Zbyszek_Z: I would also like to express my curiosioty concerning the Eye AF (as Luzy Seide did). Is it anything similar to AF eye control in old Canon EOS 3 fashion?It would be great, but in that tiny body probably impossible?!?Zbyszek
I'm pretty sure that eye control on the RX100 III is just EVF ON/OFF, not AF. My Panasonic EM5 has the same thing. I used to have a Canon SLR (not DSLR) that had eye-control AF, but I could never get it to work consistently. Canon dropped that feature in later models.
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.
So the lesson is: buy the RX100 III now--if you wait for the RX100 VII it will be thicker than a DSLR!
But seriously...the added thickness of the Mk.III compared to the Mk.I is the only reservation I have about changing from the Mk.I.Bob
Valentinian: could this camera replace the need for a 12mm-35mm lens (for a m4/3)?
I have an RX100M1 and a GM1. Although I'm very fond of both, I'm seriously considering trading them in on an RX100M3. The M3’s combination of features (wider/faster lens, EVF, tilting LCD, etc.) in a very compact body seems irresistible. The GM1 body is even smaller, but not when you add the (excellent) 12-32. A major operational disadvantage of the GM1/12-32 is that it has a separate lens cap, and you have to twist the lens to turn on the camera. The RX100 series of cameras are much more convenient in this respect. I wish the M3 was no thicker and no heavier than the M1, but I've learned that with cameras everything is a compromise, and it seems that the tradeoffs in the M3 are good ones.Bob
Mal_In_Oz: This article is suggesting the EM10 sits below the EM5 in the OMD lineup. But does that mean it is a new line separate from the EM5? And if so, why didn't they call it the EM100?
And most importantly, will we see an EM5 replacement, because in form the EM10 and EM5 are very close? The features that are missing are all bundled in the EM1 which doesn't leave a lot of room for an EM6.
Come on DPR, ask the hard questions...
I like you're analysis. I hope you're right!Bob
Peiasdf: RX100 / RX100 II is just too much camera in such small size that it renders small mirrorless / EVIL camera like GM1 and Pantax Q pointless. Unless the intent is to use 20 f/1.7 or 17 f/1.8 with the GM1, everyone is better served by a RX.
I have an Rx100 as well and hold it in high regard, but the GM1 is distinctly superior in IQ and flexibility.
This may be the best review that I've read on dpreview: accurately describing the camera's pros and cons, providing enough information for the reader to make a sound decision, and not missing the forest from the trees.
VertigonA380: I really love the specs of this unit, but it's about the size of a small DSLR.....what's that all about?
For me, the change in size/weight from the E-M5 was moving in the wrong direction--and the added features did not make up for it. For less than the price difference trading in my E-M5 on an E-M1, I bought a GM1/12-32. It's a delightful little camera, and has the very useful silent shutter feature that's lacking in OMD cameras.
ThePhilips: To me personally, the new lens - the 12-32 - is much much more interesting. Sadly it doesn't have the built-in lens cap.
There's a Chinese company that makes a self-closing lens cap for the 14-42X. I have one; it works perfectly. I hope that they're coming out with one for the 12-36.
Robert Deutsch: Does anyone know if ACR 7.4 supports the RX100 II? If not, and Adobe forces you to buy into Photoshop CC, I would consider that a major reason not to upgrade from the RX100.
Good news--and bad...
I downloaded RX100 II RAW files from Imaging Resource, and ACR 7.4 (with non-CC CS6) DOES convert these files. That's the good news. The bad news is that, as has been reported elsewhere, at low ISOs the original RX100 produces better results than the RX100 II--and that's with RAW files at default settings. I compared RX100 ISO100 and RX100II ISO160 (the base ISO), and RX100 image was clearly sharper. I then used Smart Sharpen with settings of 0.4 and 70 on the RX100 II converted-from-RAW jpegs, and the converted-from-RAW jpegs from the RX100 was still sharper. It seems that the RX100 sensor is better at high ISOs but not as good at low ones. I don't think I'm willing to make this tradeoff.
I'm sure the next ACR will support it, but I think that will require buying into Photoshop CC, which I don't want. The reason I asked if ACR 7.4 will support the RX100 II is because the RX100 II Raw files have the same designation as for the original RX100.
But I suspect this is just wishful thinking on my part, and the truth is part of Adobe's dastardly strategy forcing people to sign on to CC even if all they want is a version of ACR that will support a new camera. I'll just have to use DxO, which has been very prompt in upgrading to accommodate new cameras.
Does anyone know if ACR 7.4 supports the RX100 II? If not, and Adobe forces you to buy into Photoshop CC, I would consider that a major reason not to upgrade from the RX100.
marike6: Canon should update the build quality of the EF 50 1.8 to match this lens. The EF 50 1.8 is a great lens optically, but mechanically it's absurdly non-robust. I'm sure Canon users would be happy to see a metal mount EF 50 1.8, with a bayonet lens hood, and the addition of a stepping motor like the 40 2.8 STM.
I have an original (metal mount) 50/1.8, but I much prefer the 40mm f/2.8--sharper at f/2.8 than the 50mm, and I like the wider angle of the 40mm. With the high-ISO performance of the 6D, having f/1.8 is not that much of a benefit.
Would it be correct to say that for CS6 users there's no advantage in upgrading to ACR 8.1 unless you have a new camera that is not supported by ACR? I realize that the new features are missing, but are there improvemens in existing features? Specifically, does ACR 8.1-for-CS6-users include the improved Smart Sharpen?
jefflins: I'm as upset as everybody else, but the bottom line is simply the pricing model...other concerns only confuse the issue. If it was a dollar a month would you have a problem with the model?
The thing is, if you are a graphics art house and use lots of products, the full suite is a deal at the price of 2 or 3 app subscriptions. Buy 2 get 12 free. The problem is that just one standalone app is too pricy. At 5 bucks a month I'm in. At 10 i'm thinking not. At 20 I'm not even considering it.
Price aside, there are aspects of the legal agreement subscribing to CC that are truly frightening. See http://macperformanceguide.com/blog/2013/20130508_1a-Adobe-legal-agreement.html
Just a Photographer: WARNING: For those that go LightRoom 5
Remember that LR5 will use ACR 8 - This new version of ACR is NOT supported by CS6. Its the way Adobe tries to suck you into their renting model!!!
From what I've read, ACR6 will be available for CS6, but only the part that allows support of new cameras, not new features like camera shake correction, and (not 100% certain on this) not the improved Smart Sharpen.
W5JCK: From an Adobe blog:
"Q: If you’re going to continue selling Photoshop CS6, will I still get Camera Raw updates?
A: Because Adobe is still selling Photoshop CS6, those customers will continue to receive updated file format compatibility via Adobe Camera Raw 8. When we update ACR8 with new camera support, Photoshop CS6 customers can work with the new version of the Camera Raw plug-in. No new features or functionality will be available in ACR to Photoshop CS6 customers as part of those updates."
So yes we can get ACR updates that work with PS CS6, but they won't contain anything new. WTF! Why give us ACR8 compatibility when it won't do anything for us? We will still have no new cameras added--EVER. What total BS this is!
The fact that new cameras will be supported goes part of the way to placate CS6 users. However, what this statement does not make clear is whether improvements in ACR that are not new tools/features but improvements in existing features (e.g., smart sharpen, which is said to have been improved) will be included in the CS6/ACR upgrades. It they're not, then CS6 users are being left behind even more. The more I think about it, the more this seems like pure blackmail, and a huge PR disaster for Adobe. I unsubscribed from Adobe's email notification about Photoshop, and suggest others do the same.
It started with ACR: a new version was required to support new cameras, and the new version of ACR required moving to a new version of Photoshop. It looks like Adobe is forcing people to move to the cloud version even if they just want to be able to process RAW files from new cameras and have no interest in the other bells and whistles. This really smacks of blackmail. I am NOT moving to a cloud-based software. I've used PS since series 3, but if Adobe continues on this road, I'll be changing to DxO Optics Pro or some other processing software--even Apple's.
Photato: Without mini lenses is kind of pointless the effort to make it small.Would have been nice to have a 22mm pancake to go with this, like the EOS-M has.The only really small lens, the 40mm pancake, doesn't cut it for the EF-S bodies like this one for general photography.
Too bad Canon decided to remain stagnant with the sensor. I was expecting them to start moving towards larger pixels.
What Canon needs is an APS-C equivalent of the Panasonic 14-42X. The fact that they haven't come out with one suggest that there are major technical obstacles to the production of lens of this sort for the APS-C sensor size, and, as you point out, a 40mm pancake just doesn't cut it. And once you put something like a 24-105L IS (or a 100-400L IS!) on the camera, any benefits of a Honey-I-Shrunk-the-Rebel body are moot. The 100D will still sell well, but more for the traditional entry-level DSLR (i.e., Rebel) market rather than the m4/3 market, once people realize that there is little benefit to having a small body if you still have to use big/heavy lenses.
snake_b: I wish DPR did a re-shoot with the EX1, considering that the lens looked decentered in the original review and many complained about that fact. It's not a perfect camera and essentially, Samsung has abandoned it and not fixed weird firmware holes, but it is a good performer.
I've tried most all in the class and in terms of IQ, it absolutely holds its own. The shooting experience is subjective and some of the firmware holes take away from that (no RAW bracketing, remote use during bracketing not allowed, sometimes slow operation, switching to backlit while in RAW results in lockups, so jpeg must be manually selected, and a host of others).
The SRW files are huge (21megs per shot). The hardware is slow. However, the lens is fantastic and so is the swiveling screen.
The first EX1 I got produced images that were sharp in the center, but noticeably softer on the top lef corner than on the top right. I exchanged it; the second sample's images were sharp throughout. I do believe it performs better than the sample DPR reported on. I realize that there's a practical limit to the number of camera samples DPR can be expected to test for a review, but my experience and DPR's experience with the S100 suggests that getting a good sample is something of a crapshoot.
Lee Jay: "...as every photographer knows, the best camera you own is the one that you have with you."
I really, really hate this expression. The best camera is the one best suited to the job, regardless of whether or not you were too lazy to bring it with you.
I hate that expression, too. It's too simplistic. It would be more correct to say that any camera that you have with you is better than having no camera at all, but that doesn't make it the best camera (or lens) for the purpose.