Unfortunately the price of Canon is far more than Sony A7r full frame. The 5D mark 2 is far better for video, a slightly for Raw stills than the mark 3 according to digital photography review. Shame as you can't buy the mark 2 new anymore.

Quote from: Herg on August 12, 2014, 05:54

If you think the RX10 is behind SLR cameras for stills take a look at this and think again. For microstock this camera is more than enough if I shoot in RAW and post edit in lightroom. Also, having the eye and good light are also important.

http://visualsciencelab.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/getting-comfortable-with-sony-rx10.html

I don't know if its the camera or his processing but the colour/contrast of the images in that link reminds me very strongly of the results I get with the 1940s Color Skopar on my folding Voigtlander Vito I.  Strange.

I think it is possibly the warm early morning light and the time of year perhaps.

Abysmal just like SS. Where will it all end ? Is nobody buying anymore ?

Still an abysmal month. The worst in a long long time.

The sony rx10 is not a toy by any means. I really got it for the video capabilities and when on form the stills are excellent. If it is equal to my D200 I am happy.

Turns out I have a duff RX10 and it is going back. The company I bought if from have had a look at the RAW files I sent them and agree that it is indeed not taking good , sharp images so hopefully I will have the real thing soon. Funny enough I read another forum where a Panasonic FZ1000 user is having the same problems as me with soft, poor colour and contrast shots so perhaps there is a bad batch of sensors knocking about.

Absolutely terrible for this month so far. Like someone flicked a switch after a decent July.

Well, I have been using this camera for a few months as my Nikon D200 power was too unstable and I wanted an up to date camera that can shoot HD video to high quality. The video side I am not dissapointed but I can't say the same for the stills. The D200 was a dream to get good, sharp images with a wide dynamic range to work with in RAW. The RX10 however is more miss than hit. Even in RAW at 125 ISO there seems to be more noise, hardly sharp, lower dynamic range, blows out at highlights and the colours don't seem as true as the D200. This is such a shame as I thought a camera almost 10 years newer would do all that with ease. It doesn't. Even on a tripod the images are not always sharp where the D200 would never let me down.

My other problem with the video is focusing. It will not always focus, even when you lock it onto the subject thus losing the moment. I edit in Lightroom 5.

All is not lost because I have an excellent video camera with an excellent lens that I am using to get footage for microstock. At a push I use for stills but I think I will have to lean on my D200 for stills as it is far more trustworthy. Shame as I wanted a camera to carry light. I nearly got the Sony A7r but the video quality was poor. 

What I can't understand is the same sensor, lens is being used to get pretty stunning video- why such a difference in stills ? If anyone else uses this and gets great stills, I would be interested to know the settings that are it's sweet spot as I seem to get mostly sour.

I am getting tired of the tedious uploading of audio on IS with an ever decrepit website system that makes heavy weather of it (limitedkeywording/categories). But if that isn't all, they insist on a talent release, something only IS demands. The hassle of getting a new one together every so often outweighs the benefit of uploading so much I am wondering if it is worth the effort.

My balance has been the same for WEEKS. Waste of time.

I think I am experienced enough to know if something is in focus or not. IS did this some time ago and now they accept everything.

Anyone ?