Why I Threw The Towel In On A RX10MkIII

First let me start this discussion with a statement. I'm NOT trying to bash the camera outright, rather expressing my experience with it (which just might be isolated) and my disappointment regarding the experience at large as I had anticipated loving it and finding a major role for it in my shooting.

Also let me make it clear that my primary experience was at one time as a working professional that made a nice living shooting weddings, portraiture as well as product photography for the jewelry industry. My mainstay's were always professional DSLR's and top flight lenses starting back in 1999. I currently use a Sony A7RII with a nice collection of top lenses for that as well. With that said let me expound on my analysis and weaknesses I ran into regarding the particular copy of the RX10MkIII I had for a week.

* I noted that far too often it was NOT accomplishing a perfectly IN focus shot unless the ISO was upped considerably regardless of the Steadyshot being ON of course. My A7RII for example was shot at similar light situations both indoors and out nailing focus and a shake free image where the RX didn't pull it off nearly as often. ALL of my analysis (sorry) was in fact at 100% of the image file on a calibrated screen. Like it or not that's just how I typically view the final images I take to assure me of their accuracy.

* After much experimentation I noted that ANY ISO used much above ISO400 resulted in some image quality degradation such as the detail of leafs and such. Yeah I'm well aware many folks here show their shots taken at much higher ISO's but the size they are typically showing is even less than 50% of the native file size shot. So it hardly counts for what I'm discussing.

* Dynamic range is reasonably impressive, so it's NOT all bad news. It's tolerance of light into dark areas of the frame are manipulable to a reasonable degree as long as the overall exposure was well balanced.

* Yes indeed the Zeiss lens is remarkable. Here is the rub and the MAIN reason I took mine back to the dealer for a different camera model altogether. On the far right side, I isolated that it did NOT provide a sharp image as was seen all across the rest of the screen. (possible decentering?). This was quite annoying. It was worst beyond 200mm, which frankly was a huge reason for my trying the camera in the first place. Once again most all the shots I've seen posted by others wouldn't even show this malady the way they are displayed, but mine had it and I wasn't about to live with it. Indeed I don't know if this was a freak bad copy of a camera with a bad lens, or typical. But to ME it is unacceptable as all my lenses provide a perfect image across the entire frame, which brings up the next perhaps worst issue.

* I noted that ALL of the best results were ONLY achievable at f4 ONLY. by f5.6 the image was not as crisp, but f8 it was worse yet and f11 intolerably non sharp. I'm of course completely used to stopping down to increase the depth of field as well as increasing overall sharpness of the entire image captured. This lens at least on my previous copy of the camera, was progressively more horrid the more you stopped it down, and this began immediately after f4. So I was unable let's say at 400 or 600mm to get a complete frame sharp and in focus IF desired. This makes for a very limited tool in my opinion. If once again nobody else is running into this or can provide proof images to show mine was defective, please DO show images that indicate that. Once again we are talking about an image viewed 100% on screen not 50%

*On to focusing. The focusing overall on the camera is admirable in all but really low light. Not too surprising. However as for fast moving subjects........forget about it. I tried for example to shoot some kids going up and down on a trampoline. Not ONE shot could be gathered. My A7RII got each and every one. The setup for continuous tracking and such is identical on both cameras so I can assure you I KNOW what I'm doing there. The RX however was successful shooting cars passing by at 50mph and also managed to catch a few good ones of some runners running down the street. That's about it. So for sports I'd pass on this camera. The contrast focus system tends to just pump away not allowing for a fast lock on the subject and staying there. ( I replaced the RX by the way with a A6300 which nails all of these things without breaking a sweat).

* Sadly I LOVED the build of the camera and the feel of it. The viewfinder was superb, the controls and feature set excellent and to me without any needs. Battery life was quite reasonable as well.

So having said this I can see how it will remain a strong contender in popularity in the marketplace. it will tick many boxes for many people. For me, I guess I'm both spoiled and have deeper needs this camera may not address. If my descriptions or complaints about it don't coincide with your experiences due to the possibility I had a bad copy, PLEASE say so and let me know. I'm not beyond the consideration of thinking about trying another IF and only IF what I described doesn't apply to anyone else's camera experience. I appreciate your reading this and once again I didn't wish to infuriate any owners of this surprising camera. Mainly wanting to see if I just had a bad copy and perhaps should consider another some day IF and only IF my foibles experienced aren't realistic expectations of it's performance.