Can anyone with the RX1RIII comment on the quality of the EVF, specifically as compared to the RX1RII? I find the II EVF to be perfectly fine, so I'm wondering if the new one is better (or worse) in any way.
gordec wrote:
Can this really be obtained for $3600ish USD if you buy in Japan? I have friends going there.
This is what I was referring to. If this had been the price in the USA, the camera would probably have far fewer critics. I'm not blaming Sony...it's just the reality of how things are right now.
I've been to Map Camera and they have great customer service.
Fred Miranda wrote:
This is what I was referring to. If this had been the price in the USA, the camera would probably have far fewer critics. I'm not blaming Sony...it's just the reality of how things are right now.
I've been to Map Camera and they have great customer service.
Also a big fan of Map Camera - I bought two lenses there when I was in Tokyo and the service was just fantastic, as were the prices - my Sigma 85mm Art was about $930 CDN, or around $675 US. I had planned to buy used but the new price was so good I didn't bother. I did buy the 20mm f/2 used, as it was more of a spontaneous decision. They had about 5 used copies to choose between, I got it for about $500 CDN or $375 US.
Overall, the selection of high quality used gear was very impressive - just lined up in a case, one after the other.
If only there wasn't that whole Japanese menu thing for cameras - good excuse for Japanese lessons?
gordec wrote:
Ok, I'm going to go pick it up in October. $3660 + $800 = $4500. I save $500 + another $500 Ca tax. That's $1000 savings.
What price do you put onto sitting crammed into a sardine can for over 11 hours each way, not to mention the god awful airport experience. Also add the cab costs or airport parking etc…
Fred Miranda wrote:
Price aside, there's no doubt the RX1R III is the best in the series. Everything is better and improved. Like you noted, the screen no longer tilts, but it now offers much higher resolution, so at least Sony gave us that trade. I think once you start shooting with the RX1R III for a while, going back to the II and especially the original RX1R would feel very frustrating, even if the overall image quality is almost the same, with the main differences being in color output and resolution.
I've shot extensively with the RX1R, which I still own, and with the RX1R II for many years. I wouldn’t mind picking up an RX1R III at some point, but only if the price becomes justifiable to me. At the moment, open-box RX1R III bodies are already listed for $4,500 on the buy and sell board, and some are selling for even less. The real market always sets the price. I'm sure Sony is not having any trouble keeping this camera in stock....Show more →
I just reviewed hundreds of my RAW files from the RX1R and RX1RII cameras that I had. Clearly, the sharpness does not compare to newer GM lenses that I now shoot on the A7R5, A1 II or A7CR; however, the IQ would more than likely be good enough for many of my uses. Niche high-end products never seem to represent good value on any of my hobbies and this is no exception. At $4,500, I think I will bite on the RX1RIII. My biggest concern is the lack of tilting screen - something I use a lot. We’ll see.
InFocus2014 wrote:
I just reviewed hundreds of my RAW files from the RX1R and RX1RII cameras that I had. Clearly, the sharpness does not compare to newer GM lenses that I now shoot on the A7R5, A1 II or A7CR; however, the IQ would more than likely be good enough for many of my uses. Niche high-end products never seem to represent good value on any of my hobbies and this is no exception. At $4,500, I think I will bite on the RX1RIII. My biggest concern is the lack of tilting screen - something I use a lot. We’ll see.
I'm really enjoying using the RX1R with the Voigtlander 28/35 optical viewfinder because it's so bright and compact. The built-in flash is really cool too because it syncs even at 1/2000s. I turn off the monitor and set the focus to center. Then I just use the optical viewfinder to frame my shot, focus in the center, and recompose. The camera feels very reliable this way and the battery lasts much longer. Using an optical viewfinder is such a pleasure because, to me, the EVF on the RX1 series just isn't that enjoyable. With the optical finder, I can see the scene with the full resolution of my own eyes.
Sometimes I also use the external EVF, which has higher magnification than the one on my A7CR. I'm happy with it, especially because it tilts.
What I like about the Sonnar 35/2 is that it's ideal for environmental portraits since the background rendering is always smooth and undistracting. There are definitely sharper (and bigger) lenses out there, especially with high MP sensors, but the 35/2 is already sharper than I need.
As for the RX1RIII, I will likely get one used for $2,500. Not sure when but I'm not in a hurry...
Fred Miranda wrote:
I'm really enjoying using the RX1R with the Voigtlander 28/35 optical viewfinder because it's so bright and compact. The built-in flash is really cool too because it syncs even at 1/2000s. I turn off the monitor and set the focus to center. Then I just use the optical viewfinder to frame my shot, focus in the center, and recompose. The camera feels very reliable this way and the battery lasts much longer. Using an optical viewfinder is such a pleasure because, to me, the EVF on the RX1 series just isn't that enjoyable. With the optical finder, I can see the scene with the full resolution of my own eyes.
Sometimes I also use the external EVF, which has higher magnification than the one on my A7CR. I'm happy with it, especially because it tilts.
What I like about the Sonnar 35/2 is that it's ideal for environmental portraits since the background rendering is always smooth and undistracting. There are definitely sharper (and bigger) lenses out there, especially with high MP sensors, but the 35/2 is already sharper than I need.
As for the RX1RIII, I will likely get one used for $2,500. Not sure when but I'm not in a hurry......Show more →
At $2,500 you’ll likely be waiting a decade. 🙂
gordec wrote:
Ok, I'm going to go pick it up in October. $3660 + $800 = $4500. I save $500 + another $500 Ca tax. That's $1000 savings.
I think the a availability in Japanese physical stores will still be a question mark in October. It is backordered in all the major stores and there might be enough unfulfilled orders to keep it out of stock for a while. Some small stores might have it but their pricing and tax free availability could be another question mark.
I forgot if the RX1RM3 was language locked in Japanese like most of the other bodies. I saw some international models at Yodobashi or Bic but not sure for RX1R. Apparently Sony has a conversion option but might end up canceling out the money saved.
Fred Miranda wrote:
I'm really enjoying using the RX1R with the Voigtlander 28/35 optical viewfinder because it's so bright and compact. The built-in flash is really cool too because it syncs even at 1/2000s. I turn off the monitor and set the focus to center. Then I just use the optical viewfinder to frame my shot, focus in the center, and recompose. The camera feels very reliable this way and the battery lasts much longer. Using an optical viewfinder is such a pleasure because, to me, the EVF on the RX1 series just isn't that enjoyable. With the optical finder, I can see the scene with the full resolution of my own eyes.
Sometimes I also use the external EVF, which has higher magnification than the one on my A7CR. I'm happy with it, especially because it tilts.
What I like about the Sonnar 35/2 is that it's ideal for environmental portraits since the background rendering is always smooth and undistracting. There are definitely sharper (and bigger) lenses out there, especially with high MP sensors, but the 35/2 is already sharper than I need.
As for the RX1RIII, I will likely get one used for $2,500. Not sure when but I'm not in a hurry......Show more →
I purchased the RX1R back when it was released twelve years ago and used the swivel electronic viewfinder. I really enjoyed the camera. I absolutely loved the combination of leaf-shutter and built-in flash.
I recently tried to convince myself that the A7CR with small lenses like the sharp Viltrox 50mm f2 Air and tiny Godox IT-30 TTL/HSS would suffice. Last weekend, I attended a family event and took this combination to keep from standing-out as a photographer with my larger gear. The experience convinced me that I really needed a leaf-shutter from a camera like the RX1RIII to accommodate small flashes and wide apertures.
The shots, below, were taken twelve years ago, using fill-flash from the RX1R. For me, this is the primary driver to acquire the RX1RIII. The fact that the camera is tiny and good for semi-stealth photography is a bonus.
Aug 13, 2025 at 08:05 AM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
This thread has got me thinking about whether I want a camera to carry with me on a regular basis and if I do what sort of camera would I want. For me I would want a camera that could handle a lot of different shots that I would like to take so that got me thinking about what I would like in such a camera. Here are the major features I would like:
1) a large sensor -- Why? If I am going to have a camera with a fixed lens I want to be able to crop so that I get a range of field of views. You can obviously crop more with a big sensor than a small sensor. On one extreme you can imagine an m4/3rds sensor and for me I probably don't want to crop that any more than a 1.3X crop. That means if I had a 17mm lens I could crop it to 22mm for a FF equivalent of 34 to 44, so not much range. If I keep that same size as the smallest size I am willing to crop to with APS-C that takes a 23mm lens and let you crop it to 38mm for a full frame equivalent of 35 to 58mm. A FF sensor with that same size as the smallest to which I would crop I get a 35mm to 85mm field of view. And if I used a 44 X 33 sensor and a 45mm lens and cropped to that same smallest size I would get the perspective of a 150mm lens for a full frame equivalent of 35 to 120mm. So if you keep the smallest size of sensor you are willing to crop to the same, sensor size really matters. Big sensors let you crop and cover a much wider range of fields of view.
2) a wide aperture lens -- Why? If I am going to have a camera with a fixed lens I want to be able to shoot in lower light, so I want it to let in as much light as it practically can and that means I want the entrance pupil to be big (this is what determines how much light the lens let's in). A 35 f/2 lens has an entrance pupil of 17.5 mm squared. A 28 f/1.7 lens has an entrance pupil of 16.5mm squared. A 43mm lens with an f/2 aperture has an entrance pupil of 21.5mm squared. The size of the entrance pupil is simply the focal length divided by the f/number.
3) image stabilization and a tilt LCD -- Why? If I am going to have a camera with a fixed lens, I am not going to be taking a tripod and I want to be able to shoot some long exposure shots and especially so if I want to shoot in low light (i.e., at night). Personally I would want the image stabilization to be as close to a tripod replacement in such a camera as possible. I would also want a tilt LCD as that facilitates positioning the camera in different ways the same way that a tripod does.
4) small size -- Why? If I am going to carry a fixed lens camera most of the time I am going to want it to be small so it isn't burdensome to have it with me a lot. This feature is obviously in tension with the first three, however, as larger sensors typically need bigger diameter lenses to cover the bigger image circle, wider apertures also need bigger diameter lenses, and image stabilization and tilting LCD typically add at least some to the weight of a camera.
What does this thinking lead me to think about the RX1R III? I think it is a good camera. It has a larger sensor. It has a lens with a decently wide aperture. It is admirably small. And if you want don't want my #3, then I can see why many people love it. It is especially good for people shots like in the post above by InFocus2014, when IS doesn't help much as you need to keep the shutter speed up as people move a little bit when you are taking their photo (personally I try to keep at least 1/60 when people are the primary focus of a shot). It works well for these people shots in low light and the built in flash and leaf shutter no doubt help this even more. What it won't do, however, is let you take a night shot of let's say a cityscape at a 1 sec exposure. I want the capability of being able to take longer exposure shots in low and even really low light, but if that doesn't matter to you (and you can live with other things that bother me like the small EVF), the RX1R III is a great option.
This leaves me thinking I might pick up a Leica Q3 at some point that is closer to what I would like such a camera to be even if it is a bit bigger, and I know I would not be interested in a Fuji GFX100RF, even though it has a really large sensor and a great EVF, because it has such a narrow aperture lens and it doesn't have image stabilization. The Fuji X100 VI or Ricoh GX3R aren't at all interesting to me either because of their small sensors and narrow aperture lenses.
In the mean time I am going to try carrying my A7r V with just one lens that is attached as a bit of a daily carry (either my CV 28 f/1.5 or 40 f/1.2). It won't be as small as I like but it will satisfy everything else I would be looking for and it might help me decide if I want a Leica Q3 and maybe even whether the regular Q3 or the Q3 43 would suit me better.
I do wish that someone other than Leica would make a camera more like the Q3, as I think the price of the camera is unreasonably high, but Leica seems to thrive in the space where they make something nobody else does and charge a premium for that product.
Steve Spencer wrote:
This thread has got me thinking about whether I want a camera to carry with me on a regular basis and if I do what sort of camera would I want. For me I would want a camera that could handle a lot of different shots that I would like to take so that got me thinking about what I would like in such a camera. Here are the major features I would like:
1) a large sensor -- Why? If I am going to have a camera with a fixed lens I want to be able to crop so that I get a range of field of views. You can obviously crop more with a big sensor than a small sensor. On one extreme you can imagine an m4/3rds sensor and for me I probably don't want to crop that any more than a 1.3X crop. That means if I had a 17mm lens I could crop it to 22mm for a FF equivalent of 34 to 44, so not much range. If I keep that same size as the smallest size I am willing to crop to with APS-C that takes a 23mm lens and let you crop it to 38mm for a full frame equivalent of 35 to 58mm. A FF sensor with that same size as the smallest to which I would crop I get a 35mm to 85mm field of view. And if I used a 44 X 33 sensor and a 45mm lens and cropped to that same smallest size I would get the perspective of a 150mm lens for a full frame equivalent of 35 to 120mm. So if you keep the smallest size of sensor you are willing to crop to the same, sensor size really matters. Big sensors let you crop and cover a much wider range of fields of view.
2) a wide aperture lens -- Why? If I am going to have a camera with a fixed lens I want to be able to shoot in lower light, so I want it to let in as much light as it practically can and that means I want the entrance pupil to be big (this is what determines how much light the lens let's in). A 35 f/2 lens has an entrance pupil of 17.5 mm squared. A 28 f/1.7 lens has an entrance pupil of 16.5mm squared. A 43mm lens with an f/2 aperture has an entrance pupil of 21.5mm squared. The size of the entrance pupil is simply the focal length divided by the f/number.
3) image stabilization and a tilt LCD -- Why? If I am going to have a camera with a fixed lens, I am not going to be taking a tripod and I want to be able to shoot some long exposure shots and especially so if I want to shoot in low light (i.e., at night). Personally I would want the image stabilization to be as close to a tripod replacement in such a camera as possible. I would also want a tilt LCD as that facilitates positioning the camera in different ways the same way that a tripod does.
4) small size -- Why? If I am going to carry a fixed lens camera most of the time I am going to want it to be small so it isn't burdensome to have it with me a lot. This feature is obviously in tension with the first three, however, as larger sensors typically need bigger diameter lenses to cover the bigger image circle, wider apertures also need bigger diameter lenses, and image stabilization and tilting LCD typically add at least some to the weight of a camera.
What does this thinking lead me to think about the RX1R III? I think it is a good camera. It has a larger sensor. It has a lens with a decently wide aperture. It is admirably small. And if you want don't want my #3, then I can see why many people love it. It is especially good for people shots like in the post above by InFocus2014, when IS doesn't help much as you need to keep the shutter speed up as people move a little bit when you are taking their photo (personally I try to keep at least 1/60 when people are the primary focus of a shot). It works well for these people shots in low light and the built in flash and leaf shutter no doubt help this even more. What it won't do, however, is let you take a night shot of let's say a cityscape at a 1 sec exposure. I want the capability of being able to take longer exposure shots in low and even really low light, but if that doesn't matter to you (and you can live with other things that bother me like the small EVF), the RX1R III is a great option.
This leaves me thinking I might pick up a Leica Q3 at some point that is closer to what I would like such a camera to be even if it is a bit bigger, and I know I would not be interested in a Fuji GFX100RF, even though it has a really large sensor and a great EVF, because it has such a narrow aperture lens and it doesn't have image stabilization. The Fuji X100 VI or Ricoh GX3R aren't at all interesting to me either because of their small sensors and narrow aperture lenses.
In the mean time I am going to try carrying my A7r V with just one lens that is attached as a bit of a daily carry (either my CV 28 f/1.5 or 40 f/1.2). It won't be as small as I like but it will satisfy everything else I would be looking for and it might help me decide if I want a Leica Q3 and maybe even whether the regular Q3 or the Q3 43 would suit me better.
I do wish that someone other than Leica would make a camera more like the Q3, as I think the price of the camera is unreasonably high, but Leica seems to thrive in the space where they make something nobody else does and charge a premium for that product....Show more →
