That's my thought. A RX10mk4 with its autofocus/tracking capabilities would give me something I don't have yet... (whereas a 100-400mm would only give me a bit more reach - I'm fairly happy with my 75-300mm)
Anywho, this is getting a bit off on a tangent, I guess
Only partly ... Getting reach with little bulk is one of the real advantages of
... But I guess the Sony talk might put some people off
But then, the fact that reach is even easier to get at with 1" cameras, especially those superzoom models, is a valid point.
For me, the Panasonic FZ1000 was a very worthwhile acquistion because it beats the 14-150mm II (yes, the lens alone!) for price and IQ. The 14-150mm II is lighter, but not smaller. I prefer zooming manually, but the FZ1000's powerzoom is quite okay (I like the step zoom setting most). But what you can't do with one of the bigger superzooms is something trivial: Go smaller if desired. So, in the end,
still wins, but by a much smaller margin than one would think. The FZ1000 is one killer proposition ... No other camera of that kind has the status, though - because of either size or price (or both).
The size and bulk of the RX10 IV is the key reason I don't own one; it'd be *the* all-in-one solution, I have to agree. The RX100 VII is appealing as well - but at three times the price of the FZ1000, and offering less reach, it's just not worth it for me to switch, even though I actually *don't* own anything as small *and* as versatile.
All that said, I'm pleasantly surprised time and again by the images the 14-150mm II, arguably just the middle child of the three
superzooms, helps me produce. At the end of the day, you get a reliable superzoom that you can swap for a small, premium prime at any time. No superzoom, not even Sony's best, can offer that.
M.