Sony Rx100 Iii 20.1 Mp Premium Compact Digital Camera W/1-Inch Sensor And 24-70mm F1.8-2.8 Zeiss Zoo

Sony RX100 III 20.1 MP Premium Compact Digital Camera w/1-inch Sensor and 24-70mm F1.8-2.8 ZEISS Zoom Lens (DSCRX100M3/B), 6in l x 4.65in w x 2.93in h, Black

• Make sure this fits by entering your model number.
• 209 MP 1\"-type Exmor R CMOS sensor ; Optical zoom:2.9x (Optical Zoom during movie recording)
• Operating temperature:32-104°F / 0-40°C.24-70mm equivalent F/18-28 lens
• Continuous shooting up to 10 FPS
• Pop-up electronic OLED viewfinder with 1,440,000 dots
• ISO 160-12800, expandable ISO 100, 125, and 25,600
• 30 inch tiltable TFT LCD with 1,229,000 dots. The charging time is approximately 230 min
• 1080 60p/24p HD video with full exposure control (MPEG-4/AVCHD)

Buy Now : Sony RX100 III 20.1 MP Premium Compact Digital Camera w/1-inch Sensor and 24-70mm F1.8-2.8 ZEISS Zoom Lens (DSCRX100M3/B), 6in l x 4.65in w x 2.93in h, Black

Brand : Sony
Category : Electronics,Camera & Photo,Digital Cameras,Point & Shoot Digital Cameras
Rating : 4.2
ListPrice : US $748
Price : US $748
Review Count : 614

Sony RX100 III 20.1 MP Premium Compact Digital Camera w/1-inch Sensor and 24-70mm F1.8-2.8 ZEISS Zoom Lens (DSCRX100M3/B), 6in l x 4.65in w x 2.93in h, Black

• RX100 M3 reviewSome background on me first. I have owned a Canon 5D Mark 2 since 2008 and I have an iPhone 5. So the question was, do I need/want this camera?I have previously owned an early Olympus micro four-thirds camera and a large sensor compact Canon. I ended up selling both of these, as I got very little use out of them.I bought this camera primarily as a video camera. I have always wanted a discretely sized excellent quality video camera and the specs in this seemed to fit the bill. This review will mainly look at video.I read about the new XAVC S codec with some skepticism. It seemed like overkill for HD video as it uses a scary amount of storage. After using it though, there is no way I am going back to the lower bit-rate alternatives. With this codec I can shoot extremely complicated visual scenes, a forest in bright daylight for example, pan the camera and see no compression artifacts at all. If I compare this with my iPhone 5 or 5D video the difference is glaring.I had even more skepticism about 60P, imagining I\'d shoot 24p for a more cinematic look. I saw the high-frame-rate version of The Hobbit and was slightly sickened by it. I also imagined light sensitivity would be improved at lowers shutter speeds. This does not appear to be the case however. Also, as there are no compression artifacts at 60p, there is no reason to shoot at a lower speed to avoid them. I imagine the way intra-frame compression works, doubling the frame rate does not mean a commensurate increase in file size. This only leaves the aesthetic question of 60P versus 30 or 24. I have to say, even though the video has a hyper-real quality to it and looks in no way cinematic, I have grown to love it. I tell myself that if I want 30 frames per second later I can always reduce the frame rate during the editing process. Also, 60 frames per second allows for smooth slow motion, only 50% slower true, but it is full HD, unlike the 120fps mode, which is unpleasant to use and outputs poor quality video. So yes, I love 60P video and it is now all I shoot.My love of the 60P mode also helps me get over my biggest gripe about the camera. The lack of 4K video. I have read a lot of reviewers who say 4K video is overkill, and if it was available on this camera, it would be more than regular consumers could handle. As in the amount of storage it would consume and the amount of processing power necessary to edit it successfully would be too much. This may be true for some consumers, but I think this is also true of the 1080 60P mode and that didn\'t stop Sony implementing that. This is a camera for people who know what they are doing, so I think the option for 4K should be there. The camera has the same sensor and processor as Sony\'s first consumer 4K camcorder, so there is no technical limitation. I can only assume they are afraid of canibalizing sales of that more expensive camera. I have used their 4K camcorder and the video is spectacular. The headroom 4K gives you for cropping/correcting on a 1080p timeline is also wonderful. It\'s a real shame this camera doesn\'t have it. I imagine the next iteration will, but that does not help me now. Perhaps some ingenious individual will circulate a firmware hack to enable it? I live in hope.Incidentally, exporting the video to my Mac is not the easiest process. Neither Aperture nor Lightroom recognizes the XAVC S format, so I can\'t store it with my images. Final Cut Pro X does not recognize it straight out of the camera either. I have to use Sony\'s gross Playmemories software to import, then have Final Cut import the resulting files. Not the end of the world, but a hassle all the same.Before leaving the topic of video I would like to stress that this camera shoots amazing video. All my criticisms aside, I am keeping the camera because the video quality is so much better than my iPhone and shooting is so much easier than it is with my DSLR. If your subject is sharply focused and the light is good, the video is to die for.As a still camera I find it lacking. DPReview summed it up well when they said it wasn\'t fun to use. I can\'t help but compare using this camera to using the iPhone. The iPhone is just so intuitive. If you want to focus on something, you touch it. I keep finding I want to touch the screen on this camera, and the fact I can\'t bothers me. There are also so many modes that I have a hard time remembering which mode does what. I have googled the intelligent auto and intelligent auto plus modes half a dozen times and still don\'t know what they do. They seem interesting, so I don\'t want to ignore them, but if I can\'t easily see what they are doing I just end up frustrated. In these modes the display is littered with information, very little of which makes much sense.I love shooting stills with my DSLR, I love the large viewfinder and I love my 85mm portrait lens. This camera cannot compete on either of these fronts. I don\'t have the reach and I don\'t have the ability to focus either as fast or as precisely. On the other hand, my DSLR is a terrible video camera in almost all real-life filming conditions. Especially with rapidly moving kids! So what to do?I have bought a bag just large enough to hold my 5D with portrait lens and this camera. This is not a lot of weight and it means I have all the options I need all the time. I am happy enough with this solution for now.Pros:Great image qualityHighly portable (though not comfortably pocketable in my opinion).Beautifully smooth, compression artifact free video.Articulated screen is really handy for awkward shots.Cons:No 4K video (Even though the hardware is capable)No touchscreenUnintuitive menu systemDifficult to grip and handleOccasional delays on startup, where I am locked out of camera.Dual microphones on the top of the camera are easy to cover by mistake when filming.
• This is my fourth Sony camera and easily my 10th digital and roughly 20th camera (counting both film and digital). It\'s a beauty, and as many have commented on these pages and elsewhere (such as DPReview), a significant improvement on the earlier generations of the RX100 (better sensor in RX100ii, better lens now in 100iii plus an EVF). I thought it would be hard to top the Sony RX1 as the perfect travel camera (please see my detailed review of the RX1 on Amazon), but I think on balance, this is a better travel camera than even that brilliant piece of full frame ingenuity. Not a better camera mind you, but a better travel camera, when space and size are at a great premium. Its lens and sensor produce images that are not quite as sharp as the RX-1\'s - but they are not that far off either. And the RX100-III does beat the RX-1 in one critical functional area, in terms of having a useful range of wide to mild telephoto focal lengths. No more zooming with just the feet . . .Although the RX-100M3 cannot beat the RX-1 or any other full frame camera in overall photo image quality, it is superior in relationship to video quality to the RX-1/A99/A77-65 (and many other APS-C and FF DSLRs), where the improved Bionz X processor in the RX100III allows for a way better sampling heuristic (instead of the clumsy line skipping approach done in the RX1, A99, and all the other recent APS-C cameras). It\'s also astonishingly flexible in terms of shooting modes and operational styles, and additionally, Sony\'s improved image stabilization gives it a ~2 stop advantage, narrowing the low light performance gap between this sensor and a full frame sensor but without image stabilization (such as seen in the RX1) to basically nothing by allowing the RX100-III to shoot at slower shutter speeds, and thus keeping ISO lower. I\'m able to shoot wide open at a 24 mm equivalent in low light at 1/5 second shutter speed, often without any image blurring, keeping my ISO relatively low and basically wiping out much of the low light advantage of the RX-1 FF sensor. It still of course doesn\'t quite create images that are as breathtaking as full frame equipment (still less dynamic range and color depth) - that is not a hittable or realistic performance target, but it comes amazingly close, and with only slightly more noise as ISO rises compared to the APS-C Sony sensor in a Sony A65 (although that camera was clearly no low light phenom). It might be slightly less noisy in RAW than the A65 at 3200 and 6400 - but they are certainly close. This is mighty impressive, given that this sensor is much smaller than an APS-C chip (but RX100\'s sensor is newer than the A65\'s). It\'s not quite one stop noisier than the newer Sony APS-C sensor in my A77II in head to head testing (The new A77ii is roughly 1 stop better sensor in terms of noise compared to the previous generation chip in the A65). This is still a mighty fine performance.What this means is that there is a (roughly) one stop noise jump from these various levels of sensor size: most cell phone sensors > most compact cameras > RX-100 (and several other large sensor compacts) > newer APS-C (A6000/Nikon5300) > full frame (FF) RX1/Nikon600 > Sony A7s. Each level is a significant jump in low light performance, and thus impacts and limits you on exposure, shutter speed, and the whole range of shooting options. While noise/high ISO performance initially sounds like a lot of techno-obscurity that only geeks would care about or understand, it\'s really indicative of what basic physical restrictions there are on your creative options as a photographer. Not only that, and less appreciated by the average person, as noise does up, dynamic range, color depth, and virtually every other parameter that might index picture quality goes down in a linear and direct ratio. That\'s why noise and high ISO performance is so important. All this underscores also that the size of the sensor is critical - and kudos to Sony for its continual efforts to stuff the biggest sensor it can into smaller (and smaller) camera bodies.All this just means simply that this camera has phenomenal low light performance, FOR ITS SIZE. Its low light performance is simply way ahead of every other compact its size, and is reasonably competitive with much larger cameras (such as m4/3 and APS-C where its noise is roughly one stop poorer than the best of the m4/3-APS-c crowd, and about two stops poorer than a typical FF pro-cam). The formal noise testing that I just did (comparing this to both an A77ii and RX1 in RAW) confirms this and shows it almost exactly two stops behind an RX-1. This is still mighty impressive, and with Sony\'s improved IS system giving it a 2+ stop advantage, I can do quite a bit of low light shooting, without worrying about noise (or heavy-handed noise reduction in the JPEG engine) wiping out details. I have to really want low light performance and/or slightly more resolution to lug the big A77ii around with me, and I mostly take the RX100 everywhere. That it has displaced as exceptional a camera as the RX1 speaks volumes.Pros:1) Simply the best photo and video image quality for its size without any question, no contest, end of discussion. Not even debatable.2) Very sharp video, rivaling Canon full frame 5DII and Panasonic GH2/3/4, and with new video codecs (XAVC-S) that will allow 50mb bit rate. Reduced moire and yet still very sharp.3) Fast Zeiss lens (1.8-2.8) with a 3X zoom range, covering the essential wide-angle 24 mm to 70 mm equivalent. Some loss of zoom reach relative to prior editions of the RX 100, but in exchange, the lens is significantly faster and goes to 24mm (highly useful), and allows F2.8 shooting at a moderate telephoto 70mm. This extra lens speed/brightness is more important for most individuals than the extra telephoto reach (but some may find this restricting and a bad tradeoff - see cons).4) Lens is sharp in the corners from F4.0 and up and is decently sharp in the corners even wide open.5) Comprehensive and flexible menu/operating system structures with considerable customizability. Way better there than previous generation Cybershot models. I\'m totally baffled by the DP Review feedback that the camera is \'uninvolving\' - might be the most friendly compact camera for the intermediate-to-advanced user, and can be easily pushed into many shapes and styles of operating.6) Fits in your shirt pocket. Try that with your m4/3 or APS-C camera.7) Wifi and NFC (but see cons). Here\'s a real head twister: the version of Play Memories software that runs on this camera is orders of magnitude better and more useful than the version that runs on the A77II (Sony\'s flagship APS-C system).8) Excellent image stabilizing in both video and stills, with highly flexible IS in video (three levels with associated progressively larger crop factors). This also means that video can be shot at a ~ 100mm perspective (albeit with modest loss of resolution). Excellent photo IS that is transparent and highly effective.9) Terrific little EVF with decent apparent view size (~0.6 - while the flagship A99 EVF is 0.7), and with adjustable brightness and display features vis a vis the LCD. Very neat and highly useful.10) Bright and accurate LCD panel for viewing results (and shooting, if you don\'t like composing with the EVF).11) Many aids for the videographer, including adjustable zebra to see areas of overexposure, option to change ISO and aperture on the fly with smooth front ring control while shooting, and HDMI output to an external recorder, but see last con (omission of 4K).12) As an undocumented but very neat feature, flash head can be tilted up by hand to create impromptu bounce flash, with its usual smoothing of light and more natural appearance (but with limited range and power - see cons).Cons:1) Limited telephoto reach and of course no option to change lenses. Partially mitigated by modest digital zoom capacity (smooth segue from 1.1-2.0) but with predictable/proportional loss of resolution. Obviously will not compete with compact superzooms in this area. Not the camera for bird watchers and wildlife buffs!2) Cost - this might be one of the most expensive cameras on a dollar per pound basis on the market.3) Modest battery life, esp if you use the neat little EVF much, and once again, Sony did not provide a second battery. I thought initially Sony finally provided an external charger but its clear now that I jumped to conclusions. Still no option for external charging - (but check out Wasabi power!)4) Did I mention it\'s $800?5) No option that I can find for scaling the zoom speed, which is a bit confining and unexpected in a premium compact camera6) Audible motor noise in the video during zooming (but at fairly low level).7) Slightly hesitant auto focus in low light with some annoying hunting.8) It is so compact that those with large hands may find it hard to manipulate.9) Flash seems a bit underpowered for those coming from larger equipment. Will not adequately illuminate objects 6-8 ft away at ISO 100. No option for outboard flash, as hot shoe sacrificed for EVF.10) Real disappointment that 4K video not included, as on new Panasonic superzoom using this Sony chip. Firmware update probably can\'t provide this. Suspect Sony didn\'t want to take sales away from their new and pricy 4K camcorder.11) Sony AWB still struggles with fluorescent and tungsten lighting? You would think that they would have this figured out by now??12) Mildly annoying automatic camera shutoff when retracting the EVF - commented on by many - probably easily fixed in firmware update as toggle function. Also, rather short time frame to retract lens when looking at existing images. Also easily fixed with user adjustable setting.13) No touchscreen, which is a disappointment to those fond of such a control interface.14) Clickless control dial in front? Again, a matter of personal taste and preference.Conclusions:Having as many cons as pros doesn\'t mean that I don\'t absolutely love this camera. Most of the cons are minor, while most of the pros are big. Several are huge (great video, great photos, and highly flexible and configurable OS). Still not perfect (no technology is without compromises), but this is clearly the most powerful photographic and videographic instrument of its size that anyone has ever made. Time will tell, but I think that this camera threatens the established order and the doctrine that all reasonably serious shooting requires big honkin\' DLSR gear as much as anything Sony has done previously, even including the RX1/A7/A7r platforms (their elite FF mirrorless alternatives). And please, all you FF folks, don\'t get all bent out of shape - I\'m not remotely suggesting that this little camera will supplant or compete with pro equipment in still photography. But it will mean that outside of the most critical and hi quality still shooting, this camera will provide a very credible alternative for those who want to travel (extra) light and still get very good stills - leaving a slim margin between this and large APS-C gear . . . with a slightly greater margin between this and even larger FF gear. Those modest IQ (image quality) margins now look like they have a really punitive weight penalty, still obviously worth paying for really critical shooting, but how many people want 20-30lbs of extra gear on vacation, toting it all through security lines? Not too many who aren\'t shooting for a living. And in terms of great video, this camera competes favorably with any FF system. Even those who love their big pro gear and would never dream of moving off of FF entirely are probably going to buy one for days when they just can\'t (or don\'t want to) lug the 30+lb bag of big gear and bigger lenses. This camera continues Sony\'s brilliant success in shoehorning the biggest possible sensor they can cram into a small body, like their fine effort in the RX1, but bests even that brilliant effort in flexibility, portability, \'zoomability\' and video-ability. Overall, this little camera is a tour de force in digital technology and is likely to represent a TARDIS-like benchmark in the evolution of digital photography. Highly, highly recommended!Update Oct 2014New Canon PowerShot G7X (first real competition for the RX-100 III) finally has some formal testing. Scores slightly better than the RX100 in DxO testing (but the difference is not likely to be meaningful in terms of anything one can see in actual photos). Clearly has a Sony sensor (Canon probably got tired of people grousing about their poor scores in DxO testing.) Sony will sell their sensors to anyone, even their stiffest competition.Advantages of the Canon G7X1) $100 cheaper2) Longer reach/brighter lens3) Better IS (worth ~ 3 stops!)4) More external control options (dedicated control dials)5) Touchscreen (big for some, just not for me)Advantages of the Sony RX100-III1) EVF vs. just an LCD view screen2) Better movie support/video quality and shooting options (Zebra, focus peaking, 24perf, 120p, XACS codecs)3) Slightly faster focusing and ~ maybe slightly sharper lens (but not by much)4) WAAAAY better battery life5) Way better smartphone interface and WiFi functionality6) Better lens (sharper by all accounts)So if you need the reach, don\'t need or want the EVF, and movies are largely a secondary or even minimal consideration, or want a slightly brighter lens (which combined with the better IS might give you ~ a 1.5 stop advantage in low light) the Canon looks like the better deal and the better camera. If, on the other hand, you like composing in the EVF (I do), like to shoot lots of movies and get really high quality video (ditto), and don\'t care that much about the loss of telephoto reach, or you need more battery life, or want good smartphone control, the Sony might be the better choice. It\'s great to have options. In any case, Sony finally has competition in this segment! Competition is good for everyone. Keeps prices down and quality up. Maybe it will force Sony to lower their price, just as they had to do with the RX-10 after the Panasonic FZ1000.Update: The RX100IV has taken all of this camera\'s virtues and added 1) 4k in body; 2) high frame rate video; 3) slightly upgraded JPEG engine; 4) modestly improved EVF; 5) modestly improved AF, but for significantly more money ($950 vs. $800). If those, particularly 4k, are worth it, I would recommend the RX100IV. If you don\'t shoot 4k and don\'t plan on ever using that due to its space hogging nature, then this is still a great buy. Most would probably value the extra functionality in the M4 version, and I plan to upgrade myself at some point. The only bummer is that 4k is limited to 5 minutes to prevent overheating. Not much space in this small and densely packed camera for much heat dissipation.

Location:

Share :