ummario: I want to buy this camera, but I'm afraid Sony can release an updated camera before summer, and I do't want to buy a almost outdated camera. Does anyone knows if this will happen?
Is people happy with it?
Get some insurance if you're prone to dropping things. Yes people ARE happy with it!
Arizona Sunset: Apart from the image quality, that first image of the singer growling into the microphone is just a great moment and capture.
Is he growling? I thought he was purring sweetly.
armandino: Although as a pro you need to push the envelop and often deliver under any conditions, still I find it sort of wrong putting so much effort and emphasis both from the camera manufacturer and users to "usable" pictures coming from a $6,500 camera. I personally prefer circumventing the need of shooting with such iso settings. As photographers we are also artists and there is no excuse for delivering a lower grade product, just because the camera can deliver an "acceptable" result. Granted there are situations where there is no way out, but realistically there are so few of these conditions. Facts are that photography handled itself since its beginning of time without ISO 100,000.
I think most photographers prefer well lit scenes so we can use Low ISO. But, when you have moody, low light natural environments with their own atmosphere, no amount of lighting or flash can help you. High sensitivity is the only way to get the picture.
Thicker phones certainly could make great compact cameras, but they wouldn't make a very compact and usable phone. The joy of an iPhone 6 or Samsung galaxy is that it is now wafer thin. Sadly, the laws of physics still require that a lens have a certain length which is much larger than a phone can realistically accommodate
jonrobertp: The only reason this unit got Gold was due to having no competition at the time it came out. The new canon easily beats it in features and usefulness. Most ppl are fine w lcd shooting these days. And to not have a touchscreen nor touchscreen AF....in this day...is clearly behind the times. B-.
I dont think so. Its just not that kind of camera and te Finder is far more useful.
bigdog2: Is the rx100 fast at taking pictures? I have a canon S95 and ready to upgrade to something better but I would like a point a shoot that can take pictures quicker than the S95 with and without flash. From the time I press the button and when the pictures get taken. Cell phones drive me crazy since theres such a delay for the autofocus, always miss the picture moment.
Yes - its super fast on auto.
KenFL74: I am in need of some information that I cannot figure out from reading details about RX100 M3. Can this camera be operated with a wall charger. I am planning on longer timelapses and battery will not last. SO I need an external charger, USB or whatever solution Sony is offering. This will be my decision point between RX100 M3 and some other camera (not sure which one yet) Would anyone know if there is an external wall charger that can run the camera for longer shootings (6-8 hours) I truly appreciate any information. I am very desperate and I am hoping the rx100 m3 can be operated with a wall charger.
You can buy any £10 USB charger. Connect Sony lead to Charger. Easy. But I am not sure that it will run while charging.
rrobbi: Flash diffuser question -- I have been using the original RX-100 since it came out, and have found that it takes great pictures, but using the flash indoors never produces good pictures unless (1) I bend the flash back (which sometimes works if the distances and angles work out correctly, but sometimes produces unevenly lit or underexposed pictures) or (2) I use a Ping-Pong ball that I have cut open so that I can fit it over the flash as a diffuser (which actually works pretty well, but I always have to explain and defend why I'm fooling with a Ping-Pong ball). Is there a more elegant way to improve flash performance that I'm missing? Will the RX-100 III require the same fiddling to try to get a decent image with the flash? I'm running out of Ping-Pong balls.
On the MK II and MK III you can pivot the flash upwards to 45 degrees so it reduces the light hitting the subject and can give you some bounce from a ceiling. I have done this a lot with the MKII, using my left hand to pivot the flash, while the right presses the shutter. You can still do this on the MKIII but its a little harder as the flash is in the centre not the left hand side as on MKII.
Spkeasy: I shoot concerts and need a camera that is silent and not unduly visible. Is the RX100 III silent when shooting, changing settings, etc?Can it be set to have no visible lights, flashes, etc? I read that the focus aid lamp can be turned off... good. Can the screen be blackened while using the VF to shoot?
YES to all of those. Use the Finder, switch of the screen and AF assist. Dont raise the flash and nobody will see or hear you snapping away!!
Harry Quartze: I hope you, or someone knowledgeable, will take the time to tell me what the difference is between the Sony camera rated here, and a Sony RX100M2.
Thank you very much for your help.
I had the MkI, the II and the III. The III has: an eyepiece finder (electronic) which pops up, longer zoom, faster lens, flash pops up in the centre rather than at the side, and popping it up activates flash mode. WiFi functions extended. Better video. Better layout of Function commands when FN pressed. A few other good things. BUT I am not convinced that the image quality in JPEG isnt a bit worse than the MKII. It seems a bit rough and sharpened rather coursely. I am still experimenting with settings but I feel this might be an issue.
At last - its here!! Great. I have a D3X and lugging that thing around the world to get hi-res images does in my back and baggage allowance. By comparison this is a lightweight. I will be placing my order.Well done Nikon(But you could have made it look a bit prettier)