Do I need as Sony RX100 iii? (Page 3): I have and use one, and I couldn't agree more! It is a superb snapshot and travel camera, and quality enlargements to 8x10 are excellent...

mikegreenwald Loc: Illinois

bsprague wrote:

I bought a Sony RX100 version 1 instead of a DSLR.... (show quote)

I have and use one, and I couldn't agree more! It is a superb snapshot and travel camera, and quality enlargements to 8x10 are excellent, possible even 11x14 if you PP and use Perfect Resize.

FM Loc: near Syracuse, NY

I have a Rx100 and find myself taking it with me when I go on trips that I have taken before, have many photos of, and just want something to record the moment. I don't find the lack of huge telephoto a problem, and couldn't be happier with the color contrast and sharpness of the Zeiss lens. When you get around grandkids, you'll find they act more natural than when you're pointing a big machine at them. Although there are some little plasticky parts, you overlook those for the jewel like body. I think if you can afford the RX 100111, buy it-electronic finder et al: I get along fine with the original. Even though it is "a little pricey" you get over that in time and good use!

sirlensalot Loc: Arizona

You are the only one that can decide if versatility is worth sacrificing image quality. IMHO, the P&S, bridge cameras, even the mirrorless,, are simply not there yet.
Check the link the OP posted on today's list of topics regarding an article about mirrorless cameras and cameras in general. Pretty good analysis, but rather shallow as most news articles are today. Just another point of view for you to peruse.

amehta Loc: Boston

prs77 wrote:

Thanks, this is a great testimonial. It, and your link below, are very useful. So from the information in this thread and others in uhh, I conclude that rx100iii is the best camera you can easily carry around. If I were replacing my Canon 60D, there would be many other choices with mirror less in general and cameras like Olympus M10 in particular good choices. however, no one has recommended another camera as small as rx100iii yet with great features and IQ.

As a second camera, the RX-100 models are one of the best options available. It seems that the RX-100 is the D800's "kid brother" for many of us. :-) Have fun with it.

Cdouthitt Loc: Traverse City, MI

sirlensalot wrote:

...even the mirrorless,, are simply not there yet.

Bold statement.
It all depends on subject matter and your own photographic goals.

Reinaldokool Loc: San Rafael, CA

prs77 wrote:

I am an amateur photographer, I own a Canon 60D, I... (show quote)

I'm pretty partial to the Canon G16--I have the G15--because it has an f1.8 5x optical zoom and almost all the features you could possibly want. I've managed to win a couple of on-line competitions with it. I dedicated a whole week to using my G15 instead of my DSLR so I could learn its capabilities. It also has good video with autofocus. The only downside is that all P&S have smaller sensors. I've tried printing a 20x30 equivalent (Cropped). It was not up to museum quality, but pretty good. LOL. Another advantage is good RAW format. The G16 is even better. The RX100 iii looks okay and the larger sensor is very worthwhile. But that seems its only advantage. However, no P&S ever replaces a DSLR so the advantage is the size, weight and always having it with you.

sirlensalot Loc: Arizona

Cdouthitt wrote:

Bold statement.
It all depends on subject matter and your own photographic goals.

Not bold at all. Many agree with that statement. This site is noted for strong views on subjects.
Your views are always welcome and appreciated. Thank you.

Gbrinton Loc: New Cumberland, PA

sirlensalot wrote:

You are the only one that can decide if versatility is worth sacrificing image quality. IMHO, the P&S, bridge cameras, even the mirrorless,, are simply not there yet.
Check the link the OP posted on today's list of topics regarding an article about mirrorless cameras and cameras in general. Pretty good analysis, but rather shallow as most news articles are today. Just another point of view for you to peruse.

Which mirrorless camera did you have that convinced you that they weren't there yet? Is it your opinion or are you citing someone elses opinion?

Cdouthitt Loc: Traverse City, MI

Where's that Final Jeopardy music when you need it.

amehta Loc: Boston

Cdouthitt wrote:

Where's that Final Jeopardy music when you need it.

Jeopardy music :lol:

sentin Loc: SOA, England

sirlensalot wrote:

You are the only one that can decide if versatility is worth sacrificing image quality. IMHO, the P&S, bridge cameras, even the mirrorless,, are simply not there yet.
Check the link the OP posted on today's list of topics regarding an article about mirrorless cameras and cameras in general. Pretty good analysis, but rather shallow as most news articles are today. Just another point of view for you to peruse.

So you consider the Sony A7R with the same sensor as the D800 as 'not there yet'?

BushDog Loc: San Antonio, TX

IMHO, the RX100 (any version) is no ordinary point and shoot. I had version 1 that I gave to a relative last year, then purchased version 3 for myself to replace it. I have other P&S cameras but this is my "go to" P&S when I want portability.

I also have multiple high quality DSLRs like the Canon 1DXm 5Diii, 7Dii and I previously had 5Dii and Nikon D800.

I've attached some sample photos I took at a Spurs playoff game with the RX100iii. I did use manual settings and shot in RAW and then edited in Lightroom so they are NOT straight out of the camera.

Shot w RX100iii in Raw, then edited in LR

(Download)

Shot w RX100iii in Raw, then edited in LR

(Download)