Sony RX10 Mark IV is For the Birds

Sony RX10 Mark IV at full lens extension

The other day when we were talking about the new Nikon P1000 that only extends to a mere 3000mm-e, not one but two commenters mentioned the Sony RX10 Mark IV as a birding camera.

One of them was T. Edwards, at the beginning of the first Featured Comment. (And by the way I've added a lot more in the Featured Comments to that post, including a couple of entertaining videos you might not want to miss. One just demonstrates the reach of the earlier P900.) The other, Rick Baumhauer, wrote, "I sold off my big, long lens...for an RX-10 IV—it is, I think, the best birding camera ever created, since the noise performance of the Sony 1" sensor is pretty decent, it's ƒ/4 at 600mm equivalent, and has a fantastic AF system."

Ever since the days of George Lepp's original newsletter, I've been aware that I'm not a telephoto guy—despite being a lens nut in those days, I knew nothing of the lenses he regularly reviewed. (George is still going strong.) Rather comically I thought, I once had a Nikkor 180mm lens to review and I joked that nothing was far enough away to take a picture of with it—even the moon, which filled up too much of the frame with the 180mm. Obviously that was meant to be funny, not literally true. Lots of people do well with long teles, and not only George.

The only true all-purpose camera?

Birding, and bird photography, are subjects I know little about. But what Rick says sounds convincing—given that you have to balance three factors, 1.) telephoto reach, 2.) maximum aperture, and 3.) sensor size/IQ potential, 600mm-e at ƒ/4 on a 1" sensor does sound like a nice, and useful, balance. In the old film days, at least, according to the data of the magazines I worked for, less than 1% of photo enthusiasts owned a lens with a reach of 600mm or more (there was a bump at 500mm because of inexpensive catadioptric lenses).

Is it possible that the Swiss-Army-knife Sony RX10 Mark IV, despite its rather formidably high cost, is the closest we currently come to one all-purpose single camera? I mean, if you can do bird photography with the thing....

A recent test shot taken with the GX8 and the inexpensive Panasonic Lumix 45–150mm.

My paltry attempt at bird photography. Disclaimer: I am not a bird photographer. Typically, I was as much interested in the pattern of the pole and wires and the bird.

100% detail

Anybody know what kind of birdie this is? I haven't the faintest foggiest clue.

Mike

Original contents copyright 2018 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

B&H Photo • Amazon US • Amazon UK
Amazon Germany • Amazon Canada • Adorama

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

Victor Huang: "That's an osprey. Yes, the RX10 IV is an amazing bird camera. I see plenty of guys welding their giant white Canon lenses for static birds, but for birds in flight, these same fellas would resort to the little Sony."

Pat Coddington: "It's an Osprey, or as they call them in Seattle, a Seahawk."

Wesley Hochachka: "The bird in the photograph is an Osprey, a type of hawk that specializes in eating fish that it catches from near the surface of bodies of water. The population of the species is expanding throughout the Finger Lakes. As a fun factoid, when they're flying, carrying a fish in their talons, Ospreys orient fish so that the fish are facing forward (to cut down on wind resistance?). Shamelessly putting in a plug for my employer, you can find more information about the birds at this URL."

Mike Connealy: "It's an osprey that has just captured a phone pole and is wondering what to do with it."

 

Comments

[Ray L Hudson]

Here in Oregon it would be an Osprey. Not sure if similar bird exists back there???

[Matt Buedel]

Hi Mike! Were you near water? That might be an osprey.

[Jim Arthur]

It looks like Ozzie Osprey (University of North Florida).

[Dennis Mook]

Osprey

[Jim Kofron]

Hi Mike,

My guess is that your bird is an Osprey. But it's a guess... :-)

Jim

[brian]

"Anybody know what kind of birdie this is?"

That looks like an osprey to me, but my birding experience is limited to an unsuccessful attempt to photograph some barn owls last night at 9:15 PM with my longest lens--a 105. I don't think I'll bother to try again.

[JeffP]

your bird is an Osprey.

[hugh crawford]

Osprey of some sort?

[robert e]

I believe it's an osprey trying to look like a harmless pigeon.

https://www.allaboutbirds.org/guide/Osprey/id

[Joe Rukenbrod]

It’s an Osprey, AKA sea hawk, river hawk and fish hawk.

[David Miller]

Hi Mike,

The bird is an osprey. Lovely creature, although at close range they smell a bit like dead fish. And those talons, when sunk into your shoulder or thigh, make a lasting impression. (Sorry about that. But I can show you the scars…)

I've spent a number of years building nesting platforms and banding osprey in northern Saskatchewan. Keep your eyes open for any osprey wearing an aluminum band on its leg … or even better, aluminum on one leg and a coloured band on the other. (If possible take a photograph.) I doubt if any of 'our' birds deviate that far to the east during migration, but surprises are always fun.

[Lyon Fisher]

Hi Mike,

To my relatively untrained birding eye, I believe it’s an Osprey.

[Sherwood McLernon]

It’s an Osprey or fish eagle.

[Rob Spring]

Fish Hawk aka Osprey

[Ed Hawco]

That bird is an osprey.

I've always thought of "birding" as something I would get into when I'm a lot older and retired and basically looking for a reason to get up off the sofa. By way of practice, I did manage to get a shot of a hummingbird's rear end once...

https://www.flickr.com/photos/blork/9702859262/

[David Zivic]

The Bird is an Osprey which is often referred to as a Sea Hawk. As in Seattle Seahawks.

[Bryan William Jones]

Western osprey. (Pandion haliaetus) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osprey

My birding combo these days is any Fuji X-mount with the Fuji 100-400mm lens. http://prometheus.med.utah.edu/~bwjones/tag/fuji-100-400mm/

Though I have been playing with a 1974 Canon mirror lens adapted to a Leica SL. It's tricky to shoot with, but wow. It is tiny for a 500mm lens and even though it is fixed at f/8, you simply crank up the ISO a bit.
http://prometheus.med.utah.edu/~bwjones/tag/canon-500mm/

[Lynn]

I think its an Osprey

[Hermon Joyner]

I think that bird is an Osprey, also known as a Sea Hawk. Here is a website dealing with raptors in New York:
http://nyfalls.com/wildlife/birds/eagles-hawks/
Ospreys are common where I used to live, in Spokane, Washington. Impressive birds.

[Mike Lipske]

osprey?

[Dan Westergren]

Osprey

[John Krumm]

I believe it. One expert bird photographer and author in Alaska I had the privilege to shoot with a few times used supurzooms extensively, even with telephoto and macro add-ons. He used a dslr for birds in flight. This looks like it might remove the need for the dslr.

See http://www.naturebob.com

[Ed Donnelly]

That is an osprey, a wonderfully large raptor that is an expert at catching fish. I have taken many excellent shots of the them at several nest sites near my house using the excellent RX10IV. In good light, it is an amazing camera for birds, both nested and in flight due to the A9 sourced autofocus.

[Dennis]

A couple of things came together recently and led me to a purchase of an RX10-III. First, after using a Sony mirrorless system for years as my compact alternative to my Nikon DSLR, I decided that I really dislike dealing with multiple lenses when out and about shooting casually. Second, I've been without a long tele for years, but have missed having something to shoot backyard & local wildlife (which I do half-heartedly at best). And while there are nice, affordable options available for Nikon, the idea of the RX10 was appealing because it's something I can keep handy in the house to run outside when I do see wildlife. The RX10-III was an open box model ($700+). AF hunts at the long end at times and if I were considering spending $1400 for a new one, I would definitely pony up for the 'IV'. At this point, I'm enjoying the camera enough to consider upgrading to the IV and resolving not to buy a long tele for the DSLR. Or maybe not, time will tell. But aside from the AF (which is fine for most of my uses) it's proven extremely capable and handy (I also have an RX100 for even more convenience). I've shot deer in the back yard, got a slow motion clip of a hummingbird and have even used it for a couple of events where I'd normally take my 70-200/2.8. I expect to put it to good use on summer vacation. The lens is very sharp and when you put that together with the speed (f/4 at the long end) and the reasonable high ISO performance, it's not far off the mark from an affordable tele for a DSLR (those tend to be f/6.3 at the long end and don't exactly exploit a 24MP sensor). For a casual (at best) wildlife shooter like me (or anyone who wants to shoot long with something light) it's an interesting option.

[Geoff Webster]

The Panasonic DMC-FZ2500 is a capable lower-cost alternative to the Sony RX 10.

[Michael Perini]

It looks to my (very) undeucated eye , like the Ospreys we have near the Sea shore. Sometimes called Fish Hawks .
They are quite majestic in flight if it is indeed the same bird.

[Jeff]

Your feathered friend is an Osprey.

[Larry Gebhardt]

Looks kind of like a northern goshawk. Now if you'd have used a camera with a longer equivalent lens we could tell for sure.

I do like the composition with the wires, pole, bird, and negative space.

[Michael Perini]

I think Sony’s is the right approach , you can get very nice quality from a 1” sensor. And 600e is a good amount of reach.
The Nikon clearly has more “reach” but isuspect a lot of it is negated by the combination of tiny sensor / , f/8 wide open and holding the thing still enough at 3000 mm e and f8
Perhaps some need that reach and only require the quality that the combination provides.?
I think Canon also took the 1” sensor approach ( which I also thought was a Sony part) but am not entirely sure.

[T Hill]

It's an osprey:
https://www.allaboutbirds.org/guide/Osprey/id

[Rick Popham]

It’s an osprey — one of my favorite birds to watch.

The idea of that Sony as a birding camera is interesting. Maybe I should rent one to try. It would sure be easier to work with something like that from my kayak.

[Geoff Wittig]

The bird is an osprey, a unique fish-eating raptor that has made a comeback after suffering the same kind of population declines most large birds of prey experienced in the DDT era.
They feed by plunging into the water talons-first, grabbing a fish, and thrashing until they clear the surface and fly off with their catch. I've seen an osprey do this, but never successfully photographed it.
I've done a fair amount of bird photography with a 500 mm f:4 lens on an SLR, a rig which weighs over 8 lbs total and really requires a sturdy tripod with some kind of gimbal head. The hardest part is field-craft; knowing where and when to find the bird you want to photograph, and getting close enough to the critter without spooking or stressing it.
Smaller sensor cameras and their compact lenses are very appealing now, because they can yield image quality you couldn't achieve 10 years ago with a giant lens on an $8,000 pro D-SLR.

[Rick Baumhauer]

Fun to see my name here! Glad my little note helped spark a bit of a look at the RX10 IV - it's a really impressive piece of kit.

I was helped in my decision to buy it by having carried an RX10 II around Italy in 2016, as its 24-200 f/2.8 range was pretty handy for a travel camera (I supplemented with an E-M1 and a small selection of lenses, mostly wide). It was let down by its slow, contrast-only AF system, so even when the Mark III was released (the first model with the 24-600 lens), I knew that, without an upgraded AF system, it wasn't for me. When I saw the reviews of the Mark IV with its phase-detect-festooned sensor, I got very curious very quickly.

There are really only a couple things keeping the RX10 IV from being a truly do-everything camera for me: it's useless for macro, and (all joking aside) the 24mm equivalent wide end isn't wide enough for architectural interiors (I use the Laowa 7.5mm f/2 on my E-M1 II for that sort of thing). It has become my everyday camera, though - I keep it on a sling strap when we walk down to the beach, and throw it in a small holster case when heading anywhere that something interesting might pop up.

My m43 bag is almost entirely for paid work now, along with the occasional insect or spider (and zoos, where the Olympus 40-150 2.8 really shines). The RX10 IV does also vignette pretty heavily at the long end wide open - it's the kind of thing that really jumps out at you in thumbnails, but isn't quite as dire at full size, but it is there. For my usage, not a deal-killer.

[Peter Gilbert]

Birds, yes but I've always labeled these Sony RX 10s as VRC cameras. Viking River Cruises.

[BobT]

That would be an Osprey...

[Sid]

Osprey.

[Kenneth Tanaka]

Anybody know what kind of birdie this is? I haven't the faintest foggiest clue.

Chris thinks it's an osprey.

https://www.allaboutbirds.org/guide/osprey

(Cornell is your main go-to for bird matters!)

[Eli Burakian]

That's an Osprey.

I've struggled with my feelings towards compact and superzoom cameras. I've owned multiple versions of the smaller brother, the RX 100 and it shoots way above it's stature in regards to image quality. But the elephant in the room that nobody talks about is DUST.

My last RX 100 III was incredible, until it got a spot on the sensor. None of the youtube solutions including vacuuming the lens worked. I paid $350 to get the sensor cleaned and within a month there was more dust on the sensor. These lenses extend and retract, and suck in dust.

I'm always tempted by these cameras, but remember the issue and stay away. It's why I got a Panasonic GM5 (micro 4/3rds) and the tiny lenses for it make it not much larger than the RX 100...and I can clean the sensor! There are fairly good and inexpensive telephoto lenses for the micro 4/3rds system that allow for the same reach as the RX10 IV... and even older cameras in this format will equal or outperform the 1" sensor for the same price or less, lens included.

I'd love to hear if other people are having the same issue, but the dust issue is real, and eventually, any camera with a built-in lens that retracts and extends is going to get dust inside it. The small sensor means that even wide open, most dust spots are visible.

[Victor Huang]

That's an osprey. Yes, the RX10 IV is an amazing bird camera. I see plenty of guys welding their giant white Canon lenses for static birds, but for birds in flight, these same fellas would resort to use the little Sony.

[Bill Tyler]

It’s an osprey.

[Tom Lamb]

Mike that bird is an Osprey.

[Ed G.]

Osprey!

I should look into the RX10. I've been using a Panasonic GX7 since 2013 and their 100-300mm lens since 2010. I carry them pretty much every day, and they're starting to show considerable wear. I'm tempted by the GX9 and the newer Panasonic 100-400mm lens, but the lens alone is as expensive as the Sony.

I bought a refurb Nikon P900 a few months ago, mainly to see if it could free me from carrying a spotting scope and tripod for at least some shorebirding expeditions. It's surprisingly good, though hard to handle. The must surprising thing about it is that it's better for birds in flight than the GX7.

[cdembrey]

I've used Canon 300m f/2,8 and 400mm f/2.8 and f/4.0 DO for auto racing and surfing. Mainly on XXD digital, but also on Full Frame Film and 5D2/3.

If I was serious about doing portraits I'd own a 300mm f/2.8. I'd use it with preferably a 35mm film camera, but it would also work with a Canon 5D4

[Alwyn Jones]

The bird is an osprey.

[jh]

4th factor- excellent image stabilization

[Marcelo Guarini]

Maybe an Osprey.

[Dan Khong]

The Leica V-Lux4 is still my current camera for all purpose and travel use and including bird photography.

https://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/leica-v-lux-4/leica-v-lux-4A.HTM

Sad that they discontinued it.

Dan K.

[Nature Lover]

Well even though I will be #47 posted, that is a Fish Hawk, more appropriately an Osprey which apparently occurs over 10x10^6 sq miles in the world. I apologize for my offering on a light pole at https://www.housleyphoto.com/page16/page27/files/page27-1002-full.html . I've never updated the image size as screens have enlarged so it still has some sharpening artifact.
Taken on Merritt Island NWR Florida 2007, north of Kennedy Space Center.
I cannot identify the meal.

[Speed]

I'm going out on a limb here but according to the Raptors of New York you have photographed a Northern Goshawk.

Adults have blue-gray backs and pale gray underparts. Immatures brown with heavy streaking underneath. All have a broad white stripe above the eye and fluffy white feathers under the long, broad tail.

http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/administration_pdf/raptors.pdf

https://www.audubon.org/field-guide/bird/northern-goshawk

[Speed]

Osprey was my second guess.

[Daniel]

Thee bird on the pole is an electrically powered and controlled CIA spy drone. It is on the pole re-charging batteries for further overflights. When cruising at altitude with wings spread the topmost layer of feathers are Solar Cells that convert sunlight to electrical power to enable it to soar for hours.

CIA uses these because they attract less attention than normal UAV's/Drones.

While we are at it, be very careful swatting mosquitoes if you discover some you hit spark and seem to explode. Miniaturization is everywhere - so watch out for those Black Widow Spiders under outhouse toilet seats... and the dung beetles are rolling compact explosive devices into place "just in case".

[Craig Yuill]

A 600mm-equivalent lens isn't bad for bird photography, but those of us who partake usually try to go longer, to 800mm and beyond. Nikon DSLR owners often like to use a crop-frame DSLR like one of the D7K's or a D500 with a Nikon 200-500mm lens, or one of the Sigma or Tamron 150-600mm lenses. This gets them a maximum 750- to 900mm-equivalent lens. And you can imagine the buzz created by the announcement of the 500mm f/5.6 PF lens.

I often use one of my 300mm lenses with one of the (now lamentably discontinued) Nikon 1 cameras which also have 1" sensors. A 300mm lens becomes an 810mm-equivalent lens, which is good for taking photographs of perched birds.

Oh, and if you hadn't heard from about 4 dozen or so other commenters, that bird appears to be an Osprey. ;-)

[Tom Burke]

Never used a Sony RX10-anything. And never seen an Osprey (or a Northern Goshawk).

I once had a mating pair of Sparrowhawks hunting into my garden, from a stand of trees at the end of it. I had a bird feeder with flat plates on which there was food, and around which the pigeons and other birds would congregate. Cue a Sparrowhawk barrelling out of the trees straight towards the feeder. Every now and then one of the birds would scatter away from the feeder in the same direction as the Sparrowhawk was going, in which case it was a goner. The Sparrowhawk would catch it in midair, thump down onto the ground (my lawn!), flex its talons and crush the captive’s rib cage, then pluck it and eat it. I never even tried to photograph this, it was just amazing to watch. And the Sparrowhawks were beautiful birds - the female is bigger but plainer, the male is smaller (hence the name ‘Sparrowhawk’, as that’s an appropriate prey for the male) but prettier; lovely russet bars on its underside. An amazing thing to watch.

[Moose]

"—given that you have to balance three factors, 1.) telephoto reach, 2.) maximum aperture, and 3.) sensor size/IQ* potential, 600mm-e at ƒ/4 on a 1" sensor does sound like a nice, and useful, balance."

I keep checking, as new models come out, 1" against µ4/3, using the wonderful DPReview comparison tool. Unfortunately, 1" still isn't there for me. Noise and pixel level artifacts even at base ISO.

How about 600mm-e at ƒ/5.6 on a 4/3 sensor? A GM5 with Panny 100-300/4.0-5.6 is slightly longer at widest setting, but the same length as the RX10 IV @ 600mm-e. Sony is 1095 g., GM5 and lens, 731 g.

Nope, not all-in-one, but significantly better IQ, even accounting for a stop more ISO needed for some shots. Being me, I have a bag with that combo, another GM5 with 12-60 and a 7-14.

Then again, I also think 800mm-e @ f6.3 on µ4/3 is a good, useful balance.

Photography has always been in large part finding the right compromise. \;~)>

* "There is No Such Thing as Image Quality", TOP, Tuesday, 31 October 2017 - But I'm with Emerson on the consistency hobgoblin.

[Dennis Ng]

When I went with my local bird watching group, everyone has a bino (of course) but most of them have a canon bridge cam. I wonder. Then I check it out. For Bird-on-a-stick, their choice of Canon SX-50 is super. They are serious bird watcher (those id 100 when I can only see 20 etc.). This is just for ID.

You push a button to zoom out, find it, then push a button go to the longest distance to zoom in for it. Got it!

End up I got my 2nd Digital Canon in life with both my Nikon DSLR and this to the bird watching walk.

[Dennis Ng]

Should have add this lady column which fix my idea to get a Canon. Bad friend.

http://www.birdingisfun.com/2013/02/canon-sx-50-hs-for-bird-photography.html

In contrast this is the normal we got sell to get a long expensive lens:

http://gustaviatex.com/blog/2017/3/2/bird-prey

[s.wolters]

These days my thoughts go to Thomas Stirr, the sympathetic ambassador of the sympathetic Nikon Series 1 system that definitely has been added to history in the same week that Nikon released their Thunderbolt P1000.
http://tomstirrphotography.com/photographing-osprey-catching-fish

[Arg]

The RX10 IV would drive me nuts for BIF. You can't even zoom the RX10 while continuously focusing or tracking, and the motorized zoom speed is unacceptably slow.

[Rick Baumhauer]

FYI - the RX10 IV will do that handy "Zoom Out to Find/Zoom Back In to Shoot" dance via a button ("Zoom Assist"). Handy if you remember it when you need it...

[Rob R.]

A great webcam in Richmond, CA has been trained on an Osprey nest there for a couple of years now. Two generations of Osprey chicks have fledged. Three in this years batch:

www.sfbayospreys.org