I would like to describe the main characteristics of the Sony RX100M3 and especially draw a comparison with three other cameras that are likely to be direct competitors for many of us: The Sony A6000 and the Fuji X100s and X20. On the A6000, I used to compare the Zeiss zoom 16-70 / 4.0. Have all four mentioned herein cameras (or had) myself. I'm not that familiar with the moment of RX100M3, I will in the coming days this review certainly add more information and possibly correct some more. I am grateful for all the notes in the comments.
Image Quality
The image quality is probably similar to that of its predecessors, but I have not possessed themselves. I compare it with the other, therefore I know cameras, not with its predecessors.
In the image quality you have to distinguish between two sets of results: 1. The pictures that are technically good enough that you want to keep it and 2. All the photos, including the ones you singles due to technical failures. Let us first with the first group:
If one considers only the photos that have become technically correct (ie properly focused and properly exposed), then the M3 is just awesome. I can see no difference between the small and the RX100M3 A6000 practical. I'm not talking about measurable differences which can perhaps be detected in the laboratory, but of results in practice everyday Betrachtungsbedinungen. I have photographed in different lights with two cameras in parallel and then blended the images and viewed on the screen. Whether in darkness or bright light, portrait or landscape, I can see as well as any differences, not even when I up to 1: 1 display high go. One would think that the smaller sensor of RX100 is worse in low light but which is partially offset because the lens is brighter than I used for comparison Zeiss zoom with Aperture 4.0. The depth of field is similar, because larger aperture and smaller sensor largely cancel.
The Fuji X20 is completely outclassed by the image quality here: Fine structures disappear almost completely in comparison. The X100S other hand can keep up already, but has for my taste the poorer colors. But this is very subjective and you have to the watch itself. The greater resolution of RX100M3 like for landscapes play a role, for photos of people I consider them to be irrelevant (unless you want to wall-sized portrait hanging in the apartment).
When available light the X100S has the edge, particularly because they hinbekommt an unmatched good coordination between flash and ambient light. Since the RX100M3 does still difficult because of lightning kills the subject and the color balance with the ambient light looks unnatural. Here it is very similar to the A6000.
Now look at the hit rate, ie the proportion of sharp and properly exposed images. In the discipline AF has, as expected, the A6000 nose very far forward and the other three cameras depends significantly. The RX100M3 meets for a pocket camera the AF pretty well, but it does so much slower than the A6000 and it can be easier by a contrasting background distracted: When a dimly lit face in the foreground and behind it a bright illuminated books wall or facade, then sets often focusing on the background, even though the measuring field clearly lay on the face. She shares this effect with the X100S, for the RX100M3 is slightly faster after my first impression, and both are better than the X20. The exposure of the two Sony's is slightly less stable than the Fuji, ie for images under almost identical conditions in quick succession sometimes vary exposure and white balance quite strong. Most recyclable pictures I get very clear with the A6000, the other three are significantly behind, mainly because of the difference in AF. Only available light, the X100s is the queen, because it better hinbekommt exposure than the Sonys and much more detail showing than the X20.
Now a few more observations to RX100M3:
The Kläppchen for the connections are pretty fiddly and do not look very tough out.
Unlike the A6000 has an artificial horizon. I hold with cameras of this kind also very important.
The RX100M3 still has no way to assign a key with AF Lock. This is very unfortunate and makes it often much more cumbersome than it needs to be, because you have now maneuvered either the flexible spot without a touch screen on the image important point or has only one shot when newly composed after focusing. I suspect that Sony has canceled these functions for RX100M4.
The electronic viewfinder is a super feature. Before that, I've always wanted a X100s with Zoom, now I have it, so to speak. I think that's unfolding bit fiddly (because it requires two handles) and would have preferred a slightly larger case with ever bereitem viewfinder, but the concept is still great. One advantage of the retractable viewfinder is that you can prevent the monitor off accidentally (which both A6000 sometimes annoys me a bit). At first me is disturbed at the RX100M3 that the camera when folding the viewfinder turns off, now I got me used to it and use the viewfinder as a second on-off switch. The quality of the viewfinder is worse than of the A6000 and the X100s, but he is perfectly fine. Unfortunately, the diopter correction adjusted quite easily.
The zoom range is ok with 24-70 (KB), although I miss the focal length to 105 as opposed to X20. But for me the 70 portraits ranging from fairly well because I approach rather close to the subject. I could, however, imagine that many will perceive as shortcoming me. Certainly it was Sony about being able to specify the weakest light intensity 2.8, which of course is really great. Knowledge must, however, that the luminous intensity 2.8 after only 35 mm upwards comes into play, you better 2.0 thus has a light intensity only in a tiny zoom range available. It is also good that during the adjustment of the zoom in the viewfinder, the focal length is specified in KB equivalent; so you find yourself very quickly in the zoom range cope.
The zoom is unfortunately actuated by a motor. On this point, my concept of the X20 like a lot better when you adjust the zoom manually.
The menus are similar to the A6000, so you can use both at the same good cameras. The configuration options are excellent for such a small camera. Unfortunately, the file name can not be changed, so that there will be problems when archiving, if you have multiple Sony used in parallel.
There are two points that are often criticized at the Sony:
1. That you monitor only the horizontal axis tilt can not but fold laterally. In fact, I like it a lot better because you hereby can use the camera with insight from above and thereby gets much less laterally tilted images.
2. Many fret that Sony attaches an external charger. For this you can also charge the battery in the camera, which is not possible with most other manufacturers. If you make no more than 200 images during the day, then loading into the camera is perfect, because then the battery almost never need to replace: After transferring the images to your computer, the battery is full again (assuming, of course, they schlatet After transferring the images from again, because in angschalteten state they will not be loaded). At first I did the indicator light for the battery on the camera missed until I a nice person has said in the comments that the small light in the on-off button is lit while the battery is charging.
If I'm going to ask for the winner:
1. Whenever it comes to fast-moving subjects, the A6000 is the camera of choice. If you have as a main purpose to photograph your children, then you will get the A6000 most by far usable images. I use it as a back-up and a second camera next to my SLR when I photograph reportage-like. Architecture recordings she has my SLR now displaced.
2. When shooting rather slow motifs, then the difference to RX100M3 is very small, which makes the RX for optimal take-along camera. To slow motifs I count as the typical holiday attractions, but also the proverbial walking club, as long as the traveling companions reasonably wait patiently for the picture. Because children do not do that, I strongly recommend to take these remarks seriously. That one is in contrast to the A6000 restricted at the focal lengths, is anyway clear.
3. The Fuji X100s is the queen of the night and continues to be the best available light camera. She gave me during the day but pale colors (also with the Velvia setting, which also caused a few other problems) and I can never quite make friends with the 35-mm-KB-fixed focal length. For the X100s has a gorgeous design that is both very functional, because you can see important settings from the outside when turned off. However, it is also much bigger and heavier than the RX100 and thus hardly wesententaschengeeignet.
4. The X20 is quite slow and drops in image quality from so much that I have now lost the fun in it. However, she is the winner of ergonomics because you operated manually to push her.
Probably speak at the end of deeds louder than words: I've sold both Fuji and retain the two Sonys.
Even a small request in own thing: If you can help the review, I am always pleased with a click on the vote button; If the review does not help, then just write me something in the comments so I can improve.
