Sony RX10 mkIII

[J. Stephen McDonald]

Originally Posted by Wacharapong Chiowanich

If the RX10III can zoom in and out wobble-free as most camcorders lenses do that would probably be the first I can think of for a stills camera lens of this zoom range.

True camcorders have inherent advantage in that their lenses are non-extending. The entire mass of optical elements of the lenses move, either in a circular hellicoid guided or straight rail action, on a fixed and solid support which is part of the structure of the camcorders' bodies themselves.

First thing I will try when this interesting camera comes out is to check if there's any wobble. Been fed up with those on all hybrid stills/video P&Ss and DSLR lenses for a long time now.

A main advantage of this type of lens action, is that the whole works is enclosed in a sealed, volume-neutral housing, that doesn't draw in dust-laden air from the outside. My first digital photo camera, the Olympus C-2100UZ, was built this way and avoided getting an ever-increasing amount of internal dust.

[Ken Ross]

Originally Posted by Dave Blackhurst

I was doing a little testing with the RX10II (seeing how well the AX53 keeps up), and was taking a closer look at the "wobbling"....

Noticed that it seems to happen at specific points in the zoom range, repeatably, meaning it's mechanical. Having taken a few lenses apart, I realized that these little "jerks" are where the various internal elements are transitioning - where one element set stops moving, and the next one starts. It's a property of a typical "still" lens design where a small hiccup in the framing won't make much difference to the output. Of course it's a teensy bit noticeable (and annoying) to those who are taking 30-60 pictures a second....

SO, the thought came to me that these are predictable, and perhaps COULD be addressed in firmware to remove or reduce the effect at those points.... sort of an artificial enhancement of the image stabilization at known "problem" points.... This is speculative, but I'm pretty sure if there were sufficient complaints, Sony could address this using this approach.


That leaves the questions as to the RX10III lens - it's an entirely NEW design, so there is a chance that they might have worked the mechanical "kinks" out of the design, we will have to wait and see. If it does have the same "jerks", again, perhaps a bit of pressure on Sony to revise future lens designs to eliminate the mechanical "play" in the zoom mechs would be in order. OR a firmware fix.... either approach SHOULD be viable.


The wind related wobble, well, that might be a little trickier.... I've had weddings where there were high winds, and there was camera shake even with a stout tripod (that and horrible nearly unusable audio...). Can't fix "mother nature"....

Dave, I can tell you that Sony has solved the lens wobble issue with the RX10III. There is no wobble anywhere in the new extended range from one end to the other. :)

The other thing that surprises me is how close in overall PQ the RX10III is to my A6300. I haven't tested outdoors in the sun yet where DR will be stressed, but thus far in the persistent cloudy/rainy weather we've had in N.Y., it's been very good.

[Dave Blackhurst]

Ken -

Good to hear! I suspected this was a "blank sheet" design that while in the same "family" as the earlier RX10's, might hold some surprises. Sounds like that is the case... I'll be selling off a few cameras I don't need and waiting patiently for a deal on a M3! Will be interested to hear more as you get to play with the new toy, good or bad! With the 30 minute limit hack (which I presume will work for the M3), this should be a very versatile camera alongside the good old AX100 and RX10II...

[Wacharapong Chiowanich]

Yes, good to hear that Sony have finally achieved this no wobble holy grail on super zoom (or mid-range, depending how you look at it. Peole who own the likes of Nikon P900, Canon SX60 or Sony HX400V probably want to call it mid-range.) cameras. Now I'd be curious to know if when you are in the video mode and the AF set to continuous, does the lens hold focus throughout the zoom range? The lens doesn't have to be technically parfocal but the camera does have to have a very good and very responsive AF algorithm to use the AF system to instantaneously keep track of the focus to compensate for the shift due to the non-parfocal construction of the lens while you are zooming.

Most of my Sony consumer camcorders do well with respect to holding focus while zooming. And I also believe most or all of them don't have a parfocal zoom lens. That would be too costly and make the lenses a lot larger.

[Dave Blackhurst]

Ken posted a quick sample of the zoom range that might be helpful in answering that question - looks fairly good, and I'm guessing that once one adds "clear zoom", you'd have enough zoom range for most "superzoom" needs.... 1200mm effectively is probably enough for many people?

http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/sony-rx-...-range-4k.html

[Joe Ogiba]

Here is a test I did of the RX10 III 50x (1200mm eqiv) clear zoom in 4K UHD :

Quick 4K UHD Sony RX10 III 50x clear zoom test on Vimeo

[Ken Ross]

Originally Posted by Wacharapong Chiowanich

Yes, good to hear that Sony have finally achieved this no wobble holy grail on super zoom (or mid-range, depending how you look at it. Peole who own the likes of Nikon P900, Canon SX60 or Sony HX400V probably want to call it mid-range.) cameras. Now I'd be curious to know if when you are in the video mode and the AF set to continuous, does the lens hold focus throughout the zoom range? The lens doesn't have to be technically parfocal but the camera does have to have a very good and very responsive AF algorithm to use the AF system to instantaneously keep track of the focus to compensate for the shift due to the non-parfocal construction of the lens while you are zooming.

Most of my Sony consumer camcorders do well with respect to holding focus while zooming. And I also believe most or all of them don't have a parfocal zoom lens. That would be too costly and make the lenses a lot larger.

Wacharapong, you nailed it! Although the camera is not advertised as 'parfocal', the RX10III holds focus very well throughout the zoom range. This actually surprised me a bit as I thought there would be some wonkiness as you approached the 400-600mm range. However that didn't happen.

[Ken Ross]

Originally Posted by Dave Blackhurst

Ken posted a quick sample of the zoom range that might be helpful in answering that question - looks fairly good, and I'm guessing that once one adds "clear zoom", you'd have enough zoom range for most "superzoom" needs.... 1200mm effectively is probably enough for many people?

http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/sony-rx-...-range-4k.html

Thanks for reposting that Dave. Yes, with 'clear zoom', which is essentially visually transparent, you have an effective focal length of 1200mm. That's pretty nuts. Of course hand-holding at that focal length is an entirely different story.

Today was the first sunny day we've had in N.Y. since I bought the camera. I had my A6300 with me too and found the RX10III was extremely competitive. There was no discernible difference in resolution & sharpness on either my 5K iMac or 75" UHD TV.

What was more surprising to me was the focusing of the RX10III. I never expected it to keep up with the A6300, which has the best AF I've ever used in video mode. There were even a couple of shots where the focus hunted on the A6300 (an exceedingly rare event!!) and the RX10III was rock steady.

So far I'm very impressed with this camera, but we're still in the 'Honeymoon' period. :)

[Noa Put]

Ken, do you know what the f-stop is if it's wide open when the lens reaches 200mm? Just as a comparison with the mark 2 which keeps a constant f2.8 until that point
Also, when you keep the lens wide open at f2.4 and start to zoom, what is the focal length as soon as the f-stop reaches F4.0?
And one last, how much time does it take at the fastest zoom from wide open to tele?

[Wacharapong Chiowanich]

I'm sure this camera will live long or die quickly solely because of its lens. If you go only by the specs, none in the market comes close when focal length, effective aperture (actual sensor size translated into % of FF 35mm equivalent) and size all come into consideration. The slow-mo feature is identical to what the Mk2 and the RX100IV have. So is the IQ in 4K. I used to shoot with the RX10 Mk1 (1st version, non 4K) awhile back and remember the 1080/25 as well as 1080/50p files out of the camera looking nice and clean if certain picture profile parameters were set right for the scenes. The 1080p for whatever reasons was superior to the 1080ps from the AX100E I have. Since the pocketable RX100IV shoots great 1080ps, both HFRs and regular frame rates, there's no reason this RX10Mk3 couldn't do the same.

Not sure it would sell well in the market since there have usually been 2 distinct groups of video or stills shooters who buy superzoom cameras. The real pros who use DSLRs with mega-buck super telephoto or long-zoom lenses e.g. 300mm f2.8, 400mm f2.8 up to 800mm f5.6 or 100-400mm, 200-500mm etc. and people like me who have the Sony HX400V (25-1200mm optical) and use any of the superzoom compacts in this category mostly just for the fun of getting the image the eyes can barely see.

The RX10Mk3 appears to fit neither of those groups price-wise. The price alone would probably turn off a lot of just-for-fun or even enthusiast shooters. The size and weight are another problem. Though any camera that had the Mk3's lens specs would not be considered too large or too heavy, the weight and size still bother me. 2 lbs 7oz vs 1 lbs 7oz for my smaller sensor and longer range HX400V, for instance. This one-lbs difference could buy me an additional CX760E camcorder I regularly use or an RX100IV in my backpack on my hiking or walking trips in remote locations. YMMV.

[Noa Put]

Allthough the IQ of these camera's can look really good under the right conditions my experience with the mark 1 is that the image falls apart when it gets darker which is why I never use the rx10 in a venue at weddings, here my panasonic GH camera's still outperform my rx10, not sure how much low light performance has been improved in the rx10 successors though.

[Ken Ross]

Originally Posted by Noa Put

Ken, do you know what the f-stop is if it's wide open when the lens reaches 200mm? Just as a comparison with the mark 2 which keeps a constant f2.8 until that point
Also, when you keep the lens wide open at f2.4 and start to zoom, what is the focal length as soon as the f-stop reaches F4.0?
And one last, how much time does it take at the fastest zoom from wide open to tele?

Noa, at 200mm the lens is at f4. However keep in mind that the low light is improved since the RX10 (at least as I recall my old RX10). So I suspect this improved low light has compensated at least to some degree, for the lack of a constant aperture lens. I can tell you the low light is very good. In fact the low light is definitely in the same ballpark as my A6300 with a comparable Sony f3.5-6.3 18-200mm lens attached.

In terms of zoom speed, when you are not recording, the lens goes to a full 600mm in about 2 seconds. While recording, that same travel to 600mm takes 6 seconds.

Hope that helps.

[Ken Ross]

Originally Posted by Wacharapong Chiowanich

I'm sure this camera will live long or die quickly solely because of its lens. If you go only by the specs, none in the market comes close when focal length, effective aperture (actual sensor size translated into % of FF 35mm equivalent) and size all come into consideration. The slow-mo feature is identical to what the Mk2 and the RX100IV have. So is the IQ in 4K. I used to shoot with the RX10 Mk1 (1st version, non 4K) awhile back and remember the 1080/25 as well as 1080/50p files out of the camera looking nice and clean if certain picture profile parameters were set right for the scenes. The 1080p for whatever reasons was superior to the 1080ps from the AX100E I have. Since the pocketable RX100IV shoots great 1080ps, both HFRs and regular frame rates, there's no reason this RX10Mk3 couldn't do the same.

Not sure it would sell well in the market since there have usually been 2 distinct groups of video or stills shooters who buy superzoom cameras. The real pros who use DSLRs with mega-buck super telephoto or long-zoom lenses e.g. 300mm f2.8, 400mm f2.8 up to 800mm f5.6 or 100-400mm, 200-500mm etc. and people like me who have the Sony HX400V (25-1200mm optical) and use any of the superzoom compacts in this category mostly just for the fun of getting the image the eyes can barely see.

The RX10Mk3 appears to fit neither of those groups price-wise. The price alone would probably turn off a lot of just-for-fun or even enthusiast shooters. The size and weight are another problem. Though any camera that had the Mk3's lens specs would not be considered too large or too heavy, the weight and size still bother me. 2 lbs 7oz vs 1 lbs 7oz for my smaller sensor and longer range HX400V, for instance. This one-lbs difference could buy me an additional CX760E camcorder I regularly use or an RX100IV in my backpack on my hiking or walking trips in remote locations. YMMV.

Wacharapong, I think you're leaving out shooters like me, enthusiasts. We're not using this professionally, but we want excellent quality together with a really nice zoom, even if not generally taking advantage of that zoom. As I've said, I've compared 4K image quality to my A6300 and, surprisingly, it's extremely close in image quality. In fact, I have a hard time telling which 4K clip was shot from which camera...even on my 75" Sony UHD TV.

So even when not taking advantage of the really long reach of the lens, I'm enjoying some truly excellent 4K picture quality. Although the camera certainly is not light, I find it's very well balanced and ergonomically pleasurable to use.

[Noa Put]

Thx a lot Ken for this info, my rx10 mark 1 takes about 13 seconds from 200mm to 24mm which is almost useless and has been the cause of frustration and missed shots, even with this shortcoming and with the small jitters in the image when shooting handheld and at 200mm it was one of my main camera's used at weddings last year.

When I look at your zoom shot it also looks there are no small jitters in the image at full tele when shooting handheld, have you noticed these mini vibrations on a big screen? This would indicate they also have improved the stabilization.

[Peter Roy]

When the RX10 mkIII is in video mode does the autofocus behave the same as the autofocus on camcorder. Yes I know it sounds like a stupid question however my last attempt with video was with my old Nikon DSLR which needed the shutter button pressed to change focus. I live in the Canadian Arctic and I am a couple thousand kilometers away from a camera store so laying my hands on cameras before buying is impossible. I have been a photographer for many many years and I am now wanting to attempt video once again.

My eyes are getting older so auto focus is really important in choosing a new camera. I am considering the RX 10 mkII and the Sony AX53 for mostly nature and wildlife photography/video.

Thanks in advance... living in a very remote location I find this forum to be a big help and it is where I get a lot of my camera information.