I don't know if the jitters I got with the AX53 I was testing were a glitch, they seemed to be intermittent (maybe just got a bad sample?), but long zooms are ALWAYS going to be tough to stabilize.

That's interesting to hear, my cx730 which has the same type of stabilization does not display jitter, even at full zoom, the image might "float" around a bit but never seen the kind of jitter my rx10 is displaying at longer focal lengths.

When testing the AX53, it was good, but ultimately the 1" class sensors are just sharper.... so for me, the RX10M3 makes sense, and will fit with the other RX's and AX100. The new generation sensor seems to be better than the 1st gen one, never really sat down to try to get an exact comparison.

Yep, the RX10M3 will be heavier, but still lighter than a comparable DSLR, I have the RX100M4 if I need small and light, and probably will keep the RX10M2 around as a backup or when weight is a factor. Odds are good that my trusty old HX300 will be retired, the bottom line being image quality, presuming that the optics and 1200mm zoom (+digital) will cover most anything in the "extreme zoom" department..

I don't know if the jitters I got with the AX53 I was testing were a glitch, they seemed to be intermittent (maybe just got a bad sample?), but long zooms are ALWAYS going to be tough to stabilize. It is encouraging that it looks like Sony fine tuned the lens with the M3 to smooth it out.

On another note, is the fast/slow zoom setting still in the menus? I know that allows the M2 to zoom at full speed while recording, rather than being locked into the slow setting.

Dave, I had done a few more tests this morning and I must say the lens on the RX10III is an absolute stunner. I was always very impressed with the sharpness of the Sony 18-200 lens (silver edition) when used for video on my A6300, jitters aside, but the RX10III lens is every bit its equal and then some. It's razor sharp at any focal length.

I noticed this morning in one shot, there is actually a bit less flare in the RX lens than the 18-200 lens, and the 18-200 was very well controlled for flare.

As for jitters, I'd say the OIS in the RX10III is at least 50% better than the OIS in my 18-200/A6300. Even if you're talking about the A7RII with its IBIS, when in video mode, the IBIS defaults to the OIS of any OIS attached lens. So if you're using an OIS lens, you can't take advantage of the A7RII's IBIS.

The more I use the RX10III, the more impressed I am. Even the weight becomes much less an issue because of the ergonomics of the camera. As you say, it's certainly a lot lighter than most DSLRs. I really find it very pleasurable to hold and use.

For those looking for a pocket camera, this sure isn't it, but I'm sure many of us dislike the ergonomics of tiny cameras. I never really 'enjoyed' using any of the RX100 series. The LX100 was better, because it was a bit larger, but still not 'pleasurable' IMO.

Ken:

To be clear - the new version III does or does not have internal ND?

I don't have the camera in hand, but I'm fairly sure it would still have the ND filter internally, as it's siblings do?

@Noa - it was an intermittent thing, and frankly it might just be I'm more wobbly than I used to be. In the end I liked the AX53, and overall the BOSS was pretty good MOST of the time... but the image was still a "small chip", and I felt that the 1" class sensor cameras I have were enough better that it would bug me... with the RX10M3 coming up, I decided that should be the camera to go with. I'm used to adding a grip, a monopod, or some other mechanical stabilization, it's not ideal, but it's workable.

@Ken - the RX100 series is certainly a tiny camera, I've always added a grip, currently I'm using one I found on ebay that adds the grip AND increases the height of the camera (plate that screws onto the bottom, still has a tripod socket and all). Sometimes "slightly bigger" is not a "bad" thing! That little added heft and grip makes the RX100 usable, plus I have an underwater shell for it as well... The RX100 series has it's place, I find I grab it when I don't want to drag something bigger along, and want good image quality.

Dave, what kinds of grips do you use on the RX10 (any series - I have the mk 1) and the RX100 (may get one)????

Thanks!

Ken:

To be clear - the new version III does or does not have internal ND?

No, unfortunately Sony deleted the ND filter. I'm assuming this had something to do with the lens design and the room needed for the filter. So I need to buy a ND filter to fit that big piece of glass. :)

I don't have the camera in hand, but I'm fairly sure it would still have the ND filter internally, as it's siblings do?

@Noa - it was an intermittent thing, and frankly it might just be I'm more wobbly than I used to be. In the end I liked the AX53, and overall the BOSS was pretty good MOST of the time... but the image was still a "small chip", and I felt that the 1" class sensor cameras I have were enough better that it would bug me... with the RX10M3 coming up, I decided that should be the camera to go with. I'm used to adding a grip, a monopod, or some other mechanical stabilization, it's not ideal, but it's workable.

@Ken - the RX100 series is certainly a tiny camera, I've always added a grip, currently I'm using one I found on ebay that adds the grip AND increases the height of the camera (plate that screws onto the bottom, still has a tripod socket and all). Sometimes "slightly bigger" is not a "bad" thing! That little added heft and grip makes the RX100 usable, plus I have an underwater shell for it as well... The RX100 series has it's place, I find I grab it when I don't want to drag something bigger along, and want good image quality.

Great idea Dave. I couldn't agree more, 'slightly bigger' can be 'much better'. ;)

The ND would typically be internal in front of the sensor.... seems like a very odd omission, or did it just get buried in the menu system somewhere where it's nearly impossible to find? Sometimes it's like a crazy easter egg hunt!

I'll have to see if the grip I'm using for the M4 is still being sold, it was one of those import custom solid aluminum things - if I can find it I'll post a link! The other handy device I use is a Stratos brand folding flash bracket, which makes a lot of difference - sort of turns a still camera into a mini fig rig, helps a lot when hand holding!

If you search sony rx100 grip on ebay, you find a "few" options, the one I've got is the whatfoto WAG RX100, also saw some called "LIMS" and a couple unlabelled, but same thing (typical HK/china product!), Looked like around $35, I think I got a better price by buying a couple (as I usually have a current model and "last years" RX100 sitting around!). I've got a similar phenolic grip as well, part of a "lot" of stuff I bought on ebay... but I like the metal one the best of anything I've tried, and it is easy to take off if I want the underwater shell for shooting in dust, dirt, etc!

Scaled up, not looking very good at that frame rate but usable for, let's say 720p or 480p viewing.

Thought that was too good to be true. :)
What would you say would be the highest speed you could shoot at and still get get usable 1080? 240fps?

To be fair Dylan, a lot of cameras drop the resolution when overcranking to avoid overheating the sensor. That, and the rest of the electronics being able to keep up with such high data rates would increase the cost if full resolution was in play.

I see from the product highlights that you have a choice of higher quality at 960fps for 2 seconds duration, or max time priority of 4 seconds at lower quality.

Still, with a frame rate that fast, one should be able to capture a really brief event, such as the time it takes YOU to down a shot of tequila. ;)

or did it just get buried in the menu system somewhere where it's nearly impossible to find?

Nope, cinema5d also confirmed the ND is gone, that's a bummer.

I posted this in the other thread, but in case anyone is interested in the camera and its capabilities, here's a quick video I shot yesterday. Everything was hand-held and many shots were at or near the full 600mm reach of this superb lens. You can stream this in 4K by selecting the '4K' option or, preferably, download the original in 4K from the 'download' area on the page:

Sony RX10III 4K-Grist Mill Lake on Vimeo

To be fair Dylan, a lot of cameras drop the resolution when overcranking to avoid overheating the sensor. That, and the rest of the electronics being able to keep up with such high data rates would increase the cost if full resolution was in play.

I see from the product highlights that you have a choice of higher quality at 960fps for 2 seconds duration, or max time priority of 4 seconds at lower quality.

Still, with a frame rate that fast, one should be able to capture a really brief event, such as the time it takes YOU to down a shot of tequila. ;)

I'd take the 2 seconds with higher resolution... And a Cabo Wabo Reposado on the side!

Thought that was too good to be true. :)
What would you say would be the highest speed you could shoot at and still get get usable 1080? 240fps?
This is a little subjective. When I tried out the slow-mos on the RX100IV (exact same sensor, same IP and identical readout method) a few months ago I think 250fps (I'm in PAL area.) was good enough though some might say it was a little soft. Aliases started to be visible at 500fps and the footage looked noticeably soft. If you want a pixel-perfect slow-mo I guess you have to limit your shooting to 120fps (100fps on my unit).

The good thing about these 100fps and 120fps is you don't have to time your shooting within either a 2-second or 4-second window and wait for buffering. You just shoot until there's no space left on the card or the heat warning comes up. The IQ is also every bit as good as you get from the 1080/50p/60p or 1080/25p/30p/24p modes. I saw absolutely no drop-off on my 1080p monitor.

This is a little subjective. When I tried out the slow-mos on the RX100IV (exact same sensor, same IP and identical readout method) a few months ago I think 250fps (I'm in PAL area.) was good enough though some might say it was a little soft. Aliases started to be visible at 500fps and the footage looked noticeably soft. If you want a pixel-perfect slow-mo I guess you have to limit your shooting to 120fps (100fps on my unit).

The good thing about these 100fps and 120fps is you don't have to time your shooting within either a 2-second or 4-second window and wait for buffering. You just shoot until there's no space left on the card or the heat warning comes up. The IQ is also every bit as good as you get from the 1080/50p/60p or 1080/25p/30p/24p modes. I saw absolutely no drop-off on my 1080p monitor.

I agree with this assessment. However, there is no need to be subjective. Here is a 1080 video with scenes shot at 120 fps and 240 fps using the RX100 IV, so you can see if the dropoff in resolution is acceptable:

Volleyball in Slo-mo and Super Slo-mo in Full HD: Sony RX100 IV on Vimeo

Here is the YouTube version of the RX10iii 4K video I previously posted:

https://youtu.be/sRGJ_DDV_hQ

It's not certain at what focal length each shot was but I do see the same kind of jitter I see in my rx10 mark 1, not sure what to think of it.

I saw some, but need to run this on a laptop that can properly handle 4K, I was running on my i5 based portable, and it does not do 4K without some jumping, and that's what it looked like to me.... will update after I've run it on an i7 machine that I know plays back smoothly....

Guys, for hand-held shot at or near 600mm, this is pretty good IMO. I see some, but minimal jitter. Just as an example, posting YouTube 4K videos, when using my Sony 18-200mm OIS lens on my A6300, YouTube would always give me a prompt "some of your video is a bit shaky, would you like us to stabilize it" (or something to that effect).

That would happen on every video where I was at or near the 4K cropped focal length of 300mm with the A6300 while hand-holding. In this RX10III video, a number of these hand-held shots were at 600mm, double what I was shooting with the A6300, and for the first time YouTube gave me no such warning because the jitter was minimal.

With the A6300, I often software stabilized the longer shots in FCPX, but I haven't felt the need here thus far. Anyone expecting tripod stability with a hand-held, optically sharp 600mm, is bound to be disappointed. I've yet to see any camera that can perfectly stabilize, optically, shots anywhere near this focal length at this 4K resolution. If you need that kind of stability, there's only one answer, a tripod. :)

for hand-held shot at or near 600mm

Where all the shots in that video at 600mm? Like the ducks at 20sec?

I've yet to see any camera that can perfectly stabilize
Try the cx730, that one should be a benchmark how stabilization should look like :)

Where all the shots in that video at 600mm? Like the ducks at 20sec?

The ducks at 20 seconds were probably about 300-400mm.

Try the cx730, that one should be a benchmark how stabilization should look like :)
And that's why I said at 'this resolution', meaning 4K. There is nothing like that, but if you make one, I'll buy it. ;)

Does the ax53 not have the boss stabilization in 4K?

I believe it drops down to regular OIS for 4K. I don't believe there are any 4K, 5-axis stabilization systems, built in to any current camera, but I could be wrong...at least none that I'm interested in. :)

Edit: Looks like I was right. Here's the blurb from Sony's website for the 53. Notice the emphasis on "HD shooting mode":

"For extra-stable movie shooting from wide to telephoto. In HD shooting mode, 5-axis Intelligent Active mode further compensates for camera shake, even when shooting while running."

FYI, on the AX53 it's still "BOSS" or the entire lens+sensor module floating on the gimbal but no 5-axis additional digital stabilization in 4K.

Still the best among all 4K money can buy, though, IMO.

The AX53 does still utilize the BOSS gimbal system in 4K, but not the additional active digital stabilization if I understand it correctly. I was having some intermittent "jiggle" issues on the one I tested. BUT it generally is VERY stable, even at long zooms....

THAT said, it was no where near as sharp as my RX's, or even the aging AX100 - in the end the trade off was not worth it to me, although it was a hard decision (and I may still pick up an AX53 again one of these days, but the RX10M3 is more what I'm looking for).

I rewatched the Vimeo and also que'd up the YT version.... this time on my i7 based quad core laptop.... first thing, it was MUCH smoother, and although there were some slightly shaky parts, they were clearly at the long end of the zoom, where some form of additional support (shoulder rig, monopod, bracket, etc.) would be needed to achieve anything much more stable.... it's livable, and I would always be using a bracket at the minimum (probably a big one I have laying around, since this cam is bigger and heavier than my others!). I'd gladly trade having to carry a "rig" of some moderate size for the sharper video!

One thing that was VERY noticeable - the Vimeo 4K was noticeably more stuttery/juddery than the YT version, so much so that I found the YT version much more watchable. Different algorithms for compression and playback I presume, but VERY noticeable, at least to me (the kids running in the Vimeo version looked like a series of stills, vs. a smoother video playback from YT, for instance). The YT video did stall and buffer though, so again, tradeoffs....

Oh the joys of the 4K "bleeding edge"!

FYI, on the AX53 it's still "BOSS" or the entire lens+sensor module floating on the gimbal but no 5-axis additional digital stabilization in 4K.

Still the best among all 4K money can buy, though, IMO.

I'm just now wowed by the 4K image quality.

The AX53 does still utilize the BOSS gimbal system in 4K, but not the additional active digital stabilization if I understand it correctly. I was having some intermittent "jiggle" issues on the one I tested. BUT it generally is VERY stable, even at long zooms....

THAT said, it was no where near as sharp as my RX's, or even the aging AX100 - in the end the trade off was not worth it to me, although it was a hard decision (and I may still pick up an AX53 again one of these days, but the RX10M3 is more what I'm looking for).

I rewatched the Vimeo and also que'd up the YT version.... this time on my i7 based quad core laptop.... first thing, it was MUCH smoother, and although there were some slightly shaky parts, they were clearly at the long end of the zoom, where some form of additional support (shoulder rig, monopod, bracket, etc.) would be needed to achieve anything much more stable.... it's livable, and I would always be using a bracket at the minimum (probably a big one I have laying around, since this cam is bigger and heavier than my others!). I'd gladly trade having to carry a "rig" of some moderate size for the sharper video!

One thing that was VERY noticeable - the Vimeo 4K was noticeably more stuttery/juddery than the YT version, so much so that I found the YT version much more watchable. Different algorithms for compression and playback I presume, but VERY noticeable, at least to me (the kids running in the Vimeo version looked like a series of stills, vs. a smoother video playback from YT, for instance). The YT video did stall and buffer though, so again, tradeoffs....

Oh the joys of the 4K "bleeding edge"!

Dave, I agree with your overall assessment. The OIS is not perfect, but it's still very good and a lot better than my 18-200 Sony lens, mounted on my A6300. I also think that sometimes people mistake jitter for issues with their streaming ability, which can vary by service provider and even time of day.

But to have the greater zoom range, the incredible clarity at any focal length and a genuinely usable OIS all the way out, is a great asset. I just don't see that combination of qualities out there at this point.

BTW, I find your Vimeo/YouTube comments interesting. I sometimes find the YouTube encoding better, despite what many say about the better streaming on Vimeo. Vimeo's advantage to me, is simply an easy download utility to see the original quality. You might want to try that with my video so you can see exactly what I see when I watch it. I did watch the clip with the kid running again on Vimeo, and didn't notice that stutter. However I do seem to recall it when I first watched it after I uploaded the project. Of course the original is fine.

Dave, I'm sure you know if you've got a UHD TV, you can download this video from Vimeo and take it to the TV and watch it there. I routinely watch mine on a 75" Sony UHD TV.

Prior to buying almost any camera I've recently owned, I try to do just that, download and watch it on my TV. The problem is usually finding quality clips that are representative of the camera you're interested in.

I'm set up with laptops with 4K screens (actually NEAR 4K, 3200x1800, adequate for their size), and a 42" external "monitor"/TV, so I get a pretty good idea of what quality a camera produces.

Streaming quality varies, and I am finding that I really can't expect a smooth playback with an i5 based machine (at least not a laptop). 4K is about playback HORSEPOWER, and it is what it is.... but I'll take the sharper quality any day!

I've taken to testing cameras with the HDMI out directly into the TV as well as running short clips and seeing how those look....

The AX53 is actually quite good for a "small chip" camera, and with the BOSS gimbal system, has certain advantages, but I remain committed to the 1" class sensor for 4K image quality, and I see it in the RX10M3, it wasn't "quite" there in the AX53, though very, very close!

I see more resolution and a greater DR in the RX10iii as compared to the AX53.

Dave, if you download the video to a thumb drive, you can take that to a Best Buy and plug it into a USB drive of one of the UHD TVs. That way you can see the native resolution without any interpolation. I've sometimes seen artifacts when using non-native 4K displays. You can also plug it into a 5K IMac at an Apple Store or Best Buy. I did that frequently before I bought a 4K TV. Just a thought.

I saw more sharpness from the RX100IV, RX10II and even the old AX100 than the small sensor of the AX53 could deliver - it was still a HUGE improvement over the AX33, but not what the 1" class sensor delivers. Overall, I'd concur on resolution and DR, and that was the deal breaker for the AX53 for me (that and it's a good part of the budget to get a RX10M3!).

I've been running into my i5 5200U powered "super-portable" laptop being "mostly OK" for HD on the external 4K monitor, but definitely not able to run 4K smoothly. I'm probably expecting a bit much from it, but it's small and economical. 4K video is jerky/jumpy, but the same video on a machine with a 4th gen i7 MQ or HQ plays back buttery smooth (same monitor via either DP or HDMI). Of course the battery life and portability drop significantly - dang tradeoffs!

The 3800x1800 screens (13.3 and 15.6) display 4K with no interpolation issues that I've been able to see (other than the smaller screen has the i5, and just can't keep up!). The 42" external "TV" is native, works fine to evaluate with either the laptop (DP or HDMI) or camera (HDMI) driving it.

My feeling is that you need larger screens to really pick up the nuances in 4K, but it's still nice to have a high 4K (or close to it) res screen on a portable machine.

I have to suspect that some "playback issues" stem from machines with less than the needed horsepower to deliver 4K smoothly.... I'm sort of fiddling around trying to find the "minimum" spec to achieve smooth 4k - I know the i5 doesn't, but wonder if the i7's are overkill!?

Dave, it seems to me I recall a number of I5 machines playing 4K back smoothly. I forgot what generation Intel chip had the video decoder on the chip, but wasn't that a huge part of the smooth playback equation? Of course the video card is big too.

As far as 4K viewing is concerned, it's all about screen size vs seating distance. So my 27" 5K IMac looks great in terms of detail, because I'm sitting inches away. With my 75" Sony, I'm sitting about 8' away and I'd still like to be closer for 4K (that was as close as my 'negotiations' with my wife would allow). ;) A 42" UHD TV would be fine from the standpoint of picking up 4K detail, if you were sitting close enough.

There's a chart that many use that shows screen size vs resolution and seating distance. It suggests the screen sizes that are required at various seating distances to be able to discern the benefits of HD, 4K as well as a few other resolutions. Some question the charts saying they can see the 4K benefits at greater distances than the chart suggests. Of course an individual's eyesight is a factor too, but it does give you a ballpark.

A practical test for the 600mm reach of this new lens. The video can be downloaded too. If streaming, select 4K in the lower right:

Sony RX10III-4K at the Central Park Zoo on Vimeo

Or the YouTube version also in 4K:

https://youtu.be/12ft4-heikM

Nice duck shot Ken!

The answer to this should be obvious but I'll ask anyway... The 1200mm clear view zoom is just a 1080 crop of the 4k res at 600mm, so a full 1080, not digital in any way? It looks great and is slowly convincing me to buy this camera. :)

Thanks Dylan.

I haven't used the CIZ in any of my videos, but your reasoning seems on target. I'm not sure what kind of algorithm Sony uses for CIZ and how it would compare to a simple crop of a 4K clip.

Lens shootout: Sony RX10 III destroys the competition: Digital Photography Review (http://www.dpreview.com/news/5980899251/sony-rx10-iii-lens-comparison)

Lens shootout: Sony RX10 III destroys the competition: Digital Photography Review

How can a fz1000 be "competition"? The rx10III is almost 3 times more expensive...

How can a fz1000 be "competition"? The rx10III is almost 3 times more expensive...

Because they're both superzoom cameras with essentially the same target audience. Further, to be accurate, looking at reputable dealers like B&H, the RX10iii price is actually less than 2X the price of the FZ1000, not 3X ($797 vs $1498)

We don't have a b&h in Europe, prices here are 687euro for the fz1000 and 1599 for the rx10III, if we consider that as a criteria as well the fz1000 "destroys" the rx10III. You could also say a 42,5mm f1.2 nocticron "destroys" the panasonic 42mm f1.7 because they are both primes with the same focal length appealing to the same audience yet to me they are not competition because of the big price difference, in such a case I would expect the expensive one to be better.

Actually it was just me reacting to the clickbait title from dpreview, when I read that I don't bother reading any further because if that doesn't make sense, then probably the rest of the article doesn't either.

Actually the article was fine, even if you thought the title was over the top, and had examples to substantiate the verbiage within the article.

Of course the Sony haters were out in force in the posts below, but that's to be expected. ;)

As for pricing, even your European pricing is really not close to 3X, but we're nitpicking. I'm just guessing now, but I suspect the RX10iii is not on your shopping list. :)

Ok, I was exaggerating as it was closer to 2,5 times which is still a lot, but my reaction doesn't not come as a sony hater, I have the rx10 mark one, which has been the most unreliable camera I ever had, and I have several other Sony camera's, I"m not brand loyal and take whatever shoots best, hej, I even have a JVC and I"m sure many would think "what is that?" :) It's still my opinion though the fz1000 should not be used as a comparison as it's in a completely different pricebracket, different enough that it obliterates the Sony ;)

Interestingly I shot with an RX1 and never had an issue with it other than that lens wobble, which has been solved in the RX10iii.

I too am not brand loyal. I've shot with Panasonics, Samsungs and Sonys. However I'm finding the RX10iii to be the most fun and most versatile camera I've ever used.

Sadly it is a staggeringly large price gap between the Sony and panasonic. It's floating at $2200 in Canadian bucks which is is the only reason I haven't bought it. Though I did pick up a Nikon p900 for $450 to get my mega zoom fix. ;)

In this day and age when everything is 'awesome, and 'wow' it comes as no surprise that DPReview, owned by Amazon remember, jumps on the trash journalism bandwagon too. Expect more of this; it is in fashion.

I have no doubt the Sony RX10 III is a well engineered and manufactured piece of gear as usual with Sony but then so was my Sony A7RII (now sold) that was too expensive, too heavy, too cumbersome and too over-hyped; all my opinion of course. At least I got the Full Frame itch out of my system.

The good news is that 4k is popping up all over the place. Hang about a bit and we shall see more and more 4k capable products out there that are perhaps a little less far reaching, a little less heavy to lug around, and certainly a lot less draining on the bank balance.

Will they 'destroy' the competition? DPReview might just come up with another silly clickbait exaggeration. Why not, it works!

Noa was just back-click-baiting with the 3x <wink>! Nowadays EVERY site on the internet seems to have gone "Buzzfeed s**t Crazy", with sensational titles that may or may not reflect the "contents" (and I've seen more than a few pages with NO content, just a picture with no relation to the title!).

The samples and text established the premise that the Sony has better image quality, which actually is not a surprise, you'd expect better for the higher $$$.

Right now the FZ1000 is an "old" camera that can be had used for pretty attractive prices, and sometimes on sale new for attractive prices. The RX10M3 is JUST released, and I suspect in tight inventory due to the earthquakes and factory damage in Japan... I'll pick one up used when the price drops a bit, to go alongside the M2...

The new version looks like a very nice camera, and as Noa knows (even with his possessed sample "mark1"), the RX10 produces an image that is pretty hard to beat at the price points (mark1 is selling stupid cheap for an "HD" video camera, and the M2 has already dropped to attractive prices on ebay....). I shot a short event with my M2 and the results were great on a 42" 4K monitor - very sharp and detailed, very clean despite kinda crappy lighting, straight out of the camera. I like the AX100, but the RX10M2 (and eventually a M3) are adequate for anything I need, and might be the pick for when I need that "one camera to do it all"... if stills are a part of the required feature set.



I tried the FZ1000, it was not bad, but also was not "good" in some areas where I felt the RX10 (and at that time it was a "mark1") "destroyed" the FZ... OK, maybe it just beat it here and there, and if I spent a bunch of time figuring out how to optimize, I'm sure they would have been "close enough" that 99 1/2 people out of 100 wouldn't have noticed any difference.... I've seen plenty of good samples from FZ shooters, and wouldn't hesitate to recommend it to someone with a limited budget (although now I'd point to a RX10M2 for a "little" more in the used market, and if 4K wasn't an issue, a stupidly cheap, "near 4K" HD shooting, original RX10)..


One cannot "discount" the "fun factor", and the overall ease of use, but again this is a matter of "taste" or "opinion".... as someone who has shot Sony for a long time, I find the insanely complex menu system to be comforting rather than frustrating (especially after setting up custom function options!), for me, I find it "fun" and strangely "easy" to shoot the RX series cams.... I feel like the cam "fits" despite things like not having touchscreen and a few other minor quibbles, and the Mark3 will replace several other cameras I've still got, so it even will make economic "sense"....

The thing about price vs performance is highly dependent on the individual's preference and his propensity to part with his money to satisfy that particular preference. That is just the start. If you throw in another major factor such as portability or weight into the mix then probably no one could be wrong about his choice.

Take mine for example. I had long wanted to get a superzoom "fix' just of course to play with the maximum zooming into distant subjects my other cameras can't so I bought the 4K Panasonic FZ300. It was and is even cheaper than the FZ1000. Is it better or equal to the Sony RX10III? In some respects, yes, but in many respects, absolutely not. It is smaller and almost half the weight of the RX10III and this alone counts a lot in my "better or worse" book. And, as Noa said, how could you say one camera is worse than the other when you can have 3 of them for the cost of the other's.

Make no mistake, the Sony RX10III is an excellent camera in sheer optical performance terms but it is also a very costly camera if someone only wants to use it mainly to get a certain fix or just for the fun of extended zooming.

With the hack, it will be a quite capable VIDEO camera. I have some smaller lighter superzooms (same reason as you!), they will likely be replaced when a used M3 comes my way, simply because I expect the image quality difference between an older 1/3" sensor and the 1" sensor to pretty much be too huge to ignore... I'm also sure it will have better image quality than the AX53 (again, a "small chip" camera, quite good for what it is, but still didn't quite keep up with the 1" sensor cams).

The M3 will also replace a bigger, heavier DSLR.... so.... now I've sold two cameras (smaller, lighter total "kit", especially if I drop a long zoom or two I won't be needing!)... oops, almost forgot it'll replace a video camera too.... so by that time, I carry ONE capable camera, and I've reduced the financial cost significantly. Maybe even come out ahead...

Size, weight, and price are all quite "relative", image quality is also subjective, but better IS better, it's just a matter of whether it's worth it to you.

The 1" sensor cams have ALWAYS been a premium price product (and Sony is typically more "premium" than the others....), but you also get a lot of "bang" for that buck when the images come back and look stunning, and the video is like looking out the window. Couple that with a pretty crazy 600mm tele/zoom and really good lens at that, it's almost a bargain. Try finding a interchangeable lens with comparable specs... yeah... even if you COULD buy it, it' would cost far more than the RX10M3, and would likely weigh about as much, and you'd still have to buy a body.



As for the "how could you say one camera is worse than the other when you can have 3 of them for the cost of the other's" argument, who cares if you could have TEN cameras for the same price if the image quality was POO?!?! Please, I owned a FZ200 very briefly, the stills were HORRID, I wouldn't pay 1/10th the price of ANY RX10 (even the first generation!) for it, as it would NOT be usable IMO, I would gag every time I looked at the stills... I'm sure some people use one and are happy, I'm just not willing to accept poor image quality if the shots are going to have any lasting value.

AND I can buy plenty of little chip point and shoots for throwaway imaging... or as most are doing now, use my cell phone (I could have SIX cell phones for the price of an RX10M3.... and they do all this other cool stuff a camera CAN'T ever do... so how can you say a camera is BETTER?)!!

If image quality matters to you, along with usability, the argument falls apart like one ply toilet paper....

The thing about price vs performance is highly dependent on the individual's preference and his propensity to part with his money to satisfy that particular preference. That is just the start. If you throw in another major factor such as portability or weight into the mix then probably no one could be wrong about his choice.

Take mine for example. I had long wanted to get a superzoom "fix' just of course to play with the maximum zooming into distant subjects my other cameras can't so I bought the 4K Panasonic FZ300. It was and is even cheaper than the FZ1000. Is it better or equal to the Sony RX10III? In some respects, yes, but in many respects, absolutely not. It is smaller and almost half the weight of the RX10III and this alone counts a lot in my "better or worse" book. And, as Noa said, how could you say one camera is worse than the other when you can have 3 of them for the cost of the other's.

[B}Make no mistake, the Sony RX10III is an excellent camera in sheer optical performance terms but it is also a very costly camera if someone only wants to use it mainly to get a certain fix or just for the fun of extended zooming{/B}.

Well for me that 'fix' is better video. Better video in the form of higher resolution, sharper video and the usefulness of an extended zoom. All of those, for me, unquestionably contribute to the 'fun quotient'. Of course replacing multiple lenses and not having to worry about sensor dust while changing lenses, is yet another plus for me.

I just shot the Bethpage Airshow and I was quite impressed with how quickly the AF locked on to jets moving at 500+ mph. The camera impresses me more as I use it more.

Pretty soon the marketplace will judge it. Will it sell closer to either Sony's own A7SII or RII, cameras that cost twice the price of this RX10III or closer to the market niche RX1RII, which by no means is an average camera in any sense of the word but whose price will make more than a few people cringe?

All I can say is it is not going to be another Nikon P900 only and solely because of its price.

With the hack, it will be a quite capable VIDEO camera.
It can also become a quite unreliable camera as I have already seen people reporting their hacked Sony to stop recording without warning, hacks can be a blessing for some and a nightmare to others but they don't make your camera a better videocamera, especially not if you need to rely on it for long continuous recordings.

The M3 will also replace a bigger, heavier DSLR.

The camera is capable as a hybrid as long as it doesn't get too dark, weddingshooters will find the camera to be very limiting up to unusable in very dark venues where dslr's have no issue shooting even candlelit only parties or maybe you want a much shallower dof, even when shooting with wider angle lenses, here again a m3 will never be able to provide you that. The M3 can complement your kit of camera's but it will never replace a dslr entirely.

if you could have TEN cameras for the same price if the image quality was POO
Fact is that the m3 is most compared with the fz1000, not the fz200 or a cellphone. I think anyone considering a good large zoom hybrid camera and who's on a budget can't go wrong with the fz1000 and it's image quality isn't "poo", considering it's price and features it doesn't have any competition right now, if you want something better and can pay for that, then the m2 or the 3 from Sony is a very good choice.

Try finding a interchangeable lens with comparable specs...
The only reason Sony can make this kind of lens is because of the smaller sensorsize so it doesn't make sense to compare, The same reason why these little handycams with tiny sensors can also have a very big range. Sony won't be able to make a full frame lens equivalent and if so it probably would cost a ton and be a hugh heavy lens.

The only reason Sony can make this kind of lens is because of the smaller sensorsize so it doesn't make sense to compare, The same reason why these little handycams with tiny sensors can also have a very big range. Sony won't be able to make a full frame lens equivalent and if so it probably would cost a ton and be a hugh heavy lens.

The fact is other companies can use a 1" sensor and put this kind of lens on, but they don't. So kudos to Sony for putting this incredible lens on the M3. As we've seen many times, translating the 'can do' in to reality are often two different things.