Re: Sony RX10 mkIII
 

Dave, it seems to me I recall a number of I5 machines playing 4K back smoothly. I forgot what generation Intel chip had the video decoder on the chip, but wasn't that a huge part of the smooth playback equation? Of course the video card is big too.

As far as 4K viewing is concerned, it's all about screen size vs seating distance. So my 27" 5K IMac looks great in terms of detail, because I'm sitting inches away. With my 75" Sony, I'm sitting about 8' away and I'd still like to be closer for 4K (that was as close as my 'negotiations' with my wife would allow). ;) A 42" UHD TV would be fine from the standpoint of picking up 4K detail, if you were sitting close enough.

There's a chart that many use that shows screen size vs resolution and seating distance. It suggests the screen sizes that are required at various seating distances to be able to discern the benefits of HD, 4K as well as a few other resolutions. Some question the charts saying they can see the 4K benefits at greater distances than the chart suggests. Of course an individual's eyesight is a factor too, but it does give you a ballpark.

Sony RX10iii 4K at the Central Park Zoo
 

A practical test for the 600mm reach of this new lens. The video can be downloaded too. If streaming, select 4K in the lower right:


Or the YouTube version also in 4K:

Re: Sony RX10 mkIII
 

Nice duck shot Ken!

The answer to this should be obvious but I'll ask anyway... The 1200mm clear view zoom is just a 1080 crop of the 4k res at 600mm, so a full 1080, not digital in any way? It looks great and is slowly convincing me to buy this camera. :)

Re: Sony RX10 mkIII
 

Thanks Dylan.

I haven't used the CIZ in any of my videos, but your reasoning seems on target. I'm not sure what kind of algorithm Sony uses for CIZ and how it would compare to a simple crop of a 4K clip.

Sony RX10 MKIII lens destroys the competition
 

Re: Sony RX10 mkIII
 

How can a fz1000 be "competition"? The rx10III is almost 3 times more expensive...

Re: Sony RX10 mkIII
 

Because they're both superzoom cameras with essentially the same target audience. Further, to be accurate, looking at reputable dealers like B&H, the RX10iii price is actually less than 2X the price of the FZ1000, not 3X ($797 vs $1498)

Re: Sony RX10 mkIII
 

We don't have a b&h in Europe, prices here are 687euro for the fz1000 and 1599 for the rx10III, if we consider that as a criteria as well the fz1000 "destroys" the rx10III. You could also say a 42,5mm f1.2 nocticron "destroys" the panasonic 42mm f1.7 because they are both primes with the same focal length appealing to the same audience yet to me they are not competition because of the big price difference, in such a case I would expect the expensive one to be better.

Actually it was just me reacting to the clickbait title from dpreview, when I read that I don't bother reading any further because if that doesn't make sense, then probably the rest of the article doesn't either.

Re: Sony RX10 mkIII
 

Actually the article was fine, even if you thought the title was over the top, and had examples to substantiate the verbiage within the article.

Of course the Sony haters were out in force in the posts below, but that's to be expected. ;)

As for pricing, even your European pricing is really not close to 3X, but we're nitpicking. I'm just guessing now, but I suspect the RX10iii is not on your shopping list. :)

Re: Sony RX10 mkIII
 

Ok, I was exaggerating as it was closer to 2,5 times which is still a lot, but my reaction doesn't not come as a sony hater, I have the rx10 mark one, which has been the most unreliable camera I ever had, and I have several other Sony camera's, I"m not brand loyal and take whatever shoots best, hej, I even have a JVC and I"m sure many would think "what is that?" :) It's still my opinion though the fz1000 should not be used as a comparison as it's in a completely different pricebracket, different enough that it obliterates the Sony ;)

Re: Sony RX10 mkIII
 

Interestingly I shot with an RX1 and never had an issue with it other than that lens wobble, which has been solved in the RX10iii.

I too am not brand loyal. I've shot with Panasonics, Samsungs and Sonys. However I'm finding the RX10iii to be the most fun and most versatile camera I've ever used.

Re: Sony RX10 mkIII
 

Sadly it is a staggeringly large price gap between the Sony and panasonic. It's floating at $2200 in Canadian bucks which is is the only reason I haven't bought it. Though I did pick up a Nikon p900 for $450 to get my mega zoom fix. ;)

Re: Sony RX10 mkIII
 

In this day and age when everything is 'awesome, and 'wow' it comes as no surprise that DPReview, owned by Amazon remember, jumps on the trash journalism bandwagon too. Expect more of this; it is in fashion.

I have no doubt the Sony RX10 III is a well engineered and manufactured piece of gear as usual with Sony but then so was my Sony A7RII (now sold) that was too expensive, too heavy, too cumbersome and too over-hyped; all my opinion of course. At least I got the Full Frame itch out of my system.

The good news is that 4k is popping up all over the place. Hang about a bit and we shall see more and more 4k capable products out there that are perhaps a little less far reaching, a little less heavy to lug around, and certainly a lot less draining on the bank balance.

Will they 'destroy' the competition? DPReview might just come up with another silly clickbait exaggeration. Why not, it works!

Re: Sony RX10 mkIII
 

Noa was just back-click-baiting with the 3x <wink>! Nowadays EVERY site on the internet seems to have gone "Buzzfeed s**t Crazy", with sensational titles that may or may not reflect the "contents" (and I've seen more than a few pages with NO content, just a picture with no relation to the title!).

The samples and text established the premise that the Sony has better image quality, which actually is not a surprise, you'd expect better for the higher $$$.

Right now the FZ1000 is an "old" camera that can be had used for pretty attractive prices, and sometimes on sale new for attractive prices. The RX10M3 is JUST released, and I suspect in tight inventory due to the earthquakes and factory damage in Japan... I'll pick one up used when the price drops a bit, to go alongside the M2...

The new version looks like a very nice camera, and as Noa knows (even with his possessed sample "mark1"), the RX10 produces an image that is pretty hard to beat at the price points (mark1 is selling stupid cheap for an "HD" video camera, and the M2 has already dropped to attractive prices on ebay....). I shot a short event with my M2 and the results were great on a 42" 4K monitor - very sharp and detailed, very clean despite kinda crappy lighting, straight out of the camera. I like the AX100, but the RX10M2 (and eventually a M3) are adequate for anything I need, and might be the pick for when I need that "one camera to do it all"... if stills are a part of the required feature set.



I tried the FZ1000, it was not bad, but also was not "good" in some areas where I felt the RX10 (and at that time it was a "mark1") "destroyed" the FZ... OK, maybe it just beat it here and there, and if I spent a bunch of time figuring out how to optimize, I'm sure they would have been "close enough" that 99 1/2 people out of 100 wouldn't have noticed any difference.... I've seen plenty of good samples from FZ shooters, and wouldn't hesitate to recommend it to someone with a limited budget (although now I'd point to a RX10M2 for a "little" more in the used market, and if 4K wasn't an issue, a stupidly cheap, "near 4K" HD shooting, original RX10)..


One cannot "discount" the "fun factor", and the overall ease of use, but again this is a matter of "taste" or "opinion".... as someone who has shot Sony for a long time, I find the insanely complex menu system to be comforting rather than frustrating (especially after setting up custom function options!), for me, I find it "fun" and strangely "easy" to shoot the RX series cams.... I feel like the cam "fits" despite things like not having touchscreen and a few other minor quibbles, and the Mark3 will replace several other cameras I've still got, so it even will make economic "sense"....

Re: Sony RX10 mkIII
 

The thing about price vs performance is highly dependent on the individual's preference and his propensity to part with his money to satisfy that particular preference. That is just the start. If you throw in another major factor such as portability or weight into the mix then probably no one could be wrong about his choice.

Take mine for example. I had long wanted to get a superzoom "fix' just of course to play with the maximum zooming into distant subjects my other cameras can't so I bought the 4K Panasonic FZ300. It was and is even cheaper than the FZ1000. Is it better or equal to the Sony RX10III? In some respects, yes, but in many respects, absolutely not. It is smaller and almost half the weight of the RX10III and this alone counts a lot in my "better or worse" book. And, as Noa said, how could you say one camera is worse than the other when you can have 3 of them for the cost of the other's.

Make no mistake, the Sony RX10III is an excellent camera in sheer optical performance terms but it is also a very costly camera if someone only wants to use it mainly to get a certain fix or just for the fun of extended zooming.

Re: Sony RX10 mkIII
 

With the hack, it will be a quite capable VIDEO camera. I have some smaller lighter superzooms (same reason as you!), they will likely be replaced when a used M3 comes my way, simply because I expect the image quality difference between an older 1/3" sensor and the 1" sensor to pretty much be too huge to ignore... I'm also sure it will have better image quality than the AX53 (again, a "small chip" camera, quite good for what it is, but still didn't quite keep up with the 1" sensor cams).

The M3 will also replace a bigger, heavier DSLR.... so.... now I've sold two cameras (smaller, lighter total "kit", especially if I drop a long zoom or two I won't be needing!)... oops, almost forgot it'll replace a video camera too.... so by that time, I carry ONE capable camera, and I've reduced the financial cost significantly. Maybe even come out ahead...

Size, weight, and price are all quite "relative", image quality is also subjective, but better IS better, it's just a matter of whether it's worth it to you.

The 1" sensor cams have ALWAYS been a premium price product (and Sony is typically more "premium" than the others....), but you also get a lot of "bang" for that buck when the images come back and look stunning, and the video is like looking out the window. Couple that with a pretty crazy 600mm tele/zoom and really good lens at that, it's almost a bargain. Try finding a interchangeable lens with comparable specs... yeah... even if you COULD buy it, it' would cost far more than the RX10M3, and would likely weigh about as much, and you'd still have to buy a body.



As for the "how could you say one camera is worse than the other when you can have 3 of them for the cost of the other's" argument, who cares if you could have TEN cameras for the same price if the image quality was POO?!?! Please, I owned a FZ200 very briefly, the stills were HORRID, I wouldn't pay 1/10th the price of ANY RX10 (even the first generation!) for it, as it would NOT be usable IMO, I would gag every time I looked at the stills... I'm sure some people use one and are happy, I'm just not willing to accept poor image quality if the shots are going to have any lasting value.

AND I can buy plenty of little chip point and shoots for throwaway imaging... or as most are doing now, use my cell phone (I could have SIX cell phones for the price of an RX10M3.... and they do all this other cool stuff a camera CAN'T ever do... so how can you say a camera is BETTER?)!!

If image quality matters to you, along with usability, the argument falls apart like one ply toilet paper....

Re: Sony RX10 mkIII
 

Well for me that 'fix' is better video. Better video in the form of higher resolution, sharper video and the usefulness of an extended zoom. All of those, for me, unquestionably contribute to the 'fun quotient'. Of course replacing multiple lenses and not having to worry about sensor dust while changing lenses, is yet another plus for me.

I just shot the Bethpage Airshow and I was quite impressed with how quickly the AF locked on to jets moving at 500+ mph. The camera impresses me more as I use it more.

Re: Sony RX10 mkIII
 

Pretty soon the marketplace will judge it. Will it sell closer to either Sony's own A7SII or RII, cameras that cost twice the price of this RX10III or closer to the market niche RX1RII, which by no means is an average camera in any sense of the word but whose price will make more than a few people cringe?

All I can say is it is not going to be another Nikon P900 only and solely because of its price.

Re: Sony RX10 mkIII
 

It can also become a quite unreliable camera as I have already seen people reporting their hacked Sony to stop recording without warning, hacks can be a blessing for some and a nightmare to others but they don't make your camera a better videocamera, especially not if you need to rely on it for long continuous recordings.

The camera is capable as a hybrid as long as it doesn't get too dark, weddingshooters will find the camera to be very limiting up to unusable in very dark venues where dslr's have no issue shooting even candlelit only parties or maybe you want a much shallower dof, even when shooting with wider angle lenses, here again a m3 will never be able to provide you that. The M3 can complement your kit of camera's but it will never replace a dslr entirely.

Fact is that the m3 is most compared with the fz1000, not the fz200 or a cellphone. I think anyone considering a good large zoom hybrid camera and who's on a budget can't go wrong with the fz1000 and it's image quality isn't "poo", considering it's price and features it doesn't have any competition right now, if you want something better and can pay for that, then the m2 or the 3 from Sony is a very good choice.

The only reason Sony can make this kind of lens is because of the smaller sensorsize so it doesn't make sense to compare, The same reason why these little handycams with tiny sensors can also have a very big range. Sony won't be able to make a full frame lens equivalent and if so it probably would cost a ton and be a hugh heavy lens.

Re: Sony RX10 mkIII
 

The fact is other companies can use a 1" sensor and put this kind of lens on, but they don't. So kudos to Sony for putting this incredible lens on the M3. As we've seen many times, translating the 'can do' in to reality are often two different things.

Re: Sony RX10 mkIII
 

Here's a great test for a camera's AF, jets traveling at 500+mph at an airshow. I was actually surprised at how well the RX10iii did in this outing. The reach of the lens was also great to bring the action close. With wall to wall people, forget using tripods, this was all hand-held, but it's such fun using this camera, I didn't mind at all.

Re: Sony RX10 mkIII
 

Good stuff, Ken. The SteadXP should be coming out this summer, hopefully will improve shooting with this camera.

Re: Sony RX10 mkIII
 

Thanks Galen.

Re: Sony RX10 mkIII
 

Great stuff Ken. For me there seems something so right about the RX10 series camera. I have the M1 and A7s however, I still love the look and feel of that 1 inch sensor from the RX10, just feels right.

Re: Sony RX10 mkIII
 

Thanks Simon. I agree, Sony seems to have hit a HR with this camera. I have my A6300, but I really prefer using the RX10M3, there's just something about its 'fun factor'.

Re: Sony RX10 mkIII
 

Some very impressive airshow footage, pausing individual frames on my 42" 4K they look excellent, sharpness is spot on, everything looked smooth and stable!

I love my M2, but the M3 will be the next camera for me... I was hoping the AX53 would eliminate my GAS, but it wasn't quite "there", the samples from the M3 and that insane lens look like it will do the trick!

Time to put some things on ebay that I won't need if I score one of these babies!

Re: Sony RX10 mkIII
 

Thanks Dave. Yes, I've been going that EBay route too. My A7Rii and 3 FF lenses were no longer needed and paid for the RX10iii with money left over.

Re: Sony RX10 mkIII
 

It's sad. You got close footage of Marine Capt Jeff Kuss's Hornet resting near the flight line at the end of your video. His name is painted under the cockpit canopy.

Unfortunately, it is now reported that he was the pilot that lost his life yesterday in a crash. I do not know this, but you might have his last show on video?

Unbelievable. :-(

Re: Sony RX10 mkIII
 

You're right Cliff. After hearing of this tragic accident, I lookied at my video and that was indeed Jeff's Hornet at the Farmingdale Airport. We visited the airport on the way home since we knew that's the small airport they always use in between show days.

I also have a shot in that video of 3 people standing by a van (pilots?) and I'm not sure who the middle person is. They're not in their flight clothes, but this was shot over 2 hours after the show ended. I have another shot (not in the video) of mechanics working on another Hornet, and they're dressed in gray mechanic's clothing. So I'm wondering if those 3 are pilots.

It's a very sad story and it's a pity that Jeff was unable to eject before the impact as did the Thunderbird pilot earlier in the day.

Re: Sony RX10 mkIII
 

Frame grab from my video of Jeff's last full show. His Hornet is the top one.

Edit: For some reason the file, only about 2megs, fails in the upload process each time I try.

Re: Sony RX10 mkIII
 

I have a some gigs coming up with dance schools and since Ive sold all my large 2/3 inch broadcast cameras and long lenses i'm now without a camera that has the reach from the back of the room to the stage.

I have Sony RX10M1 and a Sony A7s,18-200mm which might just make a mid CU on stage from around 30 meters plus and was thinking how would the Sony RX10 mkIII be for a a CU up from longer distances, Has this thing still got the lens wobble and how is the stability of the lens when zoom out on a tripod.

Or should I invest in a longer lens for the A7s

Cheers

Re: Sony RX10 mkIII
 

The lens wobble has been totally solved. There is no wobble anywhere in the entire range of 24-600mm. The stability of the lens, fully zoomed, is excellent. The degree of stability of your setup is only limited by the stability of your tripod.

Re: Sony RX10 mkIII
 

Ok, excellent Ken. What about ISO/noise under low lighting, my RX10M1 is crap from about 3200 onwards from memory, I use my A7s for low light stuff.

Thanks

Re: Sony RX10 mkIII
 

Expect it to be worse when you have to zoom in even if they say low light has improved a little, the reason for that is that you have to shoot at f4.0

Re: Sony RX10 mkIII
 

MMMM ok, so have they increased the ISO performance from the M1?
Maybe I'm better of with a, A6000 and a long Sony lens, price would be about the same here in Australia.

Re: Sony RX10 mkIII
 

Eventhough I haven't found any online comparison between the mark 1 and mark III when it comes to low light performance I have seen people saying it has improved a little but like I said that even if there would be a slight advantage you will loose that once you zoom in and have to shoot at f4.0 vs f2.8. If your experience is that low light performance was "crap" on the mark 1 I highly doubt if the mark 3 would be any better considering it's slower lens, unless anyone would prove me wrong. I"m also sure from what I have seen that a a6000 will be miles ahead when it comes to clean high iso performance, I only would question it's reliability on long continuous recording.

Re: Sony RX10 mkIII
 

Yes the A6000 is a disaster for long shooting. I'm really enjoying smaller cameras these days and don't miss lugging around shoulder mount cameras and gear and the RX10 series cameras are a great all in one solution and fun to shoot with.

I'm wondering if someone here has shot a dance recital with the RX10M3?

Cheers,

Re: Sony RX10 mkIII
 

One of the mistakes that many people make when shooting in low light, is to zoom. I avoid zooming in very low light with any camera I've ever had. Most lenses are not constant aperture and you need to be mindful of that and the resultant change in speed.

So shooting with the RX10iii, with Auto ISO, I've encountered no issues with shooting in typical low light conditions. You can set the max ISO the camera is allowed to go, further reducing noise in your video. The other thing I've found is that whatever noise there is, is fine grain, not the coarse grain you see in some cameras. The other thing I try to do, which many people don't seem to bother with, is I try to match the overall brightness of the video to what I'm actually seeing with my eyes. Most cameras try to 'gain up' far beyond the brightness of the actual scene. All that does is increase noise unnecessarily. Matching the brightness of the video to what you're actually seeing, will control noise much better than allowing the camera to do what it wants and, IMO, make for a much truer video.

I've compared the low light shooting of my RX10iii to my A6300 equipped with a comparable lens (Sony 18-200) and I only gave the A6300 a slight advantage.

I can tell you since I've gotten the RX10iii, my A6300 is gathering dust. You'll see similar responses from many many people who have both DSLRs and now the RX10iii.

Re: Sony RX10 mkIII
 

It's not a mistake when you have a constant aperture lens like the rx10 mark II has, it won't have any effect on low light if you zoom in, it will on the mark 3 which makes it a camera with limitations if you want to be shooting at the long end like Simon is planning to do, depending on the available light.

I have seen usable 12800 iso on the a6300 and it outperforms the 5d mark 3 at 25800iso (see here (vimeo.com/167649401) which with a little noise reduction in post would be usable as well and you are saying the a6300 only has a slight advantage over the rx10 mark 3? I find that hard to believe.

Re: Sony RX10 mkIII
 

That's why I followed that thought with the sentence that 'most' lenses are not constant aperture. I thought it was clear I was talking about non-constant aperture lense.
My tests, with both of my cameras, showed a closer result. I was not forcing ISO. I think my test was more real world. Having both cameras, I have no axe to grind.