RX10 IV or D7000 + Superzoom?

[Astraeus]

I currently have a D7000 and various lenses from 11mm to 300mm.

With a young family, it's increasingly impractical to take out a camera bag and to contemplate being able to change lenses when out and about. So I have been prepared to sacrifice some IQ for flexibility and ease of use - "the best camera is the one that's in your hand". That led me down the road of selling up and buying an RX10 IV.

However, I've been looking at an alternative of buying a superzoom for the D7000 and wonder whether that might offer me more versatility and superior IQ to the RX10 IV and a 1" sensor. In particular, I've looked at the Nikon 18-300 f/3.5-6.3 and the Tamron 16-300 f/3.5-6.3 VC PZD. I had considered the Tamron 18-400 but I think that will come with too many IQ compromises. As you'll see, I'm after some reach to replicate the 70-300 that my current setup includes. The superzoom would then be the only lens that came with me on holiday, on walks with the family etc. I'd sell my Tamron 17-50 and Tamron 70-300 to make way for it.

I am by no means anything other than an amateur photographer, taking holiday snaps, landscapes and a few other bits besides - some close-in flowers and some family snaps. In truth, I could probably manage without 200-300mm if there was a vastly superior lens that took me from 18 to 200mm. But I do just want an all-in-one solution to stop me needing to take multiple lenses and change lenses on days out - just not going to happen with a little one!

A few newbie questions though if I may:

1. How will the reach on a 300mm lens on an APS-C sensor compare to 600mm on the 1" sensor of the RX10?

2. Am I right to think that the D7000/superzoom combination will have better IQ than the RX10?

3. In my shoes, what would you do?

Thanks folks.

 

[nandbytes]

1. 300mm on APS-C will give you 450mm field of view and RX10IV gives you 600mm field of view.

2. really depends on what you mean by IQ which is a combination of both body and the lens you put on it. The superzooms you mentioned are not really all that good optically speaking especially in comparison to the RX10 lens which is sharp across the range wide open. Also the RX10IV lens has a faster aperture so any gain in better ISO performance on the APS-C sensor is lost due to the slower lens.
But you do get more dynamic range with the APS-C body.

3. Personally I'd pick the RX10IV and if you need more dynamic range just bracket and HDR merge in post processing.
The main thing you lose is the option to use fast (prime) lenses on the D7000 for shallow DoF. But you seem to not want to change lenses or even care about this.

 

[d00d]

In 2022 the D7000 is a chunky, clunky old thing. It's time to update.

I agree with @nandbytes above.

except ... I'd go for something smaller. The RX100?

 

[gramps]

Have you considered M43 - very light and easy carry yet still have lens options for times when not with the youngsters.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

I'll recommend the Tamron 16~300mm, which I've been using on a Sony body for a few years. Here's the combination I use and some unvarnished results for you to decide on...

 

[Astraeus]

Ahhh, choices, choices, choices!

Thank you all for your input. @gramps, I'd looked at M43 but it's quite an expensive way to end up at an imperfect solution, losing the benefits of the bigger sensor without getting all the practicalities of the RX10. @d00d, I'd looked at the RX100 but I do prefer the ergonomics of the SLR-type body. That left me quite persuaded though by yours and @nandbytes's responses until @AndrewFlannigan came in with some stunning shots using the Tamron - now I'm back at sea with this decision!

The SLR and superzoom option will be a cheaper solution. If I sold all my other lenses, I'd still need around £500 to buy the RX10, whereas I could afford the Tamron with the proceeds from my lens sales. So I guess that's a factor. As is being able to keep lenses, even if they're very rarely used on account of the superzoom. I also like the battery and dual SD functionality of the D7000 versus the RX10. But then I'm intrigued by options presented by the extra 200mm that I'd get from the RX10! What did surprise me is that the weight of the RX10 isn't far off the weight of the D7000 and Tamron, nor is it's form vastly smaller.

 

[nandbytes]

Ahhh, choices, choices, choices!

Thank you all for your input. @gramps, I'd looked at M43 but it's quite an expensive way to end up at an imperfect solution, losing the benefits of the bigger sensor without getting all the practicalities of the RX10. @d00d, I'd looked at the RX100 but I do prefer the ergonomics of the SLR-type body. That left me quite persuaded though by yours and @nandbytes's responses until @AndrewFlannigan came in with some stunning shots using the Tamron - now I'm back at sea with this decision!

The SLR and superzoom option will be a cheaper solution. If I sold all my other lenses, I'd still need around £500 to buy the RX10, whereas I could afford the Tamron with the proceeds from my lens sales. So I guess that's a factor. As is being able to keep lenses, even if they're very rarely used on account of the superzoom. I also like the battery and dual SD functionality of the D7000 versus the RX10. But then I'm intrigued by options presented by the extra 200mm that I'd get from the RX10! What did surprise me is that the weight of the RX10 isn't far off the weight of the D7000 and Tamron, nor is it's form vastly smaller.

All depends on your expectations I guess. the pictures posted are small, downsized and low res. One could easily post phone pictures that are of equivalent quality.
Even at such a low res I can tell couple of them aren't very sharp.

p.s. I do not mean for my comment to be taken negatively, just saying expectations are quite a bit different. I'd personally want a higher quality than the pictures posted does not necessarily mean everyone does.

 

[Astraeus]

Thanks for that.

Another factor, I guess, is what I'd lose at the wide end. I do like landscape shots a great deal and moving from a 17mm to a 24mm seems to me like a bit of a compromise. I've not seen huge numbers of wide open landscape shots on the RX10.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

... does not necessarily mean everyone does.

This is a point I have tried to make repeatedly and one reason why I chose those particular images, to show an honest appraisal of how the lens in question presents its images.

The obsession with sharpness among some photographers is fine, provided they don't assume that the majority does or even should agree with them.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

Thanks for that.

Another factor, I guess, is what I'd lose at the wide end. I do like landscape shots a great deal and moving from a 17mm to a 24mm seems to me like a bit of a compromise. I've not seen huge numbers of wide open landscape shots on the RX10.

You could always consider an ultrawide zoom, such as the Sigma 10~20mm which would give the equivalent of 15~30mm on APS sensors...

 

[Astraeus]

@AndrewFlannigan, I have a Tokina 11-16mm in my current setup, which I'd certainly miss if moving to the RX10, but I was comparing more to what I'd have on my walkaround lens versus the RX10, that's my 17mm (or 16mm on the Tamron) versus 24mm on the RX10 dilemma.

 

[nandbytes]

Thanks for that.

Another factor, I guess, is what I'd lose at the wide end. I do like landscape shots a great deal and moving from a 17mm to a 24mm seems to me like a bit of a compromise. I've not seen huge numbers of wide open landscape shots on the RX10.

@AndrewFlannigan, I have a Tokina 11-16mm in my current setup, which I'd certainly miss if moving to the RX10, but I was comparing more to what I'd have on my walkaround lens versus the RX10, that's my 17mm (or 16mm on the Tamron) versus 24mm on the RX10 dilemma.

16mm on APS-C i.e. D7000 gives a 24mm equivalent FoV which is same as RX10.
but you can go wider as you rightly identified with the tokina lens with 17mm FoV.

But what you lose at wide end you gain at the long end with a 600mm @ a fast f4 aperture.
A 600mm f4 prime on a FF/APS-C camera will cost you like £10K!!
even on m43 its like a couple grand. So you are getting a lot of reach for the money and that too with good amount of sharpness.

I haven't got a RX10 but I have had/used 1" sensor cameras inc. a drone. I can post some wide open shots from them if you like.

 

[Astraeus]

Thanks @nandbytes. I actually found this thread on DPR: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4333670?page=11. That proves that the camera isn't the limitation when taking landscape shots.

I'm flip-flopping something crazy here!

 

[nandbytes]

That proves that the camera isn't the limitation when taking landscape shots.

no its not.
You can even do some amazing astrophotography with it. you can do both wide angle milkway shots and deepsky shots of galaxies and nebulae with it.

Sony RX10 M4 - Astronomy Photos

www.waloszek.de

Doesn't get anymore challenging than that.

I cannot think of a more versatile setup that does "everything" just about well enough.

In fact I think I am convincing myself to buy one now

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

@AndrewFlannigan, I have a Tokina 11-16mm in my current setup, which I'd certainly miss if moving to the RX10, but I was comparing more to what I'd have on my walkaround lens versus the RX10, that's my 17mm (or 16mm on the Tamron) versus 24mm on the RX10 dilemma.

In that case, I would hold on to the Tokina and get a 16~300 to give you the full range with just two lenses.

The only bridge camera I know of, which would give you anything like the Tokina's field of view, is Panasonic's FZ82. I like it but it does have a small 1/2.3 sensor, which some people think is a sign of poor quality.

 

[nandbytes]

p.s. if you don't care about having fast AF then the cheaper RX10iii might be an option too.

 

[Astraeus]

p.s. if you don't care about having fast AF then the cheaper RX10iii might be an option too.

I'd considered that. I don't think I *need* the faster AF but if I'm buying a new camera, I can see myself *wanting* it.

 

[Astraeus]

Having reflected on the type of photography that I do, and will be doing, I'm tending toward the view that the RX10 is the way to go.

I sail, and it's nice to have the seascape option and to be able to zoom in to dolphins, seals, land etc. The last thing I want to do on a boat is change a lens. I hike, and it's nice to not have to lug several kilograms of camera equipment around, whilst still being able to enjoy versatility in what I can photograph. I have a young family, and it'll be nice to easily and quickly photograph or record our activities together, for which I wouldn't ever carry around my SLR equipment and for which I'd tend to default to my smartphone. I have a garden, and it's good occasionally to get in close to dragonflies, birds, bees and the rest. None of my SLR lenses excel in that regard.

As much as the Yorkshireman in me would like to settle on a cheaper, cobbled together solution, I feel the sense is in investing in the Sony.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

isn't F4 on a one inch sensor versus F4 say even on an apsc size sensor more like F8 or something?

F-stop is the ratio of the aperture to the focal length.

For reasons which you will need to look up for yourself, f4 on a 50mm lens provides the same amount of light as f4 on a 100mm lens.

If talking about depth of field, it is correct to say that f4 on a 50mm lens will provide more depth of field than f4 on a 100mm lens.

 

[Astraeus]

I was so, so close to pulling the trigger on an RX10.

Then I wondered whether I'd prefer the more compact RX100 VII, which brings with it the benefit of the newer AF technology for the same price as the RX10 III - circa £650 - with the loss of some focal length. Then I wondered whether it's worth foregoing the extra 80mm on the RX100 VII and going for the faster lens on the Canon G5X II! That would be much nicer for low light and subject separation, which the Sonys seem to struggle with. But the reviews of that camera appear to show it having a noticeably softer lens than the RX10 or RX100.

How have people found subject separation on the RX10 or RX100? I'm thinking family photographs, particularly of our newborn. My phone's portrait mode blurs backgrounds but in an artificial way that I don't particularly like. I loved the bokeh from my f/1.8 50mm prime and wonder if the f/1.8 Canon would match that?

 

[Astraeus]

Always helps to post a question instead of just random musings, 'ey? I forgot the key bit!

Has anyone used the RX100 or RX10 to be able to tell me I'm worrying unnecessarily about it struggling with subject separation and shallow DoF or, even better, is anyone with experience of multiple of those cameras able to share their thoughts please?

 

[nandbytes]

Has anyone used the RX100 or RX10 to be able to tell me I'm worrying unnecessarily about it struggling with subject separation and shallow DoF or, even better, is anyone with experience of multiple of those cameras able to share their thoughts please?

if you want shallow DoF I wouldn't buy a 1" sensor camera in general. Though you can get some subject separation but not its strength.
You can get more subject separation from shooting on RX10 at the long end but you will have to move back a fair amount if you are shooting portraits with it.

 

[nandbytes]

I am copy pasting this from another thread I replied on..... in case its of some help to you

I have been through a number of compacts and these are the ones I've personally bought/used and liked

FF sensor:
Sony RX1rii - fixed 35mm f2 lens. Best fixed lens of the lot.

APS-C sensor:
Canon G1Xiii - currently own this, I find canon compacts generally best ones to use ergonomically. Slower lens and zoom range somewhat limited (24-72mm). it's also the only body I know that's weathersealed (you can make X100V weathersealed with a filter apparently!)
AF is very decent but not the best.
Fuji X100V - fixed 35mm f2 lens. Basically nicer to use than the Sony RX1RII above with less pixels, less shallow DoF, and slightly less good optics. But you can use TCs on the lens which I haven't tried personally.
AF once again pretty decent.

M43 sensor
LX100ii - limited 24-75mm zoom range but with a faster f1.7-2.8 lens. IQ is actually on the level of 1" sensor compact bodies especially due to the added cropping to support multi aspect ratios in body. But it's nicer to use than most 1" sensor compacts I have used.
AF isn't the best.

1" sensor compacts
Sony RX100iii - limited 24-70mm zoom range but with a faster f1.8-2.8 lens. Also optically the sharpest compared to other compacts with zooms. I found these a bit fiddly to use. Also lacks a touch interface.
Sony RX100iv - same as RX100iii with improved video features inc. 4k and slow mo options.
Sony Rx100VA - same as rx100iv with improved AF. Also has best AF of the lot.
Sony Rx100vi - a nice 24-200mm zoom but with a slower lens (f2.8-4.5). The lens is optically excellent across the zoom range.
Sony rx100vii - same as rx100vi but with improved AF. Has best AF compared to all the compacts.
Panasonic LX10/15 - limited 24-70mm zoom range but with a faster f1.8-2.8 lens. Also has a nice touch screen interface. No EVF though. The lens optically not as good as rx100iii.
Canon G5xii - I own one currently. Good zoom range with a fast lens i.e. 24-120mm f1.8-2.8. the compromise here is the image quality, it's not as sharp as Sonys above especially in the corners. AF isn't great either. But ergonomically very nice to use.

There are others like Panasonic TZ100 or the canon G7x or Leica Q etc but the compromises on these were not worth it for me personally.

 

[Astraeus]

What a post that is, @nandbytes!

I'm limiting myself to relatively compact cameras having just sold my ILC because I didn't take it anywhere on account of bulk and impracticality.

But it's compromises, compromises, compromises! I can't work out whether I'll benefit more from the faster lens and better ergonomics on the Canon or the longer zoom and better AF on the Sony. Then I wonder whether I'm economising where I shouldn't be by not simply plumping for the RX10 IV.

Your post is very helpful, thanks. I'll keep wading through reviews of all of the cameras!

 

[nandbytes]

What a post that is, @nandbytes!

I'm limiting myself to relatively compact cameras having just sold my ILC because I didn't take it anywhere on account of bulk and impracticality.

But it's compromises, compromises, compromises! I can't work out whether I'll benefit more from the faster lens and better ergonomics on the Canon or the longer zoom and better AF on the Sony. Then I wonder whether I'm economising where I shouldn't be by not simply plumping for the RX10 IV.

Your post is very helpful, thanks. I'll keep wading through reviews of all of the cameras!

it mostly shows my GAS problems more than anything

I have not used one of the later RX10s. I have used the very first one and I didn't like it because the AF was a bit annoying at 200mm. They have improved hugely since and I believe RX10iv is supposedly very capable.

I suggest you decide if you need a good AF tracking system in your compact/bridge camera. If you do you are kinda limited to Sony for the most part.
if you don't then you have more options to pick from. I'd almost suggest a non-Sony body if you don't need the AF capabilities because you either get more for your money or they are nicer to use.
I have a FF Sony body for the AF and shallow DoF stuff which is why I pick cameras that's nicer to use for the compacts. But if I were limit myself to one body I'd pick a sony for the AF but that's just me.

Honestly speaking I don't think Sony compact bodies (RX100 series) are particularly nice to use. RX10 was actually pretty nice but once again it lacks some features like a decent touchscreen.
But there are a lot of people that swear by Sony compacts and they probably sell a huge lot more than their competition. so they must doing something right, its not my cuppa.

Everything is a compromise at the end of the day. There is no perfect camera.

 

[magicolor1]

I had the RX10iii and upgraded a year or so ago to the RX10iv. Both use the same (excellent) lens and sensor, and both are very good all-round cameras. To be honest I don't think the slightly improve AF speed of the iv makes much difference to me. I think it probably helps most with video but I'm almost exclusively a stills shooter. So other than that, I would recommend looking at a used iii as it will be substantially cheaper. Another option would be the Panasonic FZ1000 series which are lighter and cheaper but have slightly shorter zoom lenses at the long end. We have one of those in the family too, and my daughter prefers the ergonomics over the Sony.

I did a quick test with the RX10iv earlier, and with the zoom at 135mm you can get close enough to do head-shots with good background separation at open-aperture. It's not going to be the same as a prime lens at f1.8 but it's very acceptable in my view, and the bokeh is rather nice

 

[steveb]

I once considered an RX10 as a single easy to carry to camera, but pixel peeping RX10 images it wasn't good enough for my use. I always carry an RX100 VII when my backpack isn't with me, but only use it in good light due to the 1" sensor. For what the OP is seeking he will likely have to make compromises.

 

[magicolor1]

I once considered an RX10 as a single easy to carry to camera, but pixel peeping RX10 images it wasn't good enough for my use. I always carry an RX100 VII when my backpack isn't with me, but only use it in good light due to the 1" sensor. For what the OP is seeking he will likely have to make compromises.

Everything's a compromise
Size, weight, cost, image-quality - pick the one that's most important and be prepared to compromise on the others!