At this point I firmly believe the slow zoom speed in record mode is a "feature", not a "bug", to both "improve" video quality and prevent the zoom motor from being "too" loud in the audio channels. Have had almost no time to do further shooting, but thought I would pass these quick observations along, FWIW. Still not a deal breaker in my book.

Unfortunately for me it is, to me it looks like yet another limitation put there on purpose, I really hope Sony will come to their senses and give a option to choose zoomspeeds, in record mode it's unusable now in any run and gun situation. Really too bad as the camera is very close to perfect but the party is ruined by the zoomspeed.

I've got to get more shooting time in with this, had a few too many personal crisis going on... but I think it's a livable design "feature"... and IMO, it's an "easy" fix - all that would need to be added is a menu item for "slow zoom" while recording, with an "off" option so if you didn't care about crash zoom and zoom noise, you could just allow the camera to have the "fast" option... there are so many other options buried in the menus, it's actually a bit of a surprise this isn't in there! OK, I'll admit I'd like variable speed zoom settings TOO, but...

The switch on the remote offers a clue... somehow it was thought desirable to not have the option to fast zoom...

I hope perhaps there will be some effort to hack or open the firmware, as something like this would be a snap to "fix"!

Is the smoothness of the zoom mechanism the same in standby and record mode? Any wobbles or wiggles during zooming while in standby?

I tested just in standby, and I'd say that you can detect the zoom motor kick in and out just a little, and there is a "pause" at the transition from optical to digital rages... all things I would be able to work with. I've tried to learn to avoid "unmotivated zooms/pans" and anticipate framing anyway. I do see Noa's point that being able to crash zoom has the advantage of faster reframing when that IS necessary, but I'm still thinking it can be worked with... when the dust settles, I'll get more time in with it... rough holiday season this year...

I fiddled with turning steadyshot off/standard/active, you definitely lose some on the edges of the frame in active, but it looks to smooth out all the little jiggly/wobblies fairly well. Active is probably the better choice much of the time... It may not match the "magic eyeball" Handycams, but then again that's a fairly high bar.

Of course at higher ends of the zoom, even tiny movements like blood pumping through your body will be amplified enough to show up at least a little!

I can't "smooth zoom" with any SLR/SLT lenses anyway, and they all exhibit varying degrees of "play" - I think it's a function of the physics of a lens on a "still" camera. IMO, the RX10 is covering the still and video sides with fairly equal grace, which was what I was looking for and expected.

I guarantee you that if Sony opens up the zoom speeds, people will be complaining about motor noise ruining their audio. Bank on it. ;)

I guarantee you that if Sony opens up the zoom speeds,..

I would wager a bottle, make that a case, of fine Chilean Cab Sav that they won’t, not in regards the RX10. Maybe the ‘Pro’ version coming soon but not the consumer RX10. I doubt very much that it’s just a matter of writing some code. It may well be that the hardware, motors and so on, are just not up to it, not designed for faster speeds...but of course I don’t know.

I sympathize with Noa and those for whom the zoom speed is problematic. I have no issue in that regard but I’m not really a run ‘n gun sort of bloke. I like it just the way it is. But then I'm in it just for the fun:-)

I'm with Ken on this - when you fast zoom, it's noticeably louder... but it occurred to me to do a little rummaging down "memory lane"... will do more later, but the RX100M2 and HX300 (which I think were in the RX10 DNA) both behave EXACTLY the same way - in standby you can fast zoom... as soon as they are in record mode, slow zoom is it, there is a pattern... I've shot a fair amount with these cameras, and never even noticed the "restricted" zoom speed, so I think I can live with it!

And the more I think on how often I've hit "fast" while trying to do a subtle zoom, the more I'm actually warming to the "slow zoom" restriction, and I think I'd rather have (more) usable audio as well - the motors in all these cams in fast zoom speed make a fair racket! I'm sticking with "it's a feature, not a bug".

Some of us naturally think in terms of modifying/hacking/adapting our "toys"... when your brain works that way, the modification is usually feasible IF you can gain access - but manufacturers don't usually "open" these things (like firmware!) up to make it easy!

More RX10 user experience...

I commented earlier that I was seeing jerkiness in footage shot with the RX10 shooting 50p in PAL mode (the version sold here in New Zealand is PAL/NTSC switchable, fortunately). I viewed the footage on various computer monitors and always the same jerkiness was evident. I also noted the exact same jerky problem when I set my EX1 to PAL mode and shot 720 50p. I had not noted that with the EX1 before as I invariably shoot 1080 30p.

Couple of days ago I had the opportunity to view the RX10 50p ‘jerky’ footage on a PAL/NTSC switchable TV and lo and behold with the TV set to PAL mode the footage was fine, smooth as it should be.

Am I correct in assuming that computer monitors generally only enable NTSC footage to be displayed correctly and without the jerky motion artifact? I should point out that the jerky problem when 50p is viewed on a typical computer monitor is only really apparent in particular situations most notably when objects are moving across the screen i.e. motor vehicles several hundred meters away. Normal shots of people walking, talking, flowers, bees and birds sitting around do no exhibit the problem.

I wonder if that is why Sony in their wisdom have enabled both PAL and NTSC recording on the RX10!

I shall never purchase a PAL only cam again.

As a general rule, it's best to work in a format that ties in with your own countries frame rate - so 25/50 based frame rates in 50Hz mains countries, and 24/30/60 in 60Hz mains countries. ("PAL" and "NTSC" only really refer to SD systems, and the analogue versions of them at that. The terms don't really have a meaning once you start to talk about HD.)

There are various reasons for using such framerates, general standardisation and helping to ensure mains light sources don't flicker amongst them.

What you describe sounds more like an issue of computer video playback in itself, and the problems of showing one framerate on a system running at a different frequency. It's possible that another situation may yield exactly the same problem for a 60Hz based framerate. Far better to display on a TV.

David, many thanks for your input; most appreciated. Yes, I understand the PAL vs NTSC terminology is perhaps not the most appropriate way of describing things and I should have referred to 50Hz vs 60Hz countries. I also understand the ‘light flicker’ issue however by and large my shooting is outdoor daytime and the light flicker issue is a non-issue for me. I would be most interested to know of any other possible issues you are referring to.

You say it is far better to display on a TV. The thing is that’s not how my vids are viewed by my audience; friends, family and so forth. Generally my output is shared on USB sticks and played on computers or viewed on my Vimeo site. In fact I have uploaded a sample of 50p and 60p shot using my RX10 same location and time which you can view John McCully on Vimeo (http://vimeo.com/user4513102) and see the difference, or not. I have viewed those two files, the two most recent additions, 00353 and 00017, using various computer/monitor configurations here in New Zealand and always the 50p jerkiness is in your face annoyingly apparent.

Seems to me the simple solution is to always shoot 30p and 60p and, given my shooting behavior, I know of no impediments to that approach. I am most interested in your further thoughts.

Oh, by the way; I don’t even have a TV :-)

Re: zoom, I am enjoying the camera, but the speed of the zoom is stupidly slow, and it's very loud at certain points in the zoom range. I may have a defective camera, I don't know. From a run and gun point of view it's very limiting. Lovely images though. If you could zoom quicker by hand it would help a great deal, but as we all know it doesn't work that way.

Playing with it and shooting around the house I actually enjoy the slow zoom. Sadly, life moves much faster during a wedding shoot.

Yes, the zoom is noisy and gets picked up in the audio, as long as you don't zoom the internal mike is actually quite good, posted some results here: http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/open-dv-discussion/521881-audio-test-sony-rx10-cx730-pana-gh3-g6.html

I really like the camera but to be honest the slow zoom ruins it for me, when I shoot alone I often need to reframe quickly and the rx10 makes this impossible, it would otherwise be a perfect camera, for run and gun it handles very good and making all necessary adjustments on the fly is easy and fast, the viewfinder is also very good, wish there was a small eyecup for it. I can easily handle this camera without any rig, just handheld, I only need to use the active stabilization mode, not teh standard one, that last one causes micro vibrations in the image while handheld shooting, something which is mostly eliminated in active mode though you sacrifice some resolution for it as it crops a part of the image to further stabilize..

I've tested several Sony cameras (RX100/100M2, HX300), and the "fixed rate" slow zoom is intentional, and not exclusive to this camera.

The faster the zoom, the louder it is (you can fast zoom while not recording to hear the difference), meaning it would become much more annoying in the audio than it is with the "throttled" speed. And I suspect they also wanted to improve the video by preventing "bad" technique from fumbling the zoom to high speed with a two stage zoom control.

It does feel a little sluggish, but part of that is the total range of the zoom (particularly if you use clear or digital zoom ranges). Hopefully if one is "close" to the desired framing, it wouldn't be as much of an issue? Overall, I've been fine with it, but a firmware hack to speed it up would be "interesting"!

In a camera of few "quibbles", I can live with it as it is...

I have added a few minor things to round out the "kit", but I'm with Noa, you can shoot this with very little additional rigging, which feels rather nice for a change! This was very much the design concept Sony was after - a relatively light and small camera that covers a LOT of shooting situations without need for a lot of "add-ons".

I like the feel of an added folding flash bracket (also handy to mount a small dimmable LED light if needed), I had circular polarizers from my Alphas already, and they aren't seeing as much use... and for stills, a "puffer" style flash diffuser seems to work pretty well with the pop up flash. Not really much else I can think I'd "have" to have for most shooting situations - it's very freeing! I guess the zoom thing just doesn't rank that high, with all the other things that work well...

Just returned from my first event with RX10 and two XA10s. Please take my comments with a grain of salt. I shoot multicamera events by myself, so my point of view will not be valid for many others. It's just that shooting with 3 and 4 camera solo requires a bit of focus, and anything that makes things more difficult for me is NOT received well. Again, this is just me. Any problems I had today were to be expected because I researched the camera pretty well. Sadly, the seriousness of a thing is sometimes not realized until you have to work around it.

Today the RX10 was not my main camera, of course. This was a trial run. It was a two camera shoot and the RX10 was tagging along. Static subjects who rarely moved allowed me time to play with camera and it was a great opportunity for testing the camera.

First, the good: I enjoy shooting in Manual mode with this camera. First camera I've ever shot video in Manual. It's a walk in the park, and quite enjoyable. Something about the controls, especially after setting up custom buttons, makes the camera fun to use this way.

Is it fair to criticize a camera for things I knew about it before I bought it? Probably not.

From an event videography point of view there are problems with this camera, at least for someone who routinely does 3 and 4 camera shoots by themselves, as I did today.

The zoom function on this camera is not right. I was not able to control how slowly I zoomed out today. I knew this going in but sometimes you don't realize how something will bother you until you have to deal with it on the job. Other dslr style cameras have given us silky smooth variable zoom functions, why did not Sony manage it for this camera?

For me this zoom issue would be problematic if this were to be a primary camera or even a b cam. When in the CIZ range the zoom behavior is markedly faster than regular zoom so when zooming out from a speaker it was rough. I like long, slow creeping zoom ins and outs (on occasion, not often) not gonna happen with this camera. Makes me appreciate the zoom on other cameras that I have taken for granted.

It is pointless to complain about the recording limit, right? Well, I'm going to complain anyway. Panasonic gave us both the M4/3 GH1 and GH2 years ago with NO RECORDING limit. Are we going backwards on purpose? Thanks Sony.

29 minutes flies by very quickly when your shooting 4 hours of footage. Camera shut off twice during event and I didn't catch it either time because the recording icon is at lower frame and it's almost not noticable unless you look for it. Is that my fault? Of course it is. But a tiny recording icon on the bottom of the screen? It's a nuisance at the least and could be castastorphic at worst. Last time around I thought to use my phone timer and put it on vibrate and that worked. This is what I will do in the future. I will also be on the lookout for it in the future, but it's just one more thing to worry about/deal with.

Keep in mind I shoot gobs of 60 minute catholic weddings, so this camera is likely to shut off up to three times during mass, if I were to use one from the back of main floor, as I would like to do.

Is the 29 minute limit a deal breaker? No. Is the zoom thing a deal breaker? No.

Footage is fine, kind of nice, even using CIZ.

It's just unfortunate this camera is crippled like it is.

Now that I've gotten these complaints out (again) I will henceforth attempt to focus on the positives of the camera. I am very anxious to try it out for a getting ready session, should be awesome.

Editing shoot today. Almost the whole 4 hours I shot using RX10 at full zoom using Clear Image mode. It was also slightly overexposed at .7 to compensate for a dimly lit room. Footage is good. Even with the overexposure and full zoom the footage is surprisingly detailed.

I am going to order a vibrating timer from Amazon to carry in pocket to avoid problems with the 29 minute limit.

I had to shoot a fashion show yesterday in a small clothing store, my initial plan was to use my rx10 until the owner said she wanted focus on details while the models where walking towards me, I also brought my Sony cx730 camera and ended up using that camera, the slow zoom from the Sony rx10 made it impossible to follow the fast moving girls while with the cx730 that was a walk in the park. I did use the rx10 during the preparation at the hairdresser and when they put up make-up, this time I used the active stabilization that crops the image slightly and I shot it all handheld, in that case the camera performed very well, even with a small crop the image is still sharp, nice colors and the image doesn't display any "jitters" that I had with standard stabilization.

I suggest we team up and assault the Sony development building to force the engineers under gunpoint to write a firmware update which gives faster zoom speeds during recording, currently the zoomspeed is just ridiculous and it takes ages to go through the lensrange, I"m even thinking about selling the camera just for this reason. I absolutely hate it.

Yeah Noah, I'm with you.

It's true that we knew about these issues when we ordered the camera. Unfortunately the reality of working with these limitations is not as easy as we might have imagined.

The excitement over things like a 1" sensor really grabbed me. I did want a great DSLR, so I might keep mine, but I"m looking at the AX100 and there might not be room in my budget for both at this time.

It's just a dirty, lowdown shame and it really makes me disappointed at Sony for doing this.

My $500 Lumix FZ200 has a much better zoom. It makes no sense.

I"m not finding any other reason to get rid of the rx10, it's miles ahead from any dslr I have owned and do own in terms of functionality, only the zoomspeed kills it for me. It yet again proves how valuable a simple handicam can be, It would not have been possible to pull any smooth zoom constantly with a dslr, that tiny zoombutton on the cx730, how ridiculously small it may look, can provide a very smooth zoom if you treat it very gentle. Without my handicams I would not have been able to accept this fashion shoot.

I know Noa, I had the same issue at my last shoot with the RX10. Couldn't get a decent zoom out of the camera. The zoom speed is not the only issue, it's not a real varialble zoom and it's just not right.

As you say, handicams offer nice zoom actions. My XA10 is essentially a handicam and it performs the most beautiful zooms with the right technique. I feel your pain.

The zoom kind of ruins what could be an amazing tool for an event videographer.

To sell or not to sell? I don't know either, the jury is still out. It is a really great camera in many other respects. It's just that these initial experiences don't bode well for a long term relationship.

I've commented on it before - this appears to be typical in Cybershots - once record is pressed, you get one zoom speed, AKA SLOOOOOW.

I believe it is a "feature", and could be hacked or upgraded in firmware - probably something as simple as a switch in the menus to turn "slow zoom" on/off - the tripod remote I picked up has just such a switch, but of course the camera defaults to SLOOOOW, so the remote can't access the internal functionality. I am sure the functionality is THERE, it's just been set this way, for reasons I've stated before... avoid complaints about "noisy zoom" (fast is LOUD), and prevent bad crash zoom technique.

I shot with the camera quite a bit this weekend, and other than a bit of human hesitation since I'm still learning all the camera can do, I didn't once feel like it was preventing me from getting the shot. Again, I'd describe it more as the camera MADE me shoot!!

Not sure I'm ready to do a "high pressure" live shoot just yet (there's still a couple PJ7xx series in the kit anyway!), and that might make me feel differently about the zoom, but as I've watched what I've shot, the slow zoom feels nice and "natural" on playback. And darn if all the stills and video don't look pretty nice!

Just an "FYI" for anyone thinking of using the VMC-AVM1 adapter to use the RM-AV2 as a LANC/remote to control the RX10 via the "multi" USB port/terminal... it doesn't work!

Strange, since I have used the newer tripod handle remote, works fine, and accesses the functions as expected, and when connected, the AV2 lights up, indicating power is being applied as expected... but no response to the controls!

I'm a bit bummed, since the AV2 is a handy little remote for tripod or shoulder mount use, I already have a couple, and one would THINK that an adapter between the A/V plug and the MULTI terminal would connect SONY accessories properly, but no joy. I'm sure the VPR1 will work, but it's bigger and bulkier, as is the handle off a VPR10 I picked up used.

I'm sure it's once again a matter of a "trigger" pin than needs to inform the camera that the remote is there (since the VPR10 handle works fine). The AVM1 specifically states it's for "Handycam", and it's on the accessory list for the AX100, so "maybe" it will work with that camera. Just so odd that the Cybershots apparently aren't set up to be compatible.

I'm tempted to try to reverse engineer the VPR handle and the AV2 (got both opened up, doesn't look THAT complicated, except everything is now SMC!) to see if it "can" be modified some way - anyone know where I can get the service manuals with diagrams and pinouts? The pinout for the "multi" jack would be MOST helpful if anyone happens to have it or know where I might find it. Since it's "new", not sure if it's documented just yet?

Looks from a Google search that there is some interest in hacking this "MULTI" jack for time lapse triggers, but the stuff out there so far is very limited - I hacked the A/V to LANC connection long ago, guess it's time to try to figure this one out!!



EDIT: Found what looks like fairly complete info on this exact issue, all in German (time to scrape the rust off of meine translator!), Should be enough to figure out how to hack the AV2 to work with the AVM1 so one can control the RX series with any luck! Oh the wonders of the web, and the joys of reverse engineering/hacking when we want our toys to do more than they were designed to do!

Now has anyone hacked the firmware so we could speed up the zoom for those that want it?? CAN'T be that hard!

Good luck with that Dave.

I shot a very low end wedding Saturday (for free) for the experience of using the camera, and it was a very good learning experience. The camera does produce really nice images, when you look at the price point of the camera.

Being more used to the 29 minute limit it was not as big a deal.

I started shooting in manual mode but I took too long to adjust settings during the hectic getting ready segment so I shifted to program mode. That saved the day. I'm not an experienced photographer or DSLR user so I'm still clumsy when needing to find good settings under pressure.

The zoom reared it's ugly head and was a real hinderance when I needed to quickly zoom in for shot. Missed several opportunities so I eventually gave up.

Do love the footage.

Missed several opportunities so I eventually gave up.

I only used the rx10 once on a wedding so my work experience with it is also limited, I too have had several moments while the camera was recording where I needed to go in closer quickly which was not possible, I do have the shot but from a wide distance which misses the impact of the moment. I will just take it as it comes now and stop complaining about it, the camera does give me all the shooting pleasure I am not getting with another dslr when it comes to realtime controll, like having a clickless aperture ring and ability to fast go through your iso range which is imperative to have in run and gun or the zebra's. Only when choosing a frame I either have to decide in advance in standby mode which zooms much quicker or run towards the subject I"m shooting in record mode which should keep me healthy. :)

I'm still playing with the AV2, and a VPR1 handle... while having the German info is helpful, there's some strangeness on that MULTI port... too many projects, so only poking at it here and there.

I know the AV2 lights up, indicating power is making it via the LANC power pin, but the LANC signal isn't connecting properly...

It's obvious that the current remotes are variations on your typical LANC, just got to figure out what the "trigger" mechanism is to alert the camera to accept the signal from a "generic" LANC, or the AV2, which you'd THINK would work, and it "might" on the new camcorders, but for some reason it's not on the Cybershots (YET!)


The firmware is where the zoom speed would need to be adjusted - it's probably literally changing a couple numbers or a single "switch", and flashing the cam, and/or enabling an additional menu item if you want to get fancy and make it user adjustable. I'm guessing that at best it would be a "two speed" affair, if "fast" could be enabled when recording... but it might improve things a bit?

I shot a wedding yesterday (first of the season) and decided to use the rx10 during the photoshoot and use it handheld, I did not use the standard stabilization as that caused some microjitters so now I used the active one, it crops a part of the image to have some more playroom to stabilize the image further. I think I got spoiled by the stabilization on my cx730 but the ois on the rx10 is "ok" in active mode, better then standard anyway and the sharpness is still enough to match up with my other camera's.

I shot in standard preset and left all settings at 0, I do notice a issue now that I have not seen before in this camera, something that my cx730 does display on occasion as well. I have shot before with this rx10 but is was all controlled movement, on a tripod or slider, only now I shot handheld and I get noticeable flicker in my image on high detailed scenes, there are a few shots outside with trees and bushes and because the image moves a little bit constantly because it's handheld the whole image flickers, there are several shots I won't be able to use in my final edit because of this.

Where it gets weird is this; If I view the footage on my pc screen (a lg 29inch 21:9 screen) there is hardly any flicker visible but when I look at it on 2 large led tv's there is, has anyone else experienced this? I shot everything at 1080p 50p.

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.

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.

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.

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. :)

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.

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!

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.

@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...

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!

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.

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!

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.

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!

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!

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...

Dave, try shooting a pic, then remove the puffer without moving the camera any more than you have to. Then take another photo. See if you can tell any difference in the second photo.

I have done just that, the darned thing actually makes no difference. It doesn't seem logical, but that's what I have found.

Noa, the photos you sent me were were excellent

It's maybe worth mentioning that I shot all photos in raw but even with my limited experience in lightroom I managed to make them pop quite easily, there is still a lot to learn about the camera, I do like the live view I get when taking a photo so can see in advance how it will look like. I have been planning to sell the camera many times but every time find something about it that makes me wanna hold onto it a bit longer :)

I've had the RX-10 for about a month now, and have been pretty happy with it. Like Noa, I'm finding the slow zoom during recording really tries my patience sometimes. Love the video quality - was able to incorporate it into a multi camera shoot of a recent college graduation ceremony - the footage cut well with a Sony ea50 and nx5u. Getting the footage off the card and into FCPX was a chore - had to run the avchd through a converter program to extract the individual clips into pro res format before Fcpx could read it. For some reason fcpx can read the avchd files from my canon xa10 with no problem, but it doesnt see the avchd file on the sd card from the rx10 (i'm probably doing something wrong).

On the stills side, I'm really liking the Zeiss 24-200 constant f2.8 lens. Normally when I shoot wedding photos , i'm lugging around a 5dmkii and a 7d, and 24-70+70-200 for lenses. It gets pretty tiring really fast. On recent jobs I've slowly been mixing in shots from the RX10 and my clients have had no complaints. Seriously considering doing my smaller sunset beach weddings with just the RX10 with my 5D as a backup. ;-)

Plus the fact that the RX10 lets me flash sync at up to and over 1/1000 as opposed to my 5d which tops out at 1/160-1/200, really makes me love this camera.

Planning to use this at our upcoming glamour photography workshop this weekend for both stills and video. Hopefully will be able to post some stuff on vimeo later, (but might be a little NSFW) .

@Jeff -

Took a few test shots, some were nearly identical, others noticeable differences, so it does depend on the particular "scene". I think much like the onboard mics, the pop up flash on the RX10 is better than most, and any inbuilt exposure compensation makes for better looking results.

Shoot a close shot of a person (or an object), with a few feet between the subject and the background (anywhere the target will cast a shadow) - check "shadows"... this is a pretty common shooting scenario, and you should be able to see where a diffused flash will improve the resulting shot. Basically the difference between a "hard" and a "soft" light source. Typically the latter will be more "flattering".

Just curious if your diffuser is glossy or matte finish - I just noticed I have two different "versions"... the matte one seems to be giving results more pleasing to my eye, as well as a bit more effective. They look like they came out of the same molds, maybe different materials, but I'd say the one is noticeably better.

Dave, interesting. thanks for sharing. It seemed to me to not diffuse that much, but I will give it another go and try it in more situations.

It would be worth taking along Friday night to see if it helps with some shots I need to take!

My diffuser is bumpy and of course opaque, certainly not glossy. just a dull plastic finish http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0011000R6/ref=wms_ohs_product_img?ie=UTF8&psc=1

I bought it for my Lumix camera but it fits my Sony perfectly.

I was surprised when I noticed the glossy ones in my pile of stuff, and they don't work as well, the matte/dull work better! I think the gloss reflects more of the flash "back", seems to reduce the output even though they are about the same opacity.

They are pretty much a "universal" design - just pick the set of holes that center your pop up emitter!

I was introduced to bounce and diffusers when I noticed how you'd get harsh shadows behind your subjects (or shadows under chins or next to noses!) - it's worse the further the flash is from the lens axis of course (so it's not as bad on the RX), and is usually worse in "portrait" mode, as the shadowing will be to the left or right depending on the camera orientation.

Bounce is of course used to direct the flash off off any convenient large light colored surface to create a bigger/diffused "soft" light source. Diffusers seem to work best to soften the flash, spread, and if you're lucky "bounce" some of that single point light source.

Lighting is of course a "dark art" of good imaging - and use of flash is definitely one of those "tricks" that tends to separate the "pros" from the "average". Fill flash is another "trick" that is worth using (and the diffuser can also be useful there).

I actually have taken to sticking the diffuser on the camera (still fits in my bag that way), and just popping the flash when I think it's needed - my preference is to shoot "ambient", using the fast lens and the in camera processing, but having another "tool" in the box is always good!



There's a lot to learn on the RX's (I include the RX100 series "baby sister", as it's a fine camera for many things on its own merits), it takes a while to find all the tricks and options, but they are fun to use, and very capable when used to their full potential.

I know that there inevitably will be a "Mk2" and so on, but the RX10 is definitely a camera I've waited for a long time. The AX100 is beginning to "settle in" for me in much the same way - I'm liking the "package" of the RX100M2 (and the M3 actually looks like a decent update...), RX10, and AX100. Compact multicam, not much you can't shoot with that trio, and your "baggage" is much lighter!

Thanks for sharing and for the tips Dave. Will experiment as soon as I have time.

Please forgive me for asking a question in regards to comparing rx10 video to cx550v video as it may well have been addressed in this long thread
Apart from the no p mode on my cx550v is the video produced by the rx10 worth another thousand buck investment?
I have a hx300 which for my needs is sufficient in the stills department and it's video is ok.enough
I'm itching to buy another video camera but I want a dv to hdv experience.

Can't say if it's worth the extra cost over your cx550 but it certainly is worth it's price, many have complained about the fact that its' an expensive camera but actually it's not expensive at all if you see what features and especially what lens it has. I have got lenses that cost as much as the rx10 and for that price the rx10 offers you nd filters, peaking, zebra's, waveform, a stabilised constant f2.8 power zoomlens, good enough internal audio, clickless irisring, sharp viewfinder and lcd screen and a very good functionality in run and gun which is much better then any other dslr out there which is what I"m comparing it with. You can also shoot pictures in raw and while it's not a 5dIII I got some very decent photos out of it eventhough I have very less experience in photography.

It's not all gold that shines, I find the zoom much too slow and the OIS is not very good, batterylife is also not that good, those are the 3 main issues that stand out for me. If I had to take one camera only with me for photos and video and to shoot a whole variety of situations this would be the camera I would take with me. It's a swiss army knife.

I'd have to do some digging to find stuff I shot with a CX550... I'm sure you would get some improvements in quality, but I'd say you also will get better low light performance, and some boost from p vs. i. I don't think it will be as obvious as "dv to hdv", but it should be better.

Sony cameras tend to be "incrementally" better between model years, the 1" class sensor represented an entirely different "shift".

If stills are part of the requirements, you'll likely see a bigger jump there from the HX300 to the RX10 - I just dumped a card the other night with shots from both... and the AX100... Let's just say that when displayed on a 4K display, the differences start to become rather noticeable, where they weren't that big on an HD display - building a 4K system has been literally an "eye opener"... stills perhaps more than video really show the differences...

Much as Noa says, the RX10 is a competent "swiss army knife" camera that will do both stills and video at a quality level that should easily meet the expectations of a camera at this price point. You can easily spend as much for a DSLR rig, or a video camera that won't be as versatile.



Here's where it gets interesting... to get that "dv to hdv" jump, you can go 4K with the AX100, and literally get that same 4x "jump", with some limitations. I'm still adjusting to 30p motion... and experimenting with shutter speeds and computer capability!

I've shot (using the AX100, which has several modes) a bit of comparison between AVCHD 28Mbps 1080/60p (typical "best" quality on prior Sony models), XAVC S 50Mbps 1080/60p, and XAVC S 50Mbps 4K/30p. 4K is obviously insanely sharp, but the higher bitrate 1080 is also "better" than the older AVCHD, keep in mind you may need more computer horsepower to process it. No free lunch as the saying goes...

The AX100 is of course oriented towards video more than the RX10, but seems to take good stills so far in my limited use. More $$, and you may end up spending for a new high end computer too, but you'll get a "DV to HDV" jump on both stills and video!


Sony's 1" class sensor cameras are expensive, but not overly so when contrasted to older high end "consumer class" cameras, and I've sold off enough other gear to offset what initially seemed like "painful" purchases. No regrets on the purchases when I look at the resulting images.

A very real question becomes whether stuff I've shot with say an older CX, PJ, TX or HX (been shooting video with still cams for a while) is so massively "inferior" that it hurts my eyes <wink>? Nope, it's still "valid", the quality is not terrible, and the stuff that is captured, was as well captured as it could be with the technology available at the time. I could shoot with any of the cams I've owned (and some I still have!), and be reasonably happy with the results...

Here's the part that isn't quantifiable, but is widely reported... the RX is FUN to shoot with, it WILL put a smile on your face when shooting, and when looking at results. That's something that there is no "spec" for, but it's been a pleasant part of shooting with the RX100, the RX10, and so far with the AX100.

To put another angle on it, IF I had to get rid of every other imaging device (I don't consider my smart phone in that category!) I've got... the RX10 would be the one I'd keep, for image quality and versatility.