« Showing Just to Show | Main | Gone Fishin' »

Tuesday, 24 June 2014

Comments

I've long had very negative feelings about Sony and a corporation and have thus refused to by any Sony produ7ct for years. I feel my reluctance slipping...

So is the flash "filmsy" or flimsy! I know some would prefer the former ;)

As a native West Texan I naturally distrust anyone from Austin. From what I can see of this project this provides no exception.

DLK shows us photographs that are very convincing about the quality of that cute Sony. Thank you.

Thinking back to the early days of the EVF ... they were a signal that the world as we knew it was soon to end. The luddites were wrong. Again.

I was at an event a couple of weeks ago when a gentleman next to me whipped out one of the predecessors to the RX100 III. It was, indeed, astonishingly small, small enough that I wondered where I would put my left hand. A Canon G series is probably as small as I would care to go, but perhaps I could adapt.

Nevertheless, kudos to Keenan for an informative and highly readable first impression.

I have an RX100 M2 with the add on viewfinder. I really enjoy using this camera, it's mix of strengths for street based work of any kind is compelling. I'd add the following to Dave's report.

The lens has a snap function, if you set it up in the menu the MK2 will zoom directly from 28mm to 35mm then 50mm, 70mm and then 100mm with a light twist of the lens ring. I assume the MK3 snaps from 24 to 28, 35, 50 and 70mm as the new lens is 24-70mm in field of view replacing the earlier 28-100.

I find the tiny wrist strip very useful, so far I haven't felt the need for the grip. I wrap the wrist strap a few times around my wrist and cup this sub 300gm camera in my palm. I can comfortably walk with it discreetly in my one hand for hours. I tend to shoot with it two handed though I can also shoot with it Dido Moriyama style, one handed, with the wrist strap without worries of it slipping from my grip.

The so called crop factor for a 1" sensor is 2.7 thus a 10mm lens has the field of view of a 27mm lens on a camera with a so called full frame chip. It also means (correct me if I'm wrong) that the depth of field at f8 on a full frame camera is obtained at roughly f3 on a 1" sensor camera and f1.8 on a 1" sensor camera has the depth of field of almost f5.6 in 35mm equivalency.

Street photographers like lots of depth of field in their shots hence the mantra of the street photographer for setting up their camera "f8 and be there". I think 1" sensors change this logic since even wide open they have lots of death of field. It's no longer necessary to use an aperture of f5.6 or f8 to get sufficient depth of field and suffer the potential of shooting at too slow a shutter speed to get a usable image. For me the preference for aperture priority is in question. I'm currently shooting my RX100 in shutter priority mode set to 100th of a second and set ISO to auto when I want relatively sharp shots. Essentially the desired f8 depth of field is always there (with a few exceptions). When I want to shoot are-bure-boke style I set the shutter speed appropriately slower.

I often team the RX100 with my 400gm Sigma dp2 Merrill for what for me is a powerhouse of light weight shooting options My understanding is that both Panasonic and Fuji will shortly be announcing 1" sensor cameras to compete with the RX100 M3. I

Mr Keenan says: "I will leave the image-quality comparisons to those relish comparing technical specs."

This is simply wrong.

Image quality matters to those who relish Seeing Photographs.

I understand that for some, the taking of the photograph is the pleasurable part of photography, and the photographs themselves need not ever be viewed.

I like Seeing Photographs, printed or otherwise. I see image quality. I do not see technical specs.

Like Mike says, no one cares how hard you worked to get the photo (or how usable the camera was). It's the photo that matters.

I thought it should be pointed at that the RX100iii's lens extends out longer than the EX2F's lens because the sensor is much larger.

The Samsung's lens may be f1.4-2.7, but, to reach equivalently shallow depth of field as the RX100iii, the Samsung's lens would have to be much faster at f1.1-1.6, because of the sensor size differences.

In other words, the RX100iii is capable of shallower depth of field across the entire zoom range.

I have the original RX100, which really is an amazing camera for the size. The lack of viewfinder is one of the few issues I have with the camera, though it can be a significant one if shooting outside in sunlight even with Sony's white magic LCD. That said, if I were in the market for another compact or semi-compact camera at this point, I would wait to see what the Panasonic LX8 and Fuji X30 will look like, both of which are expected to have viewfinders. A Fuji X30 with a good EVF would be very appealing to me, even if it is not necessarily that compact.

** Meant to say above that both the Panasonic LX8 and the Fuji X30 are expected to have viewfinders AND 1" sensors.

Hi,
I have a question: Does this little camera also suffer from the "F4 in shutter priority" default?
What I mean is this: In recent cameras, Sony has set the shutter priority to give you an aperture of F4 and raise the ISO... I hate that! I found that true for the NEX 6 and the A7 I looked at.
I hope it's clear what I mean... e.g. I set shutter priority with 1/125 sec. to make sure nothing is blurred. Every camera would normally use the lowest possible ISO and also the lowest possible aperture - not the NEX 6 and the A7! They would try to set an aperture of F4 and would even raise the ISO to get there. Can you please test the Rx100 MkIII and tell us if Sony also implemented that "feature" here?
Thanks,
Mark

Hi David, have you ever used the Ricoh RG? If so, how do you compare it to the Sony.

Thanks for an excellent non-pixelpeepian assesment of the RX100 III !

I agree with Mr. Sullivan that Sony does indeed have its sights set squarely on the Canon/Nikon Nikon/Canon duoopoly, and furthermore is doing it the right way - with design innovation and top-notch products.

Before buying my current camera, I rented 3 Sonys from the good folks at lens rentals, having decided renting for evaluation was cheaper than making a purchase decision based solely on net reviews - I live in a village on the far Northern California coast and the closest hand-on camera stores are a day's drive to the Bay Area.

The cameras were the A7 full framer with the Zeiss 35mm, the RX100 II and the RX10, rented in that order. All are fine cameras capable of top-notch results.

The A7 was underwhelming for me. Yes, the full frame and Zeiss 35mm delivered fine results, but just not the kind of OMG, blown away, gotta have it quality I had hoped foor. In the end, the limited lens selection and cost of a system made me decide against it. Oh, and it does make a clunk when you take a shot - reminded me of an old Besler Topcon from back in the day.

Next was the RX100 II, rented with the clip-on EVF. First impression was "My Goodness, this thing is TINY" Great results - one shot wound up on the front page of the local paper. But despite the fact I love small cameras, it was just too small for me - the ergonomics didn't work. I also worried a bit about the clip-on EVF, although the view through it was excellent. Obviously the RX100 III has addressed this.

The weather gods were uncooperative for the time I had with the RX10, but I perservered. Size-wise, the RX10 is perhaps just a bit on the large side for me, but it makes up for that with excellent (for me) feel in the hand. The lens and sensor pairing is superb, and the range of 24-200 with a fixed f2.8 would cover almost every 'keeper' shot I've taken lifetime. The manual controls are perfect for me. I usually shoot in aperture priority and the aperture ring is just what I want. Oh, and once I figured out where the setting was, the camera can be virtually silent - just a tiny leaf shutter 'snick.'

So, I finally decided on the RX10, and once I started shopping B&H had a great deal - the camera at list price, but including an external charger, extra battery and flash, all Sony branded. I've been very happy with my purchase, which is now getting packed for a trip to Europe - I leave in a couple of days.

I have the RX100 II. I thought the lack of an external charger would be a problem, but I did not buy one with the camera. What I have found is that the camera charges very quickly through the micro-USB port. Since that is most common phone charger port (sorry iPhonies), it is easy to plug the camera along with my phone. Then both are always ready to go.

To answer Jim -- I have owned several of the earlier Ricoh GR cameras, my last one, I think was the IV model. I've not ever seen nor used the new APS-C sensor model. Since the GR has a fixed 28mm lens, I'm not sure its a fair fight between it and the Sony. I was very happy with the Ricohs though. They are very well made and highly pocket-able. If the fixed wide-angle lens is your cup-of-tea, I cannot say anything to dissuade you!

Seems very different impression compared with Ming Thein's. Not sure why.

@ Jim Re: Ricoh GR vs RX100: I have both and have followed along with the Ricoh GRx camera design since its film camera days.

David's answer is the correct short reply; they're not really comparable cameras beyond being small. The GR's APS-C sensor can produce a richer and somewhat more detailed image than the RX's sensor under the right circumstances. It's operational features and options also present a very unique user interface. But its lack of an active viewfinder (except for the use of a passive 3rd party model), a non-articulating lcd, and a prime 28mm lens make the Ricoh a more limited camera than the RX.

I greatly enjoy my GR and am often taken aback by the quality of image it can record. But the RX is my go-to carry camera when I don't know what I might encounter.

The comments to this entry are closed.