If it's waterproof, Android-based, has a large sensor and fast lens, and full manual controls, I'll buy it, effectively no matter the price. If Sony marks at $2k, I'll drop it in a second.
Beat Traveller: Meh. I've tried to use MIT's MOOC stuff before, from the neuroscience courses, and I found it to be massively over-hyped. It's basically just the slides, lecture notes and references from each course: material that costs them nothing extra to produce because they put it up for the students anyway.
Without more detailed explanations it's useless as a learning tool. You might as well borrow a textbook from a public library.
You're confusing MIT MOOC stuff with MIT OCW. The MOOC stuff is pretty good. Of course, the photography stuff is not the MOOC stuff (yet).
Ramjager: So where is the test of the AF performance like tracking etc.There is more to a lens test than lines per millimetre.Take a browse around the forums to see the more important part of the review DXO completely omit.Its not pretty.When oh when will DXO start testing properly and include AF performance which is far more important than an extra 5lines per mm of sharpness.Try tracking a bird with this lens..good luck.
DxO is not a camera review site. They make software for correcting issues with lenses and camera sensors. They collect data to help allow that. They generously share some of the data with the public.
If you'd like to see a culprit, it's dpreview.
m_o_b_y: What is the reason to discuss about completly exaggerated and useless ISO ?To stupefy the poor client ?:-)
Because it depends on the application. Not everyone is a studio photographer.
aerorail: shoot some hard scenes like snow capped mountains on a clear blue sky day with dark foreground rock/trees
I'm wondering how it would do for photojournalism. Would you mind some shots in the Niger Delta region?
I'd like to see how video compares with limited light. Full frame readout should help there substantially.
Tord S Eriksson: Encouraging others to steal copyrighted pictures is still a criminal offence, I bet, not only in the US.
And why would this seem to be applauded by Facebook is not that surprising, as that company tell you explicitly that Facebook have the right to freely access your uploaded photos, to do what they want with them! And they always strip the EXIF from your photos for that reason only, I bet!
If anyone here believed the water-stamp on your pictures was fraud-proof, then you have a very naive conception of the world around you!
I do not believe you. To the best of my knowledge, contributory liability is a common law concept which requires a much more substantial enabler (for example, the original Napster passed the test, but even then, barely). Please cite the law.
Alphoid: This may seem like a highly unusual request, but please do compare digital zoom in the review. The RX100 is a bit short on the telephoto end. It has a 1" sensor, high megapixels, and a fast lens. A 2x digital zoom would still place it at, hypothetically, identical performance to a 5 megapixel image 1/2.3" camera with f/2.8 lens at 140mm equivalent, or a 1/1.7" 7MP sensor camera with an f/2.8 120mm-equivalent lens.
That's plenty for portraits in most settings if it works well.
"If it works well" is the key question. How does the autofocus system hold up? Do issues with lens sharpness kick in? Is it usable in that mode? Etc.
@PicOne Digital zoom isn't the same as a crop. In terms of RAW image to JPEG, it is, but before then, the camera has an autofocus system, an EVF, etc. Digital zoom is supposed to behave the same as normal zoom -- without, for example, reduced resolution or refresh in the EVF. If you're in automatic mode, it shouldn't pick a focus target outside of the zoomed-in area. Because you're cropping, it's a bit more sensitive to focus errors. Etc. I don't care about 'Clear Image' upscaling, but I do care about how all those other things work. At least on paper, a crop from an f/2.8 lens should outperform an f/4.9 lens, so the RX100III may just be better than the I/II. But if the ergonomics or AF or similar are broken, it might not be.
This may seem like a highly unusual request, but please do compare digital zoom in the review. The RX100 is a bit short on the telephoto end. It has a 1" sensor, high megapixels, and a fast lens. A 2x digital zoom would still place it at, hypothetically, identical performance to a 5 megapixel image 1/2.3" camera with f/2.8 lens at 140mm equivalent, or a 1/1.7" 7MP sensor camera with an f/2.8 120mm-equivalent lens.
Alphoid: Seems like another home run. Sadly, not quite worth the upgrade for me. There's a half dozen possible ifs that would push it over, but most likely, I'll go for the IV. If Sony can keep up this momentum, it'll be hard to resist whatever that upgrade will bring.
If it was a few hundred less, I'd do it. If it had a mike input and audio levels, it'd replace carrying video equipment. I'd do it. (I'm especially excited by this with the full frame readout)
The EVF certainly does justify the price hike, as does the faster glass. If I were buying new, I'd get the MKIII for that alone, not to mention wifi, full frame video readout, etc. There's nothing else in the class. It's definitely worth the $350 more than the RX100 to me. It's just not worth the $800 more for someone who already owns an RX100.
Seems like another home run. Sadly, not quite worth the upgrade for me. There's a half dozen possible ifs that would push it over, but most likely, I'll go for the IV. If Sony can keep up this momentum, it'll be hard to resist whatever that upgrade will bring.
I'd be interested to know what they did to merit the price... The Canon and Nikon branded 70-200 f/4 sell for less.
BRPWS: After all the bad things you guys wrote about this camera how does it get a silver award? Your review and your award contradict each other.
@Barney Britton If you were truly editorially independent, you'd comment about the battery door issue.
Marvol: Maybe Sony can fix the unfortunate omission of GPS via a firmware upgrade*...
[*yes yes I know... Sony doesn't do firmware upgrades ;P]
I hope they do. It has NFC+wifi. A cell phone has GPS. Adding GPS via firmware update and cell phone app would be great.
It's a great camera, but not worth the upgrade from the A77. Loss of GPS is a big part of that.
Ya know, I would pay good money for a high quality, autofocus mirror lens. Like the Minolta and early Sony. Compact. Sharp. No CA. Only downsides are fixed aperture and donut bokeh. The cheap ones on the market today are worthless.
Wow! For just $600, I'll be able to get ugly photos all the way from 16mm up to 300mm for months, maybe even years, until the lens breaks!
I'm increasingly feeling the love for MFT...
Random Asian Guy: A lot of my photos are from low light situations, So this camera interests me quite a bit.
But I'm surprised it can only manage 5 fps for stills with only 12 megapixels.
I'd take A-mount for low-light in most cases. Fast, stabilized primes.
ProfHankD: This probably was a minimal-effort way for Sony to bring out support for serious 4K, and it gives Sony an interesting read on the market in comparing sales of A7, A7R, A7S. In addition, if this comes out around $2K, Sony is going to sell a heck of a lot of them to would-be videographers that otherwise would buy Canon DSLRs or micro4/3.
I also wonder if this is the last step before the mechanical focal plane shutter goes bye bye -- which should happen sometime soon....
I doubt it can compete with MFT. Maybe the next gen.
aqasem: What if it has,5-axis OISGlobal shutterFully articulated screenin camera 4KHybrid AFsame size and around $2000
I'd gladly take a bigger size if it meant IBIS, in-camera 4k, and hybrid AF.
Big and useful beats small and useless. The video rig to make this into a usable camera adds $2k minimum, and is huge and cumbersome.
Truth of the matter is, if I can tolerate huge and cumbersome, I can get very good video from just about any camera with a proper lighting setup. Even my cell phone now does well enough given studio settings. I don't mind a large pro camcorder and audio, but something that's a spiderweb of HD recorders, cameras, lenses, fixtures to focus lenses, etc. just isn't all that useful in real-world conditions, and isn't necessary in a studio.