Sony RX100 Mk4 user review

The sensor and lens of the RX100(4) are good enough that I can confidently take the camera just about anywhere indoors or outdoors and expect to make good pictures hand held.
This one used ISO 125, 1/25 sec at f1.8.

The RX100 Mk4  is the fourth and best iteration of the RX100 compact camera series which caused such a stir when the original was released in 2012.  I had access to one of these but chose not  to use it for a range of reasons such as lack of a viewfinder or articulated monitor and an awkward user interface.  I just did not enjoy using that camera.

Each of the  next three versions of the RX100 series brought improvements to specifications and features, picture quality, performance and ergonomics.

I resisted getting a Mk4 when it was released partly because of the high asking price  and partly because I was happy enough with my Panasonic LX100 which made and continues to make very good pictures.

But many favourable reviews and user reports and maybe a bit of G.A.S. eventually persuaded me to get a Mk 4 for myself to see if it deserves the praise which has been bestowed upon it.

Having made over 2000 photos  in a variety of conditions over the last few weeks I can say that with some reservations, mainly about ergonomic issues, that the RX100(4) is as good as the reviews and user reports say it is.

This user review follows my usual format.  It covers still photography as I do little video and do not claim to know anything useful about it.

It is not as extensive as usual as there are so many reviews and reports available.

Market position, target user group and features

There is a market for compact but highly capable cameras which find favour with expert/enthusiast and professional photographers who want excellent picture quality and performance in the smallest most portable package possible and don’t mind paying for the benefits which such a model can provide.

The RX100(4) fits that specification very well.

I carry it in a Lowe Pro Portland 20 pouch (with the red divider cut out) on my waist belt. The Portland 20 has a separate front section which can take spare cards, microfiber cloth and two spare batteries. At least one is required due to the poor battery life, an ongoing problem with some Sony model lines.

The camera comes absolutely jam packed with a multitude of features for still and video photography including 4K and an extensive array of  Picture Profiles presumably intended for video capture but also applicable to still photos.

Technology lovers will find lots to play with but I suspect many users might be a bit overwhelmed by all the options and might not make use of the full range of capabilities available.

One feature which I do not care for is that a separate battery charger is not included in the box. Some users rate USB charging in camera as a positive as they do not have to carry a separate charger. Fair enough but I like having the option to charge one battery while using the camera. The other issue is that the RX100(4) goes through batteries quickly so a spare or two is a good idea.

I got an aftermarket charger and spare batteries to solve both problems.

Picture quality

Sensor   I rate the sensor as the best feature of the RX100(4).  It is Sony’s latest and best 13.2 x 8.8mm RS chip which is excellent, delivering resolution, color, dynamic range and luminance noise levels in line with the best available Micro Four Thirds models and better than some APS-C models at low ISO settings.

The high speed readout of this sensor enables a variety of technical capabilities such as minimal rolling shutter effect, flash with E-Shutter up to 1/100, super fast shutter speed for stills (up to 1/32000 second !!) and a range of high speed video capabilities.

The JPGs are of decent quality although I find noise reduction at high ISO sensitivity settings rather excessive. Unfortunately NR is not user adjustable, a strange omission on a camera otherwise loaded with user adjustable parameters.

My own JPG settings are a work in progress. Currently in the [Creative Style] tab on screen 5 of the Camera Menu I am using the Neutral setting with Contrast -3, Saturation +1, Sharpness+1.

There are other little bits of strangeness in the picture settings. For instance with RAW+JPG recording the camera allows Fine JPG but not super Fine, go figure.

The RAW files are very malleable. In Adobe Camera RAW the sliders in the Basic Tab can be used vigorously without damaging image integrity. There is considerable headroom for highlight recovery and dark tones can be lifted substantially without introducing artefacts.

This allows subjects of high brightness range to be managed without resort to multiple exposure HDR strategies.

Lens   I rate the lens the second best feature of the RX100(4).

The Vario-Sonnar  f1.8-2.8 FLE24-70mm complements the sensor very well. There has been some reference on review sites particularly DPR about sample variation with this lens which appears on the Mk3 and Mk4 versions of the RX100 series.  I appear to have gotten lucky with my copy which is a relief.

Mine  delivers very good resolution and sharpness across the frame at all focal lengths and apertures. There is mild softness in the corners at the wide end and f1.8. Best aperture at all focal lengths is f4 but the widest aperture is entirely usable at any focal length.

There is a bit of double line rendition of out of focus subject elements in some conditions and also some ‘bright donut’ rendition of small light sources in backgrounds. However these issues are not commonly seen.

The actual amount of detail which the lens/sensor combination can reveal is considerable, sufficient for very large prints.  I use an Epson 4880 which takes 17 inch (432mm) wide media, allowing an actual picture size of  400 x 600 mm. At this size pictures are clear, sharp and detailed with excellent presence on the wall, even when viewed up close.

I have noticed that the RAW files from the RX100(4) can often benefit from judicious use of the [Clarity] slider in ACR.

Overall I rate picture quality from the RX100(4) as very good indeed and equal to or better than a Micro Four Thirds or APS-C ILC with kit lens. I will post about this comparison separately.

Performance

Operation is fast and responsive in all Modes with JPG or RAW capture.

I find AF Single reliably fast and accurate in a wide range of conditions with very few off-focus images. The AF system is not quite as sensitive as Panasonic’s on subjects with low texture or low brightness.  However the RX100(4) had fewer failures than my Panasonic LX100 with the ‘foliage-in-front-of-bright-sky’ or ‘multiple-bright-lights’ subject types which can often trip up contrast detect AF systems.

Shot to shot time with AFS and AE on each shot, pressing the shutter button for each exposure is 0.4 seconds which is commendable. 

With AF Continuous and continuous drive and RAW+JPG capture the camera shot 30 frames in 7 seconds (4.5fps) before slowdown. With JPG super Fine capture the camera made 53 shots in 9 seconds (6 fps) before slowing.

I photographed cars moving towards or away from the camera travelling slowly as they reduced speed for a hump.  With JPG superfine capture I found about 65% of frames sharp. This is a reasonable figure for a camera using contrast detect AF only, but in any event is a bit academic as I doubt many people would choose this type of camera for sport/action shots.

Overall performance is very good.

RX100Mk4 with Mockup 11 rear view. The silver finish makes the mockup look larger but in fact the difference between the two is only 2mm (height and width).

Ergonomics

This is the least well implemented aspect of this camera. 

There are two main aspects to the ergonomic function of a camera, represented by the  ‘information interface’ (consisting mainly of menus and other aspects of setting up the camera) and the ‘operation  interface’  (consisting of the apparatus for holding, viewing and operating the device).

There are many ways in which both aspects the user interface could be improved, from the menu organisation to the layout of controls, EVF, handle, thumb support, buttons and dials. I have discussed these issues in a comparison with the Panasonic LX100  on this blog here  and in a discussion of mockups illustrating design alternatives below. The smaller of these mockups is my presentation of a proof of concept that a compact camera only marginally larger than the RX100(4) can still have a very good user interface and be enjoyable to use.

As I see it the camera makers (including Sony, Panasonic, Canon, Nikon) have not developed a design culture for advanced compacts. The user interface on many current models  appears to be a scaled down version of larger interchangeable lens cameras or a reworking of old style ‘point-and-shoot’ bar of soap type snapshooter compacts.  Neither of these approaches works for the advanced compact which needs its own design language.

The RX100(4) menu arrangement has copped a lot of well deserved criticism from reviewers and users.

There are many problems, for instance ‘focus’ settings are scattered about within and between submenus, ‘image size’ and ‘quality’ appear in two places, there are strange items such as [For Viewfinder] which appears as an option in the [Monitor] tab under [Disp], still and video settings are lumped together but not in any coherent fashion that I can detect, and so forth.

It seems to me that the architects of this muddle are working from  a camera centric/maker centric point of view when they might do better working from a user centric point of view.

Menu resume does apply, which is desirable. This means the last used item opens first next time.

There is no [My Menu] which is disappointing. Every camera should have a ‘My Menu’ so items frequently accessed by the individual user can be gathered together.

Another problem with the information interface is the instruction manuals supplied by Sony. 
I was able to locate two. 

One is titled 'Instruction Manual' and is a 3.05MB PDF of decent design but limited scope.

There is also a 1.58 MB PDF 'Help Guide' which looks like a relic of the days when computers used DOS on screen. The  layout, design and navigation really need upgrading.

I try to illustrate issues with the operation interface by comparing the RX100(4) with my  Mockup 11. This embodies my ideas about design for the advanced compact of ‘pocketable’ size.

I developed this from ergonomic principles using my hands and fingers as guides to craft a shape and layout which works efficiently at this size.

Mockup 11 is 2mm wider and 2mm higher than the RX100(4). Both have the same overall depth and body depth. Mockup 11 has a much improved user interface, the trade-off for which is a smaller monitor.

Mockup 11. My contribution to fresh thinking about compact camera design.

Holding   mockup 11 has a substantial mini handle which is shaped to conform to the fingers holding it. It is much more comfortable and secure than the Sony stick-on handle for the RX100 series.

The mockup also has a fully developed thumb support. The combination of the handle and thumb support makes for a relaxed secure grip on the camera.

Viewing  The Mockup has a fixed, built in always ready EVF 14mm high. My experience with several cameras from Panasonic and Sony tells me that this is about the lower end of the acceptable range for EVF size. The always ready EVF is more user friendly than the pop up type on the RX100(4) and also presumably less prone to damage and dust incursion.  It also allows the left hand to take up a more stable position in landscape or portrait orientation.

The image view on the RX100(4) monitor has a diagonal of 72mm which is very large for a compact.  This would reduce to about 60mm on the Mockup which I think is entirely acceptable and a reasonable price to pay for all the operating advantages of the Mockup.  It could also be of fully articulating type as the monitor width on the mockup is the same as that on the RX100(4).

Mockup 11 rear view

Operating  This is where the mockup differs considerably from any compact on the market today.

The control layout you see in the photos is based on the following ideas:

* A well designed compact camera should be just as easy to operate efficiently as a larger model.

* Modern cameras can locate the active AF area anywhere on the frame so there should be a highly efficient control system for doing that. The best of these is the JOG lever. I believe every camera should have one of these. On the Mockp it is located exactly where my right thumb wants to find it, and can easily operate it without shifting grip on the camera.  The mocked up JOG lever itself is of course a Phillips head screw standing proud of the rear of the camera for easy operation. The heavily textured surface makes the module easy to find and operate by feel.

* All the buttons on a camera should be easy to find and work by feel. They should be sufficiently large and prominent to facilitate this but positioned so they will not be accidentally activated.

* There is not enough functional space on the 19mm wide Control Panel of the RX100(4) for all the buttons and the dial which are jammed in there. All the buttons are too small, flat and recessed for confident operation. The Movie button is jammed into the inadequate micro thumb support where I regularly bump it accidentally when I pick up the camera.

* The lens of the RX100 series is for reasons unknown to me not all the way over to the left (as viewed by the user) of the body. This leaves insufficient space for a decent handle and causes the fingers working the lens ring to jam up against those on the handle.

* It is possible to create a full twin dial control configuration at this size, such that both dials can be worked while viewing at eye level without changing grip with the right hand. So you see the rear dial of the RX100 has become a top control/command dial on the Mockup.  Actually the Mockup also has a control lever (with user assignable function of course) in front of the shutter button so it is almost a triple dial configuration.

Thus you could for instance allocate Aperture to the lens ring, Shutter Speed to the top control dial and Exposure Compensation to the control lever. Or some other combination if desired.

* Function of all the buttons and dials is user assignable from a long list of options. You get to decide which one does ‘Menu’, which does ‘Playback’ and so forth.

* The mockup realises the concept of an [Alt] button.  The most suitable one on my trials is that shown on the photos, down near the bottom of the lens barrel. This is easily reached and pressed by the 4^th finger of the right hand. Thus [alt] + Button brings up an alternate, user selected function for any button. So you get 14 functions out of the 7 buttons which should be enough for just about anything. Of course this raises the problem of remembering what functions I allocated to each button. I guess this could be managed with an on screen Head-Up-Display.

Summary

The RX100(4) gets top billing among advanced compacts on the market today by virtue of its picture quality.

It also provides good performance especially for single shot stills and it has very advanced video capabilities (not tested by me).

It has a multitude of features and capabilities, some might say more than it can cope with, or maybe more than most users can manage.

The main aspects of this camera which I believe require fresh thinking are the ergonomics and the user experience.  I have indicated how this could work with reference to Mockup11.