New Sony RX100 mkIII announced

[Charles Papert]

Originally Posted by Jack Zhang

Yeah... We're talking 4K on a budget, not unlimited budget.

Every budget has a limit. The F55 is actually considered a budget camera on the higher end (compared to the F65 or even the lower resolution Alexa, for instance).

If you are looking at a sub-$1000 camera like this one as a serious shooting machine, your budget probably precludes or limits a great number of other niceties such as crew and permits and lighting package. Why 4K is any kind of priority in that environment continues to elude me, other than it is a buzzword and certain other cameras provide it (even as they underwhelm in other ways).

I can absolutely understand why a sensitive sensor is a great boon for low budget shooting, because it opens up the possibility of using a smaller and simpler lighting package. Easier to manage with less crew, cheaper, and able to use house power. Very logical. Same goes for higher dynamic range, built in stabilization, etc. You can get more done with less.

When it comes to 4K with a 1080 delivery, you have the opportunity to reframe and blow up footage, which is a useful tool that I took advantage of the first time I shot with a RED in 2008. But other than that, can someone explain to me why 4K is a legitimate need in a ultra-low budget situation and not just a (manufacturer-driven) want?

I'm reading this thread because I own an RX100 MK1 that I use as mostly as a scouting camera. On the actual shoot days, with trucks up and down the street and a 100 person crew, I'm shooting 1080 422HQ on the Alexa. I've seen the results on a 50 ft screen and it looks great. Even with all of these apparent luxuries at my disposal, our budget is far from "unlimited" and there are plenty of things on my wish list. As much as it would be nice to shoot RAW at 2.8K, in terms of priority it's really far down that list.

And that's why I question the focus on 4K.

[Noa Put]

I think for about anyone the sharper 1080p output and the reframing options are the most useful 4K attributes at this moment, there are allready plenty of videos out there that proof the new 4K camera's can deliver a more detailed 1080p image and that cropping a 4k image in a 1080p project is perfectly usefull, that can either make you a more lazy shooter, like shoot fixed on a tripod and do the panning in post but it can also open up extra possibilities for solo shooters as they can combine what appears to be different focal lengths out of one frame just with using the cropping ability.

Eventhough we are talking about a cheap pocket camera, if it would have 4k I could easily fit it into my workflow when doing weddings as a b-cam during a ceremony, again with it's cropping ability it could be a lifesaver when I"m running under timepressure and have no time to frame my unmanned camera the right way, then I just could have a wider field of view and set my frame right in post.

In that respect I don't see what a f55 has to do with the rx100 III not having 4K, those are 2 totally different camera's for totally different uses.

[Ken Ross]

I suspect those that question the value of 4K, haven't really seen how demonstrably better the downscaled 1080p actually looks. There simply is no 2K camera that can produce the same results with the same detail.

Then of course we get to actually watching 4K on a large screen UHD TV. Depending on the size of the screen, the difference between 2K and 4K can be huge. Even watching 4K on my puny 28" 4K monitor, is an eye-opening experience...no pun intended.

Personally I'm done with investing in 2K, like it or not, IMO, we're moving into a 4K world. Too many advantages that outweigh the disadvantages.

[Paul Cronin]

Very well said Charles,

I just sold my F55 to go back to eng camera that will shoot XAVC 1080. Fast action on the water shooting where you get one take most of the time, I am going back to right tool for the job. The F55 is a fantastic camera but with 8 months on the job it is not the right tool for me. Glad it was a hot easy item to sell.

Ah full manual 2/3" eng just makes me smile at work.

[Noa Put]

Still don't see what an f55 or full manual 2/3" eng has to do with a pocketcamera...

[Paul Cronin]

Originally Posted by Noa Put

Still don't see what an f55 or full manual 2/3" eng has to do with a pocketcamera...

It has everything to do with 1080 or 4K choice and we are just giving working examples on what will give excellent results. I would be very surprised if you need 4K. And 1080p from 4K was not sharper on the F55.

[Noa Put]

This is a thread about the sony rx100III, the f55 was mentioned as a reason to get if you wanted 4k which was quite silly considering what camera was talked about in the first place, it has also been explained why 4k can be of a benefit. And if you take the time to look at some video shot with the sony ax100 in 4k and downsized to 1080p you'd notice there isn't currently any camera available that can only do 1080p at that price point that can deliver that sharp images, 4k from a gh4 downsized to 1080p also looks sharper then what my gh3 can deliver, to some that matters to others not. I think its important to keep it all a bit in perspective when discussing camera's that cost less then 1K before bringing a 29k camera into the discussion.

[Paul Cronin]

As you wish

[Tim Polster]

I would like to see an audio input on the new RX100. A tiny multicam setup of these would be a great tool but without being able to feed some kind of good audio it kind of loses its punch.

[Dylan Couper]

Originally Posted by Noa Put

This is a thread about the sony rx100III, the f55 was mentioned as a reason to get if you wanted 4k which was quite silly considering what camera was talked about in the first place, it has also been explained why 4k can be of a benefit. And if you take the time to look at some video shot with the sony ax100 in 4k and downsized to 1080p you'd notice there isn't currently any camera available that can only do 1080p at that price point that can deliver that sharp images, 4k from a gh4 downsized to 1080p also looks sharper then what my gh3 can deliver, to some that matters to others not. I think its important to keep it all a bit in perspective when discussing camera's that cost less then 1K before bringing a 29k camera into the discussion.

I think you missed my original point, though we did get a little derailed. My bad. :)

[Dylan Couper]

Originally Posted by Jack Zhang

Yeah... We're talking 4K on a budget, not unlimited budget..

Jack, I have GREAT news! Forget the RX100, your camera is ALREADY on the market!
Not only does it do 4k...
Not only is it CHEAPER than $800...
Not only does it fit in your pocket...
It's STILL made by Sony!

Your camera sir, is the Xperia Z2!
Xperia? Z2 | Android Phone - Sony Smartphones (Canada, English)
And, holy crap, it's waterproof to boot!

[Ken Ross]

Originally Posted by Noa Put

This is a thread about the sony rx100III, the f55 was mentioned as a reason to get if you wanted 4k which was quite silly considering what camera was talked about in the first place, it has also been explained why 4k can be of a benefit. And if you take the time to look at some video shot with the sony ax100 in 4k and downsized to 1080p you'd notice there isn't currently any camera available that can only do 1080p at that price point that can deliver that sharp images, 4k from a gh4 downsized to 1080p also looks sharper then what my gh3 can deliver, to some that matters to others not. I think its important to keep it all a bit in perspective when discussing camera's that cost less then 1K before bringing a 29k camera into the discussion.

Yup. I have yet to see any HD camera that can deliver nearly the resolution and sharpness that a good 4K camera can when that 4K is down-sampled to HD.

As you say, there are endless sample A/Bs that prove this beyond a doubt and show how woefully inadequate (in terms of HD resolution) our HD cameras have been.

[Ken Ross]

Originally Posted by Noa Put

This is a thread about the sony rx100III, the f55 was mentioned as a reason to get if you wanted 4k which was quite silly considering what camera was talked about in the first place, it has also been explained why 4k can be of a benefit. And if you take the time to look at some video shot with the sony ax100 in 4k and downsized to 1080p you'd notice there isn't currently any camera available that can only do 1080p at that price point that can deliver that sharp images, 4k from a gh4 downsized to 1080p also looks sharper then what my gh3 can deliver, to some that matters to others not. I think its important to keep it all a bit in perspective when discussing camera's that cost less then 1K before bringing a 29k camera into the discussion.

Originally Posted by Dylan Couper

Jack, I have GREAT news! Forget the RX100, your camera is ALREADY on the market!
Not only does it do 4k...
Not only is it CHEAPER than $800...
Not only does it fit in your pocket...
It's STILL made by Sony!

Your camera sir, is the Xperia Z2!
Xperia? Z2 | Android Phone - Sony Smartphones (Canada, English)
And, holy crap, it's waterproof to boot!

I suggest you look at the output of the Z2. Almost all samples I've seen are not very good.

[Dylan Couper]

So it's got to be 4k, under $800, fit in your pocket AND be GOOD too?!?

You guys are killing me!

Ok, fine... I'm calling GoPro right now to see when the Hero 4k is coming out...

[Noa Put]

It was only mentioned that 4K would have made the rx100III perfect (hence the "cigar" quote) but no-one mentioned it had to be below 800 dollar, only you did. Not sure where you are heading with your comments but they sure are not adding anything constructive to this thread.