Sony DSC-RX100 III test by BHphoto.
The RX100m3 will ship in two weeks from now and here are a couple of new RX100M3 image samples and tests. On top you can see a hands-on video from BH. And now let’s talk about a small surprise:
The ISO comparison done by Focus Numerique (google translated) shows how the RX100M3 beats the larger sensor cameras like the G1X and GM1 and almost matches the APS-C sensor performance of the Rico GR:
Quite amazing or not?
More tests:
RX100M3 Studio Comparison at Dpreview and real world samples (Dpreview).
Sony RX100 Mark III Photo Set on Flickr.
Fresh test of RX100iii, in Swedish on Swedish site Cyberphoto.
RX100M3 review by Yodobashi (google translated).
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
Quite amazing or not?
— phuck yeah, that is INCREDIBLE..
Now, any news on the next RX1 and MF camera? Spill it please!
Haha. It was ‘amazing’ last time with the RX100 II, but thanks for reminding us. 😉 The real power is that with its brighter lens you can occasionally use a lower ISO in the first place, duh!
The rx 100 series uses exmor R ..backside illuminated sensor.
The larger C and ff sony cameras use exmmor sensor…not bsi.
The bsi sensors are more advanced and capable of higher resolution with better iso.
Unfortunately sony is still using the more primitive sensors for thier larger cameras.
Currently there are 2 newer better generations of sensor that Sony does not put put on thier larger cameras because they believe consumers will continue to buy obsolete exmor bayer sensors.
BSI sensors are currently being used in most smaller format cameras and offer the proven capability of much higher resolution without quality or iso loss.
Stacked sensors are the next technolgy that Sony has had plenty of time to develope and I believe is ready whenever sony decides to release it.
This promises both image quality improvements and increased resolution.
Once again however Sony is not releasing it simply because we the consumers are not demanding it.
We the consumer are still buying obsolete exmor sensor cameras that Sony is happy to sell us because we dont demand any better.
Oh ABB. Stacked sensors have their own problems, when they giveth they taketh away.
BSI is said to only be beneficial on smaller sensors due to the size of their photo sites. Believe what you like but the numbers don’t lie. Sony 1″ performs almost exactly where a sensor of that size should be performing given the current state of technology.
Please ABB – STFU for once
That is the point.
BSI performs better for smaller photosites.
The rx 100 sensor is 1/5 the size …almost 5x the resolution of the C size sensor and has close to the same permance.
BSI allows higher res without quality loss and is ready for prodution now.
Scaling this sensor to C size would ne 100mp.
Scaling to ff would be over 200mp.
The RX100’s sensor is not 1/5th the size of an APS-C sensor (acording to dpreview). The RX100 sensor is 13.2 x 8.8mm (116 sq mm), whilst the RS600 sensor is 23.5 x 15.6mm (367 sq mm). That’s a ratio of about 3.2:1. From DXOmark scores, the RS6000 outperforms the RX100 at a any given ISO by rather more than a stop. The A7 has a sensor abour 2.25 x the area of the RS6000 and improves on the latter’s performance at any given ISO level by rather less than a stop. All at constant output size of course.
This is all fairly unsurprising, and indicates that there’s not a huge performance difference (per unit area) between these three sensors. The only thing I’d note is the RS6000 does put in a slightly better base ISO performance (relatively) than I might suspect. All appear to be state-of-the-art performance figures, but I don’t thing adopting BSI on the large sensors would make a huge difference as, with larger sensor areas, it’#s in the region of diminishing returns.
Did you not hear a word that Thom Hogan said? Deal with it ABB! Thom just plain knows more than you do. He has provided you with scientific factual answers and you just won’t let go of your bs. If you are so superior to the expert then maybe you should have your own website where people can choose to visit or not. Frankly I’ve just plain had enough or reading the repetitive crap that comes out of your brain. Thank you to Thom for putting ABB in his place with facts that he can’t argue.
No. BSI doesn’t change resolution. It changes sensel efficiency due to fill factor. That’s basically it. With small sensors and especially small photosite sizes on larger process fabs, it will increase fill factor compared to traditional CMOS techniques. However, there are other approaches that might yield the same benefits, for example better microlenses with sensel tunnels or just using smaller process fabs.
Larger photosite cameras (APS and full frame, generally), don’t get the same level of benefit from BSI as small sensors; they already have a large fill factor. BSI also costs more to produce in the fab at the moment, so the cost/benefit ratio just doesn’t make sense for APS and larger at the moment, and may never do so.
I suspect you’re on your “just cram smaller pixels into larger sensor” craze again. The problem with that is there just isn’t an economic case for that. We’re in the long tail in terms of gains with the large sensor cameras. Stuffing 100mp into a full frame sensor or 40mp into an APS sensor will result in most people not actually seeing a tangible gain. Not that there isn’t one, but basically the gains are getting smaller and smaller and less visible to more people. As it is, in the light that these tests were done in (200 lux), most people wouldn’t be able to tell smartphone sensors from full frame sensors given the current state of technology.
Sony is not doing all the things you seem to want them to do because it doesn’t make economic sense.
What do you think of the RX100 III? I know you think Sony makes good products but is lacking a strategy.
Well, it’s not out yet and I don’t have one yet, so it’s premature to say much. I like my RX100II, but I’ve gravitated towards using the GM1 in its place lately because of the RX’s lens.
Okay, so Sony changed the lens. I like the 24mm part, I don’t like the 70mm part. I simply don’t shoot much in the 28-50mm range, so essentially I’m getting a camera with a 24mm f/1.8 and 70mm f/2.8 prime. I’m not sure how I’ll react to that, so I need to actually try it to figure out my opinion. Also, the pop-up EVF I have to see in use, too. Generally I don’t like offset viewfinders as much as on axis ones, but we’ll see. Having it pop up is definitely a gain over the removable one, which is a pocket nuisance.
You mention strategy, so there are two components to that. The RX100 clearly was a well-received product. Sony’s strategy with it has been to increase that reception by addressing liabilities/limitations. The bigger question is what does the “perfect” Sony camera lineup look like? It’s not the current lineup, even though there are some very good products in it. So how is that going to evolve, and will it evolve fast enough to reward Sony before the camera market is completely collapsed?
Which brings me to Sony’s biggest weakness at the moment: their marketing message. What exactly do they really want you to buy? There are too many dissonant signals in their messaging. It has to be something more like:
* RX for the pocket and casual shooter
* E-mount for entry interchangeable seeking more than RX
* FE-mount for sophisticated shooters needing more
And it has to be that simple or the message won’t be received, I think. Note that their naming STILL gets in the way even after nixing NEX. Telling someone “buy an A with three numbers for entry, with one number for high end” just isn’t a good message. RX, SX, and FX would have been better…
My main kit is Canon5D3 using Canon 24-70L lens and I take 90+% of my images that way. I want a “pocketable camera” and people need to accept that no compact will match a 5D3, so get real. Cameras without viewfinders stink as far as I’m concerned, so the RX100M3 will be just what I need when I don’t want to lug the heavy stuff around but still want reasonable image quality. If you want Porsche performance, buy a Porsche, … and realize that often a Mazda 6 will make you happy.
For some people like myself we require higher resolution.
You seem to be knowledgable about sensor tech and economics so what is your suggestion for achieving higher resolution sooner rather than later..include such factors as lens resolution and diffraction reduction technology if you can. Thanx
Buy a camera with a larger sensor. 54mp FX is going to be about the limit of significant gains for current technologies.
Alternatively, buy a Sigma Foveon-based camera and use it at base ISO.
Alternatively, use stitching techniques.
But expecting a 100mp+ full frame sensor camera to give you truly usable resolution ain’t going to happen. Certainly not any time soon. You’ll hit the lens limits and diffraction will be fully resolved.
Agreed, you can see the A7R is hitting the lens limits right now (when you’re actually shooting with it).
Interesting topic of conversation, I’d say Sony should concentrate on refining what they already have. The A7R is a lovely camera but it needs refining, try running it as you would a 5D3 outfit (with two bodies) on a day long shoot and you’ll soon find that the body over you shoulder is changing the self timer & shutter settings “all on its own” via that thumb wheel. There needs to be a physical lock on that wheel (as per the 5D3) to stop these issues. There are other issues too!!!
I’ve had this conversation with many people about Sony and I’ve been told these aren’t issues. Well they aren’t if you are not shooting anything but your cat, but they are if you are coming from a Nikon or Canon pro environment.
Sony really need to get their version of CPS on-line and have some kind of feedback mechanism for registered “qualified” members, it’d elevate the need to sift through some of the dross found on this forum mostly written by people who don’t even own the cameras they comment on and have never taken a picture anyone has ever seen.
Exactly. I could give Sony a fairly extensive list of things they could do that would refine the A7r into the camera that can compete with the D800. For the most part, they’re not things that would take a lot of effort or time to do, but are really just getting the details righter.
I can tell you that Sony appears to be doing a few things behind the scenes that indicate that they understand they need to get more serious about a few things. Can’t disclose those yet, but it’s encouraging to see.
I hope so Thom, it’s what I said in an other post, they should take A7 series and make mk2 and mk 3 updates with real improvements instead of bring eternally new things and never really completing those they had. A7 line can compete with anything with just a few improvements. One can not re-polish the same model eternally, like Canikon tends to do too often, but at least, take one model and bring it up to that maximum perfection one can reach, and, keep the prices up, do not dump it after 3 month, those who bought at high price at issue feel than betrayed and get out of the brand.
Although for me the more the better…54mp is actually a sudstantial jump.
It matches the resolution/pixel density of 24mp C so fully compensates for the crop factor benefits.
I often stitch and this is approximately equivalent to stitching 3 C size 24mp images.
I can live with 54mp and it would substamtially help my workflow as well as greatly increase my percentage of keepers.
Lastly it would allow either cropping or changing from verticle to horizontal while maintaining a reasonable amount of resolution.
So despite my rheterick for even more I would be happy if 54mp were available soon……for now.
“so what is your suggestion for achieving higher resolution sooner rather than later”
Buy a PhaseOne then you can choose from 50, 60 or 80MP.
Sony chooses what to release and when.
They know how to make higher res if they choose.
As for your MF suggestion……go out and use MF for wildlife then come back and tell me how good an idea it was.
How would you suggest people effectively demand better? not buying anything? saying that we all know what you know and expect Sony, or Canon, or Nikon to release something we would buy?
How do you tell a professional to not keep up with client demand and hold his aging, discontinued equipment, while he waits for the real deal?
How do you tell the enthusiasts and amateurs that they should stop buying obsolete bayer sensors because there is, obviously, something better behind the scenes?
What about economies of scale and affordability of the new sensors? years of bayer waffer production technology investment disposed of just like that?
I think each (Silicon chip) foundry has a limited life time and then it is time to build another from scratch.
Sony has retooled one of thier cmos factories for organi stacked..and purchased a nintedo chip factor for additional cmos capacity.
This info appeared as news on sar quite some time ago.
Bayer Exmor should be used for low resolution and or low end entry level cameras as they are phased and or phased out. For larger pixels …such as the a7s exmor is still practical.
BSI is already a mature technology and can be introced into a very high res camera for less cost than stacked.
If Sony is not willing to produce stacked yet at least produce a very high res BSI
Within Bayer designs, back illumination doesn’t improve spatial resolution.
I was asking, how do you want people (professionals, amateurs, enthusiasts) to demand better? You say we get obsolete technology because we are not demanding better. So, how do we go about doing that? Stop buying? protesting in front of Sony Centres? Filming ourselves burning our current obsolete cameras calling for a change and posting those videos on youtube whilst demanding the world to know how much of a raw deal we have?
What we are using are not “obsolete technology”. Barry dreams. Dreaming is good but can not capture an image with a dream.
We normally can’t. Competitors are the ones that drive other competitors to offer better products.
If you can wait for what you really want wait.
If you cant then do what you need to.
If Sony sees lower exmor sales they will be pressured to offer something new.
Barry, there are huge problems with your theory. Yes sensors are produced on a wafer and they can be produced to larger sizes, but that significantly decreases the yeild rate, which means that instead of getting 10 or 20 usable sensors (say 1″) out of a wafer, they might get 1 or 2 that can be used in a commercial product. Then there is the imagining pipeline that has to support such high resolutions, which simply aren’t there yet. Add to that that current lenses made for larger formats are terrible at resolving those kinds of resolutions and therefore all that extra data and cost goes to waste. Have a look at people using FF lenses on their Pentax Q’s or Nikon 1’s and see how poorly they resolve. Resolution is not just about MP, it’s about how much information can actually be described. If a camera costs $5000 because it has a super high res sensor, can shoot at 0.5fps because it has to process that data, has worse low light performance because the pixel size is so small and really only resolves a 5th or 10th of the total MP output, do you really think people would buy it? Its a serious question. And if people would buy it (im.sure there would be some) do you think it would have big sales numbers or be quite a niche product (and therefore cost even more per unit)? The sensor tech is there, that doesn’t mean the rest of the chain is.
Well, I guess you’re right. Sony has better tech available but they are afraid that if they release it they will increase total sales and market share. Why in the world would they want that. Way too much work making all those cameras.
I haven’t come across any real world analyses of BSI against non-BSI. Sure, on paper they can show an improved fill factor but things like gapless microlenses take care of such issues to a good extent. We also hardly ever come across comparisons that isolate things… here all the credit is given to the BSI but other hardware details, internal data processing, comparison methodology, etc. can all affect the outcomes.
BSI doesn’t work well on larger sensors, that’s why it’s only on compact and mobile cameras.
BSI usually degrades resolution because of the higher pixel crosstalk
as good as not is true. APSC sensor is always a APSC sensor 1600ISO detail demonstrate this. I have A6000 to wait A7000 with XAVCS 😉
Here’s one more review (in Dutch). http://tweakers.net/reviews/3546/sony-cyber-shot-rx100-iii-bijna-een-dslr-in-je-broekzak.html
Any XAVC-S-footage somewhere?
yeah… right!
after all it’s awesome camera for $200..
you’re a hoot!
Just tell your friend is he/she looking for a compact camera, always find the one have many III 🙂
Jpeg comparison. How fair is that field?
The whole RX100 (from mk 1) line has been amazing. Performance packed. 🙂
Watching the video, I just discovered another little improvement that mkIII brings over the mkII: it has the JPEG Extra-Fine mode. This is a first on the RX100 line.
Incredibly amazing.
most stupid test I have ever seen. OBVIOUSLY it depends on the lens. for 800$ you have better options that offer way much more flexibility.
Key word here….”almost.”
I don’t know if this test makes sense at all. Anyway, the Sony murders all the detail in the dark areas, the Ricoh and the Canon seem more competent, the Panasonic is bad (no surprise, they tend to be 🙂 ).
The Canon’s sensitivity/exposure is higher. Otherwise what these 4 images say is the Canon is the best one because it shows all the detail in the shadows lol
Resizing is indeed a tool and when you try to pair up different MP count cameras, the one that has more MP will get an advantage in some aspects.
Do we not have a near identical sensor in the RX100, mk2 and the RX10 to look at .Any minor differences with the RX1003 are going to be down to processing .There are numerous RAW files from these cameras for download in fully supported RAW convertors.Personally I am not at all interested in high ISO .
As a an almost exclusively low ISO shooter with the 24mm – 70mm range making up a good chunk of my general shooting I think this could be an ideal go everywhere pocket camera. To be honest for my typical use of such shots { flickr, HDTV slideshows, prints up to 12×8″} the advantages of larger formats are of minimal value. For more serious work where I am selling the image or wanting to maximize IQ i will use my FF gear. For me this type of camera and the potential of the 1″ sensor cameras will replace my use of mFT as a lightweight travel kit.
This is the point in any discussions about how small sensors are definitely the same as larger sensors where we drag in the topic of the ever mythical organic sensor, and everybody pretends to know everything about it. Because, why not? If it doesn’t exist, my engineering and aesthetic assessment is no worse than anyone else’s.
almost as good, and almost as cheap in price.
if you want to see how good it is, just go to imaging resource or photographyblog, download full sized examples of each camera and then you compare. I compared on Flickr RX100 to GM1 and I can only say that GM1 overrolls it like a steamroller in IQ.
http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Panasonic_Lumix_DMC_GM1/outdoor_resolution.shtml
look on that page and compare GM1 to RX100-2 in resolution, and since RX100-3 is not for a fart better, just a bit more noise, thus less noise suppression, those images speak for themselves. For sure, respect for the IQ that this little camera issues, but for 150$ lower in price, you can get a better camera, even if it has no EVF, and with a pair of pancakes, it is pocketable too and more versatile. GM1 is even smaller.
Since the RX100M3 makes much better jpegs than RX100M2, the example you linked to showing RX100M2 compared to GM1 makes it likely that RX100M3 makes better jpegs than GM1. I’ve seen examples somewhere of the difference between M2 and M3, and I think that difference was bigger than the one between M2 and GM1. RAW files are another story of course.
In what does the RX100-3 makes better jpegs? By reducing noise suppression and thus at 400 iso you have a much grainier shot. It is a clear fact that the latest Bionz engine makes jpeg look better, but in no way the sensor will make anything better than the previous model, it is the same BSI sensor that the 2 version had.
” It is a clear fact that the latest Bionz engine makes jpeg look better, but in no way the sensor will make anything better than the previous model, it is the same BSI sensor that the 2 version had.”
Isn’t that what I said? Jpegs are better, raw files are not. The review linked to in the blog post was a jpeg comparison.
Looking at the RAW samples from imaging resource at low ISO the RX10/RX100m2 {same sensor as mk3 } are at least as good as the best mFT options. At higher ISO settings the best mFT gains somewhat.
125 ISO
800 ISO
For a low ISO shooter the RX100mk3 is an intriguing option . The GM1 though obviously it allows interchangeable lenses is very limited with no possibility of an EVF nor even adding a small flash. There are no lens options that do not make the GM1 larger and heavier than the RX100mk3.
http://camerasize.com/compact/#491.91,491.30,491.373,555,ha,t
GM1 with the 17mm pancake or 12-42 collapsible is 11 mm thicker than RX100-3 and 2 mm less large. So, if you thing that 11mm really matter when you want to put it in a pocket. GM 1 has a bigger sensor and thus a better image, and here, just any site where you find full sized shots of both cameras will confirm this. And, GM 1 with standard lens is 150$ cheaper, not to forget that you can put any lens you like, and any prime will always outperform any zoom.
By the way, your samples you post here just confirm what I say, RX100 is close to be as good and sharp as GM 1, but for 150$ less, GM1 takes the better shot, look in the green tissue, look on the edge of the basket, look noise in the black cap of the bottle, look the letters on that disk, and if ever you don’t see the difference, you need glasses. With or without EVF, no one sees that on a shot. Yes it is a comfort one appreciates, but remember that first RX100 had none as well, my NEX-7 has one, so if I need one, I just take that one. RX100 can be as good as it wants to be, it’s handicap is being too expensive, with and without EVF. For 800$ I can buy a better camera, period.
SOLD!!