Was going to pick up the RX100mkII at Costco the other day, but they disappeared from the shelves. Now I know why:

Sony RX100 III boasts brighter zoom, popup viewfinder, and still fits in a pocket (http://www.imaging-resource.com/news/2014/05/16/sony-rx100-iii-boasts-brighter-zoom-popup-viewfinder-and-still-fits-in-a-po)

They removed the flash hotshoe though. :-(

So close, but no cigar... XAVC-S, but no 4K...

I do not see a mic input jack. Or active hotshoe for audio adapter.

Some pluses, some minuses.... that's for sure! The 100Mk2 still looks pretty good!

Digging into the specs
XAVC 50mbit
5 axis stabilization for video
ND filters

From a videographers perspective seems a very interesting camera

Not even GH4 has ND filters

Compared to Rx10 it's almost the same, but with better codec and 5 axis is. Of course the lens is less capable, but we are talking about a camera that is 1/3 in weight and 1/4 in size. Not to mention and 300€ cheaper. Even compared to CX900 has better is. If this camera performs in the same league, ithink it could be a real winner as a hybrid camera. It can even replace gopro type do cameras.

Well... the RX100 and RX10 are two different animals, the RX10 is very hard to beat for what it can do, but the RX100 has the advantage of pocketability.

IF you don't need the long end of the lens or audio, no question that it's a powerhouse acquisition device with a pretty good bang/buck ratio considering.

I've used the RX100 and then the Mk2 - it became my "primary" video camera in the sense I could take it anywhere... though the RX10 is worth the extra size and weight (and cost), I stick the RX100M2 into the bag right next to it... multicam capability in a tiny bag!

There are fairly inexpensive Chinese shells for this camera (at least the earlier versions, I've got to look at whether the Mk3 can be shoehorned in with the added thickness dimensions and change in flash positioning), so it can be "ruggedized" as well. I modded a "MK1" shell to fit the Mk2... not sure about the Mk3 - going to be a tight fit!

So close, but no cigar... XAVC-S, but no 4K...

Yup, wait for the RX100 MKlV, it will have 4K. :)

it's still so puzzling to me why just about every manufacturer has the mentality that there's only the worlds of 1080, and 4k, and nothing exists in between. No stepping stone, no middle ground, nothing. No, they may not be 'standard' resolutions, but many people don't care, a bit more is a bit more useful

Blackmagic gave 2.5k, though that's because that's what the sensor did best.

gopro gave 2.7k, but thats just an action camera (but a fan favorite)

so when i look at a camera like the rx100m3, i really wonder why they didn't do something, ANYTHING over par for the course? This is a premium priced point and shoot, the rest of the upgrades look great, but it seems they could have gave it at least something of a resolution bump, be it 2.5k, 3k, etc...

it's still so puzzling to me why just about every manufacturer has the mentality that there's only the worlds of 1080, and 4k, and nothing exists in between

They first sell whatever makes the most money as long as they can until one manufacturer supplies the next best thing and all the rest follows.The canon 50d was announced around 2008 and years later seem to be shoot video in raw you can be sure Canon knew about that, everything changed when they start using large sensors for video, when I was shooting my first hdv cams any upgrade was usually in functionality, like adding sdi or xlr, but with large sensor there is much more potential to differentiate their offerings and by that making much more different models, each with their own limitations, so they can sell even more. I"m pretty sure they could have given us 2,5k inbetween but not before the 1080p market was saturated, they milked that cow as long as they could, tried 3d for a short while without much success so 4K was probably the next obvious step, 4 times more resolution sounds greater then 2 times more when you sell something, it's like these 300 times zoom on those consumercams, customers love that :) probably 8K is already easily possible to do as well but first they have to milk the 4k market a few years before they will move on to the next big thing.

Darren, I think part of it can be explained by the fact that they want to stick to the native resolutions of most existing displays. By doing some in-between resolutions, you've automatically entered into the world of scaling and picture quality sacrifices will be unavoidable. Some displays may even fail to accept some oddball resolutions.

It's a good point Ken, i was thinking as more of a working shooter than a high end consumer, but it does beg the question of whether sony knows/cares about more than just consumers using such a camera. But to get around your noted issue, just like they still include 720 on 1080 cameras, they would/could still leave those options along with the 2.5k/whatever option. In the manual i could see them noting the considerations when shooting the higher resolution.

So close, but no cigar... XAVC-S, but no 4K...

If you need 4K, Sony also makes the F55.

Is that an F55 in your pocket...

If you need 4K, Sony also makes the F55.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

As you wish

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.

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. :)

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) (http://www.sonymobile.com/ca-en/products/phones/xperia-z2/)
And, holy crap, it's waterproof to boot!

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.

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.

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) (http://www.sonymobile.com/ca-en/products/phones/xperia-z2/)
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.

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...

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.

On the audio feed, I got thinking that I seem to recall an audio "in" on that MULTI plug.... hmm... will go back and take another look, but there SHOULD be one there, as it "mirrors" the MiS shoe that vanished with the Mk3. Accessing it may be an entirely different ball of cheese, but I *think* it could be done...
(UPDATE) found what notes I have on the MULTI... ugh, several "unknown" pins, and audio "outs", which could be "flipped" to "ins" on the old A/V interface with the right "trigger"... ALL undocumented... fun fun fun! Any Sony engineers lurking that want to slip me the "secret code" of the MULTI jack and MiS?


The bottom line on "4K" is that Sony did it with THIS sensor and processor (AX100), it's not "perfect" but it's quite good within context. The failure to implement the feature on the RX10 and 100M3 is a HUGE stuff up - they could have really turned the market on it's ear (or maybe that's WHY they didn't?!)

Is 4K a "necessity" today...how many people are delivering in 4K... and how many viewers are expecting to see 4K? Yeah, exactly...

Nope, this is the "cutting edge", but once you've seen the potential, it's hard to ignore. I picked up the AX100 to "LEARN" what might be possible (and cropping to 1080 works a treat). Given the apparent sensitivity to motion, it may not be my first choice for shooting with all the time, but I'll definitely USE it.

Would I LIKE to have the option in the AX100's Cybershot "siblings"? HECK yeah, and I think that's what we're all saying... but think about this, with some of the "critics" of the AX100, can you imagine the SCREAMING if they put the capability in an $800 camera, and every soccer mom and her dog ran into "problems" with 4K? Nightmare would be the word for that pushback...

Just as some of us are "putting our toes" in the 4K pool, and working out how to use it, Sony probably is too, before going "all in"...

I do think the XAVC S 50Mbps/60p is both a nice feature, and an indication of motion in the direction of 4K... little steps, but couldn't they create a special firmware hack or something for us "test pilots"?!?

And as always, use the right "tool" for YOU and YOUR needs... it would just be sort cool to have really nice 4K in your pocket, that's all, especially when it's clearly POSSIBLE!

From my view, the RX10 covers a LOT of what I'll use a camera for, the RX100 (including the M2 and M3 versions) makes it portable/pocketable with some limitations, and the AX100, well, it completes a "package" for a small light multicam capability for some darn fine 1080p video, with maybe a little 4K mixed in! All with the same sensor and general "look".

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.

Noa, I know there's a touch of language barrier here so I understand where you are missing my point in the subtext of what I'm writing. Here it is:

4k wouldn't have made the RX100mk3 perfect - only different. Dave makes an awesome point above in that 4k may, for some people, have made it worse.

"Perfect" is subjective from person to person. For me, I don't really care about 4k... perfection for me would have come closer from better functionality, a 3.5mm mic input, mini front grip, a shoe mount and being 3mm thinner - but maybe that combination would be impossible. To me the EVF is a waste of time, but to others it makes the camera perfect. To some the new lens is perfect, to others it's too short. In short, since perfection is impossible, the expectation of perfection is...

My point in bringing up the F55 is that often what we want IS here, we just aren't prepared to pay the price for it, either in cash or weight or size or post production or some other reason.

Bottom line, if you aren't happy with the camera that you can get today, you won't be happy with the camera you can get tomorrow either, because by the time you get your hands on it, it will be the camera of yesterday.

I'll also add... I'm probably going to buy one, regardless of what it has or doesn't. It's still the highest quality pocket camera you can buy.
Still... if only it had a pop up shotgun mic instead of that useless EVF it'd be perf... ah damn it! :)

I'll also add... I'm probably going to buy one, regardless of what it has or doesn't. It's still the highest quality pocket camera you can buy.
Still... if only it had a pop up shotgun mic instead of that useless EVF it'd be perf... ah damn it! :)

'Useless' EVF? I think an "IMO" would have been appropriate here...even with the tongue in cheek. ;)

Seriously though, I would not buy a camera that had no 'useless' EVF. It is impossible to ascertain correct focus, color and often even composition, with an LCD in bright sunlight.

But hey, whatever floats your boat. I'll probably wait for the mk lV when they include 'useless 4K'.

Oh, and it has to be under $800. :)

Aha, perfect example Ken! :)
Perfection is impossible, it all comes down to making the most amount of people happy, and us video shooters probably represent a tiny part of the RX100 market.

Ok, lets get back to the camera now...

EVF!
For me, an EVF has never been a critical part of a P&S pocket camera (which is what this is to me). However, I'll say I'm impressed by the design and addition of the EVF. Not something I'll use that often, but a very cool addition. The full 180 flip screen is also nice, though I'm worried the extra width will make it unpocketable for me, as it just barely fits in jean pockets now.

And yes, I was joking about omitting it in favor of a shotgun mic... Though now that I think of it, a pop up shotgun mic would be awesome.

For the lens, I had a Panasonic LX7 (I think that was the model) that had a lens in the 24-70ish range. I did miss the extra telephoto of other 100mm + ranged P&S cameras, so I expect I'll miss it on this as well. I don't know if the faster telephoto with shorter range will be a good trade off to me, as most long shots I'm taking are outdoors with plenty of light. Time will tell.

Nah, the MkIV/4K will be $950 - RX100, $650, RX100M2 $750, RX100M3 $850, Sony will just add features and raise you a hundred!

I'm in the "NEED VF" camp - the beautiful AX100 LCD was "mostly" USELESS in desert sun the other day!

I'm worrying about the extra 2.5mm, the M2 outgrew the little case I used for the M1 by "just a smidge" and the "smidges" are adding up, just like when I step on a scale! Wondering if it will fit the import underwater shell as well - certainly will need modding, as the M1 shell did, to fit the M2...

I'm REALLY torn on the reduced long end of the lens range - on one hand it'll still be around 140mm with CIZ, I'll have the RX10 for "long shots", and the faster lens couldn't hurt. BUT, I have a horrible feeling this will "come up short", AND not be quite pocketable...

This is one of those "give and take" situations that's really frustrating!

One upside, just bought the Mk2 new for just under $600 aussie bucks!
No VF for me, its just for family use.

Here the mkII has also gone below 600 euro and that's with 21% tax included. If you don't want the greatest and latest it often is worth while to wait when Sony releases a new model, prizes drop considerably on the "old" model. I see Panasonic is doing somewhat the same as a GH3 can be had for 880 euro which is a few hundred euro below the introductory prize.

I'm worrying about the extra 2.5mm, the M2 outgrew the little case I used for the M1 by "just a smidge" and the "smidges" are adding up, just like when I step on a scale!

Yeah... that's actually the #1 criteria for me. If it doesn't fit in my pocket, I don't need it and won't buy it. There are much better cameras in the same price range that don't fit in my pocket either.

And as I add on smidges too, my pockets seem to get smaller. :)

Bigger pockets... that's what we need...

The Mk2 is a fine camera, hasn't seen as much use since getting the RX10, but still goes along for the ride! Not a big hurry to get a Mk3...but looks like it's selling well, so a lightly used one will be available soon enough!

Did a little fiddling on the Sony web site, putting the M2 alongside the M3 and matching the scale.. There is little if any added protrusion on the back side of the cam - looks like it's mainly if not entirely the lens sticking out a bit more that accounts for the 2.7mm difference in stated specs. Probably won't be that big a deal, and since the RX10 would be the "big gun" with the longer lens, I can see the RX100M3 actually being an interesting upgrade.

From the limited test shots I've had the chance to take with the AX100, the XAVC S at a higher bitrate looks a bit better than the AVCHD, and for most use, should be rather nice... even if it's not "4K". As I work with the AX100, 4K/30p has it's pluses and minuses, I think it's not ready for the "average" consumer shooter quite yet, though it can look quite stunning, with careful camera technique!

I'd love it if Sony put out a special firmware "enthusiast" version that COULD access 4K (we KNOW the sensor and processor CAN do it), only available aftermarket with a secret handshake or something! These cameras BEG for firmware updates to allow deeper access to the BionzX capabilities!

I read through this thread and see there aren't any updates after the RX100III came out (although reviews are all over the web) so I thought I'd add my 2 cents. I've had the camera about a week and a half, shooting my usual test videos and stills.

It fits my pocket. I previously had a RX100II, and there is little size difference - just the lens sticks out a little further.

The XAVC S format is a huge improvement over AVCHD. It makes the III a useable video camera, where I never incorporated any video from the RX100II into anything serious. Plus the MP4 plays directly with Mac QuickTime for reviewing clips (AVCHD is a pain with Mac). The CIZ zoom function works well out to 140 mm for video. The ND filter is wonderful - don't know if it is a real filter or just a gain change, but without this it would be a poor video camera.

I wish it had audio in. And I had expected more with the EVF, it is awfully small, although it works in a pinch in bright sunlight. But you can do a lot with the monitor brightness all the way up and with the fully articulating monitor.

It took a while to get comfortable enough with the interface so I could quickly change settings. But finally it seems natural. I'll use the RX100III as a pocket camera, and for hand held video in tight spaces, and I'll try it as a B camera and see how it goes.

An initial project with the Sony DSC-RX100M3. New video features this upgrade provides are impressive.

XAVC 60p codec edits better than AVCHD in FCPX. Video improvement over M2 is likely due more to full sensor read than XAVC codec. Unfortunately, XAVC 30/24p are so prone to moire as to be unusable.

The LCD is much less fiddly and useful than the RX100M2. No more squeak and scrape when opening from bottom.

The EVF is very useable for a compact. Better than hoped for. Easy to forget to pull the eyepiece out, but more use will make a habit.

The ND may eliminate need for a polarizer for exteriors. Most of this project was shot with ND and no polarizer.

Zebras obviously minimize incorrect exposure issues.

My RX100M2 had constant, slight focus pump issues with wide, distant landscape shots. If manual focus wasn't used for these shots, clips would be unusable. The RX100M3 has no such issue. Big, big thanks Sony.

RX100M2 Active SteadyShot seemed no better than Standard. RX100M3 Active SteadyShot is much improved, and Intelligent Active is a step above Active. However, Active requires image crop, and Intelligent Active even more.

Video Clear Image Zoom, like the RX10, is very usable but soft after 115.

Overall the camera seems more responsive.

Phoenix Desert Botanical Garden (Sony RX100M3) on Vimeo

For an RX100M2 comparison: vimeo.com/79542495

Sony DSC-RX100M3
Sirui T005KX Tripod
P&C Grip for handhelds
XAVC 60P/50Mbps

Dan, nice work. This really shows what this miniature RX100III is capable of, and how good the XAVC S codec is.

If it were me I'd lift the black level a little and drop the saturation some in this video; I think this would give it a nicer look.

Today I've been working to match the video color of the RX100III with my other cameras so I can work it in with them. It's more is there a formula I can use in Color Finesse that will get the RX100III video close to the XF100 and to Canon DSLRs. I'm not there yet, but I think it will get there.