When the KS-10 comes out (K50 replacement) with weather sealing etc, the enthusiasts here will have what they're looking for. This thing will dro-o-o-p in price significantly (not as much as K-01 but lots), and so if the grip works for you it'll be a great deal on a great camera with built in runway strip. You really have to hand it to Pentax for their big viewfinders in small bodies. This is so sorely overlooked by DPR and most other reviewers.
It's considerably larger than the Sony RX100. With a smaller sensor, but no faster a lens. And it's lost the one unique attribute of an optical viewfinder (probably the last non-dslr to have one). I don't think they upgraded properly here to interest the marketplace very much. I predict disinterest from buyers. I really like the ergonomics of the X10/20 and bought one for my mother in law for the OVF mainly. But for its size it could have a larger sensor for sure.
Paul Kersey Photography: This camera, with a 28mm 2.8(or faster) fixed lens would be fine for me, even if priced as high as $599
It's called an RX100. F/1.8 in fact. And it's less than $599.
Equivalence of total light is moot because sensor quality, pixel density, etc have much more to do with "clean" images these days. You can certainly generalize that a full-frame camera will have less noise. But my Sony a850 had as much noise at iso1600 as my Sony RX100 (well, not quite, but...).Your explanations of depth of focus are helpful, and the more basic understanding of sensor crop. But other than that, you just confuse and cloud the issues.
Lee Jay: So, as usual, Sony gets the optics and sensor right, and messes up the user interface and JPEG engine.
They've had the very same problem for a decade now. I bought a Canon S3IS (look it up) when it was new over the Sony competitor (I can't even remember the model number now) for the very same two reasons.
You'd think they'd eventually get with it in these two areas.
Agree with Miwok. Had both an a700/a850 and quick navi was great. Have a Canon 6D and they have essentially copied Sony. I don't like the smooth turning lens ring of my RX100 either. Other than that, the UI is fine.
Marty4650: I'm really impressed at how good the image quality is coming from "the smallest of the large sensors."
I am also baffled at why Sony hasn't made market share gains against Canon and Nikon in light of all the innovation coming from Sony, and the absence of much innovation from the two market leaders.
New technologies are circling the serious camera market. One day in the next few years they will pounce and the DSLR as we know it will be dead. Look at what cell phones are doing to pocketable cameras. I think Sony's curved sensor is an example of a game changer. When EVFs get virtually indistinguishable from optical finders, we'll see a digitization of the finder, and mirrors will be gone. Sony is leading, and eventually the tide will turn. These aren't necessarily my preferences, just my predictions.
Donnie G: Nice camera. Too bad it's not what American consumers crave. Still, if it sells well in Japan and Asia, then it will have been worth the effort for Sony.
Thanks for filling us in on what American consumers crave, by which I assume you mean very large portions of french fries.
Samaistuin: Thanks for posting the review. I'd have appreciated a little paragraph regarding the pocketability, though, rather than a small line in the conclusion.
The M3's pocketability was subject to debates in the forums.
I don't think this was ever thought of as a pants pocket camera. It's a jacket pocket camera. Your cell phone is a pants pocket camera. Of course they're trying to make the cell phones ever larger...
tirmite: When will DPReview, the eminent technical blog supposedly, stop playing the dishonest lens equivalency game? So if it's "equivalent" to a 24-70mm then you also HAVE to make the f-stop "equivalent." It is NOT like a 1.8-2.8 aperture. It would give DOF results more like an f4.0-5.6 lens would it not? Being able to shoot in low light is more a function of ISO and sensor noise these days, but for some of us having control over depth-of-field is still what separates a snapshot from a photograph. This camera is NOT a replacement for a 35mm DSLR with a "real" 24-70mm f2.8 lens, although it's clearly a great little pocket camera. How about truthful, accurate marketing both by the manufacturer and camera reviewers about what a lens REALLY is equivalent to if you're going to make that selling point in the first place?
This complaint is less than one half of the argument. I think the more important consideration is that it is a true f/1.8-2.8 in terms of light gathering against shutter speed. You can shoot the same scene with an RX100III and a full-frame 24-70/2.8 at, for example, f2.8 and you will consequently use the same shutter speed. In terms of stopping action and being able to shoot in low light, this is of huge significance. So I don't think there's anything misleading whatsoever. DPR does a good job of trying to explain depth of focus comparisons. They even have colourful charts.
This is a brilliant yet so obvious concept. Mimic the human eye. Folks, it's in R&D. Don't get yer knickers in a knot about which camera they're building for precious you. Like any technology, they'll launch something that they "can" at that moment, which will have limitations. And it starts expensive. And then it improves and gains wider usage, and costs come down, and its quality goes up.
The bottom line here is, it's a very innovative development with immense potential.
Joe Coolpix: I'm not liking the trend for the RX100 to get thicker. As a guy who likes to throw his P&S in my front jeans pocket, the original RX100 at 36mm was appealing. But the ii and now iii have grown in thickness a couple mm each time. At this rate, the RX100ix in 10 years will be another inch thicker. I like the Canon S trend better, with each successor getting thinner until this last S120 bumping up to 1.14 but still thinner than the S90's 1.22 inches. We're talking pocket cameras here not cars and each new one should get smaller not larger.
They could make a fixed lens 35mm equivalent, sort of a 1" version of the RX1. Then they could make it slimmer. But who would buy?
The 1"/16mm sensor cameras are a very exciting emerging market for serious photographers who want a lot in a small package, for travel or as a secondary camera for portability. This works really well for the RX100 because its size remains very small. It's a harder sell with the super-zoom models like the RX10 or FZ1000 because they are so large. If the customer doesn't understand that in fact they would have a behemoth of a lens, or multiple lenses to get the same range, then the sale is dead in the water. The marketers need to vividly get across the true size advantage of having a 25-400 lens of good quality with a sensor that in many many shooting situations will be quite indistinguishable from a 24mm sensor camera. These are ultimate travel cameras and serious amateur cameras. The image quality really is impressive.
Great Bustard: It's unfortunate that an opportunity to shoot at f/1.8 never came up, unless I missed the pic(s) at f/1.8.
Looking for a little more 1.8 are we?
Paul Kersey Photography: the most obvious failing in the M3 is the lack of improvements with the ergonomics. The RX100 was an enjoyable camera that could have been better with a decent grip and/or an improved non-slippery surface area.
I'm glad there isn't a grip. Then it fits the LCJRXC leatherette case, which in fact gives it good grip. That way if you really want a plastic grip, you can stick one on. It's very Leica.
DigiMatt: DPReview are you or will you be paid by Sony to promote this camera? Your Sony marketing machine seems to be in overdrive.
When Sony comes up with an entirely new category of camera, and stuffs into a pack of cards some of the most enthusiast friendly features you could ever want, and absolutely kills the competition with it... you'd think a digital photography site would take serious interest, no? I thought that's what they were there for. What other camera in the compact segment is remotely as compelling?
mauijohn: Finally after a year of hagling sony personels agreed to adapt a 24mm to the wide end of their not so pocketable camera with a price just right with a bright lens through out. But the zoom is a little bit anemic. Why can't they make up to 120mm like canon s110 or longer zoom is beyond me. Just my thought.
Completely different camera than the Canon s110. You have to understand the monumental difference in sensor size. And yes, you could crop the Sony shot to 100mm equiv and it will be way better.
Venk: What's the point in this little thingy - if you want depth of field control in low light take your full frame. If you want off the moment photos then you have your smartphone in your pocket....what's the need for something in the middle?
Because the RX100 didn't sell well either?
I imagine Canon GX team have an uncomfortable pit in their stomach right now. The fast lens is an amazing achievement. The slow long end of the MKI has always been a bane. And an evf... This is the perfect fit between a cell phone and a dslr.
Raist3d: Here's an idea Sony. Make the RX100 Pro (or whatever you want to call it). It would be an interchangeable lens camera with 3 fast primes - a 28mm F2.0, a 50mm F1.4 and a 100mm F1.8. Maybe 18mm and 140mm options later.
Don't make it a super blown up new lens system, just key primes and maybe one good zoom and done. Put a nice grip area.
Oh and a new sensor variant with phase detect AF.
Yeah. It's called the a6000. Already been done.
Zoron: This is disappointing....the rumor was 24-85mm F1.8.