400mm on an aps-c dslr = 600mm equivalent.

In many of the images, but certainly not all, there are very harsh highlights. And the bokeh leaves a lot to be desired.

But what do you expect of a small sensor or superzoom lens?

Honestly, I expect a lot from a 1" sensor. I'm very pleased with the photos from the RX100 and LX100.

My expectations for a superzoom lens are more mixed. As I said, I was disappointed, but not unsurprised. I had kind of hoped Sony had pulled out some magic to make a 25x zoom lens do okay, but it's apparent they didn't. I'm not actually sure what the point of all that flexibility is if the photos aren't worthwhile. I'd gladly take a more conservative 12x zoom with decent images over 25x zoom.

Anyone comparing a 24-600mm focal length with a 24-75mm is comparing oranges & apples, 1st the sensor of the LX100 is much bigger, albeit not using all of its surface area, 2nd for a superzoom bridge camera lens the 24-600 sony zeiss lens is outstanding IQ, even for a bridge, and this is only a beta RX10 III & jpeg samples only. such a long focal range does have its optical compromises, and is far more complex than a 24-70 or 24-70 range...but the rx10 III here seems to be very good.

Nobody does expect "bokeh" performance usually from a superzoom lens like a fast prime lens to perform.

Well, let me put it this way. Before the RX100, I never expected decent performance out of a point-and-shoot sized camera. The RX100 blew me away. It fit all the image quality of a basic dSLR with kit lens into a pocket-sized package. It was unique.

Traditional superzooms had mediocre quality, but were also cheap consumer items at $300-$500 or so.

When the RX10 III was announced, I hoped it was a similar kind of step as the RX100. The RX10 III weighs and costs more than a dSLR with superzoom lens. At $1500, I had hoped it made a step in optics to make it worth it. It doesn't seem like that happened.

It's your very own thought, and something silly, too. How can you judge IQ from the RX10 III which is here a) a beta unit and b) JPEG OOC only, no RAW images, and further not final production hardware. And being a superzoom with 600mm F4, there is really no alternative for a DSLR, either APS-C/DX or FF, all APS-C Zooms with max. 300mm F5.6 are mediocrea from IQ, and you know what a 600mm F4 L II Canon costs? I've seen one here last month ago, it's been 12.000 EUR, and that Guy used it onto a 1D IV (APS-H) for Waterbirds Shooting at a local lake here - it's not being used "freehand" into any way, and very huge. There is for enthusiasts and amateurs really no alternative currently for the focal range of the RX10 III, also when one would compare Size and IQ, haven't you seen the samples yet here and on the net ?

The RX100 was nothing for me, ever...because i can't stand retractable lenses, no filter thrad w/o adapter, and for that focal range i better use my DSLR. Horses for Courses :)

It's not fair to compare aperture like that. f/4 on 1" will behave like f/11 on full frame or f/6.9 in APS. Likewise, 300mm f/5.6 on APS can be cropped to to 520mm f/5.6, while still giving 1" sensor area.

However, up to this point, all of my comments were about personal disappointment. It's not a camera I'm interested in. That doesn't mean you shouldn't buy it. Different strokes for different folks and all that.

What I will also say is I've seen a lot of newcomers buy cameras like this expecting good image quality (big lens, big price), and only learn much later that they paid for zoom range they never use, but get photos worse than a smaller $400 camera.

F/4 means F/4, even onto a 1/2.4" Camera sensor size with lens, F-Stpp light gathering is the same & always, with any Sensor Size. My Tamron 70-300 VC wouldn't be better than this RX10 III here, and also all the weight & bulk hereby, too. For a 1 kg Bridgecam only, the Mk. III RX10 is really a very good offer.

I'd buy this Bridge into a year or perhaps two, because i'd love to shoot waterbirds, and birds here into our local area & small lakes. With my FF, i'd only have my 70-300/4-5.6 Tamron VC, and half the reach, slower aperture, much more heavy, and i doubt the IQ from the RX10 III would be worse @300mm compared to my 5D. 1 inch Sensors are 2016 really being matured, and much better than APS-C/DX sensors back years ago - especially when compared with really good lenses, say RX10/RX100 Series here, or Nikons latest DL Series - they're quite better from IQ, lens speed & reach then comparable APS-C lens offering, and smaller because of using a 1 inch sensor, too.

to be continued...

..continued...the Lens System of the RX10 III is especially designed, optimized only for this particular camera & 1 inch sensor size - the same goes for the RX1(R) Series - check out the IQ of these FF 35/2 mirrorless cameras...and basically, the Lens from the DSC-R1 back into 2005 was the very best ever into a bridgecamera, with nearly a APS-C sensor, too.
Check out the imaging ressource review and all the others - tack-sharp @ISO160 & F2.8..corner to edges...even my APS-C & FF lenses aren't that good, Zeiss Zoom here was also computed & optimized especially for the R1 bridge design - and so it is with the RX10 III also here.

It's okay if this cam doesn't work for you -everybody does have different needs in photography terms, but for ppl shooting birds, wildlife, etc...this offer is a bargain compared to FF & APS_C DSLR & lenses in terms of focal length, lens speed & weight, you can't beat that 1kg package, also with HQ 4k video, too...even S-log2..for videographers, -bloggers, etc

Two things:

1. You're confused about the physics of lenses. f/stop will tell you light intensity at the sensor. If you're trying to get reasonable noise levels at reasonable shutter speeds, that doesn't matter. Total light at the sensor matters. For the same generation sensor (say, top-of-the-line Sony sensor from the same year), if you go from 1/3" to full frame, equivalent aperture predicts noise+shutter to within maybe 20% across sensor sizes. f/stop is off by a factor of almost 100.

2. My complaints weren't about sharpness, but about overall aesthetic. I've almost never found myself limited by lens sharpness as much as all the other aspects of IQ. For birding, it might not matter quite as much -- the background is often out-of-focus enough for bokeh to not be quite so important. But for what I do, I'm not sure I'd find IQ acceptable.

One thing, my father is physicist, electronic technian, and technician in measurement technology, so please don't tell me about physics. 2nd, f/stop & therefore the light gathering ability remains the same - f/2.8 onto a 1" @ISO100 sensor gathers the same than f/2.8 on a FF @ISO100 sensoir, when the shutter speed is the same - it only differs into sensor size, and therefore bigger sensors do have because of bigger photosites more signal to noise ratio, and better high iso performance, because of the bigger pixels. technology advanced here very much during the past couple years.

As for birding, i'd think the amount of possible background blur at f/4 is quite enough with the RX10 III, check out the pheasant samples here from the Beta Unit, which are the Samples from DPR have had into hands for a few hours.

to be continued...

i would like you to stop being such a troll

@tbcass. I got more important things to do than to hate a company. Seriously man, get a grip. Just looking at the samples it's obvious that it's a 1" sensor. Better than 1/1.7 and worse than m43. The lens may be nice, but my point was for about the same size, why not get a Nikon D3300 and superzoom 16-300 lens and simply crop if you want to get in closer. For video, yes it makes sense, but then again who ever does video at 600mm? Just get a RX100iv or any other 4k camera.

@tbcass - I don't think that this lens at 600mm gives more resolution on 1'' sensor then 450mm on croped APS-C to match FoV.

Yes, I really do wish somebody would do an IQ comparison between this and APS-C + 300 zoom combo.. From what i'm seeing here, the lens/glass maybe 'that' good..

@ arbux

From the samples I see I think it does so we're at an impasse that won't be settled until professional tests and reviews are complete. I own a 16-300 and this lens at 600mm equiv appears sharper than the 16-300 at 300 (450 equiv) so I do have a basis of comparison.

"...the essentially bulk box shifting roots..."

What does that mean ???

It's a derogatory comment on their "mass-market" status? I have no idea.
Sony have been steadily improving their UI, they just need a bit more time to sort the menus out. But it's much better now than it used to be.

Need a bit more time. How much do you think?
It is a comment that they are in the camera markets but just lack finesse and experience in many respects so it is OK having a project to build the best cameras but it not so easily achievable in practice. Their attention is spread in so many directions and they cannot necessarily do everything well.
I just find my Olympus cameras so much nicer to use than the NEX 6 which was a beautiful camera in many ways but clunky to use. Getting the feels right factor in to kit cannot just be done as a corporate by numbers exercise. The fact they have to go back to the Alpha menus and completely abandon the NEX approach was a massive back track and development write off.

@Greynerd: After six months with an E-M1, I still feel the Sony interface is superior, for me. Olympus does some things well, but many others in a mediocre way (including the overcrowded SCP, the touchscreen UI, the very weird MySet and customization idiosyncrasies, etc.).
It's all very subjective, though. But Sony, unlike Olympus, is willing to change and try new approaches to UI and refine them over time.

this is not a meant to be a pro camera for shooting motorcycle races!? It as CD AF only. Your canikon bazookas are still best there. Look at the sample that's what its for. I think it nails it in many ways.

That's a €1600 vs €1000 camera. I think the DL is going to have some compromises, like built quality, but i would worry most about the lens.

Relevant: http://camerasize.com/compact/#665,672,ha,t

The FZ1000 is total crap compared to Any RX-10. I tried that camera, returned it after a week. SOOooo cheap feeling. Hard to beat Ziess Glass.

Its a 24-600 equivalent lens.

The equivalent aperture indicated are valid for depth of field but fstops remain the same for photometric purpose whatever the focal length. BTW, if anyone knows a telelens of 600mm/4 in FF, let me know.

I don't think that the IQ of the two 300mm Olympus lenses is that bad. The Zuiko 300mm 2.8 and the M.Zuiko 300mm 4 are not that bad in my opinion.

Hi @LJ - Eljot I was referring to the 70-300/100-300 zooms not the prime one.

Entry level DSLRs have sensational sensors and so can take sensational photos at low entry price. A 1" sensor can take nice photos but not in the same class. But of course the DSLRs are crippled in functionality/ergonomics. (Mind you, Sony menu system is painful)

The IQ of the Zuiko 70-300mm F4.0-5.6 is dissapionting indeed. The M.Zuiko 75-300mm F4.8-6.7 is also not that great. The 75-300mm F4.8-6.7 II is said to be OK to quite good. I have not tested it so far, but I am going to. The Zuiko 90-250mm F2.8 should be qite good. But I have not tested it by now and probalbly never will. I am quite content with my Zuiko 50-200mm F2.8-3.5 + EC-14. But it is pretty big compared to the smaller zooms.

Pentax, check out YouTube, there's a video of a army guy dusting his Pentax with desert sand than washing them off in the shower

Get two bodies and keep the main lenses attached.

For hiking where you need all types of focal lengths. Unless you are a professional, I suggest it's time to ditch the DSLR. Reasons DSLRs are heavyweight and sometimes you can miss a shot trying to change a lens. Your expensive DSLR and lens can easily get damage on the trails. The Panasonic FZ 1000 does the thing at a cheap cost. Good overall quality. I hope there may be an upgrade coming soon.
However, The extra focal length of the Sony rx10 three along with the slow motion video is a knockout.

Thanks guys for your suggestions! Would I be wrong to think that a full frame sensor would be worse for dust since common sense tells me that the bigger the sensor the more dust can get on it. I had a 5D Mark II which was terrible for dust and the D610 was even worse. The only DSLR that I owned and had the least amount of dust showing on pics was my Pentax K-5. And when I bought my D610 I still had my K-5 and when I compared bodies side by side I couldn't believe how crappy the built of the D610 was compared to the K-5, and the K-5 had so many more seals. Dust aside though, the K-5 couldn't compete for image quality which is why I switched. Now I guess two light bodies with their own lens wouldn't be a bad idea. I'm also tempted by this camera or the new DL's. The thought of never having to switch lenses is very tempting, but when you're used to full frame quality it's tough. I'm willing to downgrade to a certain degree but I still like to make large prints. I'll do some more research.

Why not consider a mid range SLR and Tamron 16-300 which would cover most of the lens range you have used in the past and what most of the quality compacts have to offer. Ok, it would be heavier than any compact but lighter and cheaper than two bodies and two lenses. One more advantage is that the IQ would be much better than any compact.Here is some info to ponder about; Canon 80D 730gr, Nikon D7200 675gr, Tamron 16-300 f.3.5-6.3 545gr. Lens range on Canon 25,5-480mm, on Nikon 24-450mm. Any two light bodies and lenses covering the similar range would exceed 2kg easily. Tamron+Canon or Nikon cost around $1600 in the US. Happy thinking and shopping ;))

One more option to consider: Canon G3X 24-600mm. With viewfinder costs same as Nikon DL 25-500mm

I think that switching lenses is only part of the problem. Zooms pump air and associated particles into the camera chamber on ILCs, and I imagine the zooms on compacts do likewise.

Micro four thirds cameras use an excellent dust reduction system, AND have a much thicker glass plate in front of the sensor, that actually reduces the visibility of dust to a large degree. The only ILCs that I've had without a single appearance of dust have been Olympus and Panasonic MFT.

Do you really have to wait for a pre-release version of ACR before making RAW files available? I realize you probably want to put up some actual renders at the same time, but there's plenty of other ways for people to usefully play with RAW files in the meantime ;)

Carey, it may take a while for ACR to support the camera, but what was wrong in not using Sony's own RAW converter software and which I assume ships with the camera?

The RX10 II has a much shorter lens, so maybe I'm seeing lens softness?

I would love a good 1" cam that can hang with my m4/3 gear. I'm all about size/performance ratio. Hope it looks better when we see some RAW.

Yes, in an ideal world we'd have the RAW files too, but I'd like any conversions to be at the default settings.

At the end of the day that still demonstrates the software though; albeit different software ;)

I prefer to download the RAW files and edit them to my preferences