Sony RX100 III Takes on Nikon, Samsung Mirrorless Models

[Guest]

Sony's RX100 III targets selfie fans with a flip-up LCD screen and offers an electronic viewfinder on a 20-megapixel point-and-shoot camera.

Sony RX100 III Takes on Nikon, Samsung Mirrorless Models : Read more

 

[AndrewJacksonZA]

So why, exactly, would one spend $500 - $800 when one has already spent the rough equivalent of $900 on a Sony Xperia Z2 (roughly the price in my country) which already has a good camera built in? Can the RX100 III take photos where the sun is in the picture, like a wildlife sanctuary at dawn?

I'm asking because I'm a camera n00b and already own a Sony Xperia T and am thinking about getting a Z2 (or a Z2 Compact if it comes out) soon. I work near a beautiful bird sanctuary and trying to take a photo of a nature scene in the morning with vegetation, fog, clouds and sun using my phone's camera just doesn't work as well as I want it to.

 

[asiaprime]

So why, exactly, would one spend $500 - $800 when one has already spent the rough equivalent of $900 on a Sony Xperia Z2 (roughly the price in my country) which already has a good camera built in? Can the RX100 III take photos where the sun is in the picture, like a wildlife sanctuary at dawn?

I'm asking because I'm a camera n00b and already own a Sony Xperia T and am thinking about getting a Z2 (or a Z2 Compact if it comes out) soon. I work near a beautiful bird sanctuary and trying to take a photo of a nature scene in the morning with vegetation, fog, clouds and sun using my phone's camera just doesn't work as well as I want it to.

Well it's great that you're admitting you're a camera n00b, we all have to start somewhere, I'll admit that I'm a bit of a camera snob. having a dedicated camera has the advantage of image sensor size. http/www.gizmag.com/camera-sensor-size-guide/26684/. a larger sensor means better quality photos. It also goes along with the whole megapixel "race", having anything larger than 10 megapixel isn't all that necessary for the average user. plus, higher megapixel on a tiny sensor can sometimes lessen the quality. the experience that I've had with lots of phone cameras add a haze on the picture. most people don't wipe off the lens before they take the picture!
in the case of taking pictures with of the sun, it's fairly difficult without another light source, it tends to overpower the foreground. it might allow processing to account for back lit images. the thing that I find most useful are raw files (digital negative), capturing more data than a straight jpeg.
ultimately, if you can only afford a z2, then you're stuck with a phone cam, you might be able to use an app to replace your default camera to help in certain situations.

 

[asiaprime]

So why, exactly, would one spend $500 - $800 when one has already spent the rough equivalent of $900 on a Sony Xperia Z2 (roughly the price in my country) which already has a good camera built in? Can the RX100 III take photos where the sun is in the picture, like a wildlife sanctuary at dawn?

I'm asking because I'm a camera n00b and already own a Sony Xperia T and am thinking about getting a Z2 (or a Z2 Compact if it comes out) soon. I work near a beautiful bird sanctuary and trying to take a photo of a nature scene in the morning with vegetation, fog, clouds and sun using my phone's camera just doesn't work as well as I want it to.

Well it's great that you're admitting you're a camera n00b, we all have to start somewhere, I'll admit that I'm a bit of a camera snob. having a dedicated camera has the advantage of image sensor size. http/www.gizmag.com/camera-sensor-size-guide/26684/. a larger sensor means better quality photos. It also goes along with the whole megapixel "race", having anything larger than 10 megapixel isn't all that necessary for the average user. plus, higher megapixel on a tiny sensor can sometimes lessen the quality. the experience that I've had with lots of phone cameras add a haze on the picture. most people don't wipe off the lens before they take the picture!
in the case of taking pictures with of the sun, it's fairly difficult without another light source, it tends to overpower the foreground. it might allow processing to account for back lit images. the thing that I find most useful are raw files (digital negative), capturing more data than a straight jpeg.
ultimately, if you can only afford a z2, then you're stuck with a phone cam, you might be able to use an app to replace your default camera to help in certain situations.

 

[dstarr3]

Please don't bother with camera news. We have DPReview for that. And I trust their input quite a lot more.

 

[Steveymoo]

Who the hell spends $800 on a camera to take selfies? I think the target audience (people that can afford these cameras,) probably tend to be a little less narcissistic than normal.

 

[razor512]

Good for a point and shoot (should be priced at about $250), but insanely overpriced, someone looking at that price tab will simply decide to spend $50 less and get a nikon D5300 which will offer better image quality, better low light performance, better auto focus, and more robust video and audio controls, in addition to the ability to swap lenses

 

[everlast66]

Good for a point and shoot (should be priced at about $250), but insanely overpriced, someone looking at that price tab will simply decide to spend $50 less and get a nikon D5300 which will offer better image quality, better low light performance, better auto focus, and more robust video and audio controls, in addition to the ability to swap lenses

The biggest feature of this camera is its pocketablility combined with excellent quality!
It's great to have a D5300, but not as great if it stays most of the time at home. This little camera you can have with you at all times.
Also this has a Zeiss lens, not sure the D5300 would be $50 less if you combine it with a Zeiss lens.