p.12 #1 · Official: Sony RX1R III Digital Camera announced!
I have Ricoh GRIII and GRIIIx, and very recently bought used RX1RII. Thinking if I should sell all three and get the RX1RIII. Looking forward to hearing what the EDU price will be.
I recently took RX1RII to the Caribbean and came back with amazing pictures. Way better than Ricoh (especially in low light and high dynamic scenes), which I have been using for the last 4-5 years on trips to the Caribbean.
p.12 #2 · Official: Sony RX1R III Digital Camera announced!
Choderboy wrote:
They are using different ways to measure.
As melcat posted, RX1-RIII has 2 depth dimensions specified.
The body is a bit thicker but looks like half of that thickness does not make it deeper, ie some of the extra body thickness is on the front where the lens makes the depth. So bigger battery appears to extend the rear of the body only to the same depth as the viewfinder (without the rubber) eye cup.
if you look at the old versus new models (top view) you can see that mark denoting the location of the sensor surface is moved further from the back of the camera and the lens is longer by the same amount. this means that there is more internal space behind the camera sensor (my guess is the new sensor needs a bigger heat sink). for those talking about adding IBIS, take a look at where the marking for the location of the sensor surface is on the a7cr – adding IBIS would mean adding roughly half an inch of thickness to the back of the camera. also, it is probably impossible because the rear element is attached directly to the sensor:
p.12 #3 · Official: Sony RX1R III Digital Camera announced!
I mean, it’s possible but they’d need to design a new lens, and that might be expected for a 9 year gap.
It’s just so expensive, and yet has an EVF more suited for use on a $900 APS-C camera than a $5000 camera, no tilting rear screen, and no IBIS. The latter can be excused, but the others not as much. Also, $200 for a lens hood and $300 for a thumb grip? The hood should be included, and the thumb grip is just absurd - Leica prices.
And speaking of Leica, if I was spending this much on a fixed lens compact I’d be getting the Q3 before this. If I’m paying Leica prices I’d like to at least have a Leica.
Although if I were in the market for this I’d buy a GFX100RF anyway. Yes, I know the RX1 is smaller, but the lens size makes it still something you’d generally carry in a belt bag or half case around your neck rather than in your pocket, so the size differences aren’t too consequential IMO.
p.12 #4 · Official: Sony RX1R III Digital Camera announced!
sebboh wrote:
if you look at the old versus new models (top view) you can see that mark denoting the location of the sensor surface is moved further from the back of the camera and the lens is longer by the same amount. this means that there is more internal space behind the camera sensor (my guess is the new sensor needs a bigger heat sink). for those talking about adding IBIS, take a look at where the marking for the location of the sensor surface is on the a7cr – adding IBIS would mean adding roughly half an inch of thickness to the back of the camera. also, it is probably impossible because the rear element is attached directly to the sensor:
I’m guessing switching to the higher capacity battery oriented parallel to the sensor would necessitate making the camera wider to accommodate an IBIS mechanism as well
p.12 #5 · Official: Sony RX1R III Digital Camera announced!
I never bought a Q after handling it multiple times. M11 with 28cron suit me better at about the same size.
They are not in the same category to me. RX is like carry another lens than a body.
Will pick RX1 over Q even they are the same price. I will reward a design I like more and don’t really care about brand as much. I am not a Sony user or fan.
GFXRF is out of picture for me as 100M vs 61M is the only real plus. EVF is better and more suitable for RF as it is another camera but for RX, I mostly just using LCD point and shoot. I need AF for this one. It fit most of my travel jacket.
After all these years, I haven’t seen a single 35mm I like more than RX. I used quite some 35mm glasses including Leica APO cron. I hope this little Sonnar can be improved on a few things like AF, weather sealing or reliability but that is it.
p.12 #6 · Official: Sony RX1R III Digital Camera announced!
Jman13 wrote:
I mean, it’s possible but they’d need to design a new lens, and that might be expected for a 9 year gap.
It’s just so expensive, and yet has an EVF more suited for use on a $900 APS-C camera than a $5000 camera, no tilting rear screen, and no IBIS. The latter can be excused, but the others not as much. Also, $200 for a lens hood and $300 for a thumb grip? The hood should be included, and the thumb grip is just absurd - Leica prices.
And speaking of Leica, if I was spending this much on a fixed lens compact I’d be getting the Q3 before this. If I’m paying Leica prices I’d like to at least have a Leica.
Although if I were in the market for this I’d buy a GFX100RF anyway. Yes, I know the RX1 is smaller, but the lens size makes it still something you’d generally carry in a belt bag or half case around your neck rather than in your pocket, so the size differences aren’t too consequential IMO. ...Show more →
I’d say the size difference definitely is consequential as there is no way to fit the Q or GFX into your pocket so you are then toting around some kind of case to hold the camera. For me, this makes a huge difference for an every day carry around camera.
p.12 #7 · Official: Sony RX1R III Digital Camera announced!
sebboh wrote:
if you look at the old versus new models (top view) you can see that mark denoting the location of the sensor surface is moved further from the back of the camera and the lens is longer by the same amount. this means that there is more internal space behind the camera sensor (my guess is the new sensor needs a bigger heat sink). for those talking about adding IBIS, take a look at where the marking for the location of the sensor surface is on the a7cr – adding IBIS would mean adding roughly half an inch of thickness to the back of the camera. also, it is probably impossible because the rear element is attached directly to the sensor:
p.12 #8 · Official: Sony RX1R III Digital Camera announced!
I've been interested in everyone's comments on this update and been thinking about this a lot. I've really enjoyed owning my RX1RII and love the lens. The bottom line for me is that when I originally purchased my RX1RII nine years ago, I did not have the option of an A7CR and if I did I probably would not have purchased the camera.
p.12 #9 · Official: Sony RX1R III Digital Camera announced!
chez wrote:
I’d say the size difference definitely is consequential as there is no way to fit the Q or GFX into your pocket so you are then toting around some kind of case to hold the camera. For me, this makes a huge difference for an every day carry around camera.
How easy does this fit inside a pocket with the lens protruding an inch and a half? Not very well.
p.12 #11 · Official: Sony RX1R III Digital Camera announced!
Jman13 wrote:
How easy does this fit inside a pocket with the lens protruding an inch and a half? Not very well.
it is a little awkward in a coat pocket, but not bad. in winter i would take it often. where it really shines is that it fits easily in my wife's purses and i can guilt her into carrying it for me after all those times i carry her stuff when she doesn't want to bring a purse.
p.12 #12 · Official: Sony RX1R III Digital Camera announced!
The question of how much weight and bulk is added when incorporating IBIS is tricky to answer. I spent some time looking for a straightforward, reliable answer without success. There are some general comments on camera forums and elsewhere suggesting that the IBIS mechanism is actually quite small and adds little bulk/weight to the sensor system, though it seems obvious that it should add some.
We can look at cameras that exist(ed) in both IBIS and non-IBIS versions, though this is often complicated by the fact that they are different generations, and the addition of IBIS isn't the only difference. (There are some comparisons out there involving Fujifilm and Olympus cameras, for example.)
In general the IBIS-equipped camera appear to be a bit larger and heavier, though to look at them you probably would not immediately notice the difference. In most cases, from what I've seen, you would not notice a weight difference either, since it is small.
However, the difference is likely to be greater with cameras using a larger sensor. For example, the miniMF sensor on the Fujifilm GFX system is said to be larger and heavier than, say, the similar system on the Fujifilm x-trans cameras such as the XT, XH2, X100vi, XE5 and so on. It seems reasonable to think that the effect on a FF camera might lie somewhere in between.
What we can say for sure is that there are some pretty small and light camera that incorporate IBIS. In fact, it is readily become essentially a standard feature in cameras.
As mentioned earlier, all decisions about camera design involve compromises and trade-offs. These are pretty subjective matters — for example, there's no way to state objectively that the added weight/bulk of IBIS is a universally good or bad thing relative to the advantages of IBIS. So manufacturers make choices, we discuss, and buyers vote with their wallets.
(If anyone has authoritative sources for facts about the actual weight and bulk of IBIS systems... and non-cherry-picked examples, that would add to the discussion. Oh, and maybe we could try to keep the ad hominem attacks out of the conversation... if we're really interested in facts?)
p.12 #14 · Official: Sony RX1R III Digital Camera announced!
gdanmitchell wrote:
The question of how much weight and bulk is added when incorporating IBIS is tricky to answer. I spent some time looking for a straightforward, reliable answer without success. There are some general comments on camera forums and elsewhere suggesting that the IBIS mechanism is actually quite small and adds little bulk/weight to the sensor system, though it seems obvious that it should add some.
We can look at cameras that exist(ed) in both IBIS and non-IBIS versions, though this is often complicated by the fact that they are different generations, and the addition of IBIS isn't the only difference. (There are some comparisons out there involving Fujifilm and Olympus cameras, for example.)
In general the IBIS-equipped camera appear to be a bit larger and heavier, though to look at them you probably would not immediately notice the difference. In most cases, from what I've seen, you would not notice a weight difference either, since it is small.
However, the difference is likely to be greater with cameras using a larger sensor. For example, the miniMF sensor on the Fujifilm GFX system is said to be larger and heavier than, say, the similar system on the Fujifilm x-trans cameras such as the XT, XH2, X100vi, XE5 and so on. It seems reasonable to think that the effect on a FF camera might lie somewhere in between.
What we can say for sure is that there are some pretty small and light camera that incorporate IBIS. In fact, it is readily become essentially a standard feature in cameras.
As mentioned earlier, all decisions about camera design involve compromises and trade-offs. These are pretty subjective matters — for example, there's no way to state objectively that the added weight/bulk of IBIS is a universally good or bad thing relative to the advantages of IBIS. So manufacturers make choices, we discuss, and buyers vote with their wallets.
(If anyone has authoritative sources for facts about the actual weight and bulk of IBIS systems... and non-cherry-picked examples, that would add to the discussion. Oh, and maybe we could try to keep the ad hominem attacks out of the conversation... if we're really interested in facts?)...Show more →
I’m surprised that major industry conduits/reporters/presenters/reviewers haven’t asked such a question. Proprietary designs are also closely guarded, but a less specific answer might be given. The question has undoubtedly been asked.
p.12 #15 · Official: Sony RX1R III Digital Camera announced!
DFason wrote:
I pre-ordered this as the RX1 line has created some of my favorite photos I've taken over the years. So many people love this camera for the lens and its rendering. It's the same reason so many people love the Q, its lens that gives you that " look " but you also get the camera.
People tend to get wrapped up in all of the new camera specs but let's be real here. This is a tiny camera. You cant have it all. We have the same lens people fell in love with, small size, better looking body ( my opinion of course ), AI, newer color science, slightly better battery, quicker OS, all inside a tidy body that rivals a MF look. I wish they could have done a CF-A/SD card but it won't bother me. As for price, I never thought I would spend $6 on a latte or a family movie outing that costs $60-100 but that's the reality of the world now. Sell a few things you are no longer using, drink less beer or cut out those monthly subscriptions.
Things I am most looking forward to is using this alongside the Godox IT30pro. It will remind me of a modern day Contax G2.
p.12 #16 · Official: Sony RX1R III Digital Camera announced!
DFason wrote:
I pre-ordered this as the RX1 line has created some of my favorite photos I've taken over the years. So many people love this camera for the lens and its rendering. It's the same reason so many people love the Q, its lens that gives you that " look " but you also get the camera.
People tend to get wrapped up in all of the new camera specs but let's be real here. This is a tiny camera. You cant have it all. We have the same lens people fell in love with, small size, better looking body ( my opinion of course ), AI, newer color science, slightly better battery, quicker OS, all inside a tidy body that rivals a MF look. I wish they could have done a CF-A/SD card but it won't bother me. As for price, I never thought I would spend $6 on a latte or a family movie outing that costs $60-100 but that's the reality of the world now. Sell a few things you are no longer using, drink less beer or cut out those monthly subscriptions.
Things I am most looking forward to is using this alongside the Godox IT30pro. It will remind me of a modern day Contax G2.
p.12 #17 · Official: Sony RX1R III Digital Camera announced!
The A7CR body is cheaper, but keep in mind you would need to add a high-performing 35mm f/2 lens with unique rendering that matches the RX1's Sonnar. In other words, you would need a lens that doesn’t really exist, at any price.
This is the unfortunate reality. Sony has completely resisted producing a small, excellent, fast focussing, beautiful boke 35mm f2. Always skirting around it with the Zeiss 35/2.8 or the Sony 40mm f2.5. Nice lenses, but always missing the holy grail. The GM 35/1.4 is superb, but, of course, large.
p.12 #18 · Official: Sony RX1R III Digital Camera announced!
Regarding the missing IBIS, I would think Sony is well aware that people would love to have IBIS with the RX1III, I have no doubt about it. There must be a technical reason why they haven't included it.
I would speculate that it has to do with the fact that RX1 bodies and their Zeiss Sonnar lenses share different flange distance than Sony's Alpha cameras. The rear element of the Sonnar almost touches the sensor (and is hand assembled to have extra tight tolerances). It's possible that Sony's IBIS-technology is all developed for the Alpha cameras (with very different flange distance and tolerances), and as such it is not easy transport to an RX1 development platform. Should they have created IBIS from the scratch for the RX1, hard to say as it involves R&D costs and cannot be shared between other cameras like the IBIS-system for the Alpha cameras. The RX1 tech platform is different and harder to keep up to date than the Alpha platform where all the R&D costs have been directed.
Bottom line being that its obvious that Sony of course considered the IBIS - why wouldn't it knowing all the upgrade wishes from earlier RX1 users. The problem is that Sony haven't communicated clearly to their existing users why they couldn't do it. But they probably will in coming reviews and such in coming weeks...
More interesting is the use of the old Zeiss Sonnar 2/35 lens. It has a legendary status, but now as we have modern 2025 version of the RX1 camera, we will see just how good the lens is. I would expect it to have that nice rendering it's known for, but there surely are "better" (=more recently developed) 35mm premium lenses out there, such as the Distagon 2/35 on the ZX1.
p.12 #19 · Official: Sony RX1R III Digital Camera announced!
wolfloid wrote:
This is the unfortunate reality. Sony has completely resisted producing a small, excellent, fast focussing, beautiful boke 35mm f2. Always skirting around it with the Zeiss 35/2.8 or the Sony 40mm f2.5. Nice lenses, but always missing the holy grail. The GM 35/1.4 is superb, but, of course, large.
Sony's FE 35/1.8 is small, excellent and fast focusing. Bokeh is very good. I'd love to see a new version with an aperture ring.
p.12 #20 · Official: Sony RX1R III Digital Camera announced!
Kalainen wrote:
Regarding the missing IBIS, I would think Sony is well aware that people would love to have IBIS with the RX1III, I have no doubt about it. There must be a technical reason why they haven't included it.
I would speculate that it has to do with the fact that RX1 bodies and their Zeiss Sonnar lenses share different flange distance than Sony's Alpha cameras. The rear element of the Sonnar almost touches the sensor (and is hand assembled to have extra tight tolerances). It's possible that Sony's IBIS-technology is all developed for the Alpha cameras (with very different flange distance and tolerances), and as such it is not easy transport to an RX1 development platform. Should they have created IBIS from the scratch for the RX1, hard to say as it involves R&D costs and cannot be shared between other cameras like the IBIS-system for the Alpha cameras. The RX1 tech platform is different and harder to keep up to date than the Alpha platform where all the R&D costs have been directed.
Bottom line being that its obvious that Sony of course considered the IBIS - why wouldn't it knowing all the upgrade wishes from earlier RX1 users. The problem is that Sony haven't communicated clearly to their existing users why they couldn't do it. But they probably will in coming reviews and such in coming weeks...
More interesting is the use of the old Zeiss Sonnar 2/35 lens. It has a legendary status, but now as we have modern 2025 version of the RX1 camera, we will see just how good the lens is. I would expect it to have that nice rendering it's known for, but there surely are "better" (=more recently developed) 35mm premium lenses out there, such as the Distagon 2/35 on the ZX1....Show more →
It is notable that Leica managed to cram optical image stabilization in the Q3 lens ... showing that IBIS is not the only option. Perhaps Sony could have done the same with the 35/2 for this new camera. Or perhaps that lens has no room for any such mechanism.
