Originally Posted by Noa Put (Post 1914171)

Ken, do you know what the f-stop is if it's wide open when the lens reaches 200mm? Just as a comparison with the mark 2 which keeps a constant f2.8 until that point
Also, when you keep the lens wide open at f2.4 and start to zoom, what is the focal length as soon as the f-stop reaches F4.0?
And one last, how much time does it take at the fastest zoom from wide open to tele?

Originally Posted by Wacharapong Chiowanich (Post 1914177)

I'm sure this camera will live long or die quickly solely because of its lens. If you go only by the specs, none in the market comes close when focal length, effective aperture (actual sensor size translated into % of FF 35mm equivalent) and size all come into consideration. The slow-mo feature is identical to what the Mk2 and the RX100IV have. So is the IQ in 4K. I used to shoot with the RX10 Mk1 (1st version, non 4K) awhile back and remember the 1080/25 as well as 1080/50p files out of the camera looking nice and clean if certain picture profile parameters were set right for the scenes. The 1080p for whatever reasons was superior to the 1080ps from the AX100E I have. Since the pocketable RX100IV shoots great 1080ps, both HFRs and regular frame rates, there's no reason this RX10Mk3 couldn't do the same.

Not sure it would sell well in the market since there have usually been 2 distinct groups of video or stills shooters who buy superzoom cameras. The real pros who use DSLRs with mega-buck super telephoto or long-zoom lenses e.g. 300mm f2.8, 400mm f2.8 up to 800mm f5.6 or 100-400mm, 200-500mm etc. and people like me who have the Sony HX400V (25-1200mm optical) and use any of the superzoom compacts in this category mostly just for the fun of getting the image the eyes can barely see.

The RX10Mk3 appears to fit neither of those groups price-wise. The price alone would probably turn off a lot of just-for-fun or even enthusiast shooters. The size and weight are another problem. Though any camera that had the Mk3's lens specs would not be considered too large or too heavy, the weight and size still bother me. 2 lbs 7oz vs 1 lbs 7oz for my smaller sensor and longer range HX400V, for instance. This one-lbs difference could buy me an additional CX760E camcorder I regularly use or an RX100IV in my backpack on my hiking or walking trips in remote locations. YMMV.

Originally Posted by Noa Put (Post 1914217)

Thx a lot Ken for this info, my rx10 mark 1 takes about 13 seconds from 200mm to 24mm which is almost useless and has been the cause of frustration and missed shots, even with this shortcoming and with the small jitters in the image when shooting handheld and at 200mm it was one of my main camera's used at weddings last year.

When I look at your zoom shot it also looks there are no small jitters in the image at full tele when shooting handheld, have you noticed these mini vibrations on a big screen? This would indicate they also have improved the stabilization.

Originally Posted by Peter Roy (Post 1914222)

When the RX10 mkIII is in video mode does the autofocus behave the same as the autofocus on camcorder. Yes I know it sounds like a stupid question however my last attempt with video was with my old Nikon DSLR which needed the shutter button pressed to change focus. I live in the Canadian Arctic and I am a couple thousand kilometers away from a camera store so laying my hands on cameras before buying is impossible. I have been a photographer for many many years and I am now wanting to attempt video once again.

My eyes are getting older so auto focus is really important in choosing a new camera. I am considering the RX 10 mkII and the Sony AX53 for mostly nature and wildlife photography/video.

Thanks in advance... living in a very remote location I find this forum to be a big help and it is where I get a lot of my camera information.

Originally Posted by Dave Blackhurst (Post 1914275)

When testing the AX53, it was good, but ultimately the 1" class sensors are just sharper.... so for me, the RX10M3 makes sense, and will fit with the other RX's and AX100. The new generation sensor seems to be better than the 1st gen one, never really sat down to try to get an exact comparison.

Yep, the RX10M3 will be heavier, but still lighter than a comparable DSLR, I have the RX100M4 if I need small and light, and probably will keep the RX10M2 around as a backup or when weight is a factor. Odds are good that my trusty old HX300 will be retired, the bottom line being image quality, presuming that the optics and 1200mm zoom (+digital) will cover most anything in the "extreme zoom" department..

I don't know if the jitters I got with the AX53 I was testing were a glitch, they seemed to be intermittent (maybe just got a bad sample?), but long zooms are ALWAYS going to be tough to stabilize. It is encouraging that it looks like Sony fine tuned the lens with the M3 to smooth it out.

On another note, is the fast/slow zoom setting still in the menus? I know that allows the M2 to zoom at full speed while recording, rather than being locked into the slow setting.

Originally Posted by Richard D. George (Post 1914319)

Ken:

To be clear - the new version III does or does not have internal ND?

Originally Posted by Dave Blackhurst (Post 1914328)

I don't have the camera in hand, but I'm fairly sure it would still have the ND filter internally, as it's siblings do?

@Noa - it was an intermittent thing, and frankly it might just be I'm more wobbly than I used to be. In the end I liked the AX53, and overall the BOSS was pretty good MOST of the time... but the image was still a "small chip", and I felt that the 1" class sensor cameras I have were enough better that it would bug me... with the RX10M3 coming up, I decided that should be the camera to go with. I'm used to adding a grip, a monopod, or some other mechanical stabilization, it's not ideal, but it's workable.

@Ken - the RX100 series is certainly a tiny camera, I've always added a grip, currently I'm using one I found on ebay that adds the grip AND increases the height of the camera (plate that screws onto the bottom, still has a tripod socket and all). Sometimes "slightly bigger" is not a "bad" thing! That little added heft and grip makes the RX100 usable, plus I have an underwater shell for it as well... The RX100 series has it's place, I find I grab it when I don't want to drag something bigger along, and want good image quality.

Originally Posted by Wacharapong Chiowanich (Post 1914265)

Scaled up, not looking very good at that frame rate but usable for, let's say 720p or 480p viewing.

Originally Posted by Dave Blackhurst (Post 1914339)

or did it just get buried in the menu system somewhere where it's nearly impossible to find?

Originally Posted by Greg Boston (Post 1914370)

To be fair Dylan, a lot of cameras drop the resolution when overcranking to avoid overheating the sensor. That, and the rest of the electronics being able to keep up with such high data rates would increase the cost if full resolution was in play.

I see from the product highlights that you have a choice of higher quality at 960fps for 2 seconds duration, or max time priority of 4 seconds at lower quality.

Still, with a frame rate that fast, one should be able to capture a really brief event, such as the time it takes YOU to down a shot of tequila. ;)

Originally Posted by Dylan Couper (Post 1914366)

Thought that was too good to be true. :)
What would you say would be the highest speed you could shoot at and still get get usable 1080? 240fps?

Originally Posted by Wacharapong Chiowanich (Post 1914432)

This is a little subjective. When I tried out the slow-mos on the RX100IV (exact same sensor, same IP and identical readout method) a few months ago I think 250fps (I'm in PAL area.) was good enough though some might say it was a little soft. Aliases started to be visible at 500fps and the footage looked noticeably soft. If you want a pixel-perfect slow-mo I guess you have to limit your shooting to 120fps (100fps on my unit).

The good thing about these 100fps and 120fps is you don't have to time your shooting within either a 2-second or 4-second window and wait for buffering. You just shoot until there's no space left on the card or the heat warning comes up. The IQ is also every bit as good as you get from the 1080/50p/60p or 1080/25p/30p/24p modes. I saw absolutely no drop-off on my 1080p monitor.

Originally Posted by Noa Put (Post 1914485)

Where all the shots in that video at 600mm? Like the ducks at 20sec?

Originally Posted by Noa Put (Post 1914485)

Try the cx730, that one should be a benchmark how stabilization should look like :)

Originally Posted by Wacharapong Chiowanich (Post 1914493)

FYI, on the AX53 it's still "BOSS" or the entire lens+sensor module floating on the gimbal but no 5-axis additional digital stabilization in 4K.

Still the best among all 4K money can buy, though, IMO.

Originally Posted by Dave Blackhurst (Post 1914494)

The AX53 does still utilize the BOSS gimbal system in 4K, but not the additional active digital stabilization if I understand it correctly. I was having some intermittent "jiggle" issues on the one I tested. BUT it generally is VERY stable, even at long zooms....

THAT said, it was no where near as sharp as my RX's, or even the aging AX100 - in the end the trade off was not worth it to me, although it was a hard decision (and I may still pick up an AX53 again one of these days, but the RX10M3 is more what I'm looking for).

I rewatched the Vimeo and also que'd up the YT version.... this time on my i7 based quad core laptop.... first thing, it was MUCH smoother, and although there were some slightly shaky parts, they were clearly at the long end of the zoom, where some form of additional support (shoulder rig, monopod, bracket, etc.) would be needed to achieve anything much more stable.... it's livable, and I would always be using a bracket at the minimum (probably a big one I have laying around, since this cam is bigger and heavier than my others!). I'd gladly trade having to carry a "rig" of some moderate size for the sharper video!

One thing that was VERY noticeable - the Vimeo 4K was noticeably more stuttery/juddery than the YT version, so much so that I found the YT version much more watchable. Different algorithms for compression and playback I presume, but VERY noticeable, at least to me (the kids running in the Vimeo version looked like a series of stills, vs. a smoother video playback from YT, for instance). The YT video did stall and buffer though, so again, tradeoffs....

Oh the joys of the 4K "bleeding edge"!