If Video is not relevant you will be very good served with the Mark 3! In the photo area especially there are speed improvements in the Mark 4 and 5 but at the end no big differences concerning IQ
I have an A6k+16-70 combo for a lightweight travel kit. It's to throw in the bag when I won't be focusing on photography so much, and also for convenience to have small a 24-105mm f4 package at all times with me.
I most often use this combo in good to very good light and at around 100-800 ISO and I quite often PP the images out of it.
I quite like the output from the 16-70; zeissy enough for travel.
My question is, if I were to replace this combo with a RX100 Mk3, would I still be happy? Obvs I'd be using it in the same circumstances. The attraction with the RX100 Mk3 is it being a much smaller package which won't take much room in any bag. But I can't be sure if I'd miss the DR and rendering I get from the A6k combo. Especially DR; I hate blown highligts. The A6k has quite a nice DR in lower ISOs.
There is also the thing with color transitions: I used to be an avid user of m43 and one of the reasons I left the ecosystem was low color depth: the colors looked quite "shallow" and "rigid" or "harsh" compared to what I'm getting with my FF setup. Obviously this has everything to do with low bit depth of the m43 sensors.
There is also another matter of me almost hating the A6k LCD: it's dim, hard to see in sunlight, when you crank up the brightness it clips everything and you can't tell the exposure. How's the RX100 Mk3 in this regard?
I have an A6k+16-70 combo for a lightweight travel kit. It's to throw in the bag when I won't be focusing on photography so much, and also for convenience to have small a 24-105mm f4 package at all times with me.
I most often use this combo in good to very good light and at around 100-800 ISO and I quite often PP the images out of it.
I quite like the output from the 16-70; zeissy enough for travel.
My question is, if I were to replace this combo with a RX100 Mk3, would I still be happy? Obvs I'd be using it in the same circumstances. The attraction with the RX100 Mk3 is it being a much smaller package which won't take much room in any bag. But I can't be sure if I'd miss the DR and rendering I get from the A6k combo. Especially DR; I hate blown highligts. The A6k has quite a nice DR in lower ISOs.
There is also the thing with color transitions: I used to be an avid user of m43 and one of the reasons I left the ecosystem was low color depth: the colors looked quite "shallow" and "rigid" or "harsh" compared to what I'm getting with my FF setup. Obviously this has everything to do with low bit depth of the m43 sensors.
There is also another matter of me almost hating the A6k LCD: it's dim, hard to see in sunlight, when you crank up the brightness it clips everything and you can't tell the exposure. How's the RX100 Mk3 in this regard?
I have the rx100 mark I, and a Nex-6 with various prime lenses. Not exactly the comparison you're looking for but similar. For me I will only take the rx100 when size and weight need to be kept to absolute minimum. The rx100 has significantly less DR than the Nex-6 in practical use. It is very easy to get blown highlights, and they have that blooming look to them with brightness spilling over into adjacent areas. Not pretty.
For the Nex-6 I shoot it with primes and I like the crispness to the images that I can get. The zoom lens on my rx100 is much softer than any of my nex-6 lenses even when the rx100 is stopped down. In fact stopping down doesn't really improve the edges/corners that much. Edge softness at the wide end is apparent even viewed on my 27" monitor at 2560x1440. I have heard there can be a lot of copy variation in the rx100 lens, so maybe mine is not a good example.
My sense is that the image quality increase going from rx100 to Nex-6 is even larger than going from Nex-6 to A7. These days I often use just A7 and a couple of small primes, but when I look back at the Nex-6 images I've taken they still look good to me. The rx100 images look at little rough.
