Sony RX10 mkIII

[Noa Put]

If you say that zooming in with a rx10III is a mistake in low light then I would agree, only you where not so clear about that as to me it looked like a general statement which I did not agree with.

The a6300 is a totally different camera then the rx10 series, both camera's are so different that it is hard to compare them but if we are talking low light only, why limit the a6300 to a slow lens? Put a speedbooster and a constant f2.8 zoom lens on it and shoot at 12800 iso or even try 25600 iso and compare it with the rx10, I"m sure the difference would be quite visible. These high iso are very real world to me, if my gh4 would shoot as clean as the a6300 I"d shoot at these high iso's a lot.

[Ken Ross]

I'd largely agree with this. Not only would I not zoom with the RX10iii in low light, I wouldn't do it with most lenses since most are not constant aperture. So this practice is hardly restricted to the RX10iii, as I'm sure you're aware.

I tested my A6300 with a comparable lens (though the RX10iii has much more reach than my 18-200) because I felt it was the closest apples to apples comparison I had. I didn't zoom with either camera. Of course you can put a faster, non-zoom lens on the 6300, but that would no longer be an apples to apples.

[Steve Burkett]

Originally Posted by Ken Ross

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.

Trouble is zooming isn't always optional if you're stuck at the back of the church or conference room in a low light situation. In such cases, zooming isn't a mistake and more a case of suffering the loss of IQ for the sake of getting a better shot.
Its true most cameras with fixed lenses tend to be variable aperture. It's where DSLR's have proven advantageous, though lenses for these cameras will sacrifice long zoom reach for their constant aperture as the RX10 ii did.
There's value in both a long zoom range and variable aperture and short zoom range with constant aperture; though with a DSLR, I can slap on either onto my camera, whereas a fixed lens you're stuck with what you're given.

Originally Posted by Ken Ross

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.

Poor A6300, you cripple it with your choice of lens; though I can appreciate the comparison with a longer reaching lens matching the RX10 iii reach. Still I'm not sold a 1" sensor can match a APS-C sensor, but not owning either, I shall not question without evidence of my own. Just raise an eyebrow. :)

Originally Posted by Ken Ross

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.

I'd be tempted if the price comes down to grab one, but can't see it fitting into my professional work at all. Personal work, it would come in very handy, but its an expensive indulgence. Shame I heard they got rid of the ND filter, which was a big advantage and helped it stand out from the DSLRs. Plus the recording limit has no place on a camera with such an emphasis on video. I know there are work arounds but its a shame nonetheless.

[Noa Put]

I wouldn't do it with most lenses since most are not constant aperture. So this practice is hardly restricted to the RX10iii, as I'm sure you're aware.

Most might not be constant aperture but then use lenses that are, it's not like they don't exist, why limit the camera if there are constant f2.8 zoom lenses available for it? I just don't see the reason why you put a slow lens on it, shoot at lower iso and then say it's not much better then the rx10?

[Ken Ross]

[quote=Steve Burkett;1915830]Trouble is zooming isn't always optional if you're stuck at the back of the church or conference room in a low light situation. In such cases, zooming isn't a mistake and more a case of suffering the loss of IQ for the sake of getting a better shot.[/quote}
True, but I was speaking of the many times that people zoom in low light situations where they don't have to. They then wonder why their IQ is sub-par. When it's unavoidable, there's not much you can do, but to get the shot.

Originally Posted by Steve Burkett

Its true most cameras with fixed lenses tend to be variable aperture. It's where DSLR's have proven advantageous, though lenses for these cameras will sacrifice long zoom reach for their constant aperture as the RX10 ii did.

Although the RX10iii doesn't have a constant aperture, there are precious few affordable lenses of this range that are as fast as F4@600mm or of the same quality at that length.

Originally Posted by Steve Burkett

There's value in both a long zoom range and variable aperture and short zoom range with constant aperture; though with a DSLR, I can slap on either onto my camera, whereas a fixed lens you're stuck with what you're given.

Absolutely true. But for those of us that are tired of carrying multiple lenses that can even match the focal length range and quality of the RX10iii's lens, are tired of running the risk of sensor dust while lens changing (been there done that), want to reduce both the weight and cost of our gear and simply want an all-in-one solution that produces very high quality 4K output, the RX10iii is, IMO, a God send.

Originally Posted by Steve Burkett

Poor A6300, you cripple it with your choice of lens; though I can appreciate the comparison with a longer reaching lens matching the RX10 iii reach. Still I'm not sold a 1" sensor can match a APS-C sensor, but not owning either, I shall not question without evidence of my own. Just raise an eyebrow. :)

I had multiple FF lenses for the A6300 and A7Rii before that and sold them all. I retained the 18-200 as my all in one lens (see my above comment about lens changing) and never really regretted it. As far as 1" image quality is concerned, I am extremely anal about my 4K video quality. Initially I had done many A/Bs with the A6300 and RX10iii in multiple lighting conditions. Most of the time it was exceedingly difficult to tell which was which. In fact many times I myself was confused about which clip I was looking at and which camera it came from. Once that happened, with more than occasional regularity, I knew the quality of the RX10iii was there.

Originally Posted by Steve Burkett

I'd be tempted if the price comes down to grab one, but can't see it fitting into my professional work at all. Personal work, it would come in very handy, but its an expensive indulgence. Shame I heard they got rid of the ND filter, which was a big advantage and helped it stand out from the DSLRs. Plus the recording limit has no place on a camera with such an emphasis on video. I know there are work arounds but its a shame nonetheless.

Carrying a 72mm ND filter is no biggie for me...sure beats the hell (and weight) out of carrying multiple lenses. Yes, I would have preferred the built-in convenience that existed with versions 1 & 2, but I guess the new lens created some issues for the inclusion of a ND filter. I'm not complaining because I recognize the superlative quality of this lens and carrying the ND filter is a minor inconvenience.

As for the time limit, that again is not an issue for me, but I could see it could be for some. We each pick the gear that's right for us. :)

[Ken Ross]

Originally Posted by Noa Put

Most might not be constant aperture but then use lenses that are, it's not like they don't exist, why limit the camera if there are constant f2.8 zoom lenses available for it? I just don't see the reason why you put a slow lens on it, shoot at lower iso and then say it's not much better then the rx10?

Because I wanted an apples to apples comparison to see how a 1" sensor compared to an APSC sensor in this regard. Slapping a 1.8 lens on the 6300 would surely not have given me that answer.

As for constant aperture lenses, sure they're around, but they're often very heavy and very expensive and they surely don't offer the focal range of the RX10iii...not even close.

As to why I used the 18-200 lens, see my post above. I love an all-around lens that reduces the necessity of frequent lens changing. I've always found it a bit stressing when lens changing. I've had multiple clips ruined by sensor dust that often cannot be seen in the field. The less lens changing, the less that risk.

Each to his own Noa.

[Steve Burkett]

Originally Posted by Ken Ross

Although the RX10iii doesn't have a constant aperture, there are precious few affordable lenses of this range that are as fast as F4@600mm or of the same quality at that length.

True, but how often do you need 600mm. I have a 100-300mm (equivalent 200-600 in FF) gathering dust as I never need longer than my 35-100 (70-200 in FF) at a Wedding. At Receptions, I sometimes use my 75mm (150mm in FF) f1.8 lens to get some shots of the guests with shallow depth of field, but I have to be some way back to make that work or else I get shots of peoples noses. Inside you are even more restricted. Sure having the ability to go from wide to close up say during the speeches would be nice, but as they are often in dimly lit venues, I'd think the RX10 ii would work better if I did go down that route. I'd sacrifice longer zoom for constant aperture any day. Its far more useful than being able to zoom up close whilst standing a mile from your subject. :)

Originally Posted by Ken Ross

Absolutely true. But for those of us that are tired of carrying multiple lenses that can even match the focal length range and quality of the RX10iii's lens, are tired of running the risk of sensor dust while lens changing (been there done that), want to reduce both the weight and cost of our gear and simply want an all-in-one solution that produces very high quality 4K output, the RX10iii is, IMO, a God send.

I suppose thats why I prefer the micro 4/3s; they're lighter and smaller and whilst yes you're juggling multiple lenses, the quality speaks for itself. I appreciate some Videographers do prefer an easier life when filming plus are paranoid about dust on sensors and cleaning them. However I just clean my sensors before each job. Dust only shows up at high apertures; running at f8 and below which I usually do with a variable ND, its less an issue should any stray particles get inside during the day and indoors, doesn't show up at all.
Its nice that my investment in lenses is there even when I upgrade my camera. Lenses purchased years ago are still being used when the cameras they were originally brought for are now sold on. I prefer to run the same camera as the footage matches better in post, so having 3 GH4s, 2 of them being recent purchases of a GH4r with no clip limit has been a God send to me.

Originally Posted by Ken Ross

Carrying a 72mm ND filter is no biggie for me

Me neither, but it was a plus to the RX10 until the latest model. Why I'd go for the mark ii if I did go for a RX10. ND filter and constant aperture vs 600mm, hmmm, let me think now. Which is more useful at a Wedding.

Originally Posted by Ken Ross

As for the time limit, that again is not an issue for me, but I could see it could be for some. We each pick the gear that's right for us. :)

True, true. Different needs. Different approaches. I hate the time limit and won't buy another camera with one, except for personal use. Its fine for manned cameras to a point, but unmanned cameras...

[Simon Denny]

Thanks guys, I think the RX10M3 is a clear winner based on a complete package. I have exhausted all avenues with grabbing an extra long lens for my A7s from B4 mounts and B4 Lenses, 1/3 inch lenses and fixed 400mm Sony Lenses, they are all out of control cost wise.

I'll either grab a M3 or pass the gigs on.

Cheers

[Noa Put]

Originally Posted by Steve Burkett

ND filter and constant aperture vs 600mm, hmmm, let me think now. Which is more useful at a Wedding.

If I had to choose between the mark 2 or 3 for weddings I"d take the mark 2 without much thought, I have found the reach of the mark 1 more then enough to cover all my needs, another important feature is it's constant f2.8 which makes a visual difference in shallow dof when zoomed in compared to f4.0 and the build in ND makes life much easier when you are working under time pressure moving from in- to outside.

[Wacharapong Chiowanich]

The key about this RX10III is Sony wanted something to fill this very small market niche of high performance superzoom camera. Something other manufacturers didn't and still don't have. If you look at the superzoom sections currently in the market you can see everything from a number of cheap 720p or HD only cameras upwards to the 4K Panasonic FZ300/330 which has almost the exact zoom range in 35mm equ. as the RX10III does or the Nikon P900 which is capable of only "poor" HD but completely trumps the RX10III in the max zoom range. What they differ is the Panasonic and the Nikon are focused solely on the consumer/middle section of the superzoom market and the Panasonic uses a constant aperture all the way to the max 600mm end to lessen the obvious shortcomings of the smaller 1/2.3" sensor. I guess Sony saw the opening a little further upwards and they decided to plug that with the RX10III.

I think it's wrong to compare it with a camera like the A6300 though on the surface you can make them close in terms of pricing (body+lens combo) and image quality. One is obviously intended for convenience not sheer image quality while the other is for flexibility but less convenience.

Steve probably says it best that the problem with the RX10III is it's an expensive indulgence. The price, the additional weight compared to other superzooms and the lack of an ND filter is too much to ask for in the niche section of the market it sells to. All the professionals I know on the other hand use some other solutions when it comes to getting 4K footage at the higher magnification zoom range.

[Ken Ross]

Originally Posted by Steve Burkett

True, but how often do you need 600mm. I have a 100-300mm (equivalent 200-600 in FF) gathering dust as I never need longer than my 35-100 (70-200 in FF) at a Wedding. At Receptions, I sometimes use my 75mm (150mm in FF) f1.8 lens to get some shots of the guests with shallow depth of field, but I have to be some way back to make that work or else I get shots of peoples noses. Inside you are even more restricted. Sure having the ability to go from wide to close up say during the speeches would be nice, but as they are often in dimly lit venues, I'd think the RX10 ii would work better if I did go down that route. I'd sacrifice longer zoom for constant aperture any day. Its far more useful than being able to zoom up close whilst standing a mile from your subject. :)

Actually, as someone who enjoys zoos, wildlife, air shows, shooting candids at distances that are unobtrusive to those I'm shooting, etc., you'd be surprised at how often I've been at or near the 600mm length. As you say, the convenience of this range is wonderful. The loss of 1 F-stop at longer focal lengths is worth it to me, especially since I'm almost always at those longer focal lengths in brighter light.

Originally Posted by Steve Burkett

I suppose thats why I prefer the micro 4/3s; they're lighter and smaller and whilst yes you're juggling multiple lenses, the quality speaks for itself. I appreciate some Videographers do prefer an easier life when filming plus are paranoid about dust on sensors and cleaning them. However I just clean my sensors before each job. Dust only shows up at high apertures; running at f8 and below which I usually do with a variable ND, its less an issue should any stray particles get inside during the day and indoors, doesn't show up at all.
Its nice that my investment in lenses is there even when I upgrade my camera. Lenses purchased years ago are still being used when the cameras they were originally brought for are now sold on. I prefer to run the same camera as the footage matches better in post, so having 3 GH4s, 2 of them being recent purchases of a GH4r with no clip limit has been a God send to me.

The accurate statement here is that the micro 4/3s 'can' be lighter, but of course that depends on the lens that's attached. If you're trying to approach the 600mm range of the RX10iii, there's a good chance your camera and lens will now be heavier. The same can be true if you're using a more modest zoom with constant aperture. It just depends on the glass you're using as to whether the weight will be more or less than the RX10iii. In many cases the differences will not be enough to get excited about. As for dust only showing up at higher apertures, true, but sometimes that's the case and dust will show up.

Originally Posted by Steve Burkett

Me neither, but it was a plus to the RX10 until the latest model. Why I'd go for the mark ii if I did go for a RX10. ND filter and constant aperture vs 600mm, hmmm, let me think now. Which is more useful at a Wedding.

There are several advantages to the RX10iii over the RX10ii. One is the elimination of lens wobble. If, for whatever reason you're shooting through that point where lens wobble shows up, you've potentially ruined that clip. Of course you can edit out that piece, but it limits your options. That issue is solved on the RX10iii.

A second reason is the improved OIS. For me that's a key feature bordering on a necessity for hand holding and doing so at longer focal lengths. Then there is the quality of the new lens, which I can't say enough about, along with its greater reach.

For me this is a very small price to pay for losing the constant aperture. It's what works for me. If all I was using it for was weddings, perhaps my mindset would be different. YMMV.

[Steve Burkett]

Originally Posted by Ken Ross

Actually, as someone who enjoys zoos, wildlife, air shows, shooting candids at distances that are unobtrusive to those I'm shooting, etc., you'd be surprised at how often I've been at or near the 600mm length.

I think I mentioned a few posts back that I was tempted by this camera for personal work but its an expensive luxury for what would be non paid video work. To pay that amount I have to have professional work from it and here the RX10 stumbles for me as it doesn't have a place in it. If there was no clip limit, I could justify the cost on the sake of being a wide angle B Camera, though colour matching would be difficult. Just spent ages balancing some A7sii footage to match my GH4 and its a thankless task.

Originally Posted by Ken Ross

If you're trying to approach the 600mm range of the RX10iii, there's a good chance your camera and lens will now be heavier.

But I'm not approaching the 600mm range in my Professional work. True some lenses are heavy and would be more so than the RX10, but they are lighter and mostly smaller than fullframe and APS-C lenses, so its a good compromise between both systems for me.

Originally Posted by Ken Ross

For me this is a very small price to pay for losing the constant aperture. It's what works for me. If all I was using it for was weddings, perhaps my mindset would be different. YMMV.

Well I'm doing a lot of Corporate work also but if anything the RX10 has less need for me there than at Weddings, where at least a few outdoor shots could benefit from such an all rounder.

I see your points over the improvements made to the RX10, and if 600mm is your thing then I guess the changes are worth the losses. Its a great camera, and I have often recommended the RX10, both models 1 and 2, to those looking to buy a video camera for that very reason. If I was rich, I'd buy one for personal use for zoos, shows and general walk about, but I'm not, so I can't.

[Ken Ross]

Originally Posted by Wacharapong Chiowanich

The key about this RX10III is Sony wanted something to fill this very small market niche of high performance superzoom camera. Something other manufacturers didn't and still don't have. If you look at the superzoom sections currently in the market you can see everything from a number of cheap 720p or HD only cameras upwards to the 4K Panasonic FZ300/330 which has almost the exact zoom range in 35mm equ. as the RX10III does or the Nikon P900 which is capable of only "poor" HD but completely trumps the RX10III in the max zoom range. What they differ is the Panasonic and the Nikon are focused solely on the consumer/middle section of the superzoom market and the Panasonic uses a constant aperture all the way to the max 600mm end to lessen the obvious shortcomings of the smaller 1/2.3" sensor. I guess Sony saw the opening a little further upwards and they decided to plug that with the RX10III.

I'd largely agree with this, bu I'dt add the quality of output of the RX10iii trumps the Panasonic offerings in the superzoom class. Again, the lens quality on the RX10iii is literally something we've never seen before when you factor in IQ and range. You have to use it to believe it. Every day I read of DSLR enthusiasts, regardless of the brand they use, who are amazed at the quality of the RX10iii. Many of them find their DSLRs are now gathering dust.

Originally Posted by Wacharapong Chiowanich

I think it's wrong to compare it with a camera like the A6300 though on the surface you can make them close in terms of pricing (body+lens combo) and image quality. One is obviously intended for convenience not sheer image quality while the other is for flexibility but less convenience.

Well yes, but as many are finding, it turns out you get both the convenience and IQ with the RX10iii. As I said, I own both cameras, so I know both very well. Frankly, my experience has been very similar to many others, I just didn't expect to like it as much as I did. The A6300 is a great camera and I did not expect the RX to measure up to it as well as it did.

Originally Posted by Wacharapong Chiowanich

Steve probably says it best that the problem with the RX10III is it's an expensive indulgence. The price, the additional weight compared to other superzooms and the lack of an ND filter is too much to ask for in the niche section of the market it sells to. All the professionals I know on the other hand use some other solutions when it comes to getting 4K footage at the higher magnification zoom range.

If used as your main camera, it may not be an expensive indulgence. Sure, it's not cheap, but In fact I can make a strong case for it being a cheaper alternative! It all depends on how you're going to use the camera. Many are selling lenses and bodies after receiving and using the RX10iii and seeing its versatility and IQ. Carrying a ND filter around is truly not a big deal. For most purposes screwing on a ND filter doesn't have to be done in 3 seconds. Less convenient? Sure. A deal breaker? Not even close.

As I've said before, there's a world of uses for cameras, and we all don't shoot weddings. :)

[Steve Burkett]

Originally Posted by Ken Ross

If used as your main camera, it may not be an expensive indulgence. Sure, it's not cheap, but In fact I can make a strong case for it being a cheaper alternative! It all depends on how you're going to use the camera. Many are selling lenses and bodies after receiving and using the RX10iii and seeing its versatility and IQ. Carrying a ND filter around is truly not a big deal. For most purposes screwing on a ND filter doesn't have to be done in 3 seconds. Less convenient? Sure. A deal breaker? Not even close.

As I've said before, there's a world of uses for cameras, and we all don't shoot weddings. :)

Whilst some may wish to downsize their gear for less hassle, in a competing professional market, I'd be causing myself a lot of hassle if I chose to sell my lenses and GH4's and settle for a RX10. If Videography was my hobby and I was looking for a camera to shoot personal rather than professional video, then the RX10 would be top of my list. For my Professional shoots, it could at most be a B camera. Even my micro 4/3's sensor suffers in comparison to APS-C and fullframe cameras, a 1" sensor would even more so.

I'm not knocking the RX10, I think its a great camera, but its not a game changer by any means.

[Ken Ross]

Originally Posted by Steve Burkett

Whilst some may wish to downsize their gear for less hassle, in a competing professional market, I'd be causing myself a lot of hassle if I chose to sell my lenses and GH4's and settle for a RX10. If Videography was my hobby and I was looking for a camera to shoot personal rather than professional video, then the RX10 would be top of my list. For my Professional shoots, it could at most be a B camera. Even my micro 4/3's sensor suffers in comparison to APS-C and fullframe cameras, a 1" sensor would even more so.

I'm not knocking the RX10, I think its a great camera, but its not a game changer by any means.

For the most part I can't disagree with your points Steve, but I think for the enthusiast market, it is, for some, a game changer. I think the original RX10 was a game changer in this same market. I used the original RX quite a bit and thought it had some of the best video quality at that time. I feel the same is true today in the world of 4K.

It's interesting though, I was wondering if I'd use the RX10iii if I were still shooting Corporate videos. I've always been sold on the concept of delivering an HD product (if that's what the client wanted) whose origin was 4K. Downscaling 4K to HD beats almost any HD-only camera I've ever seen for IQ. Sure it takes up more space, but storage is so cheap today it hardly matters.

I think I might, since lighting was rarely an issue. In the kind of Corporate videos I did, a long reach was sometimes an advantage.