Let's admit it, Sony engineers are brilliant - too brilliant. They apparently race one another to see how many features they can cram into a tiny space. So many picture options undermines the confidence of the photographer because who has time to test them all before deciding to make a photo? There's usually the nagging feeling, "if only I had..." let's have a stripped down version of the A7s. No video, few picture and scene effects, no auto cropping, face finders and so on. Just keep the essential features for good responsive intuitive photography. They could call it the A7pro. We'll never go back to film but the best film cameras just gave you what you need and didn't burden the machine with a lot of engineering hubris.
I am waiting for an artist I respect to show me a series that would have been impossible without the Leica M246. Until then I am quite happy with the B/Ws I've been getting with Sony equipment and for me Leica will remain the plaything of the rich 'enthusiast'. Salgado are you listening? What's your opinion?
Tord S Eriksson: Tried the new magic Photos, and found it lacking in every way!
Happily I found a way to delete it totally (the OS doesn't allow this normally), and while I still mainly use Aperture, this will be the last of Apple software I'll be using (still using Final Cut Pro).
Really sad, that Apple just abandons us, just like that!
Do you mind telling us how you deleted Photos?
Lightroom takes a while to learn but from the beginning it was clearly superior to Aperture. iPhoto wasn't even in the running it was so bad. Photo is no improvement. Take the trouble to learn a great piece of software, Lightroom, and you won't look back.
A sony RX100 series wannabe. I'll stay with the original.
"70mm too short for head and shoulders portraits" Maybe you should take a step or two closer. These complaints about 70mm and portraits indicate people are looking at cameras, not pictures. Many of the world's great portraits were taken with lenses shorter than 70mm - indeed, many with wide-angle lenses. Learn from great photographers not rules promoted by camera magazines.
Paul Kersey Photography: the most obvious failing in the M3 is the lack of improvements with the ergonomics. The RX100 was an enjoyable camera that could have been better with a decent grip and/or an improved non-slippery surface area.
I had a Frantisek (sp) grip on my 1. I didn't get one for the 2 and didn't miss it.
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.
"nice, vibrant photos with sense of perspective." The problem is not the camera, it's the photographer. With RX100 1 and 2 I had no problems getting exceptional photographs which were nice, vibrant and had plenty of perspective. I have every confidence that the same will be the case for the 3.
It seems to be ( judging only from reproductions) that Martin Schoeller got there first and with much less complicated equipment, using from what I remember reading, digital medium format. Schoeller's portraits may not be 900MB but I find them much more compelling.
I am totally baffled by the retro movement. Back in the day Nikon made big clunky ugly SLRs with little gambrel roofs and now they make smaller clunky ugly DSLRs with little gambrel roofs. I don't care how big the sensor is or how good the glass is if you have a clunky ugly camera between you and the image the photography will suffer. The retro movement is a collector's folly. If you want to do some real photography take the best of what the 21st century has to offer like the amazing new Sony full-frames.
The author failed to make his point: that using expensive Leica cameras will make you a better photographer. When the Leica came out in the thirties it was an innovation; a small camera, exquisitely made wtih superior optics and very quickly many great artists adopted the camera: Cartier-Bresson, Cornell Capa, Lee Friedlander, Garry Winogrand, Robert Frank - the list goes on. The point is these brilliant artists made iconic photographs with Leica cameras. Since the advent of digital photography Leica has become a bloated parody of its former excellence. Expense and engineering alone do not make for great cameras. Sample Leica images only prove is that Leicas are capable of making technically excellent pictures, a claim even cell phone cameras can make. I ask where are the artists using digital Leica equipment? Instead of showing me the money, show me the work. I suppose research could turn up one or two noted photo-artists using digital Leica equipment but I don't know of any.
I have to side with minority who are wondering what is the point? An in-phone camera is convenient for everyday tasks like remembering where you parked but it hardly needs to be high resolution. For any serious photography why would you want to use a slab even one with high resolution which will have serious limitations inherent in the telephone design not the least of which is that someone will call in the middle of a shot? Good cameras ( like my RX100MK2) are so small now I have no trouble carrying one along with a cellphone - who really needs an all-in-one?
A pretentious video about a pretentious camera. These days if I see someone with a Leica of any kind I see either a rich amateur or an insecure professional who cares how he or she looks. Leica has ceased to be relevant for a long time now and the monochrome camera and this model make my case yet again.
Why not give the executives of the Sun Times cellphone cameras and let the fired photographers run the paper. Reporters would only be allowed to make videos, no more wordplay. Editors would be limited to editing twitters which of course would be the content of the paper. The paper would cease publication and only be online squeezed in between pop-up ads.
To all those jumping ship, wait for me. We have to admit their software is brilliant and their customer relations just about the worst in the business.The CEO smirks when he says outrageous charges are 'good value'. It's not even good value for Adobe, Mr Short-sightedness. This subscription gimmick is clearly only value for high end professionals and big studios. The fine-art photographer without institutional support - who I might add is just as professional a practitioner as as any studio photographer or photojournalist -is up the creek. Who can afford $50 a month or even $30 for a piece of software they might use 2-3 times a month? In my case I use Lightroom on a daily basis but now the handwriting seems to be on the wall for that fine product. I will dump it like its on fire if it goes the subscription route. Are all you Adobe competitors out there listening? Are you listening Aperture?
This is a little off-topic but it does relate to the workflow demanded by the daily media - years ago I wanted to do a show of work by a photojournalist friend whose work I admired in the newspaper. He said it was impossible; most of what he shot every day was in the newspaper's archives and except for the few images selected by his editors for publication he had never seen 90% of what he had photographed (after the initial exposures of course) and he was too busy to take the time out for a look backwards. This was in the days of film. Imagine what it's like now.
Do any of you ever take pictures?
I guess I'm old school. I just want a digital camera that allows me to take good pictures in an intuitive way - as far as processing goes, I prefer to do that at home on a large screen where I can see details, not on a viewfinder. I don't want apps on my camera because that will distract me from seeing and seeing with clarity is the role of a view finder. I also have no desire to use my camera as a telephone or an email reader. I have a smartphone that performs those roles very well and I enjoy the apps I have on the phone. 'But then you'd only have to carry one device'. I'd rather have two devices each with a clearly defined role. I do use the smartphone camera to make records of various sorts and I appreciate its handiness. But when I'm ready to do photography I take out my camera which incidentally is the same size as the smartphone. .
backayonder: Barney. Will you be returning there tomorrow? If so take a wet fish and slap the company reps around the head with it and repeat. " I want a viewfinder, I want a viewfinder" You might need more than one fish.
Entropius hit the nail on the head: the real innovation is the LCD screen and the electronic viewfinder because it's like looking at a miniature version of the photograph you're about to make. With an optical viewfinder you're peering through an hole at the visual world and trying to visualize in your head what the future photograph will look like. With an electronic EVF or screen you already know before you press the shutter. Incidentally, Sony has made the RX-100 screen perfectly visible in bright sunlight via a menu setting. It works fine.
As an American professional photographer who lived in the UK in 2000-4, I soon discovered my local Jessops in Norwich was quite mediocre with many of the faults outlined by other contrbutors to this dialogue. Sadly, it isn't much different here in Washington DC where I now live. The better camera stores have long since folded and the one decent one remaining (Penn Camera) barely avoided receivership itself. So for many years here and the Uk the internet is where it's at which means buying cameras sight unseen which so far has worked out thanks to sites like dpreview.