Guenter Hofstaedter: this is a half sized pic from the harley davidson meeting with the D810+58 f/1.4 http://www.pbase.com/mascular/image/156717479/original
Its not perfekt, so no comments nessesary, just take a look, thats all !
Those sample photos are the best I've seen... ever! Truly outstanding. Thank you for sharing.Nick
I like #5
shutterbud: I've never seen the appeal of this line of cameras. And the price seems ludicrous. Nikon only make one camera which remotely appeals to me...the D7100, but their appalling customer service and quality control has turned me totally off the company.
so, which company and cameras are good then..?
mosc: So Nikon:1) Price the V3 at $499 with this kit lens and no viewfinder2) Make a powerzoom that covers at least 9-36mm, no slower than f2.8, and no more expensive than $4993) Make a camera bundle that offers a body with a viewfinder, the lens from #2, and costs <$1000
There, I fixed your system for you.
From what I've seen, the V3 gives outstanding results WITH excellent AF. I learned to appreciate fast, accurate and repeatable AF results, after i used canon dSLR that couldn't focus accurately at all... that was unusable.
I suppose you can always go get RX100 for that money (<$1,000)...and it will give worse photo results than S90 at base ISO.
Like the sample photos a lot. I also know that the AF speed is the most important feature in a camera, especially after I was betrayed by Canon AF performance. What I can't understand is the mediocre lens selection and high price...
Great, and on occasion or 2 -> stunning.Nick
munro harrap: So, with this, the RX10, the A6000, and the A7 and A7R and S variants, Sony have easily the best overall range of digicams available on the market today. All in a decade from no cameras at all.
And of course without Sony there would be no Nikons either.....
This is a Leica of the old school neat fast pocketable with a separate optional viewfinder./ Looking at images from RAW here up to around 500 the grain is as good as Tri-X was and that was only monochrome.
A lot less boring than the World Cup, and fewer fouls!
There will always be Nikons - just not with the Sony sensors.
Sony makes excellent sensors and the photographic gadgets.
Nikon and Canon still make photographic apparatus that make beautiful photos.
George Veltchev: At Studio Comparison both Panasonic DMC-FZ1000 and Sony Cyber-shot RX100 III, demonstrate unenviable level of noise at higher ISO, when face the one and only Canon PowerShot G1 X Mark II ( check for yourself ) ... if your main goal is IQ in relatively compact package then the Canon is a clear winner here ... end of story!
That G1 X II is the slowest camera I handled and tried in a long while ->completely unusable. I agree the colour and overall picture quality is very nice, but what's the point when the candid moment is gone... forever... It is very frustrating while u're waiting for the camera to allow you to use it... it is like you don't have control over the camera, but camera controls you.
Shame on Canon!Nick
siquijor: What would you recommend for an underwater camera. The Sony DSC-RX 100 or Canon G1 Mark II. Close up details and color would be the primary concern, with speed being a close second. It would be used for marine biology projects and species identification, not just tourist shots. But the beauty of the shots would help a lot in preservation and promotion.
RX100 colour -> forget it...G1 II speed -> forget it... completely...
This is why I've been saying that praising either of this camera will not do us, consumers, any favor. Sony needs to improve processing, and Canon has to be forced, somehow, to stop intentional crippling their cameras.
Good luck deciding.
Peng Bian: It most likely won't get to 3000, interest has peaked with this camera, until the full review comes out I think.
...the next update will take the counter to 3000 - easily. The full review should bring that number to 3,500. Can we reach 4000?
dPreview will release another update, soon. This will keep people comments going. Completely fair form dPreview perspective; this camera lays golden eggs, and dPreview has a business to run.
I wonder who'll post 3000th comment...? dPreview should most certainly reward the lucky individual. Now, that would be something, right?Nick
Boky: DaveE1 and dpmaxwell
The camera brand means nothing to me.
I want from Sony a P&S, pocketable camera that will make nice, vibrant photos with sense of perspective. The RX100III is far from meeting any of these requirements. Accepting this low standards as something out of this world, shoots a clear message to Sony that they do not have to invest in further improvement for a year or 2. This is not helping anyone. If you like the RX100III size, feel, menu structure, usability and blend, dull, blueish photographs - I do not.
And I found the right place to express my revolt. I also want to benefit form this nonsense publicity and dPreviews' once-a day / month-long review.
Halve the monitor area and look at samples; RX100 (any incarnation) and anything else, side by side. This will take any possible grayscale / gamut capabilities out of the equation.
RX100 - series photos will look lifeless, blend, dull with blue overcast that can not be easily removed in PP even from RAW captures. In addition, I do not feel any sense of perspective (depth) when i look at RX100 series samples. The worst are skin tones. Unbearable.
Please, don't do that. I want to stay on your list.
Boky: The photos look bland, lifeless and dull with colour cast that is off completely. There is no sense of perspective, and the camera is anything but pocketable and costs $800 US (or AU$1000 !!! <- a complete joke). The latest set of sample photos are by far the most unappealing I've seen in a while. Lens extends to 70 only and is useless for portrait work.
I better go and get one because we are approaching 3000th comment -> this must be a fantastic camera.
enjoy your camera, be goodNick
DaveE1 and dpmaxwell
bricks of that size may keep you happy while walking around - they may even give you a thrill or 2...Nick
The photos look bland, lifeless and dull with colour cast that is off completely. There is no sense of perspective, and the camera is anything but pocketable and costs $800 US (or AU$1000 !!! <- a complete joke). The latest set of sample photos are by far the most unappealing I've seen in a while. Lens extends to 70 only and is useless for portrait work.
forpetessake: I guess hype works! Otherwise how can you explain all this ballyhoo going on? The camera's only achievement is that it fits in a pocket, the lens is pretty unremarkable, and so are the images.
it does not fit in a pocket! you have to shove it down hard.
Markol: >>This is essentially the same 'see it, shoot it' grab shot that most people would use their smartphone for. Using the RX100 III meant I had the zoom, exposure controls and ability to shoot Raw that most phones don't offer, though.
That's some deep insight right there ;-)
I thought of the exact same thing while reading that paragraph...
who will post the 3000th comment...?