US note: Free premium case with the first generation RX100 at Amazon (Click here).
Imaging Resource (Click here) posted an interesting RX100M2 vs RX100M3 comparison. And despite both having the same sensor the difference are quite major thanks to the new Bionz X processor on the new RX. At ISO 100 IR writes:
There is a bit more detail in the thread patterns captured by the RX100 III on the right. It also does a good job of rendering our tricky red swatch, which has proven notoriously difficult for most cameras with sensors this size and smaller, even at lower ISOs.
At ISO 1600 IR writes:
Even though the RX100 II holds a bit more detail in areas of subtle contrast, it also shows slightly less noise in areas of flat tint in the background. On the other hand, the RX100 III’s image has a lot more “pop,” so might look better in reasonable-sized prints, vs pixel-peeping at 1:1 as above.
Interesting to see how different these cameras work on different ISO’s!
USA preorders: RX100M3 preorders in USA at Amazon, Adorama, BHphoto, Sony.
Europe preorders: RX100M3 at Sony DE, UK, ES, FR, IT, NL, BE, AT, CH, SE, NO, FI, PT. And Wex UK.
0 Responses
Be the first to comment.
So… where is the “first blood” guy?
here lol…. 🙂
Unstoppable?
holy Shit! 🙂
I found evidence for shit, now explain to me what “holy” is and means. 😉
Hard to tell from these images.
Just apply a little “unsharp mask” to the mkII images and they will look just
like the mkIII images. So I would say there is very little difference in the mkI vs. mkII vs. mkIII
images. At least for the images I have seen.
Note. Can of course be some better with mkIII, but I can’t see a big jump in image quality.
It looks to be a bigger difference between A77mkI and A77mkII, look at the samples at the
same website youself.
I’m seeing reasonable IQ differences between my a77i and ii, but it’s more in terms of clean iso200 and usable iso1600 (as in I’d happily use 1600 for decent sized prints, whereas 800 was as far as I’d push it with the a77i). 3200 is definitely vastly improved, but I’d still probably only used it down-sampled. DXO doesn’t support it yet so I’m holding off on forming any definitive conclusions. AF on the other hand is a different story (couldn’t be happier there).
There is certainly a pretty meaningful difference from the JPEG Old A77 to the A77II. I am, and many more are with you. However, I’ve never expect the RX100II to RX100III upgrade to be not ‘a hair’ of improvement. It seems that my expectation was partly right though, It does have some good improvements.
as imaging resource states themselves:
“””It’s important to remember that these images are at default JPEG
settings, and may or may not reflect the data in the RAW files; the
RX100 III isn’t yet supported by our standard RAW file converter”””
I have never seen the point of the imaging resource comparometer even JPEG shooters will typically adjust the in-camera variables to tweak the output to their liking.For RAW shooters it is pretty much irrelevant .
Agreed – IDC should support it so why not do a side by side comparison with images processed with the same settings?
Besides the fact that these are jpegs…the new lens looks very promising (see the edges)
it’s a nice camera for $200..
compact camera market needs compact cameras … shrink it little and remove the “viewfinder” in new “r”everse version for normal price too.
Smaller, cheaper & no viewfinder – there is an rx100 original for your preferences.
I think this is due to the new – and better – lens. A bionz chip is good for reasonable noise reduction but won’t give more detail at low ISO
In this case it does, all cameras carrying the new chip benefit at low ISO from a much smaller sharpening radius with much mors fine detail and much less sharpening halos (both black and white halos).
The more interesting comparison might be vs the bulkier A3000/A5000, that also lacks a decent kit lens, and decent EVF.
Yes the APS-C cameras look better in the corners with a prime lens, but when compared to the same cameras with the much slower and worse kit lens or even the Zeiss 17-70/4, then this little bastard looks really attractive..
Dominating!
Lacks a decent Kit lens? The fixed lens on the RX100III is known to be pretty good for it’s class.