Sony RX 100 ii vs Mark iii
I just watched The Camera Stores Review of the RX 100 iii on You Tube. I have the Mark II.
After that review it almost feels like you need to buy the Mark iii or sell the Mark ii to help pay for the Mark III
Their are differences on the video side which is fine, not enough of a deal breaker.
The stills the camera takes are the same. If they fit a larger sensor in this camera, Sure no question that would be amazing.
I agree the built in ND filter is very handy to have when you need it.
So far as having a viewfinder or not, great, but the viewfinder has Zero effect on the final product. We all lived without viewfinders at various stages and still bought the camera. It was not a deal breaker then.
Now the zoom range difference. You have to decide if you can take a step backwards on the wide end and at the same 70 mm focal length the Mark II is one stop slower, just checked at F 4.0.
All this means is that you have to get closer to the subject and or zoom in farther to get the same like effect. Remember the Three Things that affect Depth of Field and they all play together. A longer lens has inherently a shallower DOF than the wider combined with getting closer and adding Macro mode may do the trick too.
Past specs, you have to know how photography works and how everything meshes together to decide if the extra $100 is truly worth the difference between the Mark II and III.
I don't think it is, Let's see what the RX 100 mark IV does in the next 18 months or so. Ya know life cycle of a digital camera in this p&S class is a fast turn around to the next model.
|2014_1211_140657AA by old shutter bugger|
from The Bride
|Overloaded by NZ Scott|
from Your City - Delivery Boy
|Petals by Flor Tempra|
from Petal Portraits
|Barley by Will B Milner|
|APPLE & ROACH by TX Photo Doc|
from Delicious - Unpalatable