With flying birds almost all keepers. High iso I use to 16000. Two examples

  15. In good light, it's definitely a good performer. I'm glad you like the camera!

  16. I have the Nikon D500 and Nikkor 200-500 which is a stunning combination. I have used both and I would always come down on the side of the DSLR except in the weight comparison. A full days shooting with the Nikon system is tiring, a full day with the Sony is a dream. I get more keepers with the Nikon. Comparing the Nikon to the Sony is pointless when I am comparing the performance of the Sony Mk3 and Sony Mk4 autofocus and that’s where you are missing the point.
    I’ve read your review again, in full and I still come to the same conclusion, there is no comparison between the Mk4 and Mk3 on continuous auto focus. The Mk4 is way ahead.

  17. Only in good light. :) which, I said in the review.

  18. And the point of bringing up DSLR's vs. it, is to enforce my argument against the marketing that Sony have for the camera. Read the marketing and you'd think it performs better than any DSLR. Read the conclusions from press that attended SONY'S FREE EVENT and you'll see the same. All shot in excellent light, perfect ideal conditions that hardly are the case in real life.

  19. Sony and the press that enjoy the freebies, are misleading photographers.