Test Shot at 600mm (Page 3): You answered a few question in this post. #1 is i'll bet it there is built in I.S. a tripod is seldom needed #2 you probably shot on auto , just zoomed in...

Harvey Loc: Pioneer, CA

You answered a few question in this post. #1 is i'll bet it there is built in I.S. a tripod is seldom needed #2 you probably shot on auto , just zoomed in - I shot bridge cameras for a long time - still would have my Canon SZ40 but I gave it to a young man as a starter camera.
Keep testing aka practicing and post your results.

Howard5252 wrote:

You can call it a snapshot and be unimpressed, that's fine with me ... I'll call it a test shot; it served MY purpose and that's what counts. BTW the lens is not interchangeable, it's an upscale bridge camera.

Quaking Aspen Loc: Cottage Grove, OR

I find that with my RX10iii the major trade-off is between shutter speed and ISO. I'm getting pretty sharp shots, but at a fast enough shutter speed that the "graininess" shows up on a close up look. But then I'm getting gradually better at balancing these trade offs.

These are not maxed out 600mm equiv. shots but they illustrate the same trade-off
Here are a couple of recent shots:

(Download)

Howard5252 Loc: New York / Florida (now)

JPL wrote:

It was actually taken at 203 mm, not 600 mm. That makes it a lot easier for the stabilizer than if it was a 600 mm focal length. But regardless of this, the camera is very good. I think those 1 inch sensors are the future standard sensors for bridge and travel cameras.

Re the mm of the lens: Read the previous replies that deal with this.

Howard5252 Loc: New York / Florida (now)

Harvey wrote:

You answered a few question in this post. #1 is i'll bet it there is built in I.S. a tripod is seldom needed #2 you probably shot on auto , just zoomed in - I shot bridge cameras for a long time - still would have my Canon SZ40 but I gave it to a young man as a starter camera.
Keep testing aka practicing and post your results.

Of course there is IS ... so what? As for your "... probably shot on auto" No it wasn't ... it was shot on Shutter Priority and again, so what?

sergio

I have this camera and it is very good indeed. Usually I need more than 600mm (I do birds) and I am using a Canon 7DII with a Tamron 150-600mm (with the cropping factor the focal lens is around 900mm) but when I travel this is cumbersome. The Sony surprised me positively.

a6k Loc: Detroit & Sanibel

The camera has limits as discussed above. But it has enough pixel density to make the 600 mm angle of view reasonable. Here is a Luminar-tweaked example. Hand held, IS on. There were millions of them that day; must have had a hatching at near that time.

I note as well that I can often get a shot with the RX10m3 that would simply not be possible with a more expensive camera because the range of distances at which it can focus is nearly total. It's an F 4.0 at full zoom, too. The lens is very good, at least in the center, wide open.

This image is cropped and developed from RAW. The JPG's are good but the real quality is in the RAW images plus a little help from software. I've seen better dragonflies taken by better cameras in the hands of other photographers. There are always some excellent ones on 500PX. But this particular one would have been pretty hard to get with a more range-limited lens. As it happens, this is not at full zoom and I don't remember why because if it had been perhaps the crop would have been less.

(Download)

Harvey Loc: Pioneer, CA

NO - Don't take as being critical about IS and Auto - I love IS wish it was in my Canon Rebels The Auto was just guess as there was so much discussion about settings. As I posted - a good test shot - keep taking them they only improve your Camera skills.I'm 79 now and sometimes auto is my best way to go.

quote=Howard5252]Of course there is IS ... so what? As for your "... probably shot on auto" No it wasn't ... it was shot on Shutter Priority and again, so what?[/quote]

Bobspez Loc: Southern NJ, USA

The thing about birds is you often want to crop to 100% resolution. At that resolution you have to lower your iso. Viewed at 100% resolution your pics are covered in noise at iso-1600. The way around that is to shoot at full zoom, with a slower shutter speed and a low iso (preferably as close to iso-100 as possible). The OP got plenty of light at f5 iso-100 and 1/640 sec. at close to full zoom (554mm equiv. focal length) with no discernible noise.

Quaking Aspen wrote:

I find that with my RX10iii the major trade-off is between shutter speed and ISO. I'm getting pretty sharp shots, but at a fast enough shutter speed that the "graininess" shows up on a close up look. But then I'm getting gradually better at balancing these trade offs.

These are not maxed out 600mm equiv. shots but they illustrate the same trade-off
Here are a couple of recent shots:

Jim Bob

Howard5252 wrote:

Took this shot hand-held with my new Sony DSC-RX10 iii at 600mm of a mailbox 100 yards away. No post processing done ... I really am impressed with this camera.

Not bad but not exceptional either.

BebuLamar

JPL wrote:

Maybe so, but you can get exactly the same field o... (show quote)

When you crop you will see more of the motion blur because when you crop you don't see the crop image as a smaller image. For example you don't crop an 8x10 to make a 4x5. You crop it and then enlarge it to same size at before and it will reveal more motion blur.

Howard5252 Loc: New York / Florida (now)

Jim Bob wrote:

Not bad but not exceptional either.

The camera will be used in place of my 500mm prime, not because it can create a better image but rather because it can create an acceptable one (my opinion and the only one that counts). The 500mm is large and heavy and I want to travel as light as possible. I will be taking my Nikon D810 mounted to a Nikon 18~300 lens (my workhorse camera/lens combo) and now I will be taking this Sony instead of the 500mm. I may not even need the extra reach of the Sony but I want to have something available just in case. I apologize for not making my reasons clear in this post. I had posted one or two days ago when I bought the camera and I stated my intent in that post - I should have repeated it here.

macsmom Loc: S Carolina

abc1234 wrote:

it not good enough for me to keep this lens. But if you like the lens, then keep it.

We're not talking about a lens here, but the whole camera. It comes with a 24-600 mm lens, f2.8 -4, not interchangeable. It is tricky handheld at 600 mm.

Harvey Loc: Pioneer, CA

Again one must look back at photography befor I.S. when we were taught the basic "firm hold positions" and the use of stationary objects for support when shooting handheld shots.

macsmom wrote:

We're not talking about a lens here, but the whole camera. It comes with a 24-600 mm lens, f2.8 -4, not interchangeable. It is tricky handheld at 600 mm.

BebuLamar

Looking back I think nobody dares to use a gun stock mounted camera any more.

Howard5252 Loc: New York / Florida (now)

Harvey wrote:

Again one must look back at photography befor I.S. when we were taught the basic "firm hold positions" and the use of stationary objects for support when shooting handheld shots.

Actually it is rather difficult to hand hold when shooting at the longer ranges. Remember, this is a relatively light item as opposed to a fairly heavy 500mm prime or 200-400 zoom lens. Heavy lenses sort of damp down the small movements - because of its light weight, this camera will not. I will be using a tripod ... not because it's so heavy, but because it's so light!