marc petzold: It seems Barney likes the FZ1000 way much. Personally, i'd like the RX10 more, because the 24-200mm Range is enough for 99.9% of everyhting, adding another 200mm focal length, minus 1mm into the wide angle segment doesn't make any sense for myself, no offence. It's the same like with so called "soup zooms" lenses for DSLR here into germany, a "one lens does it all" does have too many compromises, in optical terms.
But i can see a market for the FZ1000 and RX10, etc...ppl who never want to exchange lenses, and to have it all, from wide angle to "supersizeme" telephoto focal length. For instance, for birders or wildlife photographers the FZ1000 might come in way handy.
While I agree that 200mm maximum is enough (at least for me), I can understand that if someone gives up the flexibility of exchangeable lenses, he wants something truly universal, better that he can get in DSLR world. And Sony´ s 200mm are not that attractive (cca. 135mm on APSC, that´s what you can get from many DSLR zooms). 200 vs. 400mm is quite a difference.
Wow, I am impressed. Although I can understand 4K video might be interesting for some, I appreciate more the combination of relatively big sensor and a big zoom with fast lens. Actually it is the first true ultrazoom with larger sensor (the RX10 reaching only to 200mm cannot be named ultrazoom). And also other novelties deserve praise: 2,36M EVF, great. Manual zoom, even better. Considering all theses specs the price is (especially in comparison to starting price of the RX10) very reasonable.Kudos to Panasonic!
jadot: I Appreciate what these cameras are supposed to be used for, but really?; NO pictures of people? Just a couple of headshots would be helpful.
Well, that´s also a field of use. ;-) Anyhow I don´t believe it is useful to give a camera to a 1 year old child. How about teaching a 6 year old boy to drive a car?
It must have been nice trip to Hawaii (only the last two shots somehow dont´t fit). ;-)
I appreciate underwater pictures much more, that´s basically what you buy such a camera for.
JanMatthys: Seriously, how much is Sony paying you (DPreview) to do these daily infomercials on the RX100III?? What's tomorrow's preview infomercial? A look at the sony battery, charger and neck strap?
Re: Like saying "Man, what an awesome car but I've never driven one".Exactly, that´s how it works with cars, cameras and other gear, doesn´t it? You must like it before you decide to go and try it. So what´s wrong with saying you like the camera (based on it´s specs, it´s looks, your experience with the previous model etc.)?
photofan1986: Is it me or is this last batch of samples much better than the other one? I mean, IQ wise. Those look really terrific.
Exactly, the last portion of pictures looks great, definitely better than previous samples.
No need to search for conspiracy or Free Masons: it is clear this camera attracts a lot of photographers and the article on it has the most comments I heve seen here on DPR, so it´s obvious DPR feeds the hunger of readers. ;-)
ogl: RX100III's IQ is the level of top compact cameras with 1/1.7" sensor.
@ogl: and what did you mean to prove with this macro/close-up shot? Even my cell phone with 1/2,3" sensor can shoot macro in good light like this.
Do you really believe you can shoot this with a 1/1,7" sensor comapct? http://g1.img-dpreview.com/4036988D4FE4468D8789994BCD42B0DA.jpg
vladimir vanek: Did I miss anything by skipping 4 minutes out of the 4:34 time?
Moc nie. Not much. ;-) A bit monotonous, but one cannot expect roller-coaster inside, right?
ZoranHR: Now,when I saw how it works I even less belive it can wash properly.
Exactly, this one looks a bit outdated.
ProfHankD: I can't believe that this is rated 3% lower than a Canon 70D, etc., but you'll notice the only non-subjective con is about flash exposure. "Lens range not as developed as rival systems" -- you mean like the EOS-M system? I suppose only about 25 of my 130+ lenses would quickly autofocus on an A6000.... ;-)
This is a disturbingly good camera at a very good price. Take a look at the IQ side-by-side against the full-frame A7. I'd buy one immediately except I have a NEX-7, an A7, and a wife who'd be unhappy if I bought another camera right now.
abortabort: look, I do not mean to bash Sony and I actually like their cameras, but I simply cannot really imagine buying one because I have no standard lens to add. Kit 16-50mm zoom is smal and lightweightl, but that´s pretty much everything it offers. It is slow and optically weak and I would like something better. But what can I have instead? Only primes, but absolutely no zoom. I dont say it must be constant f2,8 zoom, I would be happy also with something like Fuji 18-55/2,8-4. But there´s nothing like this for E-mount.
abortabort: maybe you didn´t notice I was talking about f2,8 zooms. That´s 1 EV faster than f4, you know? ;-) Something like 12-40/2,8 Pro from Oly or 12-35/2,8 from Pana or 16-55/2,8 from Fuji or 16-50/2-2,8 from Samsung... Got it?P.S. The 16-40/4 is pretty mediocre according to reviews, definitely not worth the money.
ProfHankD: argument that you can use many lenses via adapter is ridiculous. Why buying extra small and lightweight NEX body (sorry, alpha now), when you add an adapter and a heavy A-mount lens? And as was already mentioned, the highlight of this a6000 is ultra fast AF: with non-native lenses via adapter it looses this advantage.So once again: how many native E-mount lenses are there? Are there fast portrait lenses? Fast standard zooms? Fast telezooms? Nope. ;.)
And among all your lenses do you find an E-mount zoom with f2,8? Either standard, with most usual focal length (say 17-50), or telephoto? ;-)So apart from EOS-M (which is a joke) all of the relevant competition (Fuji, Olympus, Panasonic) has better lens range. So it is a con.
As far as I remember dpreview wrote in the G1x II review that they expected more as regards the picture quality, given the sensor size and that it is larger than RX100s sensor. But comparing this RX100 Mk II with the G1x Mk II there is visible difference in picture quality and G1x is noticeably better. So in my opinion the sensor size still counts a lot. On the other hand for all those critisizing Mk III have a look at Nikon 1 with the same sensor: the RX100 is visibly better.
Boss of Sony: In my experience, the overwhelming majority of people only use these UWA angle lenses at the extreme wide angle end (e.g. 10mm), and almost nobody uses them at the long end. Therefore, why doesn't the manufacturer just make a UWA prime (e.g. 10mm prime) and be done with it. It would be easier and cheaper to make, and would be faster and have better image quality.
I agree with Boss: I have recently been thinking of small ultrawide prime for my trip to Rome (I carry a 17-50mm zoom mounted on camera and wanted something wider for architecture, but no heavy zoom with overleaping focal length). Pentax 15mm Limited was the closest to my idea, however the difference between 15 and 17mm was small and not worth the money. If Pentax made such a prime with 10 or 12mm, I would already have it. The new Samyang 12mm prime looks good, but is still not available and it is only manual focus.
DVT80111: Still nothing can compete with the Sigma 18-35/1.8
Sigma 18-35 is of course a normal lens, since it is only for APSC (however it´s true no other producer has anything as good and as fast as this lens). However has two UW lenses: chepaer 10-20/3,4-5,6 and optically better 10-20/3,5.
David Hart: I have the 24-105 F/4L on my 40D and love it. I paid $1040 for it in 2008. Today, it's selling for $100 more ($1150) for a new one on Amazon. The pre-order price of the 16-35mm is about $50 more.
Since I have the 24-105mm, I was wondering if having the 16-35mm would be useful on my 40D, allowing for the 1.6x crop factor. The 16-35mm would be equivalent to starting at 25.6mm and the 24-105mm would be equivalent to starting at 38.4mm.
I found this image on canonlensblog.com which gives an approximate of the difference . Personally, I'm thinking that the 16-35mm increased wide angle would be worth adding to my camera bag.
I just wish that Canon had made this lens a 12-32mm as it would have been a more useful range for a crop camera, given the 24-105mm. However, I understand that they also need to appeal to the FF crowd as they will sell more that way...
The difference between 16mm and 24mm is HUGE. I cannot imagine starting at 24mm, most of the interior shots, architecture shots, landscape shots do not fit in this frame. I traded 18mm for 17mm and do see the difference (I wish for 16mm beginning though).