Hands-on with the Sony RX10 III

True, but the D7100 has close to a two stop advantage over the Sony based on sensor size, so f2.8 -> f5.6. Pretty hard to find a plausible lens that's slower than that at most focal lengths. Can you name a Nikon F-mount lens that's slower than f5.6 in the 24-200mm range?

(After doing some more settings, the RX10 ii does have a slightly newer sensor than the D7100, and it looks like the D7100 only has a 1.5 stop advantage with noise, so — I guess it's _barely_ plausible that a D7100 with an especially slow lens might seem slightly worse than an RX10 ii in poor light.)

BigOne, I've registered a complaint with DPR for circumventing the family-friendly words that DPR wishes to maintain while you were insulting another forum member.

Here are the rules:
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/forum-rules

You violated #6.

I've also placed you on my ignore-list. I'll never see your reply nor anything you type ever again. You are not the type of person I am interested in communicating with. You're a cyber-bully, so insecure that the only way you can feel good about yourself is when you make fun of others.

There must be another way to disagree with people rather than to abuse them.

biological-viewfinder what lens were you using in the Nikon? I cannot find any that would cripple the d7100 to the point where the sony bridge camera would beat it on noise levels.

When I boost the Rx-10-ii ISO upto 2000, I can still use the indoor shots. When I boost the D7100, I can only get to 800 before it starts looking like crap.

Originally, I was using a landscape lens. I changed to a 50mm 1.8 and it was still lagging behind the capability of the Sony; additionally the Sony didn't have a buffer issue.

Now I absolutely *HATE* prime lenses. I just *HATE* them. The one that I have is one that I'm selling for a friend, otherwise I wouldn't use that.

I'm looking to buy the 16-80 f/2.8 as I'm okay with that range. Right now I've been shooting the 16-85.

For sunsets, the Sony Rx-10 ii isn't very good. For dusk, the Rx-i wasn't good. The D7100 is way better at sunsets and low-light because that sensor can really pull in the light fast without diffraction and diffusion other limitations.

HOWEVER, the Sony Rx-10 ii on the inside of a building without flash was better than the D7100. I don't know why. I was surprised, but I just experienced it. I took the pics.

You cannot count out a camera simply from sensor size. That's not a rational way of looking at the whole of what a camera is. A camera is more than the sum of its parts.

ISO, for instance, is a lazy standard. Some cameras have a base ISO of 125, other's 100, other's 200. WHAT IS IT? Since the standard isn't tight; we don't really know.

If sensor size was the most critically important aspect of photography then everyone would be shooting medium-format because it's a larger sensor. A sensor isn't just about size; it's about the quality, efficiency, and capability of the computer driving the information. The Sony's Rx10-ii sensor engine is far more advanced than the Nikon D7100.

I'm a Nikon guy. The only reason I own a Sony is because I'm sick of carrying a backpack to take pictures. In normal light or even darkly lit places, the Nikon wins... except when people are moving and there's very little time to keep the shutter down. In that case, surprisingly, the Sony wins.

My preference would be to carry the Sony. It's so much lighter. So much less bulk. I never, ever, EVER!, have to change lenses. I don't have to buy lenses. I don't have to wear a backpack, I can carry that camera in my hand for a very long time. I don't even have a camera strap on the Sony.

I recognize that there are lots of situations where a DSLR like the D7100 would improve the image quality of a certain scene, most scenes in fact.
But not by as much as you might think.

If you haven't shot these $1300-$1500 1" sensor cameras, then you literally, actually, truthfully, do not know what you're talking about when you make assumptions based on your ignorance of not having ever taken a single photograph with the camera.

You owe it to yourself to learn what the camera can do before you pass judgment on it.

This camera and its predecessors are worth the asking price. It really is a $1500 camera. It's not as good as a DSLR, but in some ways such as convenience it's better.

RStyga is right, and the DOF varying with the size of the sensor is a side effect of the focal length: A normal lens on a 1" sensor is 13mm, around 50 on a FX, and around 80 on a MF, right?!

So equivalent f-number is very relevant, say when you need a good DOF (depth of field), say doing macro shooting, and the light is restricted.

You can't get the DOF you need without using a much smaller aperture on a MF, or FX camera, which isn't always possible (unless you bringa lot of extra light, or use powerful flashes).

Tony, yes it does help me a lot, having access to a couple of m43 cameras as well, and often we (the wife and I) use different cameras to shoot the same scenery, or animal.

A 800mm lens has a wafer-thin DOF at f/5.6, while the 70-300CX is totally simple to use at 810mm equivalent.

The 32/1.2 lens is an extreme lens, most suitable for studio settings, where I personally prefer using one of my 85s on my FX camera anyway.

Yes, equivalent aperture is to me a great help, as it gives me a hint of when a certain lens would be useful, and where it is not.

For someone only using one system it has really no useful function at all, as far as I can see!

I'm sure, a lot of information (incl. DoF FF equivalence) can be confusing to some readers, but it's up to them to study photography a but more and lift their confusion. DPR is not an online photography school.

I still have me FZ30 and even now, no matter what you correctly mentioned, delivers better than more bridge cams (including FZ50) image quality in reasonable conditions. My point is that bridge cams is a niche involving serious enthusiasts among others and silly overpricing is confronted with lough, to say the least. I say that a bridge cam should always cost less than a $1.000. Enthusiasts usually have access in other cams too...

That two lens kit will give you a 28-300mm equivalent range with a average aperture of f4.5 or f5.0 throughout. You're barely improving on the image quality of something like an RX10 or FZ1000, and you've got far fewer features. It's no surprise such a kit costs so much less.

@Marty4650
Nope! Bridge cams aim to an enthusiast and ...lazy audience that feels awfully when carrying a heavy bag with all these things in it, most of them they are more than familiar with photography, they also are well familiar with pp, they do have access (no matter how) to dslrs any time they want to and their prints for their needs are just fine... These guys usually carry a decent bag or cam case with their cam plus a filter a battery pack a couple of cards. And that only if they have a super zoom cam otherwise they carry them in their large pockets.

The trouble is, making a manual zoom in this market removes videographers from the list of people who will buy it, and that sector is quickly becoming one of the most useful applications for 1" superzooms like this. The FZ1000 brought 4K to the sector, and Sony has run with it...

Not true. There is no relation between electronic zooms and video - especially in the serious amateur and semi-pro market. One of the most popular videographer rigs today is the GH4 - pretty much all lenses manual. The XC10 is specifically intended for video, also manual. Yes, superzoom kiddies like their electronic zooms, but few of those people are going to spend $1500 on a camera.

ChaosCloud - every ENG / broadcast camera or professional camcorder relies on electronic zoom. Many high-end parfocal zooms designed for this specifically have power zoom options.

Cine lenses may be manually zoomed if they use geared rings and dedicated focus and zoom pullers to achieve smooth transitions, but that's a specialized role and implies a certain budget.

If you're a one-man army and need smooth competent looking transitions (and you ever intend to actually include a zoom scene in your final output rather than just using a zoom as a bag of primes), powerzoom is hugely valuable.

The XC10 is not a great example. You'd need to have evidence that it's been widely adopted and praised by the semi-pro or pro video market (despite its manual zoom and many limitations) in order to use it as a convincing argument to the contrary.

yes, me too think there is problem with DR, but overall good.

You are right, they're only shot in JPG.

None of these shots were taken in the long end, thus could as easily been taken with the RX10!

And the Nikon V3/J5 with a 70-300 CX would better than a Panasonic FZ1000 because of the extra reach ?

For me the immediate decision is (a) add a 70/300 lens (Tamron/Nikon...about US$350-450...in India) to my D5200 or buy a bridge camera (like the FZ1000...about US$760 in India) instead. This purchase will be for Wildlife....mainly large game. I use my D5200 with the kit 18-140 currently.

The new Nikon sensor is 1", so the Sony sensor is smaller?

1", measured in any way imagineable, is tiny.

Tripe.

"1", measured in any way imagineable, is tiny."

Bahaha! So say measured on the vertical of the frame size perhaps?

MikeF4Black: "1 inch, measured in any way imagineable, is tiny."

Except, y'know, relative to every other superzoom bridge style camera in existence, with one exception .. in which case, as other people have pointed out, it's about six times less tiny than the next best thing.

The nikon and canon 1" ARE the sony sensor. It's a very very good sensor.

We don't know where the Nikon one comes from.
It has slightly more pixels and 171 on sensor phase detect points.

It's also twice as good as the (cr)aptina's before it. it's a good sensor but quiet the mystery.

Where's Tiny Tim when you need him?

Handheld (IS or no IS) tracking a moving subject there is a limit to what you can frame effectively.

Where is the lens speed graph posted?

Thanks, Greg!

Very interesting. I'd have never guessed from the spec that the FZ1000 is actually faster through most of the range...!

Androole, it's not. They're both the same through most of the range.

Well, mostly the same, ever so slightly faster. But you'd have anticipated from the spec that the Sony would be faster by a mile, not slightly slower.

Joe Ogiba, only partially reading a post and making "smart" remarks about how much people are "retard" ... does not make you smart... actually quite the opposite.

Here let me make quick explanation for you, as you might have understanding issues:
* "birds snap-shots" = distant subjects (more or less fast moving - see the problems in AF at tele end) that you actually need a long lens, but you are not going to get high quality results, so it's only for your own fun, very small prints, or web posts
* "the spying stuff" = a bit of sarcastic joke. Made sense, for me at least, especially with all that drone-photography related news in the US :) - but in this world where people just get offended (or like to act like they are offended) by anything, the sense of humor has started to die a slow death...

By mosc (23 hours ago)
Handheld (IS or no IS) tracking a moving subject there is a limit to what you can frame effectively.

I guess your simply not adept enough...

Badi...are you saying that anyone who uses a telephoto lens can only "get snapshots"??

webber, the article, and comments are about this camera, not "any telephoto lens".

And yet, the quality this camera can achieve easily exceeds that which was possible with "any telephoto lens" and a 35mm film camera. And many people shot those without any AF at all. I guess everything published in National Geographic prior to year 2000 was just snapshots.

Badi...the lens is effectively a telephoto lens is it not??
And people have been commenting on its telephoto abilities have they not??

@Androole:
I've looked at the sample gallery, and i must admit the quality at long telephoto is pretty impressive (the original comment was before the gallery was published, or anyway, i didn't watch the samples yet), so you do have a point.

However, look at image quality of NatGeo photographs prior to year 2000 (oh, and there were already amazing high quality lenses and reliable AF by that year ... so you rather should be going back about 20 years more, when still high quality lenses were available, but at least there was no AF), and nowadays.
If you were a NatGeo photographer today, and provide images with the quality of those ... or with the quality of this (i admit it, amazing) little camera, you have to compete with today's image quality, so yes, it's great for personal use, for hobby and small prints. By ISO 400, A4 size print is probably a maximum already.

@Webber: whatever.

...unless the mugger is standing behind you and your lens isn't pointed at them.

This thing looks like a DSLR, which people are programmed to think means a fancy camera. A Leica looks like an old film camera.

If you just want to make a quick buck and don't know about cameras, I don't think that's an obvious question at all.

Having a front facing screen for monitoring your shots when you have the camera on a tripod is much more useful.

don't get me wrong, it looks a great camera spec wise, it just doesn't fall into what I class as a 'compact' ......I'm sure there are some DSLR's with lens that look more 'compact'! ;-)

Yeah, you are right, RX10 Mk II is still a lot above 1000 USD so maybe I was too optimistic about Mk III price falling down soon.
But as regards the "cheap" G3X (it´s still 900 USD at B&H) no matter how cheap it is, an ultrazoom with 600mm eq. lens without an EVF is a no-go.