Sont RX100 Mark III

JHD · 05-19-2014, 09:09 PM

Originally posted by jogiba

Does the X-A1 have a VF ? Is it pocket size like the RX100 III ?

Are those two things enough to justify the cost when a superior camera can be had for less than half the price with a sensor that is 3X larger?

cali92rs · 05-19-2014, 09:32 PM

Originally posted by JHD

Are those two things enough to justify the cost when a superior camera can be had for less than half the price with a sensor that is 3X larger?

The way the previous RX100S have sold, yes, it is enough.

kenafein · 05-19-2014, 11:31 PM

Originally posted by cali92rs

I lost my RX100...but my wife wont let me replace it

I think that is a real drawback of such a small camera. If you put it down, it isnt immediately apparent that you don't have it. A DSLR on the other hand, if you put it down, you know that you aren't carrying it anymore.

They are expensive enough that you might consider stitching it to your body and using an underwater camera bag in the shower.

jogiba · 05-20-2014, 04:47 AM

Originally posted by JHD

Are those two things enough to justify the cost when a superior camera can be had for less than half the price with a sensor that is 3X larger?

The APS-C Sony a6000 is light years better than the APS-C X-A1 Fuji and the guys at Camera Store TV call the new RX100 III the best compact camera ever produced.

You Tube

Quote:

Honestly, I can’t think of any other pocket-sized camera that can slightly give the latest RX100 a run for it’s money. This sounds like a paid endorsement, but in my opinion, the RX100 MK III is the best compact camera ever produced.

Sony RX100 Mk III First Impressions

JHD · 05-20-2014, 09:55 AM

Originally posted by jogiba

...the guys at Camera Store TV call the new RX100 III the best compact camera ever produced.

They can call it what they want, the bottom line is $900 is way too much for a small camera with a small sensor that has very limited telephoto range, especially in view of the fact that there is a plethora of far better and more capable cameras for much less money.

As for the Sony A6000, as nice as it is, emount lenses vs Fuji lenses? No contest.

jogiba · 05-20-2014, 11:18 AM

Originally posted by JHD

They can call it what they want, the bottom line is $900 is way too much for a small camera with a small sensor that has very limited telephoto range, especially in view of the fact that there is a plethora of far better and more capable cameras for much less money.

As for the Sony A6000, as nice as it is, emount lenses vs Fuji lenses? No contest.

The bottom line is the RX100 is the hottest selling pocket size camera and the new RX100 III is a game changer with
20.1 megapixel 1"-type Exmor R BSI-CMOS sensor
24-70mm equiv. F1.8-2.8 Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T* lens
Pop-up SVGA OLED electronic viewfinder with 1.44M dots
3-inch tilting WhiteMagic LCD with 1.23M dots
1080/60p video with full sensor readout and 50Mbps XAVC S support
Clean HDMI output
Zebra pattern and focus peaking
Customizable front lens ring
3-stop neutral density filter
Wi-Fi with NFC and downloadable apps
The are a myriad of low cost small APS-C mirrorless cameras with no viewfinder so if that is what you want then get it but don't try to compare it with the RX100 III.

Quote:

Note on Availability: Due to high demand we anticipate being unable to fulfill all customer orders with our first allocation. Product supply from Sony is very limited. Your place in line will be maintained and your credit card will not be charged until the product is shipped.

http://www.amazon.com/Sony-DSC-RX100M-Cyber-shot-Digital-Camera/dp/B00K7O2DJ...rds=Sony+RX100

JHD · 05-20-2014, 12:42 PM

Hey man, whatever works for you. You come across like a Sony shill--I couldn't care less about how popular it (or anything for that matter) is with the sheeple. Call it a 'game changer' or whatever makes you happy, but it's still a small camera with a small sensor that can't reach beyond 70mm. $900 is ridiculous. I'd rather have the option to buy it without the VF for $350-$400 less.

jogiba · 05-20-2014, 01:33 PM

Originally posted by JHD

Hey man, whatever works for you. You come across like a Sony shill--I couldn't care less about how popular it (or anything for that matter) is with the sheeple. Call it a 'game changer' or whatever makes you happy, but it's still a small camera with a small sensor that can't reach beyond 70mm. $900 is ridiculous. I'd rather have the option to buy it without the VF for $350-$400 less.

The APS-C Sony NEX-3N with 16-50mm OSS power zoom lens is the worlds smallest APS-C system camera and was selling for $299 at B&H so it's better than that Fuji that cost twice as much.

kenafein · 05-20-2014, 01:52 PM

Originally posted by JHD

Hey man, whatever works for you. You come across like a Sony shill--I couldn't care less about how popular it (or anything for that matter) is with the sheeple. Call it a 'game changer' or whatever makes you happy, but it's still a small camera with a small sensor that can't reach beyond 70mm. $900 is ridiculous. I'd rather have the option to buy it without the VF for $350-$400 less.

Actually, in the US, the price is 799. They're still selling the version II, which has a longer reach and costs less. I think it's probably an OK deal, for what it is, a truly pocket-able camera. The results are pretty spectacular. It is the king of point and shoots, no doubt, but is it worth the premium? To some it is and to you and me, I'd rather have my NEX 6, if I had to choose.

Jasvox · 05-23-2014, 08:32 PM

Originally posted by JHD

$900 is ridiculous. I'd rather have the option to buy it without the VF for $350-$400 less.

Good news!

Amazon.com : Sony DSC-RX100/B 20.2 MP Exmor CMOS Sensor Digital Camera with 3.6x Zoom : Point And Shoot Digital Cameras : Camera & Photo

And it has been on the market for over 2 years.

At the end of the day, people buy the camera which fits their needs. If this one doesn't fit yours, dont buy it.

Jason

Edgar_in_Indy · 06-19-2014, 06:08 PM

Originally posted by JHD

They can call it what they want, the bottom line is $900 is way too much for a small camera with a small sensor that has very limited telephoto range, especially in view of the fact that there is a plethora of far better and more capable cameras for much less money.

Originally posted by kenafein

It is the king of point and shoots, no doubt, but is it worth the premium? To some it is and to you and me, I'd rather have my NEX 6, if I had to choose.

I don't see why people are getting so bent out of shape about the price. Miniaturization of technology has always commanded a price premium. The price would only be out of line if there were other cameras of similar size, features, and quality that were much less expensive. But to the best of my knowledge, there is none.

And besides, it doesn't have to be an "either/or" proposition. I have the DSLR with all the big lenses, but for times when I just don't want to lug a big camera around, I'm happy to have my RX100 II available, as well as my Olympus XZ-1 (which actually out-performs the RX100 at lower ISO's due to the amazing lens).

shaX 07 · 06-27-2014, 11:17 AM

Originally posted by Edgar_in_Indy

I don't see why people are getting so bent out of shape about the price. Miniaturization of technology has always commanded a price premium. The price would only be out of line if there were other cameras of similar size, features, and quality that were much less expensive. But to the best of my knowledge, there is none.

And besides, it doesn't have to be an "either/or" proposition. I have the DSLR with all the big lenses, but for times when I just don't want to lug a big camera around, I'm happy to have my RX100 II available, as well as my Olympus XZ-1 (which actually out-performs the RX100 at lower ISO's due to the amazing lens).

This.

To be honest, my DSLR almost never gets used because of its size. When I take my 2 year old son places, I can't keep him in order And carry a DSLR in addition to other items that I need to bring, it's just impractical. I am a single parent so I don't have another person around to be able to help watch a child and/or carry stuff. Because of this I end up taking pictures with my cell phone, which are mediocre at best.

When it comes to photography, size CAN be everything.

I think the RX100 is worth its asking price. To be honest i've considered selling my K-5ii to get an RX100 II because I just don't pull the DSLR out of the closet enough.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Sony RX100 Mark 2	Adam	Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands	19	07-25-2013 05:14 PM
5D Mark III - now with improved dynamic range	yusuf	Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands	3	07-21-2013 10:37 PM
dpreview K5 vs Canon 5D Mark III	dr_romix	Pentax K-5 & K-5 II	47	02-28-2013 10:29 AM
5D Mark III DxOMark	yusuf	Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands	11	05-30-2012 03:44 PM
Canon 5D Mark III gets DPR 82% Gold award	jogiba	Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands	45	05-30-2012 01:37 PM

05-19-2014, 09:09 PM	#16
JHD Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Photos: Albums Posts: 1,406	Originally posted by jogiba Does the X-A1 have a VF ? Is it pocket size like the RX100 III ? Are those two things enough to justify the cost when a superior camera can be had for less than half the price with a sensor that is 3X larger?

05-19-2014, 09:32 PM	#17
cali92rs Veteran Member Join Date: May 2011 Location: Long Beach, CA Posts: 3,354	Originally posted by JHD Are those two things enough to justify the cost when a superior camera can be had for less than half the price with a sensor that is 3X larger? The way the previous RX100S have sold, yes, it is enough.

05-19-2014, 11:31 PM	#18
kenafein Veteran Member Join Date: May 2011 Location: Southern California Photos: Albums Posts: 4,082	Originally posted by cali92rs I lost my RX100...but my wife wont let me replace it I think that is a real drawback of such a small camera. If you put it down, it isnt immediately apparent that you don't have it. A DSLR on the other hand, if you put it down, you know that you aren't carrying it anymore. They are expensive enough that you might consider stitching it to your body and using an underwater camera bag in the shower.

05-20-2014, 09:55 AM	#20
JHD Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Photos: Albums Posts: 1,406	Originally posted by jogiba ...the guys at Camera Store TV call the new RX100 III the best compact camera ever produced. They can call it what they want, the bottom line is $900 is way too much for a small camera with a small sensor that has very limited telephoto range, especially in view of the fact that there is a plethora of far better and more capable cameras for much less money. As for the Sony A6000, as nice as it is, emount lenses vs Fuji lenses? No contest.

05-20-2014, 11:18 AM	#21
jogiba Banned Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Millstone,NJ Posts: 6,491	Originally posted by JHD They can call it what they want, the bottom line is $900 is way too much for a small camera with a small sensor that has very limited telephoto range, especially in view of the fact that there is a plethora of far better and more capable cameras for much less money. As for the Sony A6000, as nice as it is, emount lenses vs Fuji lenses? No contest. The bottom line is the RX100 is the hottest selling pocket size camera and the new RX100 III is a game changer with 20.1 megapixel 1"-type Exmor R BSI-CMOS sensor 24-70mm equiv. F1.8-2.8 Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T* lens Pop-up SVGA OLED electronic viewfinder with 1.44M dots 3-inch tilting WhiteMagic LCD with 1.23M dots 1080/60p video with full sensor readout and 50Mbps XAVC S support Clean HDMI output Zebra pattern and focus peaking Customizable front lens ring 3-stop neutral density filter Wi-Fi with NFC and downloadable apps The are a myriad of low cost small APS-C mirrorless cameras with no viewfinder so if that is what you want then get it but don't try to compare it with the RX100 III. Quote: Note on Availability: Due to high demand we anticipate being unable to fulfill all customer orders with our first allocation. Product supply from Sony is very limited. Your place in line will be maintained and your credit card will not be charged until the product is shipped. http://www.amazon.com/Sony-DSC-RX100M-Cyber-shot-Digital-Camera/dp/B00K7O2DJ...rds=Sony+RX100

05-20-2014, 12:42 PM	#22
JHD Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Photos: Albums Posts: 1,406	Hey man, whatever works for you. You come across like a Sony shill--I couldn't care less about how popular it (or anything for that matter) is with the sheeple. Call it a 'game changer' or whatever makes you happy, but it's still a small camera with a small sensor that can't reach beyond 70mm. $900 is ridiculous. I'd rather have the option to buy it without the VF for $350-$400 less.

05-20-2014, 01:33 PM	#23
jogiba Banned Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Millstone,NJ Posts: 6,491	Originally posted by JHD Hey man, whatever works for you. You come across like a Sony shill--I couldn't care less about how popular it (or anything for that matter) is with the sheeple. Call it a 'game changer' or whatever makes you happy, but it's still a small camera with a small sensor that can't reach beyond 70mm. $900 is ridiculous. I'd rather have the option to buy it without the VF for $350-$400 less. The APS-C Sony NEX-3N with 16-50mm OSS power zoom lens is the worlds smallest APS-C system camera and was selling for $299 at B&H so it's better than that Fuji that cost twice as much.

05-20-2014, 01:52 PM	#24
kenafein Veteran Member Join Date: May 2011 Location: Southern California Photos: Albums Posts: 4,082	Originally posted by JHD Hey man, whatever works for you. You come across like a Sony shill--I couldn't care less about how popular it (or anything for that matter) is with the sheeple. Call it a 'game changer' or whatever makes you happy, but it's still a small camera with a small sensor that can't reach beyond 70mm. $900 is ridiculous. I'd rather have the option to buy it without the VF for $350-$400 less. Actually, in the US, the price is 799. They're still selling the version II, which has a longer reach and costs less. I think it's probably an OK deal, for what it is, a truly pocket-able camera. The results are pretty spectacular. It is the king of point and shoots, no doubt, but is it worth the premium? To some it is and to you and me, I'd rather have my NEX 6, if I had to choose.

05-23-2014, 08:32 PM	#25
Jasvox Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 3,107 Original Poster	Originally posted by JHD $900 is ridiculous. I'd rather have the option to buy it without the VF for $350-$400 less. Good news! Amazon.com : Sony DSC-RX100/B 20.2 MP Exmor CMOS Sensor Digital Camera with 3.6x Zoom : Point And Shoot Digital Cameras : Camera & Photo And it has been on the market for over 2 years. At the end of the day, people buy the camera which fits their needs. If this one doesn't fit yours, dont buy it. Jason

06-19-2014, 06:08 PM	#26
Edgar_in_Indy Veteran Member Join Date: May 2010 Location: Indiana, USA Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,685	Originally posted by JHD They can call it what they want, the bottom line is $900 is way too much for a small camera with a small sensor that has very limited telephoto range, especially in view of the fact that there is a plethora of far better and more capable cameras for much less money. Originally posted by kenafein It is the king of point and shoots, no doubt, but is it worth the premium? To some it is and to you and me, I'd rather have my NEX 6, if I had to choose. I don't see why people are getting so bent out of shape about the price. Miniaturization of technology has always commanded a price premium. The price would only be out of line if there were other cameras of similar size, features, and quality that were much less expensive. But to the best of my knowledge, there is none. And besides, it doesn't have to be an "either/or" proposition. I have the DSLR with all the big lenses, but for times when I just don't want to lug a big camera around, I'm happy to have my RX100 II available, as well as my Olympus XZ-1 (which actually out-performs the RX100 at lower ISO's due to the amazing lens).

06-27-2014, 11:17 AM	#27
shaX 07 Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2013 Location: Maine Posts: 331	Originally posted by Edgar_in_Indy I don't see why people are getting so bent out of shape about the price. Miniaturization of technology has always commanded a price premium. The price would only be out of line if there were other cameras of similar size, features, and quality that were much less expensive. But to the best of my knowledge, there is none. And besides, it doesn't have to be an "either/or" proposition. I have the DSLR with all the big lenses, but for times when I just don't want to lug a big camera around, I'm happy to have my RX100 II available, as well as my Olympus XZ-1 (which actually out-performs the RX100 at lower ISO's due to the amazing lens). This. To be honest, my DSLR almost never gets used because of its size. When I take my 2 year old son places, I can't keep him in order And carry a DSLR in addition to other items that I need to bring, it's just impractical. I am a single parent so I don't have another person around to be able to help watch a child and/or carry stuff. Because of this I end up taking pictures with my cell phone, which are mediocre at best. When it comes to photography, size CAN be everything. I think the RX100 is worth its asking price. To be honest i've considered selling my K-5ii to get an RX100 II because I just don't pull the DSLR out of the closet enough.