Sony RX10 mkIII

[Dave Blackhurst]

Some very impressive airshow footage, pausing individual frames on my 42" 4K they look excellent, sharpness is spot on, everything looked smooth and stable!

I love my M2, but the M3 will be the next camera for me... I was hoping the AX53 would eliminate my GAS, but it wasn't quite "there", the samples from the M3 and that insane lens look like it will do the trick!

Time to put some things on ebay that I won't need if I score one of these babies!

[Ken Ross]

Thanks Dave. Yes, I've been going that EBay route too. My A7Rii and 3 FF lenses were no longer needed and paid for the RX10iii with money left over.

[Cliff Totten]

Originally Posted by 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.


https://youtu.be/VSXGZg6Zbss

It's sad. You got close footage of Marine Capt Jeff Kuss's Hornet resting near the flight line at the end of your video. His name is painted under the cockpit canopy.

Unfortunately, it is now reported that he was the pilot that lost his life yesterday in a crash. I do not know this, but you might have his last show on video?

Unbelievable. :-(

[Ken Ross]

You're right Cliff. After hearing of this tragic accident, I lookied at my video and that was indeed Jeff's Hornet at the Farmingdale Airport. We visited the airport on the way home since we knew that's the small airport they always use in between show days.

I also have a shot in that video of 3 people standing by a van (pilots?) and I'm not sure who the middle person is. They're not in their flight clothes, but this was shot over 2 hours after the show ended. I have another shot (not in the video) of mechanics working on another Hornet, and they're dressed in gray mechanic's clothing. So I'm wondering if those 3 are pilots.

It's a very sad story and it's a pity that Jeff was unable to eject before the impact as did the Thunderbird pilot earlier in the day.

[Ken Ross]

Frame grab from my video of Jeff's last full show. His Hornet is the top one.

Edit: For some reason the file, only about 2megs, fails in the upload process each time I try.

[Simon Denny]

I have a some gigs coming up with dance schools and since Ive sold all my large 2/3 inch broadcast cameras and long lenses i'm now without a camera that has the reach from the back of the room to the stage.

I have Sony RX10M1 and a Sony A7s,18-200mm which might just make a mid CU on stage from around 30 meters plus and was thinking how would the Sony RX10 mkIII be for a a CU up from longer distances, Has this thing still got the lens wobble and how is the stability of the lens when zoom out on a tripod.

Or should I invest in a longer lens for the A7s

Cheers

[Ken Ross]

The lens wobble has been totally solved. There is no wobble anywhere in the entire range of 24-600mm. The stability of the lens, fully zoomed, is excellent. The degree of stability of your setup is only limited by the stability of your tripod.

[Simon Denny]

Ok, excellent Ken. What about ISO/noise under low lighting, my RX10M1 is crap from about 3200 onwards from memory, I use my A7s for low light stuff.

Thanks

[Noa Put]

Expect it to be worse when you have to zoom in even if they say low light has improved a little, the reason for that is that you have to shoot at f4.0

[Simon Denny]

MMMM ok, so have they increased the ISO performance from the M1?
Maybe I'm better of with a, A6000 and a long Sony lens, price would be about the same here in Australia.

[Noa Put]

Eventhough I haven't found any online comparison between the mark 1 and mark III when it comes to low light performance I have seen people saying it has improved a little but like I said that even if there would be a slight advantage you will loose that once you zoom in and have to shoot at f4.0 vs f2.8. If your experience is that low light performance was "crap" on the mark 1 I highly doubt if the mark 3 would be any better considering it's slower lens, unless anyone would prove me wrong. I"m also sure from what I have seen that a a6000 will be miles ahead when it comes to clean high iso performance, I only would question it's reliability on long continuous recording.

[Simon Denny]

Yes the A6000 is a disaster for long shooting. I'm really enjoying smaller cameras these days and don't miss lugging around shoulder mount cameras and gear and the RX10 series cameras are a great all in one solution and fun to shoot with.

I'm wondering if someone here has shot a dance recital with the RX10M3?

Cheers,

[Ken Ross]

Originally Posted by Simon Denny

Ok, excellent Ken. What about ISO/noise under low lighting, my RX10M1 is crap from about 3200 onwards from memory, I use my A7s for low light stuff.

Thanks

One of the mistakes that many people make when shooting in low light, is to zoom. I avoid zooming in very low light with any camera I've ever had. Most lenses are not constant aperture and you need to be mindful of that and the resultant change in speed.

So shooting with the RX10iii, with Auto ISO, I've encountered no issues with shooting in typical low light conditions. You can set the max ISO the camera is allowed to go, further reducing noise in your video. The other thing I've found is that whatever noise there is, is fine grain, not the coarse grain you see in some cameras. The other thing I try to do, which many people don't seem to bother with, is I try to match the overall brightness of the video to what I'm actually seeing with my eyes. Most cameras try to 'gain up' far beyond the brightness of the actual scene. All that does is increase noise unnecessarily. Matching the brightness of the video to what you're actually seeing, will control noise much better than allowing the camera to do what it wants and, IMO, make for a much truer video.

I've compared the low light shooting of my RX10iii to my A6300 equipped with a comparable lens (Sony 18-200) and I only gave the A6300 a slight advantage.

I can tell you since I've gotten the RX10iii, my A6300 is gathering dust. You'll see similar responses from many many people who have both DSLRs and now the RX10iii.

[Noa Put]

One of the mistakes that many people make when shooting in low light, is to zoom

It's not a mistake when you have a constant aperture lens like the rx10 mark II has, it won't have any effect on low light if you zoom in, it will on the mark 3 which makes it a camera with limitations if you want to be shooting at the long end like Simon is planning to do, depending on the available light.

I have seen usable 12800 iso on the a6300 and it outperforms the 5d mark 3 at 25800iso (see here (vimeo.com/167649401) which with a little noise reduction in post would be usable as well and you are saying the a6300 only has a slight advantage over the rx10 mark 3? I find that hard to believe.

[Ken Ross]

Originally Posted by Noa Put

It's not a mistake when you have a constant aperture lens like the rx10 mark II has, it won't have any effect on low light if you zoom in, it will on the mark 3 which makes it a camera with limitations if you want to be shooting at the long end like Simon is planning to do, depending on the available light.

That's why I followed that thought with the sentence that 'most' lenses are not constant aperture. I thought it was clear I was talking about non-constant aperture lense.

Originally Posted by Noa Put

I have seen usable 12800 iso on the a6300 and it outperforms the 5d mark 3 at 25800iso (see here (vimeo.com/167649401) which with a little noise reduction in post would be usable as well and you are saying the a6300 only has a slight advantage over the rx10 mark 3? I find that hard to believe.

My tests, with both of my cameras, showed a closer result. I was not forcing ISO. I think my test was more real world. Having both cameras, I have no axe to grind.