maximme: i miss Motorola flip phones :)
tkbslc: The hard part is that the 85mm f1.8's from Nikon and Canon are both very good and much cheaper. Sigma's 85mm f1.4 isn't much more expensive, either.
I guess if you really need the VC, but typically you'll be at 1/80+ for people pictures anyway, and this is a classic portrait length. Using VC and shooting a couple stops down at 1/30 or 1/25 and you'll have subject motion blur much of the time. Could work for video I guess.
They released the 90mm f2.8 macro at the same time. They should have just combined the two and made a 90mm f2 macro. Now THAT would be an exciting lens with few peers.
I like it when one lens can perform many jobs. That's why an f2 macro lens.
The hard part is that the 85mm f1.8's from Nikon and Canon are both very good and much cheaper. Sigma's 85mm f1.4 isn't much more expensive, either.
ijustloveshooting: wide open sharpness and contrast of batis 85 smokes it.
Batis 85mm only works on Sony and this was designed for DSLR. Irrelevant.
tkbslc: I can't beleive there is controversy over this. If you have a 50-140mm f2.8 and want want to double your reach and maintain WR, you have only two options. One is almost $2000 and adds 3lbs to your bag. The other is $350 and is the size and weight of a small prime. This can be a useful item to have.
Arguments about quality should include comparisons to cropping. Usually a TC is the difference between an extreme crop (losing 3/4 of the area for 2x) or no shot at all. Assuming you are going to magically carry a second telephoto everywhere you could bring a TC is a bit of a stretch.
I'd love to see that comparison, because I sure don't buy it. Unless your goal is 1000px images.
I can't beleive there is controversy over this. If you have a 50-140mm f2.8 and want want to double your reach and maintain WR, you have only two options. One is almost $2000 and adds 3lbs to your bag. The other is $350 and is the size and weight of a small prime. This can be a useful item to have.
tkbslc: might be worth picking up one of those dirt cheap original M bodies just to use this. Very cool ideal.
At macro distances, I don't believe you.
Used to own one with the 22mm before going m4/3. . Macro on any lens for any system is plagued by hunting. At least in my experience with several.
2eyesee: I've got to say for the purposes of this article, the FZ1000 - that can be had for less than half the price of the RX10 III now - represents much better value. And I'm saying that as an original RX10 owner.
Probably, unless you need 50% more reach.
toomanycanons: Admittedly I'm a guy who lifts weights every morning in the gym and you're....wait, let me start again.
I did a ton, make that two tons of hiking at altitude last summer, miles and miles of it at a time, carrying either my Nikon J1 or D5200 or D600 (light vs heavyish right?) and not once did I notice the weight of the DSLR. Never. It was just a three lb weight (at most) in my hands. Only three lbs, max. Not something to groan "if only I'd brought my J1 instead, oh woe is me."
Nice pics, though. Lucky you being able to have that owl hang around long enough for a decent shot.
It's just laughably dishonest to pretend a backpaker cares nothing about weight and volume. I suppose you always take along a regular camp stove? A full camping pad? 4-man tent? Camp chair? Pack in your own firewood? I mean it's all just a few extra pounds, right? Who can't carry a few extra pounds?
Everything you pack is something else that you couldn't. Maybe it's those dry shorts you will wish you had on day 4.
f6.6? I guess it's good for outdoors in the afternoon.
rrccad: at 61x46mm and 130g that's the lightest / smallest 1:1 macro ILC lens?
I think so, but it is also one of the widest at 45mm equivalent.
The m4/3 30mm macro is 180g and 58x63mm, so not far off.
might be worth picking up one of those dirt cheap original M bodies just to use this. Very cool ideal.
Sabud: Sony DSC-RX10 III is like a swiss folding knife, many tools but.....;)When I goes hiking it's about a week to ten days. I want best possible quality and weight matters so my compromise is a X-T1 with 18-55. 750 gram. My dream is a (coming) Sony A5300 with a lens like the Fujifilm 18-55.
If you are cool with such a short zoom range, why are you even reading about the RX10 III?
PVCdroid: When did touchscreens become must have? Oh, I know. When Canon started adding them last year. BFD. Same negative crap on each review now
I can't imagine selecting focus points any other way after owning a GX7.
The TZ100 (ZS100) sounds a lot better for this usage scenario to me.
25-600mm is pretty impressive, though.
Next time you should also use 5lb ankle weights on each leg. The more the better, right?
How can the G7 be picked over the GX80 for video? GX80 has the same video quality and features as the G7, but adds IBIS to the mix. Makes no sense.
Peiasdf: If only this camera comes with either Nikon or Canon mount so it will have good lens to use.
None of the limited lens was designed for 36mp FF
Those new Tamron made zoom lenses are quite outstanding as well.
SolidMetal: Can't really believe what I see! Amazing job! Textbook example of what a little company in a financially bad situation can achieve with great efforts. I'm truly amazed, and hope that they will find their customers!
"little company", "financially bad situation"
Ricoh had about 5% profit on $20,000,000,000 in Revenue last fiscal year.