Compact Super Zooms

Is anyone currently using or have used any of the Compact Super Zooms for general bird and nature photography. Some of the brands that carry them are Canon; Nikon; Sony, & Panasonic.

My wife has the predecessor to this and it's a very versatile camera.

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/ ... amera.html

If you look in galleries, I have posted a few with my 1st walk withe rx10IV. It is an unbelievable camera, haven't picked up my 99II for a week. For equivalent field of view, my 99II and old Minolta 600f4 weighs around 16lbs plus tripod, while the 2lb IV doesn't need a tripod and gives a very sharp image. I haven't tried BIF yet but I expect it to shine (24fps).

Sony RX10 mark 3 (I think they may have mark 4 now). Splendid camera with zoom-equivalent of 600mm. Great for landscapes right up to birds. Macro pretty good too but takes a bit of getting used to. High quality sensor.

I used a Sony RX10 Mark III on a trip to Antarctica last December (it was not a photo-oriented trip, and I didn’t think carrying a bunch of photo gear was practical). I was very satisfied with it on most of the trip. Autofocus is slow and sometimes quirky, but action shots are possible with luck and persistence. Image quality is impressively good.  My satisfaction dropped greatly on the next to last shore landing when we had very light snow falling. Other tourists were snapping away with cell phones and cheap consumer pocket cameras, so I felt no compunctions using my RX10, since it advertised weather sealing and water resistance. Unfortunately after a few minutes the rear LCD went out and I couldn’t revive it. Meanwhile my compatriots continued using cheap water-sensitive cameras without incident. I finished the trip using the RX10 viewfinder only! Naturally this cut my confidence in the camera a lot. But it took great photos for such a compact and light package.

MikeBinOK wrote:I used a Sony RX10 Mark III on a trip to Antarctica last December (it was not a photo-oriented trip, and I didn’t think carrying a bunch of photo gear was practical). I was very satisfied with it on most of the trip. Autofocus is slow and sometimes quirky, but action shots are possible with luck and persistence. Image quality is impressively good.  My satisfaction dropped greatly on the next to last shore landing when we had very light snow falling. Other tourists were snapping away with cell phones and cheap consumer pocket cameras, so I felt no compunctions using my RX10, since it advertised weather sealing and water resistance. Unfortunately after a few minutes the rear LCD went out and I couldn’t revive it. Meanwhile my compatriots continued using cheap water-sensitive cameras without incident. I finished the trip using the RX10 viewfinder only! Naturally this cut my confidence in the camera a lot. But it took great photos for such a compact and light package.

The slow AF has been completely eliminated on the RX10 IV - it now uses similar AF to what is in the a9.  As for the rear LCD, it likely did not fail.  What happens to Sony cameras in the rain or snow is that if even a tiny little drop gets on the eye detection sensor by the viewfinder, it thinks there is an eye to the viewfinder and will only show the image in the viewfinder.  Simply wiping that sensor with the corner of a microfiber cloth to absorb that drop and the rear LCD pops right back on.  All Sony cameras, and most that have an eye detection sensor do this in wet weather.  It can be startling because you think the camera failed but it didn't.

E.J. Peiker wrote:

MikeBinOK wrote:I used a Sony RX10 Mark III on a trip to Antarctica last December (it was not a photo-oriented trip, and I didn’t think carrying a bunch of photo gear was practical). I was very satisfied with it on most of the trip. Autofocus is slow and sometimes quirky, but action shots are possible with luck and persistence. Image quality is impressively good.  My satisfaction dropped greatly on the next to last shore landing when we had very light snow falling. Other tourists were snapping away with cell phones and cheap consumer pocket cameras, so I felt no compunctions using my RX10, since it advertised weather sealing and water resistance. Unfortunately after a few minutes the rear LCD went out and I couldn’t revive it. Meanwhile my compatriots continued using cheap water-sensitive cameras without incident. I finished the trip using the RX10 viewfinder only! Naturally this cut my confidence in the camera a lot. But it took great photos for such a compact and light package.

The slow AF has been completely eliminated on the RX10 IV - it now uses similar AF to what is in the a9.  As for the rear LCD, it likely did not fail.  What happens to Sony cameras in the rain or snow is that if even a tiny little drop gets on the eye detection sensor by the viewfinder, it thinks there is an eye to the viewfinder and will only show the image in the viewfinder.  Simply wiping that sensor with the corner of a microfiber cloth to absorb that drop and the rear LCD pops right back on.  All Sony cameras, and most that have an eye detection sensor do this in wet weather.  It can be startling because you think the camera failed but it didn't.

Thanks for the tip EJ

MikeBinOK wrote:I used a Sony RX10 Mark III on a trip to Antarctica last December (it was not a photo-oriented trip, and I didn’t think carrying a bunch of photo gear was practical). I was very satisfied with it on most of the trip. Autofocus is slow and sometimes quirky, but action shots are possible with luck and persistence. Image quality is impressively good.  .

The slow autofocus can be a pain but, as you say, the image quality is surprisingly good. However, the camera does have focus peaking which makes manual focus, even on flying birds, remarkably fast and accurate with only a little practice. You can also focus ”through” foliage to get your bird and also to focus beyond falling snow and the like.

I am curious if anyone has any experience with the Olympus EM1 mkII and the 300f4 (equals 600mm)? What the image performance and AF is on wildlife photography? I am also interested in a much smaller package as I like to hike and bird and take pictures along the way. I am choosing between this rig, d500+ 200-500, and the above mentioned RX10 mk4. I have used the big stuff (600mm and stuff) but ohysically I do not want to mess with the weight and how it impacts my birding (and back) negatively.

Jon Swanson wrote:I am curious if anyone has any experience with the Olympus EM1 mkII and the 300f4 (equals 600mm)?  What the image performance and AF is on wildlife photography? ...

This guy photo'ed bee-eaters with it:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/60403314

DChan wrote:

Jon Swanson wrote:I am curious if anyone has any experience with the Olympus EM1 mkII and the 300f4 (equals 600mm)?  What the image performance and AF is on wildlife photography? ...

This guy photo'ed bee-eaters with it:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/60403314

Thanks!  This will help as I work through making my decision.  

The RX10M4 is insane. 24 FPS and the best AF I've ever used. Now it's probably not up to the latest flagship Nikon D5 / Canon 1DX2 / Sony A9, but it's not far away. I'm going to buy the 100-400 for my A7R3 at some point, but I won't be carrying it around nearly as often as the RX10M4.

Just an amazingly fun camera.

I bought the Panasonic FZ-1000 a few months ago and have been using it for everything. It's a little bulky, and I think I like it better for landscape and wildlife, than I do for homes and building photos. It's not that great in low light either. After reading the reviews and comparing the FZ-1000 specs with the RX10 IV specs, I'm wishing I had bought the Sony even though the RX10IV cost $1000.00 more than the FZ-1000. But for $700.00, I think the FZ-1000 is a decent camera and i can't complain too much about it. I'm sure I haven't learned all i can do with it yet.

I just bought the RX10-IV for taking to Antarctica. My wife will likely use this for her photos but I plan to use it too. I will report on my opinions when I get back in January.

On a related note, I am seriously leaning towards at least reviewing the need for my Canon gear in the new year. If I come to the conclusion that something else (Sony/Nikon) works better, I might move over...

Vivek wrote:I just bought the RX10-IV for taking to Antarctica. My wife will likely use this for her photos but I plan to use it too. I will report on my opinions when I get back in January.

On a related note, I am seriously leaning towards at least reviewing the need for my Canon gear in the new year. If I come to the conclusion that something else (Sony/Nikon) works better, I might move over...

Oh No      What is the world coming too.  Seriously, I think you will love the rx10IV

Thanks Mike .

Any ideas on what arca-swiss plate will work with this body? I don't have too much time to buy it

Check the Olympus 4/3 system with the OM MkII + 300 F4 (=600mm). Extremely compact with excellent image quality.

Vivek wrote:Thanks Mike .

Any ideas on what arca-swiss plate will work with this body? I don't have too much time to buy it

Just get a cheap universal plate...it has a weird bottom which is quite broad which doesn't lend itself to a fitted plate (if there is one)

Mike in O wrote:

Vivek wrote:Thanks Mike .

Any ideas on what arca-swiss plate will work with this body? I don't have too much time to buy it

Just get a cheap universal plate...it has a weird bottom which is quite broad which doesn't lend itself to a fitted plate (if there is one)

If you can use it on your tripod then Manfrotto plates fit well and do a good job

Thanks again Mike and baldsparrow. I ordered a bi-directional one from Amazon. I do hope it works.