Sony Sony RX100 IV announced.

drd1135

Zen Snapshooter
Jul 13, 2011
Lexington, VA
Steve
Video aside, i got my wife a much discounted RX100 MK 1 and the results were very impressive. If I wanted a true pocket camera, one of the RX100 models would be a non-brainer.
 

Archiver

Top Veteran
Jul 11, 2010
Melbourne, Australia
There's a lot of talk about the price, but back in 2002 (13 years ago! Holy heck!) my Canon S45 cost just under a thousand Australian dollars. And that was for their flagship "compact" camera, which was a 4mp camera with VGA resolution 15fps video! The RX100 IV looks to be about $1300 in Australia, which seems nuts, but has features way beyond anything else you can put in your pocket at this time.
 
D

dalethorn

Guest
Storage is cheap, but the time involved in processing and handling video just to grab stills is prohibitive. I don't see a point in it unless the primary aim is to capture video. Finding the 8 mp stills to be acceptable seems like a denial of the progress in digital photo technology over the past decade or so. The 8 mp images may be acceptable on screen or in small prints in most cases, but even on screen I often like to see details, and not for pixel-peeping, but for the details themselves. I'm very much looking forward to 100 mp or more, so my digital images can start looking more like the 4x5 film images I've seen here and there.
 
Apr 18, 2014
Boston Burbs
David
There's a lot of talk about the price, but back in 2002 (13 years ago! Holy heck!) my Canon S45 cost just under a thousand Australian dollars. And that was for their flagship "compact" camera, which was a 4mp camera with VGA resolution 15fps video! The RX100 IV looks to be about $1300 in Australia, which seems nuts, but has features way beyond anything else you can put in your pocket at this time.
My first digital was the Pentax Optio 330 in 2001, $700 US. Which, according to a few inflation calculators on the web, would be $940-$950. Or the list price of the RX100mIV.

Here's a shocker for you.
Canon G1 - $1100 in 2000 = $1500
Canon G2 - $900 in 2001 = $1200
Canon S40 - $800 in 2001 = $1075
Canon S45 - $600 in 2002 = $800
 

Ray Sachs

Legend
Sep 21, 2010
Not too far from Philly
you should be able to figure it out...
Storage is cheap, but the time involved in processing and handling video just to grab stills is prohibitive. I don't see a point in it unless the primary aim is to capture video. Finding the 8 mp stills to be acceptable seems like a denial of the progress in digital photo technology over the past decade or so. The 8 mp images may be acceptable on screen or in small prints in most cases, but even on screen I often like to see details, and not for pixel-peeping, but for the details themselves. I'm very much looking forward to 100 mp or more, so my digital images can start looking more like the 4x5 film images I've seen here and there.
You're right, but I always get pulled up short by reality checks. I still have a glossy print floating around, 8x10" of the detail of a chromed steel bicycle lug, shot with my first digital camera, a 2.3mp Panasonc pocket camera. And damned if that print isn't absolutely brilliant. I can't see any pixels in it. I know the differences and I like the new sensors mostly for the DR and high ISO capability, but the megapixel thing never really moved me. I was happy at 10-12, I'm ecstatic at 16. When I shot with 24 it was because that's what the camera I wanted happened to have, but overall I prefer the tradeoffs with the 16mp in my DF over the 24mp sensor used in the D750 and Sony's various 24mp models.

-Ray
 

Archiver

Top Veteran
Jul 11, 2010
Melbourne, Australia
Canon G2 - $900 in 2001 = $1200
Canon S40 - $800 in 2001 = $1075
Canon S45 - $600 in 2002 = $800
Heck. My cousin had a G2 back in 2002, which was partially what inspired me to get the S45. I had no idea she spent that much money on it!

Don't get me started on solid state memory, though. Back then, you were lucky to have a 512mb card that wasn't the price of a small boat. The glee I felt when I finally bought a 1GB CF card for my S70! Our state of the art IBM computer in the 90's had a 3GB hard drive and the whole thing cost $4000. Now you get 8GB USB sticks for the cost of a cup of coffee. I buy them in handfuls because the cost makes them almost disposable. Rambling now...
 

Ray Sachs

Legend
Sep 21, 2010
Not too far from Philly
you should be able to figure it out...
I just learned from someone on DPR that the new RX100 IV now has a minimum shutter speed option in the auto-ISO menu. And they let you set a minimum up to 1/3200... This is a feature that revolutionized my whole approach to dealing with exposure a couple of years ago and I figured that ALL cameras should have it and would within a couple of years, but surprisingly few still did. Sony is usually pretty slow to this kind of thing, so if they've seen the light on this, that's VERY good news. Fuji has gotten most of the way there. Ricoh has a limited implementation that they could make very useful SOOOOO easily, but don't seem to want to. Canon is there, but with a really odd and limited implementation. Nikon and Samsung and Leica have had great versions of this function for at least a few years now. Olympus and Panasonic - where are you???

I don't know but assume that the new RX10 II has this as well? And I'd imagine any new versions of the A7 and any RX1 update will. Maybe the new A7RII already does? In any case, I think this is great news and will put Sony back into my list of cameras to consider going forward. Not in the market for anything now or short term, but someday I'm sure I will be and I'm really glad to see this feature finally getting close to SOP for most new cameras...

-Ray
 

drd1135

Zen Snapshooter
Jul 13, 2011
Lexington, VA
Steve
I'm OK with the price. Early adopters always pay a premium. The last three models are still floating around out there so it's like a mini ecosystem with the Mk i going for $350 or so. The term P&S should just go away since it increasingly refers to cameras that are going away.
 
Last edited:

serhan

All-Pro
May 7, 2011
NYC
It is good that they are catching up with min shutter speed. A7R II has the min shutter also. Too bad they waited this long. Next is m43 as you said. By the way, original Canon 5D doesn't have even auto ISO...

I just learned from someone on DPR that the new RX100 IV now has a minimum shutter speed option in the auto-ISO menu. And they let you set a minimum up to 1/3200... This is a feature that revolutionized my whole approach to dealing with exposure a couple of years ago and I figured that ALL cameras should have it and would within a couple of years, but surprisingly few still did. Sony is usually pretty slow to this kind of thing, so if they've seen the light on this, that's VERY good news. Fuji has gotten most of the way there. Ricoh has a limited implementation that they could make very useful SOOOOO easily, but don't seem to want to. Canon is there, but with a really odd and limited implementation. Nikon and Samsung and Leica have had great versions of this function for at least a few years now. Olympus and Panasonic - where are you???

I don't know but assume that the new RX10 II has this as well? And I'd imagine any new versions of the A7 and any RX1 update will. Maybe the new A7RII already does? In any case, I think this is great news and will put Sony back into my list of cameras to consider going forward. Not in the market for anything now or short term, but someday I'm sure I will be and I'm really glad to see this feature finally getting close to SOP for most new cameras...

-Ray
 

Latest posts

Latest threads

Top Bottom