Sony RX100 IV, confused about wide angle equivalent

[tom_kat]

<p>Dpreview is saying the equivalent of this camera at it's widest angle is 24mm but every other review says it's 35mm. Does anyone know what the equiv is? Thanks.</p>

[CharlesBecker-Toronto]

<p>24-70mm</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>From <a href="http://www.sony.com/electronics/cyber-shot-compact-cameras/dsc-rx100m4#product_details_default">Sony's website</a>: ZEISS® Vario-Sonnar® T* 24-70 mm lens with F1.8-2.8 aperture<br>

<br>

wondering what review listed the lens as 35mm. a quick web search revealed no such claim from 5-6 top sites. </p>

[tom_kat]

<p>Heres the description from the B&H catalog</p>

<p>The built-in Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T* lens provides a <strong>35mm-equivalent focal length range of 24-70mm,</strong> covering wide-angle to portrait length perspectives to suit working in a wide variety of shooting conditions. An f/1.8-2.8 maximum aperture benefits working in difficult lighting conditions throughout the entire zoom range and also enables greater control over focus placement for shallow depth of field imagery.</p>

[CharlesBecker-Toronto]

<p>Tom-you are misinterpreting the reference to 35mm in the description. Pay attention to the word "equivalent" as that's what this is- a 24-70mm lens in terms of traditional 35mm cameras/lenses.<br>

The Sony RX100, just like my Sony a6000 and my NEX-6 before it, is not a full frame camera, so it has a crop factor.<br>

To use a prime lens as an example, a 50mm lens made for a full frame camera is a 50mm lens.<br>

A 50 mm lens made for my a6000 is the equivalent (there's that word again) of a 75mm lens due to the camera's 1.5 times crop factor.<br>

I therefore have a 35mm prime lens made for my a6000 which gives me the equivalent of a 50mm lens-ok 52.5mm (35 x 1.5).<br>

Hope this clears it up for you-I tried to keep it simple.</p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>"35 mm equivalent" means the Sony RX100 IV lens has the same field of view as a 24-70 mm lens on a full frame camera, or one which uses 35 mm film. The actual focal length is about 16-47 mm.</p>

<p>Equivalence is used because so many people are familiar with the effect certain focal lengths have on a film camera. 24 mm, for example, ia a "very wide" angle lens and 70 mm is a "medium tele" lens. Since the RX100 is largely targeted to non-enthusiast users, Sony's descriptions simplify the traditional terminology rather than use the actual focal lengths.</p>

<p>I actually appreciate the "help" Canon gives in describing the "equivalent" focal lengths for the lens on my video camera. I think in terms of 35 mm photography, and would be hard-pressed to recall the actual size or cropping factor of a 1/3" video sensor. (The term goes back to the time when video cameras used vacuum tubes.)</p>

[tom_kat]

<p>So is there a crop factor with the Sony RX100 IV? Thanks and thanks everyone for responses.</p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>Not really as the lens' focal length matches the 24-70 of a "full frame camera". The sensor is just not full frame.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>"35mm-equivalent" doesnt mean a 35mm focal length, it means the lens is a 24-70 in 35mm terms, once the crop factor is considered. the description is right there in the B&H listing. the crop factor in a compact like the RX100 is a little different from an APS-C or m4/3 body. the RX100 uses a 1" sensor which allows the body and lens to be small. but since the camera has a fixed zoom lens, you dont have to fuss over 35mm equivalence with various lenses -- it will always be a 24-70.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Since the RX100 is largely targeted to non-enthusiast users</p>

</blockquote>

<p>i would argue that a $1000 compact with 4k video is indeed targeted at the enthusiast market. 1/32,000 shutter speed is not a standard consumer feature, and 16fps is faster than both Nikon and Canon's top pro DSLRs. in fact, the RX100 IV is pretty high up there, as far as the high-end compact market goes, in both spec and price. For example, the Ricoh GR is an enthusiast camera costing hundreds less, as is the Fuji X70. Generally speaking, a camera's features and price point determine whether it's an enthusiast camera or not. The RX100 series is technologically advanced, with a lot of external controls, and sells at a premium price point well above a basic point and shoot. it's about as "pro" as a compact can be.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Sony's descriptions simplify the traditional terminology rather than use the actual focal lengths.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

i'm personally thankful that Sony lists the lens as 24-70, since i would go crazy trying to figure out the conversion factor if they didn't.</p>

[jcuknz]

<p>I am glad digital photogaphers have adopted the equivalent system as in the old days I never was quite sure what the 80 mm of my Rollieflex was compared to the 50mm of my 35mm cameras or the 135mm of my 5x4 beastie :-) *<br>

But then until digital came along I never had more than one lens for each camera and love the zoom lens that digital brought me.<br>

* or the 25mm on my 16mm film camera which I read once equated to a 90 on 35mm full-frame :-)</p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>The RX100 IV has a cropping factor of 2.7x. The sensor is 8.8 x 13.2 mm, about fingernail size. It took a bit of digging to find the actual sensor size. Apparently Sony is not especially proud of that fact or it would be stated up front.</p>

<p>I didn't think about the "equivalency" of an 80 mm Rolleiflex for a couple of reasons. First of all, it is a somewhat wide "normal" lens suited to groups, weddings, events and landscapes. Secondly, 80 mm was the only choice. If you needed a different field of view, it took an entirely different camera. I never actually encountered a wide or tele Rolleiflex outside of a catalog. A good kit for a 4x5 consisted of a 90, 135 (127-150) and a 180. Shorter or longer lenses usually required a different bellows or lensboard. Whatever the format, it was usually sufficient to think in terms of "wide, normal and tele". That's precisely what the term "equivalent" serves with compact digital cameras.</p>

[tom_kat]

<p>I need a new camera and this has the options I'm looking for, if anyone knows of a camera that costs less with all of these features please let me know. Thanks.<br>

<br />At least 28mm wide angle, can be fixed as that's reallly all I use. I'm a street photographer I never use zoom<br>

Very fast autofocus<br>

Optical or Electronic viewfinder with good resolution and at least 90 percent coverage</p>

<p> </p>

[tom_kat]

<p>I did a lot of research on Dpreview and everything else in this range was listed as having "sluggish" autofocus.</p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>The Leica Q, with a fixed 28 mm lens would be a good fit. The AF is good but not great, with some tendency to hunt since it is contrast detection only. If $4200 seems high, the lens alone would probably sell for nearly $3K. It has a FF, 24 MP sensor, probably the same one used in the M240.</p>

<p>The Sony RX1Rii ($3300( is a small camera along the same lines as the Q, with a fixed 35/2 Zeiss lens and a magnesium body. It has the same or similar FF, 42 MP sensor as the A7Rii. The AF is driven by 399 phase-detection sensors, and is reported to be very fast. I doubt that the difference between 28 mm and 35 mm is worth arguing about, unless you simply cannot back up further. Judging from other Sony-Zeiss combinations, the lens probably constitutes about $1300 of the price. I haven't seen a full review of this camera, but it seems to have a lot of A7Rii features, short of IBIS. It is very hard to fool the A7Rii with regard to exposure or focus.</p>

<p>Its predecessor, the RX1R has a similar lens and a 24 MP sensor, at about $2700.</p>

[phule]

<p>[[i need a new camera and this has the options I'm looking for, if anyone knows of a camera that costs less with all of these features please let me know]]<br>

The Panasonic LX100 is the next closest competitor to the famed RX100 series from Sony. The LX100 offers a larger sensor but fewer MP than the Sony (not sure how much cropping you'll be doing). I've not heard anything about AF on the LX100 being sluggish. <br>

I own a Sony RX100 Mark II and it's been fantastic. If I were to replace it, I'd buy the RX100 Mark III instead of the IV because I don't need the video features the IV provides. </p>

[tom_kat]

<p>Thanks Bob and Edward for camera purchase info. I will take a look at the Lumix, Edward the Sony sounds good but $3000 is way out of my price range. Yes, I need a 28mm lens as I am a street photographer mostly. I will also read up on the Mark 3 since I don't shoot video. Thanks.</p>