ogl: RX100III's IQ is the level of top compact cameras with 1/1.7" sensor.
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Exactly, this one looks a bit outdated.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).
In contrary to prevailing opinions I am not dissappointed. It is still a decent improvement from Mark I: the lens alone is such a huge improvement that allows to produce better pictures and - most notably - to work with DoF. On the other hand I understand what DPR meant by comparison with RX100: the difference in picture quality is not as big as would bigger sensor indicate; it is obvious that if Sony made a compact camera with 1,5" sensor, it would clearly outperform the G1X (just like Canon´s APSC sensors are outperformed by the comeptition). However Sony does not make such camera and even if G1X is not as potent as it could be - given the specs, it still has the advantage of big sensor and bright lens. And actually it is the only compact zoom that allows to work with DoF (for portraits etc.), what no other compact zoom allows.If there is somethig I complain aout, it is the lack of built-in viewfinder: the external EVF makes the camera much bulkier and the combo very expensive.
Daniel Lauring: ISO 3200 total mush. Even ISO 1600 has got way too much noise reduction and little detail (see selfie.) Samsung has historically had a hard time matching Sony's high ISO performance. This looks much worse than Nikon 1, let alone Sony.
Every producer aims its product at specific customers, which, in connection with the camera specs, is the most relevant fact. Of course you can find people who use 1/1,7" compacts for serious work and vice versa, D800 users who shoot only JPEG, but generally NX mini is such a kind of camera noone expects to be used for serious work. Different appealing colours, no mode dial, no front/rear dials, no grip, 180° screen for selfies etc., all this makes this camera a simple camera used by people who want just press the button and get good picture straightahead, without spending hours in Lightroom.As regards the use of "alone": it´s probably my bad English, I wanted to say that Samsung itself claimed that.
howaboutRAW: so I don´t know what I am writing? Get back to NX mini announcement and you will see Samsung alone aims this camera at amateurs who prefer selfies and JPEG to serious work with RAWs. ;-)
viking: Samsung RAWs still ARE huge: I just downloaded RAW from NX mini and it has 26 MB (in comparison RAWs from my 16 MPx camera have 12-16 MB). And I still have some RAWs from NX20 that have 36 MB.
You are acting like there would be dramatic differences between RAW and JPEG. When ISO 3200 is totally washed out it means the RAW must be full of noise, so in every case it is not usable. Anyhow, as I said this camera is clearly aimed at amateurs who never shoot enything else but JPEG.
I do not judge RAWs, but JPEGs I see are no wonder. And given that 99% of target customers of this camera will only shoot JPEG, I don´t really care if RAWs allow some improvement (and knowing Samsung RAWs they will be so huge noone will be willing to deal with them).
RichRMA: Unfortunately, the character of the noise is odd at 1600ISO and above. If you look at the centre of the building shot at 1600ISO, you'll see (on the left-hand side) some parts of the columns have been "obliterated" by a large swath of NR. At 3200, it has that pastel-look I associate with 1/1.7 sensors.
Exactly. Compact 1/1,7" senszor look.
Agreed. In fact the pictures have a "compact feel" we basically get from 1/1,7" enthusiast compacts like Canon G16. However, godd price can fix everything.
Ben O Connor: It has 1" sensor but not compact (as Sony rx100)it has interchangeable lens but not an exiting system (Nikon 1)
out there you have a hard life waiting for you, dear NX mini...
@Mike FL: it is quite certain the RX100 Mk. III will be introduced within couple of weeks with following specs: 24-70mm eq., f1,8-2,8 and (most importantly) an EVF.