Going backwards? DSLR to Super Zoom

[CaliWoodsman]

I'm an amateur photographer for sure, but I enjoy doing wildlife and landscape photography while I'm out hunting (and grip n grins, of course), as well as capturing family pictures.

Right now I have a Nikon D5500 with a 18-55mm lens and a 70-300mm lens. The superzoom cameras have been catching my eye lately, mainly due to their extended zoom range and not having to switch lenses. Specifically I've been looking at the Sony RX10 IV. Does anyone have experience specifically going from a D5500 to the RX10 IV, or in general going from a DSLR to a superzoom? My only experience with superzooms was a Nikon Coolpix P900, and I was less than impressed with the image quality.

Thanks in advance!

Doug

 

[Camera Land]

The Sony RX10IV is a fantastic camera. Still made and fantastic quality. The BEST zoom bridge camera on the market. Give me a call to discuss.

All of the long zoom cameras by the other major brands have not shipped since the end of 2021.

 

[thadf]

I think you have a good line of thinking. The bridge cameras can be great. Just like any tool, use it within its capabilities and it’ll serve you well.

 

[hawkman71]

The Sony RX10IV is a fantastic camera. Still made and fantastic quality. The BEST zoom bridge camera on the market. Give me a call to discuss.

All of the long zoom cameras by the other major brands have not shipped since the end of 2021.

Hi Joel, Normally, I'd say there's something pretty telling in the last statement of yours. But, perhaps, if you've got a good thing (and good product) going, you just keep going?

I'm sitting here on an a900 with some quality glass (Sony G 70-200 f2.8, the Sony 85mm f1.4 Zeiss, and some Minotla glass). I can't afford to go to the latest and greatest. I sometimes wonder if I should drop down to something like the OP is thinking. All this "stuff" drags on me after a while. However, I know that I'll miss it when it's gone.

Maybe it's just pride?

 

[hawkman71]

Holy crap. I just read up on the camera in question and little bit, including Ken Rockwell's review (@Camera Land - if there is a warning you need me to heed about Ken Rockwell, I'm all ears.): https://www.kenrockwell.com/sony/rx10-iv.htm

This could be exactly what I didn't know I should be looking for.

 

[Camera Land]

The RX10 is fantastic. In a class by itself

 

[hawkman71]

The RX10 is fantastic. In a class by itself

I'm going through my inventory and seeing how much I can get for it on ebay as we speak.

I'll have to look you up when I'm ready to buy.

 

[Roy_H]

Given similar generation cameras (ie, those made with similar technology) , IQ is controlled by the size of the sensor and thus the size of the pixels. Moving to a Sony RX10 means you are going from a crop sensor which is 23.6x15.8mm to a 1" sensor which is 13.2x8.8mm. This causes a loss of Dynamic Range, increased noise, and less sensitive smaller pixels to be used. It is the smaller size of the sensor that allows for a bigger magnification from a smaller lens. But the tradeoff is lower image quality and the RX10 as good as it is, will not compare to what you have if images are put side by side. For less than an RX10, you could add a Sigma 150-600mm lens and while increasing your gear weight, that would give you extra reach similar to the RX10 and most likely improve your photos of wildlife/birds.

However, I have found a good exercise is to consider what you are using your pictures for rather than just comparing IQ of cameras. Sharing images on smartphones and by email as the majority of people do, does not require a the same, higher quality image that printing enlargements for display does. So although lower in IQ, the RX10 may be perfectly adequate depending on how the images are planning to be used.

 

[kpk]

Given similar generation cameras (ie, those made with similar technology) , IQ is controlled by the size of the sensor and thus the size of the pixels. Moving to a Sony RX10 means you are going from a crop sensor which is 23.6x15.8mm to a 1" sensor which is 13.2x8.8mm. This causes a loss of Dynamic Range, increased noise, and less sensitive smaller pixels to be used. It is the smaller size of the sensor that allows for a bigger magnification from a smaller lens. But the tradeoff is lower image quality and the RX10 as good as it is, will not compare to what you have if images are put side by side. For less than an RX10, you could add a Sigma 15-600mm lens and while increasing your gear weight, that would give you extra reach similar to the RX10 and most likely improve your photos of wildlife/birds.

However, I have found a good exercise is to consider what you are using your pictures for rather than just comparing IQ of cameras. Sharing images on smartphones and by email as the majority of people do, does not require a the same, higher quality image that printing enlargements for display does. So although lower in IQ, the RX10 may be perfectly adequate depending on how the images are planning to be used.

All of this.

I have a Canon 7D mark II and an RX100 VII. The 7D with a really good 70-200 lens and cropping WAY in still produces better pics than the RX100 ever does. I use the RX100 all the time simply because it fits in a pocket and isn't a PITA to carry around, but for anything serious I'm hauling the big lens.

 

[CaliWoodsman]

Given similar generation cameras (ie, those made with similar technology) , IQ is controlled by the size of the sensor and thus the size of the pixels. Moving to a Sony RX10 means you are going from a crop sensor which is 23.6x15.8mm to a 1" sensor which is 13.2x8.8mm. This causes a loss of Dynamic Range, increased noise, and less sensitive smaller pixels to be used. It is the smaller size of the sensor that allows for a bigger magnification from a smaller lens. But the tradeoff is lower image quality and the RX10 as good as it is, will not compare to what you have if images are put side by side. For less than an RX10, you could add a Sigma 15-600mm lens and while increasing your gear weight, that would give you extra reach similar to the RX10 and most likely improve your photos of wildlife/birds.

However, I have found a good exercise is to consider what you are using your pictures for rather than just comparing IQ of cameras. Sharing images on smartphones and by email as the majority of people do, does not require a the same, higher quality image that printing enlargements for display does. So although lower in IQ, the RX10 may be perfectly adequate depending on how the images are planning to be used.

15-600mm might be the trick. Appreciate the input!

 

[Stalker69]

I was looking at the rx10 IV, but after handling it 600mm. Even with the clear image or what they said it had. Is not a whole lot of zoom when talking filming animals and such on a hunting trip. Where you know your not going to shoot them, but would like some pic. and video. And dont want to blow your cover by trying to get close enough. I looked out the store window at some pigeons, at various distances, and I just think it's about the minimum I would settle for. There has to be something still " compact" enough with more power. Tried digiscoping with spotting scope, got the reach, but pictures are far from ok.

 

[SHTF]

This is why you find a decent camera with a great spotter and digiscope it up =) Saves you from having to Lug that 600mm lens around. =)

 

[Stalker69]

The 600 mm lens is fixed to the camera ( rx10 VI) and is much smaller, and a good bit lighter then my spotting scope. And does take waaaaay better pictures Just don’t have the reach of the spotter.

 

[Stalker69]

So what would be the equivalent “ zoom” be. Sony rx10 IV ( at full 600mm) And the equivalent power that would be on a Swarovski 20-60 power spotting scope ? I am by far no mathematical guru, but if my eyes are correct, it seems to be around 10-12. But I didn’t have both next to each other, so could be way off.

 

[Camera Land]

a 60x on a 20-60x eye piece is about a 1500mm lens on a full frame camera, maybe a little more. which translates to an appearance of 30x closer then your eyes see it

 

[Stalker69]

Thank you, is there a way to get the rx10 IV to equal the 60x eye sight ? Or a different, some what small camera that will ? My spotting scope is by no means small, so I am not asking like compact or anything. And a replaceable lens for camera in that size is huge.

 

[Camera Land]

There is no lens for an interchangeable lens camera that will give that kind of power. The only way to get that power is to make the sensor smaller. Even a point and shoot with a 65x zoom is really only appearing 32x closer then you see it. Nikon makes a camera, the P1000 with a 125x lens that is LARGE and will make the image appear about 60x closer then what you see

 

[Stalker69]

Thanks, I will check it out.

 

[jeepfan]

I got a Nikon P1000 a couple months ago and it will really reach out there a pull them in. I might be able to post some footage later if you are interested. My son and I used it for scouting fields. It didn't get as much use as I anticipated so I thought about letting it go.

 

[Stalker69]

Yea post some pics, video even better, would love to see them.