Sony RX10 III announced 24-600mm f:2.4-4

Discussion in 'Other Systems' started by Ranger Rick, Mar 29, 2016.

  1. ijm5012

    ijm5012 Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Oct 2, 2013
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Ian
    The RX10 III looks like it solves the biggest complaint of the RX10 II: telephoto reach. With 600mm of reach @ f/4, weather sealing and metal body, along with the video performance, it's a seriously good looking camera. It's not cheap at $1,500, but compare the output of it to something similar in an ILC (it doesn't exist), and you can start to see the value of it.

    Now I just wonder how many pissed off RX10 II owners there are out there, since the III only costs $200 more than the II?
     
  2. Turbofrog

    Turbofrog Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Mar 21, 2014
    Yes, it's functionally similar to a GX8 + 12-60 + 100-300 in a lot of ways, and obviously more convenient because you're only dealing with one lens.

    I would be careful about calling it weather-sealed though. It is, like most new Sonys, "dust and moisture resistant." It resists changes in humidity, but it's not warrantied for direct contact with water from rain or splashing if it's anything like previous models that use the same language.
     
  3. Ranger Rick

    Ranger Rick Mu-43 Veteran

    228
    Apr 11, 2009
    Tempe, AZ
    Rick
    I have the original RX10, and it's a great camera, and they even upgraded the video codec. This new version sounds like it may be a companion to the M II version (not replacement, as with the coexistence of both RX100 M3 and m4), tho as noted (and unless physically a lot bigger) only $200 more. I think with Sony that there is a bit of "helter skelter" development, and that buyers have to accept that there may be a new version of what you bought new coming out in 6 months and hurting the "value" of your "investment". I can see where those who need the latest-and-greatest would have a lot of turnover.
     
  4. Turbofrog

    Turbofrog Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Mar 21, 2014
    It's about 200g heavier, 25 mm thicker, and several mm wider and taller, so it's definitely a physically larger camera.
     
  5. tkbslc

    tkbslc Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    The only comparable I could think of is a new Nikon D500 with a Tamron 16-300. You get similar range and effective apertures, but the Nikon Combo is about $2500 and the Tamron lens is not sealed.

    Wish we had a sealed 12-300mm option for m4/3!
     
  6. ijm5012

    ijm5012 Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Oct 2, 2013
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Ian
    I would venture a guess that the Zeiss lens in the RX10 III is a better performer than the Tamrom 16-300 is too (in terms of sharpness). Plus, the video from the Sony just blows the D500 out of the water.
     
  7. tkbslc

    tkbslc Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Probably right on the lens, although this is a bit more of a stretch than the previous 10x zooms on the RX10 line. The Zeiss branding doesn't always mean that much as they use it on consumer compacts and camcorders, too.

    I haven't compared 4K from the D500 yet, but I'll trust your judgement.
     
  8. Turbofrog

    Turbofrog Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Mar 21, 2014
    Why a D500 and not a D7200 in that comparison, since it's almost $1000 cheaper? Just the 4K video?
     
  9. ijm5012

    ijm5012 Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Oct 2, 2013
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Ian
    That's one of the biggest selling points for the RX10 II/III is its video quality. Not only the 4K video, but also the 120fps and 240fps slow motion HD as well. It just so happens to also be a decent stills camera too.