By reader request: The Battle Royale Between the Sony RX10 and the Panasonic fz 1000.

The two bad boys of bridge cameras....

I wasn't going to write about gear today but really, I had to. One of my readers wrote me to ask which of the two top bridge cameras I prefer and, for once, I have enough data points on both to answer him. Here's the lay of the land: When it first came out I rushed to buy a Sony RX10 camera, convinced that it might be the "holy grail" of fixed lens cameras. That's a category that's had a soft spot in my heart since the introduction of the Sony R1 about ten years ago. The Sony R1 spoiled me for compact cameras and for other bridge cameras. How could it not? It was the first camera with a nearly APS-C sensor in a fixed lens body whose fixed lens was a crazy good, 24-120mm equivalent Zeiss branded zoom lens, custom matched to the sensor. I finally passed that camera on to a good friend last year because I felt that it needed more love and attention than I was giving it. 

But for a couple of years I shot almost everything with a pair of the R1s. Everything from portraits to theater to architecture. The lens really was amazing. My commercial interest waned when we finally got 24 megapixel cameras that could see in the dark. Then I thought my clients might snub the 10 megapixels in the R1. How foolish was that?

But let me backtrack and tell you why I was (and am) interested in "bridge cameras" to begin with. First of all there is the attraction in, first the Sony R1, and then in the Sony RX10 and the Panasonic, of a bigger than average sensor (compared with most compacts) coupled with a very, very high quality lens. In the case of the Sony it is a Zeiss
designed lens and in the case of the Panasonic it is a Leica designed lens. The appeal to either is having a full range of great focal lengths in one handholdable  and easily transportable package. You don't have to carry a bag full of other lenses and, since the permanently attached zoom lenses are designed and built for the individual sensors they are much smaller and lighter than lenses designed to work on full frame cameras. 

The bundling of a whole package means fewer decisions to make and more clarity when walking out the door to undertake the pleasure of actually photographing with the gear. But the bundling and permanent attachment of lens to sensor means that the camera maker has less compromises in creating a high performance system because the back of the lens can be as close to the sensor as it needs to be, the lack of a lens mount increases precision, and the sealed internal environment mitigates against dust and contaminants. Seems like a win-win, right? Well, it is. 

But what's the quality like? In my recent experience shooting cityscapes for a large, Austin based law firm I can say with confidence that at lower ISOs the performance of the Panasonic sensor and lens rivals most DSLRs I've used but the combo adds longer reach and a much lighter package to tote around. Since the imaging sensor in these two cameras almost certainly comes from the same Sony factory and perhaps the same Sony wafers the quality differences between the two will effectively be the difference between the lenses. Leica versus Zeiss? Kind of like BMW versus Mercedes or Veuve Clicquot Versus Taittinger in the Champagne market....

I recently shot video for a client with the RX10 and the newly improved (v2.0) firmware. The video for 2K is superb. But so is the 4K video from the Panasonic. 

For the record, both cameras create 20 megapixel images. Both cameras have image stabilization. Both cameras have superb lenses. Both cameras are better video cameras than Canon or Nikon DSLRs. So what is different? The Sony has a 24-200mm equivalent lens with a constant f2.8 aperture while the Panasonic has a 24-400mm equivalent lens with a variable f2.8 to f4.0 aperture. Essentially it all boils down to reach versus light gathering. And with a smaller sensor the trade off is a ponderable. Meaning you really have to think about what your needs are. 

If you are a video user the choice is a tougher than that of the still guys. You have to decide between important features and shooting styles. The Sony has a headphone jack and that's vital for professional work. But the Panasonic delivers 4K-lite which edits beautifully in the 1080p space so that's also a consideration. For still guys it's all about reach versus light and that's the only real differential. Do you need the extra 200mm or do you need the extra stop of light?

Let the battle begin! I toss them both in the ring. The Sony rushes to attack with a supplex move while the Panasonic bounces off the ropes and goes in for a head butt to the Sony. There's some mixed martial arts and now both contenders are bleeding from their microphone inputs. Now the folding chairs come out and the battle continues....

For me the XAVC codec and the headphone jack on the Sony make it the squeaky winner for video use. The 5 axis image stabilization and faster focusing (and more assured focusing) of the Panasonic make it the squeaky winner for still imaging. What do I mean by "squeaky winner"? I mean that the differences in everything but headphone jack make the two cameras so close to each other that I can't make up my mind at all. I have two of the Panasonics (all cameras that are pressed into paid work should travel in pairs...) and I've now re-acquired one Sony. For the life of me I can't cut one or the other loose and, for the prices asked, I can afford to keep them. 

Are you crazy, Kirk? Three bridge cameras? What the hell? We'll get into "new" video production down the road but wouldn't it be nice to get three angles on an interview all in one take? Yeah. That alone is a good excuse to be overstocked on small but potent cameras. 

I've shot many paying jobs with both cameras. They are better than most of the stuff we've shot with in the past. Not nearly as good as a D750 or a D810 but for most stuff? At least as good as they need to be since the final application of the images is usually the limiting parameter. 

There are some goofy guys out there that believe everything has to be shot with a D810 and an Otus lens but in most cases (commercially) that's like mowing your lawn with napalm. People would do well to get over the need to conquer the world. It's too expensive and time consuming. The most elegant designs are the simplest and the most fun way to shoot is to apply just what you need to make the image that fits your target. Done.

Simple answer to this contest? The newer, Sony RX10-2 (which I do not own) is better than either of these previous generation cameras and were I to buy only one it would be the new version Sony. But here's warning: This opinion is only valid until Panasonic comes out with a new version of the fz 1000, then all bets are off till we have a chance to shoot them again. 

'

Let me know if this answered your questions!

added the next day: 
Handling! Yes! Which one handles better? Everyone agrees that the Sony feels more lux. It looks sleeker and more polished, so it must be the winner, right? Well, not so fast... The Panasonic is a bit bigger but it's bigger in all the right places; like the right hand grip, the buttons and knobs and the ability in general to wrap your hands around the camera comfortably. In actual use I like the Panasonic just a bit better and.....the battery lasts about 25 to35% longer than the one in the Sony.

Again, an almost toss up. Trading some styling performance for actual hand feel in one direction or the other....