Sony RX10 mkIII

[Ken Ross]

Originally Posted by Wacharapong Chiowanich

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.

[Ken Ross]

Originally Posted by Dave Blackhurst

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.

[Dave Blackhurst]

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!

[Ken Ross]

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.

[Dave Blackhurst]

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!?

[Ken Ross]

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.

[Ken Ross]

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:

YouTube (Short URL)

[Dylan Couper]

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. :)

[Ken Ross]

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.

[Ken Ross]

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

[Noa Put]

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...

[Ken Ross]

Originally Posted by Noa Put

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)

[Noa Put]

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.

[Ken Ross]

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. :)

[Noa Put]

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 ;)