A Guy With Camera that happens to love Photography since 2005 with my first DSLR, and more recently, Video. The Rabbit Hole never ends, and mirrorless is the way forward. I focus on small and efficient gear solutions with travel on my mind ALWAYS.
Testing this lens against the 20-70 f4, and these compact primes 24, 40, and 50mm tough call. It's lighter and smaller than the 20-70 f4, which is nice. I actually like the 50mm focal length at the shortest length, as I use 50mm more than the wider focal lengths. But the 20mm is noticeably wider than 24mm, more than I anticipated. Also, the difference in bokeh between f2.8 and f4 at these focal lengths is not a big difference. Much less than we're lead to believe, and the 20-70 can be extended to 70mm f4 which produced more bokeh than 50mm f2.8. Now the stop difference, is just that, a 1-stop difference. So at f2.8, you get (for example) shutter speed of 1/60 vs f4 at 1/30. In some cases, that could be the difference between shaky or blurred images and stopping the action. But the images between them look near identical at the same focal lengths, not the huge difference in bokeh we're lead to believe because of the 'fast' f2.8. Now an f1.8 or f1.4, yes very noticeable difference in bokeh. So at the moment, I think the 20-70 f4 is definitely the better zoom lens. The 24-50 f2.8 feels like a convenient way to carry a 24, 35 and 50mm focal lengths. That's interesting to me because those are 3 of my 4 favorite focal lengths, 85mm being the fourth. But as others have said here, wish this was a 20-50. That extra 4mm is a big deal. Without it, I see I will have to carry my 16-35. With the 20-70, I can leave that lens home. But for low light situations, I would need something like a 35mm f1.8/f1.4. Not sure f2.8 is enough to negate that need. It's closer but is it enough? Then the other question is what's more important, convenience of the zoom vs the compact smaller size of these G primes. As you tested, and 'm finding the performance is really, really close between the 24-50 vs the 24, 40, and 50mm. Will add that surprisingly, there is a little bit nicer bokeh on the 50mm f2.5 vs the 50mm f2.8 of the zoom.
This is awesome!! Don’t pay any attention to the negative comments, people are just weird 😕🙄🤦🏽♂️ I will be getting one which will come in handy at times 👍🏾
Love accessories that come with accessories for the accessory. I've always appreciated Scotty Creates Things, but this is no longer a "Pocket" when in there. Its more like a Jacket, a Coat. A Pair of pants with bloomers inside... Someone mightvsay: What is that? This is my DJI Pants with Bloomers, why do you ask?
I only got one at the middle of May this year and I think it's a good option. My only other camera similar is a Canon 750D which isn't as compact but I am not sure how they compare with kit lenses
I just participated in the involuntary loaner program with a new Panasonic ZS200D at a concert. But while the zoom was great, I found the camera a little clunky to use and am now in the market for my next “loaner”, most likely the RX100 VII. But even the used prices are giving me pause, especially if I “misplaced” another loaner. :(
@@hiflyer53qwc set your gimbal speed to fast, and the roll cage won’t cover. That’s how i have it permanently now, i simply slow down movements if i want more pleasing look.
Is there any competition from other brands to this camera in terms of video quality in that price range? Kinda doubt it, although I'm not a Fuji expert.
Based on the reviews I've seen ZV-E10 MK2 is legit YT studio camera if you want to record 4k24p or 4k25p. If I'm on a budget I will buy 2 of them to have 2 angles.
For video I would choose mark 2 any day. For photos I will choose neither of them. I've seen here A7III for ~$800 few times already (new), so this would be my photo choice in this price range.
It's a really good video camera ... but it's not made for vlogging with lack of IBIS and 33% crop with e-stabilisation :D. I might get one actually as my b-cam for A7IV, although so far the price here in Poland is ~$1280 due to VAT, so quite steep.
@@JoATTech yeah, it might be an amazing B cam, and i feel like it’s the end of Sony’s inexpensive lineup. 10 bit camera on sticks, might be good enough for much of what i do.
@@JoATTech Your comment does highlight the conundrum with the camera. They bill it for vlogging but the stabilization isn't necessarily top of the line in that you have to use a gimbal or live with some pretty sizable, micro 4/3 camera type crops when shooting 4K using digital stabilization. This makes some of those m4/3 Panasonic(LX100 mii, Gx9) and Olympus cameras,(Pen F, Pen E-P7, OMD), however older worth considering in my book.
@@Cthames123 Exactly what I meant. Pocket 3 is much better than this one for vlogging. And it's cheaper and has a wireless lav mic in creator combo (still cheaper than ZV-E10 mkII). But for YT studio shots ZV-E10 MKII is 10x better than Pocket 3 (with its 20mm fixed F5.5 FF equiv aputure). So ZV-E10 MK2 is great camera, but definitely not for vlogging. I have no idea what Sony thinks advertising this as vlogging camera. I've seems some reviews, and reviewers seems to use ninja walk to prove it's vlogging camera ... LOL.
@@JoATTech Yup! That's largely how I view it as well. The ZVE-10 line is a good entry into the Sony interchangeable lens system,(beginner or seasoned pro), who want a tiny yet capable solution for everyday photo and video. For video, yes, you're not going to get Pocket 3 stabilization straight out of camera, but you can stabilize shakey walking handheld footage in post with the free catalyst browse. If you shoot on a tripod or sit the camera on a flat surface, (i.e. car dashboard), you don't need stabilization and what we are describing as lacking video stabilization is irrelevant to you. If you are a photo first shooter who does occasional video the thought of catalyst browse is not a terrible idea, and the photography aspect of the camera blows away anything the pocket 3 can do. I understand there are enhancements to the original, ZV-E10 but those enhancements in my mind don't justify the extra cost. For me, the ZV-E10 mii now makes the original more attractive considering the inevitable price reduction that will be seen on brand new and used models.
@@Cthames123 For me it would probably make great b-cam for my A7IV (same codes and color profiles). But this could be easily really good A-cam for YT studio work (or as you said shots from tripods or any other static shots). In my country A6700 is 30% more expensive, and since I have A7IV as my main photo camera I do not really need photo capabilities of it. But if someone needs real hybrid, A6700 is much better choice.
Thanks for the insight, Charlie. The A7iii might be the last sony camera for me. Seeing all the techs that could've trickle down to the lower end cameras with friendly pricing and frequent FW updates really make me sad for us sony customers. Looking forward to healthier competitions between brands for our benefit.
I self identify as a photo first hybrid shooter who could care less about 10 bit, (haven't grown into it yet). The price vs feature set of the original ZV-10 at $600-$700 new makes sense. The A6700 at $1400 is starting to feel a little expensive vs the A7C full frame but, ok maybe...But the ZV-10 mii at $1000 doesn't make a lot of sense to me. I can get a gently used full frame A7C for roughly the same price in July 2024, and it's not $300 better than the original, (to me).
850 to 900 seems more right for the zve10ii, sony needs entry level cameras to match entry level pricing... but I see what they're doing, deviating from entry level at all
If I were in the market, (and I may be), I would opt for the A6700. The 1st Gen ZV-10 would be my second choice based on its attractive price, size, and overall feature set but the 4k video crop combined with the poor stabilization, and bad grip really makes it a tough camera to buy into. I could get around this though using a gimbal for video. The latest ZVE-10 has better features than the original but I would still go with the A6700 over it every single time. The A6700 has a comfortable grip, excellent handheld video stabilization, has the large battery, mechanical shutter (mentioned) and everything the two ZV-10 cameras are missing, albeit at a greater price.
I have both the RX100m7 and the ZV1m1 in a kit that I use when a 1" sensor can do the job. The RX100 very much shines for stills and for manual controls. The ZV1 is better set up to more conveniently do video, especially when letting the camera auto select settings. Either model can do both stills and video, but I have preferred use cases for these sibling models. The screen polarization on both was a big problem, as I wear prescription polarized sunglasses, but I found my way around that. The RX100m7 is fantastic. 5 years old, yes, but still very much a top notch camera. There's a reason they still command very high prices, and it isn't hype. RX100 delivers.
@@davidfirth1 can’t you get the glasses in non polarized flavor? I have too many cameras, can’t recall the bad behaviors, went non polarized, no more issues.
for the shorter range, you can get the zv1, which is darn close, and dirt cheap used, I think I got mine for $250 on CL lol. I feel like telephoto is always a struggle with any ILC system, hence why so many gravitate towards M43 for instance. Telephoto gets increasingly difficult with the larger the sensor, and I just love mixing compressed shots with the "normal" range, and I do miss the larger aperture for sure, but practically, I set it to the back of my mind and simply have at it.
@@cameraprepper7938 I owned and loved the RX100 VA for 4 years, (2019-2023), until I traded it to get the ZV1. It was at this time I discovered what I was missing out on with 4k video. The RX100 VA has a 5min record limit for 4K video that I don’t think you can get around, and absolutely no 4k hand held stabilization what so ever. You can’t use Catalyst Browse to stabilize footage from the RX100 VA in post. The 4K video quality was spectacular but unusable hand held. Must use a gimbal, tripod, or rest camera on a stationary surface. For HD, stabilization was very good. No microphone audio input jack though. The pop up flash and EVF are great for photos, but there were problems at the 24mm end for me with barrel distortion, same as zv-1. I didn’t care really at first but as I used it more I came to detest the stretching at 24mm. Distortion went away at 50mm, and this was the sweet spot for me, but closer to the 70mm range the contrast on photos would fall apart. The flash shooting with the RX100 VA, which I always used, really hid the camera’s limited low light performance which really shows up when shooting in low light with the identical sensor and lens system of the ZV1, (no built in flash). Good luck with the rx100 VA. I hope you enjoy it.
@@CharlieVN I do not like cameras that do not have an EVF ! For general photography, I never use less than 60 megapixels full frame cameras with prime Lenses. So if I do want more "compression", I can just crop a lot.
The RX100 Vii is a great small pocketable camera, but the think for me that made it make no sense in 2019 (for me) is the same thing that makes it make no sense today. The price! $1300 albeit new can get you a gently used full frame Sony A7C, with the 20-60mm kit lens. I got a an open box A7C with the kit lens from $1200 in Jan 2024 right after Christmas. You can argue the Rx100 Vii has different strengths, (zoom lens, and video capabilities), but Switching systems you can get a Panasonic S9, full frame interchangeable lens for a similar price, or a fixed lens Fuji film x100 V. There are better values for the money if you don’t need the zoom range the lens offers.
@@Cthames123 the are plenty of better values, price performance, but focusing on size, hard to beat the rx100. I did have the zve1 and this is my first trip without a ILC, probably in 20 years, the relief of bringing a small camera is really nice. Small tripod, battery, lack of sling, it’s super nice.
