jamesm007: I started with Kodak Bridge Cameras. So I have a like for them. The Kodak P880 had superb color accuracy (Imaging Resource) and was an alternative to what was then dSLRs over $1000. So it did not have those punchy consumer colors.
Subjectively and Pro test (IR) showed saturation at about 6% over and hues were the most accurate measured at that time, at IR at around ~3.5%. That is equal or beats a lot of dSLRs. Another Kodak know how is WB.
Take a look at the WB of these pics. The reds, whites and other colors are near perfect or at least not pushed hard. Hues are excellent as well. Time may tell if I am right or wrong.
Not sure if everyone realizes color is as important as sharpness. Look at all the color profiles we have. No one knew the science of color better than Kodak.
I am going out out on a limb by saying this camera has the accurate Kodak colors. Not the punchy consumer Kodak colors. Which makes this a very good camera and or interesting camera!
I quite agree. There's something pleasing about those colours.
Looks pretty good, but I'm waiting for the rumoured Pana LX8 before making any decisions.Also, I think I will pop a fuse if I ever have to read again the "clickless front dial makes the shooting experience feel disconnected" comment from DPR. If only for that, I just hope Sony change that in the mk IV.
Charles Lau: Like other posters said, just plug the iPhone in with your USB cable. There are no transfer problems, Mac or PC. No software required either......
Again, no. It is precisely for photos only that you DON'T need iTunes, just drag and drop from the iphone directory.
shastings: As other posters have said, this item is redundant as you just plug your iPhone or ipad into your computer and transfer photos and video via USB.
Looks like this company didn't get the memo.
But look at all the automatic Apple bashing that happened in response to this article! Over a problem that doesn't exist.
You don't need iTunes at all to transfer your photos, just the USB cable. I don't get this.
Unless I get to see physical copies of this and are wowed by the results, I can't see the difference between making these images using an old process and making them using digital post-processing. I mean the end the result.
AngryCorgi: I'm starting to think Sony and the MFT duo are the only manufacturers listening to the consumer. Shame on Canon and Nikon for being complacent and failing to include real innovations.
Fuji are listening too.
chj: Does Sony not know how to make a touchscreen? Otherwise this looks to be an ideal street camera.
What do you mean? Street photography has done very well for a century without a touchscreen.
Ridethelight: Strange comments on this camera, complaints about the short zoom 70mm vs 100mm , this is nothing a half decent photographer would not easily adapt to.Lack of hot shoe ? really , how stupid would a flash gun twice the size of the camera look.It has a EVF , built in ND filter and faster lens, what's not to love here ? maybe the price.
It is one thing to adapt, but to make up for is a completely different thing.To me, 70 mm is seriously short for a compact (and I've used the Panny LX-3 for years, one of my favorite cameras ever). If the lens went up to, at least, 90-100 mm, I wouldn't give it a second thought before buying it. As it is, and at that price point, I'm not so sure.
discbrake: Good job, Sony. But OM-D E-M1 over RX100 III for a walk-around camera. E-M1 is "small" for me. I'm more excited for the Alpha 7s that will release in July.
You actually compared THREE: E-M1, Alpha 7s and RX-100 M3.
Again, they have nothing in common.
Those four cameras (I take it you mean G-M1 is small for me?) you mention have virtually nothing in common, so I don't know how you can even put them together.
VaLeX: For some reasons, the specifications' page has no content as I'm typing these impressions.1. Does this camera have Image Stabilisation?2. You claim: "The lens is the big selling point of the RX100 III. With a maximum aperture of F1.8-2.8 and a focal range of 24-70mm equiv, you won't find anything as impressive on a compact camera." - Let's be serious - Take Fuji X20, Pentax Mx1, Oly ZX-2, they're quite similarly impressive. BTW, I'd love to see Fuji's X20 in the DOF / relative aperture chart.3. How much customization of controls is possible with this camera? For instance, can one allocate exposure compensation to the ring on the lens?4. Aside from sensor/resolution, I don't see a serious reason to buy this camera instead of my intended Fuji X20. I'm just waiting to see Fuji's X30, though ... (not to mention price considerations ...)
I agree that the lens does not seem that impressive compared to competitors. However, compared to the X20, I see not one, but two very serious reasons to buy the RX100 M3 instead: 1) pocketability and 2) a more comfortable to use viewfinder.
Sorry, but... yawn
Black Box: Opinions are like... you know how the metaphor goes. And, just like the metaphor, this particular opinion should have been kept well hidden and only accessible to your doctor. It's SO (stereo)typical American. "We don't understand it, and that's why it's wrong". USA don't like MILCs. For you "bigger is better". You "don't get" MILCs while the whole world loves them.
MILCs are aimed at people who don't want to fiddle with buttons and rings every time they take a photo. Those who want their cameras compact. Those who rightfully think they'll look ridiculous walking around Paris or Tokyo bedangled with photo equipment. All of this makes sense to anyone who has at least once looked at the globe and thought, DAYEM, that's a big world!
Americans live and think in templates and cliches. A truck should have a 5.7L engine. A real man should have a BBQ grill. A serious camera should be big.
Trying to explain how wrong you are is useless - if you haven't understood by now, you never will.
"Americans live and think in templates and cliches..."
Are you American? Because your whole post is that, templates and cliches. Richard Butler is British, btw.
Yes, I don't think this makes any sense at all, but to a bunch of Nikon top execs. It's puzzling.
For the price and size, might as well choose a m4/3. I just see no point in this line of cameras.
And it only took them a year and a half to establish that
Samuel Dilworth: Years of easy growth during the boom in digital cameras led to laziness, lack of innovation, and bad marketing.
If you walk through a camera store (nowadays a rare thing outside big cities) and handle a bunch of cameras, the abiding impression is of consumer-electronics ticky-tacky. Nothing is inspirationally designed or made until you hit Leica – which few of us can afford.
Why are there so few well-designed cameras at mid-market prices? Arguably there are none.
At the pricey end, the Nikon Df might have been a huge hit if it had lived up to its launch campaign, i.e. if it had been massively simplified, top quality, and equipped with manual-focus aids. We’ll never know, since it was just another Nikon misstep.
Of course smartphones and economic malaise have taken their toll, but cameras aren’t dead – their makers are just dead to their customers’ desires. Maybe they’ll start paying attention when their sales fall.
I'm not sure what you call "inspirationally" or "well" designed, but I can think of more than a couple of recent cameras to fit that bill: X100 (and probably some of the ILCs in the X series), K-5, OM-D and a few others.
I agree there's far too many models and hence a feeling of déjà-vu and boredom with what seems to be a never-ending trickle of iterations.
But still, in any defined period if time, there can only be a few exciting or inspirational cameras that rise above the mass of me-too products, and we have seen those in some of the models mentioned.
Hey, don't you dare blame ME, Japanese camera makers!Ever since I took up photography seriously about 5 years ago, I've done my bit buying a few (clearly more than I need) DSLRs, MILCs, lenses, etc
Did I miss a question about Nikon's QA issues which have plagued two of it's most recent models (D600 and, to a lesser extent, D800)?
Sorry, not a fan of having to click 17 times to read an article.