Haters gon hate :)
Watch out people, Sony is going to eat your children.
Cant afford it? Sorry its not charity.
Clayton1985: I get that some people take exception to the headline but I find it far more interesting how many people seem to desperately need that headline to be wrong. Apparently far more people have a vested interest in needing to feel better about their FZ1000 than actually wanting to know more about the RX10III. If you were reading this article to learn more about the RX10III you would be far less worried about the headline.
If youre going to make a claim about af abilities, you better have proof
Haim Hadar: This week will be remembered as the "D-word" tantrum week... IMO it's great that DPreview staff is sharing the enthusiasm over an impressive piece of equipment.
Wish sony could have pulled out a little extra magic and shave off a few hundred grams of this camera as 1.1kg seems too heavy for long hikes - It weighs the same as my tent.
Who the hell would use a camera as shelter...
abi170845: I'd rather get a new 100-400mk1 L for the same price.
Cool, wheres your 15-80mm and body?
Does your tent take photos also? :D
Boss of Sony: This is the greatest camera ever made.
How much would you pay for the greatest camera ever made?
How big would it be?
How heavy would you like it?
If youre the very best in a category, shouldnt you demand top dollar?
Sergey Borachev: I don't own any Panasonic or Canon camera. I do have a Sony one. I found the title very biased, irresponsible, and also suggesting some immature school kid type of language.
Average lenses, wheres the proof? Needs proof.
Clyde Thomas: Make me four Full Frame 42mp versions... with full LCD articulation.
15-50mm f4.30mm f1.4.40-110mm f2.100-300mm f4 and front mount 1.5x, 2x, 3x tele converters for the tele cams.
Charge $2500 each and I'll trade all and buy all.
You live in your own world, we will live in the real world. Good luck finding even a body for 2500
rrccad: Nice review of the optical qualities.
however this is missing some points here for both the panasonic and the canon that should be highlighted and it's a disservice to both that they are not.
both are significantly lighter than the RX10 III (200-300g), they cost significantly less and they are much smaller to boot.
that obviously plays into the optical qualities illustrated here.
"The Canon PowerShot G3 X's trump card has been trumped." sounds like something that you'd expect from SAR.
I look at the G3X as a compromise between portability and focal length - the RX10 III certainly is not in the same category as the G3X as far as portability, or even the FZ1000 as well.
Doesnt remove the fact that g3x has no viewfinder, 4k, or even competent video. Also the fz1000 feels like crap because of how cheap the materials are on the camera. It also only has ONE control dial. At least the g3x has 2 control dials, i will give it that, but the image quality even vs the fz1000 is questionable with all the ca at the longer end. All of them still require a bag to be carried in.
Battersea: While the Sony seems like a great camera, destroying cameras that are 2/3 the size and less than 2/3 the price seems an obvious thing. Like saying that a 24-105 L lens destroys a nifty 50 lens.
Lighter yes, cheaper yes
Smaller?? Not by much, all of them require a bag.
Youre also missing that the rx10 has better video and build quality, magnesium weathersealed body vs plastic non weather sealed.
This camera is made for someone who wants an all in one for everything. Including travel.
MarioV: Very nice performance by the RX10 III. But when cameras are meant to get smaller, not bigger, I'm not sure I would use the RX10 more than my G3 X.
still need a bag for g3x
Michael Ma: I don't know what influences me, but all I really want these days is a Boosted Board, a Canon 70D, and some dollar pizza.
You've been watching too much Casey.
JosephScha: The new GF8 is still about $500, should have been included. And the G7 when on sale sells for $599, I wonder how close to $500 qualified.
Release price for the gf8 is $699
maboleth: If it doesn't come with the selfie stick, I won't buy it.
Do it all the time, i believe theyre called monopods
Why don't you mention Pentax K-S2 ($ 531,50) in this 'Roundup'??
Msrp of ks2 is $699 for body.
PKDanny: Go to Samsung sensor or Philips sensor or other sensor!!???!!
Imagine how many sensors a self deiving car will have... 7? 8? A dozen?
Jim Evidon: DPReview like all sites has it prejudices. Consumer Reports is a good example. Some brands will never make it in it's estimation.For DP Review, it is apparent that Sony rules and some other brands appear to be consistently less favored. It's possible that the connection with Amazon and it's sales objectives play a part, but without evidence, I won't go near that one.
The reader must take all reviews with a grain of salt and take whatever objective information is available while attempting to filter out conclusions that seem slanted. In the end, it is our decision and our money.
I dont see sony ads on dpr, only panasonic.
Maybe, just maybe the other companies dont make as good of a camera?
davev8: i think it a little unfair to mark the m10 down for lack of lenses...yes not many but thay are all very good ..the 11-22 and the 22mm f2 are stunners ...sony has more lenses but they are pants in comparison....when i use sony the only sharp lense that WAS (note a disclaimer in case thy have released something i dont know about ) available was the sigma 30mm f2.8......i could get the zeiss 24 f1.8 for £800 GBP......but i went for the slightly better EF-m 22mm F2 for 7 times less cashi wuld mark it up because of the lenses
Having 5 lenses in 4 camera bodies... if thats not a lack of lenses.. you must be living in your own world