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.
If anyone is interested in an extended version of my rant ( see comment below ) it can be fiound at my blog at http://markelpower.tumblr.com/
The Photoshop team at Adobe has always been overprotective and paranoid. Their attitude towards the user is punitive instead of supportive. "Creative cloud" subscriptions are an extension of that punitive paranoia. They recognize only one kind of photographer in a universe of many kinds. Their target is the high end professional and they pretty much ignore photographers at the lower end of the economic scale.But then there's Lightroom which seems to subscribe to the Apple philosophy of putting the consumer first and profit second. LR is value for the money. It is reasonably priced and upgrades (often free) are made quickly available to all users. LR allows updates to RAW capability as new cameras come on the market. PS only allows the most current versions of PS to have those updates. I can only hope that LR does not follow PS down the slippery slope of subscription memberships. I can get by without Photoshop but parting with LR would be like losing a limb.
I've owned 9 digital cameras and maybe three times that number of film cameras and the RX-100 is pretty close to perfect for the shooting I do. 20x24 prints look like they were made with a view camera. It would be perfect if it has an articulated viewfinder and a fast Zeiss lens that started at 24mm. Of course it would have to remain the same size which is part of its near-perfection. The Rx-1 is tempting but its lens isn't wide enough for me and it's too big. Is full-frame really that much better than a 1 inch sensor? I've seen prints made with the top Canon DSLR and if there is a difference it's not perceptible to the eye although testing machinery can tell the difference I'm sure...
I'm old enough to remember when car design went crazy in the 50s with exaggerated tail fins..the Lunar takes me back to those days. The cars were hideous, the ugliest being the Buick which head on looked like it had a mouthful of shiny teeth but of course once nostalgia kicked in ugly became beautiful. Unlike most cameras which strive to be inconspicuous the Lunar screams for attention. Everyone will know you're a photographer with this camera. Will you take good pictures with it? Difficult when you're so busy showing it off.