Wish someone would test AF of several of those L lenses in comparison to native E mount options.
beenthere: This is the camera Nikon could have made, but didn't. Everyone and their pet tarantula (Thom, ahem..) was saying "larger sensor, big (fast) lens and UI suited for feature expansion". Well done Sony, well done.
Well, it appears Nikon has tried to make one of these, the DL 24-500. It looks to be potentially faster/better focusing, but the lens quality remains largely untested, as is the 4k functionality. But competition is good for the marketplace. And it's good to have options.
electrophoto: In 20+ years of photography, I can count the number of times on one hand where I had to shoot at anything beyond 400m to get the shot I needed.and 400mm hasn't been that often either.
Despite high ISO capabilities and IS - the number of times where anything above 300-400mm is practical without a tripod is small.
Personally from looking at the samples, I see no shot, other than maybe the bird and the plane - to be really anything "worthwhile" for the 600mm end.
Also that thing, for a 1" Sensor with it's limitations - is huge.
Well I guess I simply fail to see the practical use for such a long reach...
I'd rather have a fast 24-200mm in a much more compact body.... if I'd be going for a compact / fixed lens.make it a stop faster throughout the range.... that would be an incredibly useful camera.
but honestly, I'm not even remotely tempted by the RX10.
I would agree Electrophoto - you do fail to see the utility of 600mm, and your lack of actual experience with the camera disqualifies you from from offering a judgment as to whether you can shoot handheld at 600mm with good results. As for your other ideas - that a fast 24-200 is 'much more useful' - that's clearly a novel idea but see the RX10II.
princecody: I was gonna rent this but the DOF sucks!
Actually PrinceCody, the extra DOF is desirable if you are shooting macro or wildlife. Even with this sensor, the DOF is marginal for 600mm macro (at 2.5 ft f4 it's measured in mm). Not everyone wants ultra shallow DOF all the time. But I would guess that you shoot neither macro or wildlife.
Sam Santana: What's with the emphasis on how nice the lens is when it's only an extra 200mm on the FZ1000's and according to this website the FZ1000 optics are superior to this. In fact, for stills the FZ1000 is the better camera... faster focus, better optics, better handling and better low light performance... and under half price.
It would appear that you didn't really read the review, in addition to the joke in poor taste. That's the opposite of what DPR reports in terms of lens performance.
Douglas F Watt: It's not that DPR criticisms are not valid, it's that the overall picture that emerges from this review seems just ever so slightly tilted . . . . in the direction of pet peeves and gripes about the interface, lack of touchscreen and AF tracking, instead of an emphasis on just how stunning the overall achievement is of having a sharp 24-600 2.4-4 that comes in at just over 2 lbs, and that provides superb video functionality with very good stills ability. Additionally, and indicative of their lack of time to really explore the full envelope of the camera's OS, there is a touchscreen interface available, through the smartphone remote control app, which at least IMO is class-leading, allowing for full control of many shooting parameters, including touch-location of AF point. That it won't replace FF or even APS-C equipment for great DR, S/N ratio in low light seems a sacrifice one must make willingly to get what the package does provide. As for the Sony menu system, it's not that bad.
JACS - you're a bit concrete aren't you? It's 24-600 equiv. Does that have to be explained?
georgehere: Sony is trying to find a niche and in all the wrong places. The lens is so slow, it's practically useless. They should have tried to make a 8.8-40mm/1.7 lens (24-105/4.8 FFEQ) for that sensor and that would have been selling like hot cakes.
raindance: Great review, but honestly if you are in the market for this camera consider FF. I know this camera is about the lens, but seriously image quality is night and day with FF. You could pick up a FF body and a 50 1.8 to start for the same price point. I know apples and oranges, but just saying been there, done that and wish I would have made the FF switch sooner ;)
Raindance - you are not talking a shred of common sense.
First you talk about how all these small sensor cameras are a waste, and that everyone should just go FF. Nice. Then you suggest that 600mm of reach (barely adequate for many types of wildlife shooting) is "just a gimmick"? And that big telephoto primes (the most expensive and difficult type of lens to make) are just "trading quality for numbers". And then that a "shorter faster lens would be more practical" (meaning a highly practical, lightweight and no doubt cheap 300 2.8?)
What exactly are you smoking?
onlooker: It would have been nice for Sony to include faster, more direct way of selecting AF point, like a joystick. More cameras now include it, time for Sony to improve its ergonomics. And please, fanboys, do not bother extolling the virtues of up-down-left-up-right-up-left-whatever button pecking.
Check out the excellent remote control smartphone app that works with the camera. It does just that - allows a touchscreen selection of AF point. It's the best remote app I've seen yet.
AbrasiveReducer: Obviously not for sports. But what would happen if they shortened the zoom to 300mm, lens speed was 3.5 - 5.6? Image quality would go up, size, price and weight would go down. 24mm-300mm would cover what most people use, or could reasonably expect from a fixed-lens camera.
So you are suggesting that they cut the reach in half, and make the lens a full stop slower? What a brilliant idea!! I would write Sony today and see what they say. . . .
DavidNJ100: In fail to see how this is better than an A6300 with a Tamron 16-300mm lens with adapter. The A6300 with the Tamron is a 24-400 equivalent with a bit faster lens, especially on the wide side, than this 1" sensor Sony.
It is also lighter...the A6300, Tamron lens, and EF-S to E-mount adapter weighing less than 2 lbs. Total cost is similar, within 10% or so.
Those who have owned both the Tamron (which is the best lens of its type) AND the RX10iii - virtually universally - line up on the other side of this matter from your opinion.
Do you actually own either system??
It's not that DPR criticisms are not valid, it's that the overall picture that emerges from this review seems just ever so slightly tilted . . . . in the direction of pet peeves and gripes about the interface, lack of touchscreen and AF tracking, instead of an emphasis on just how stunning the overall achievement is of having a sharp 24-600 2.4-4 that comes in at just over 2 lbs, and that provides superb video functionality with very good stills ability. Additionally, and indicative of their lack of time to really explore the full envelope of the camera's OS, there is a touchscreen interface available, through the smartphone remote control app, which at least IMO is class-leading, allowing for full control of many shooting parameters, including touch-location of AF point. That it won't replace FF or even APS-C equipment for great DR, S/N ratio in low light seems a sacrifice one must make willingly to get what the package does provide. As for the Sony menu system, it's not that bad.
noflashplease: The digital era didn't kill this studio, which was an artifact from the era of the British Empire. The firm was famous for taking pictures of colonial administrators, British celebrities and Maharajahs. It appears that Bourne & Shepherd lost their main source of business with the end of colonialism and the ensuing decades when India was a closed, socialist economy. The very fact that the Indian government owns the decrepit physical building, and as the landlord allowed it to hall into such a state of disrepair, proves the point.
You're suggesting that socialism killed the studio?
dennis tennis: Less hyperbole, more info. It would be a sad day when DPR succumbs to the disease afflicting many DPR members, hyperbolitis. Examples are: I "dumped" my brand X gear. May I suggest a different title to this article: the Sony RX10 iii betters the competition. Must DPR resort to "destroy" to generate clicks? Will we find one day in the future DPR proclaiming in bold ALL CAPS " DPREVIEW is the most AWESOME photo forum in the universe, researchers conclude. Or All photo forum sites SUCKS with DPREVIEW the lone beacon of quality. I hope not.
Hyperbolitis? That's a good one :-) But don't leave out grumpiness, crabbiness, grousing, moaning, and bitching. These are essential skills in the blogosphere.
AKH: Sorry to say, but for the very high price of the camera Sony will not sell very many RX10 III even if it is a fine camera. It is also a very heavy camera at 1095 grams, so maybe not so well suited for travel in my opinion.
I guess that fact that this is sold out all over the place must be hard to explain given your statement?
None of this is surprising to those of us who have been using this amazingly versatile camera (see many comments and postings in the cybershot forum). Sure beats carrying an A77ii with the two most comparable lenses (16-50 and 70-400 G2). When you put this pretty decent stills performance together with its razor sharp 4k video (better than the A77ii's for sure), you have an amazing package of abilities in a compact (but not pocketable) format.
Douglas F Watt: Nice camera, and no doubt a great choice for pro sports shooters with a big library of Nikkor glass, but once again, the video is kind of a kludgey compromise, and the cost is higher than a lot of FF bodies. I suspect it will still sell, since it's a Nikon, but given that the A6300 has roughly the same abilities for half the price, it doesn't seem like a great value.
Sure, that's a clear issue, but is being mitigated slowly. It doesn't change the question of whether it's a bit overpriced or perhaps simply not a great value. They'll still sell a lot of them at $2k. But that's a boatload of $ for an APS-C camera, even in a pro body. But still, since it's a Nikon, they'll get lapped up.
Nice camera, and no doubt a great choice for pro sports shooters with a big library of Nikkor glass, but once again, the video is kind of a kludgey compromise, and the cost is higher than a lot of FF bodies. I suspect it will still sell, since it's a Nikon, but given that the A6300 has roughly the same abilities for half the price, it doesn't seem like a great value.
Very sad to see that Samsung has basically abandoned these two fine cameras. Hard to fathom except as a business decision that going all in (which would have meant a bunch of very expensive lens development projects to close the lens ecology gaps) was not worth it in the context of big body cameras being a constricting market, and where brand loyalty is so high (due to lens ecology costs) that they expected to not be able to dent the CaNikon hegemony.