Sony RX10 mkIII

[Ken Ross]

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.

[Dylan Couper]

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. ;)

[John McCully]

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!

[Dave Blackhurst]

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"....

[Wacharapong Chiowanich]

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.

[Dave Blackhurst]

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....

[Ken Ross]

Originally Posted by Wacharapong Chiowanich

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.

[Wacharapong Chiowanich]

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.

[Noa Put]

Originally Posted by Dave Blackhurst

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.

[Ken Ross]

Originally Posted by Noa Put

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.

[Ken Ross]

Here's a great test for a camera's AF, jets traveling at 500+mph at an airshow. I was actually surprised at how well the RX10iii did in this outing. The reach of the lens was also great to bring the action close. With wall to wall people, forget using tripods, this was all hand-held, but it's such fun using this camera, I didn't mind at all.

YouTube (Short URL)

[Galen Rath]

Good stuff, Ken. The SteadXP should be coming out this summer, hopefully will improve shooting with this camera.

[Ken Ross]

Thanks Galen.

[Simon Denny]

Great stuff Ken. For me there seems something so right about the RX10 series camera. I have the M1 and A7s however, I still love the look and feel of that 1 inch sensor from the RX10, just feels right.

[Ken Ross]

Thanks Simon. I agree, Sony seems to have hit a HR with this camera. I have my A6300, but I really prefer using the RX10M3, there's just something about its 'fun factor'.