UPDATED: Sony Cybershot DSC-RX100 M3 sample images

Hi, I'd like to ask existing users of the RX100M3 if they have used the monochrome modes and what there experience was with these modes.

I was a keen black and white photographer and developer when I was at Uni (many years ago!), I'm after a new travel camera and was hoping that the image quality of the RX100M3 would give me good B&W images and prints.

Your feedback would be greatly appreciated.

Brad

Had a chance to use one for a couple of days. So I could test it to see if it lives up to its "status". Yes the lens is sharp but the zoom is way too short to allow for good creativity. Colors SOOC weren't pleasing either. Yes it's fast, but ergonomics get in your way. Not convinced, and the price is still too high for what it is: a fiddly pocket camera.

From what I see, this compact is worth upgrading from the first two RX100 models. But Sony issued the RX100 IV last year (I don't know how I missed it, but I learnt that there is RX100 IV several minutes ago). It costs a lot more (around $1000) than the RX100 III (Amazon, Newegg and Hardware.eu sell it for $700-800). Is it worth those extra $300-400? PS: I really like the device.

I think it would be helpful if DPR listed alternatives as part of these reviews.

I am looking for a light weight travel camera with good video; however, I have Parkinsons so I have problems with shaking the camera. Stabilization is real important. I try to use tripod and remote as much as possible; however, sometimes you miss those spur of the moment shots. Does this camera have good stabilization? Does it have a remote? Any other recommendations? Love everything I read about the camera for my needs.

Thanks in advance.

Let me start out by stating that I typically respect and follow the intent of DPREVIEW's objective reviews- but- this was the most convoluted and good, but bad review I have read in a long time. I respect the someawhat constructive criticism and longing for this or that rendition of image processing/ functionality/ handling/ image quality etc. but come on! Taking pictures requires having a camera in hand- and to this end Sony deserves more even handed evaluation and less continual and constant criticism of every aspect of this camera. They might as well have compared it to the Nikon D4s as they compared it to competition not in the same realm (truly pocketable). I know DPR qualified all their in review comparison but really?

I invite the critically minded viewers of this excellent website to re-read this review and disagree with my assessment.

I'm looking for pocketable travel camera. GREAT review here of the RX100 III, but is there a better option for someone like me who never shoots RAW and doesn't care too much about video? I worry RX100-III is too complicated for someone who typically sticks with Scene or Program modes? For me a "Travel Camera" has to fit comfortably in a shirt pocket, or khaki shorts pocket (but probably not jeans pants pocket). EVA and flash are also required... and I really like the idea of flipping the screen 180 for selfies! (remember it's a travel camera).
The stated RX100-III dimensions of 102 x 58 x 41 mm (4.02 x 2.28 x 1.61″) seem about maximum for my needs, compared to the wife's Canon PS SX130-IS that definitely feels too big (113 x 73 x 46 mm (4.45 x 2.87 x 1.81″).
Can anyone recommend something even a little smaller, with EVF & flash of course.. oh and that 180 degree screen too.

When Sony introduced the RX100, I was in the market some a very good portable camera which I could easily lug around when not using my Nikon DSLR's. I purchased the camera and was not disappointed. I loved it! Then along came the RX100 MII where a hot shoe was added and I quickly upgraded. I loved it even more than its predecessor. I complemented my new purchase with a remote and the flash unit accessory. A truly great combination. With the unveiling of the MIII, I set out to compare and with a plan to further upgrade, but alas, I did not. The reason? Despite the enhancements made to the MIII, the omission of a hot shoe was a major disappointment. Sony certainly dropped the ball in this area. The end result is that I'll hang on to the MII indefinitely and until Sony hopefully reintroduces the hot shoe on the MIV???. Hope they do take heed.

Returned the other day mij RX100m3. Complaints? Just the optical steady shot.
I could not get enough photos whithout motion blur in low light conditions, say at 1/20th or 1/30th. Now i've bought the Canon G7X and that camera has a much better image stabilisation. I'm happy now, but i will miss that electronic viewfinder!

Sony decided to leave out the Hot Shoe! What a major sorry decision!!! Am I the only complaining? And of course, every time they come out w/ a later model of the RX-100 they hike up the price astronomically. $800 for the RX-100 III? Thx but no thx...I will just wait for the competition to come out w/ it competitive version...probably a lot better, w/ a Hot Shoe and cheaper!!!

Thx,

GGF

This has got to be the most nitpicky review I’ve ever read on dpreview. And as usual the out of camera jpegs are far better looking than the dpreview raw conversions, which always look noisy, anemic, and hdr-ish.

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/9935181366/high-end-pocketable-compacts-2014-roundup/8

"At this point in time -it's the best pocket camera available."

You got to wonder why Sony seems incapable to make a cam with touchscreen AF. For the sake of competition I hope they get to work to build something with being interested in. And that uber-short lens.... so very limiting.
Thankfully Canon has a class leading G7X.

Not so sure about that, think the RX100 III got Gold because it offers and excels more. Keep in mind the G7X competes with the RX100 II while the RX100 III is still in a class all alone. While touchscreen may appeal to some, it does little good on a bright summer day when you can only rely on your RX100 III with built in viewfinder. 😉

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 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?

Today I received an email from Sony requesting that I…’ Help other shoppers by writing a review about the dsc-rx100m3’. There appears to be more than enough positive things to said about the product – so I thought I would offer my reflections upon another aspect of the Sony experience.
Have you noticed that wherever you look; the purchase the price is almost identical… The resultant impression is that RPM (see Wiki) seems to be employed?
I found a local stockist who, while offering the rx100m3 on his web site could NOT publish any price BUT the full RRP. He could discount it (marginally) across the counter but if he published this marginal discounted price on his web site, Sony would remove him from their list of stockist!
Now I am not saying what Sony are doing is illegal (I suppose that would depend on the laws of the country) but it does seem very, very heavy handed and creates the impression that they are trying to influence the market.
I will leave you to be the judge……?

I really looked forward to adding this camera to my arsenal. I purchased one a couple of months ago. Images and video were of high quality IMO. They were even good in low light conditions. After a few days though I returned the camera (the store had a no hassle return policy). This camera is somewhat difficult to hold without any type of built-in grip. Someone else in this forum described it like holding a bar of soap - I somewhat agree. Also your left hand may normally rest where the diopter sight is located which for me was problematic when it was in use. Also, I didn't get much out of the zoom lens. I think that this camera would be better with a fixed lens - you also wouldn't have to wait for it to go through its motions of extending and retracting the lens each time the camera is turned on and off. While this camera was really of high quality IMO, it isn't a 'comfortable' camera to use. Are there any upcoming products with similar form factor and features worth considering?

It's fast enough; definitely faster than the S95.
HOWEVER before you buy one weigh the following point:
> I had an RX 100 and loved it, especially as I could photograph in RAW + JPG in black and white (see my square BW images on the screen and know I could always go back to the full-frame color RAW image if needed.
Now, the RX 100 III does not authorize the recording of the RAW image wit the bw JPG one. If one shoots JPG bw one only gets the JPG bw.
In my opinion this is a very stupid change in software for a camera that taps into an audience that would rather use raw and the possibilities of multiformat BW images (while photographing, and NOT in front of one's computer) than their cell-phones. Kinda ludicrous move!!!

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.

thanks

Is there something strange going on with the NR on the M3? Looking at the noise samples on p. 11 of the review, the M3 does very poorly compared to the M2. Look at the highest ISO12800 setting, and the difference is shocking!

However, the M3 sample of the stamp also looks more enlarged than the M2 sample. Strange, because they have the same resolution...

Anyone have an idea?

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.

I am not sure how the comparison has been done but having just done it myself side by side on video it looks like the Mark III is a clear step back compared to the Mark II to the point I actually returned the new one.
I would like to know how that resolution sample was shot as from what I can see the resolution has actually decreased even at the highest bitrate. There is a lot of functionality that is useful but this is no good if the overall quality is worse. It also looks like the new stabiliser mode has only a correction for rolling shutter and there is no 5 axis system of any sort. Poor

The Sigma Merrill cameras have the best image quality of any pocketable camera, but DPR won't review them. I wouldn't dream of buying a camera (like this one) that has aggressive sharpening of JPGs that can't be turned off.