sebboh wrote:
you got a good deal 3 years ago. i had been looking for a while and trying to get one at that price, but they always got scooped up before i could get to them. meanwhile the sony a7 series cameras that are half the age of the rx1rii have dropped their prices much faster.
It was the going price back then, and even less for well-used ones. If you browse the buy and sell board from past years, you'll find plenty of RX1R II cameras selling for that amount. Most of those sales came with a bunch of accessories, many of which are quite pricey when bought new...things like thumb rests, hoods, four or five extra batteries, half-cases, and so on. Over the last three to four years, inflation has pushed prices up across the board, including for used gear. And when it comes to selling, those expensive Sony accessories often end up being thrown in for free. For example, the RX1R's external EVF originally cost $600, which is now almost the going price for the entire camera.
You don't have to go that far back. Only four months ago, a RX1R II with tons of accessories in box sold for $1,550. (probably less with negotiations) https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1900095/
What I mean is that this is the fair price. Sometimes, due to availability, one might end up paying more, but that's really just overpaying.
kalani_kane wrote:
Interesting option! Since the rx1r iii is easily operational singlehandedly, I was considering a mounted trigger and separate small flash to hold as an off-camera flash. Any thoughts on the LightPix Labs FlashQ M20 with Transmitter on Sony?
Using a small trigger instead of the built-in flash is a great workaround to keep the camera small if you don't mind setting up the flash separately. It's a bit of a compromise, but it gives much better results because you can control and shape the light more precisely.
What's really neat about the RX1R's internal flash is that it can also act as a wireless trigger. Since it's TTL, you get a lot of options like red-eye reduction, fill, rear and slow sync, and flash exposure compensation. I like to set my ambient exposure first with a chosen ISO, then dial the flash output down slightly (especially for portraits), usually around −0.7. This gives very natural-looking results.
Fred Miranda wrote:
It was the going price back then, and even less for well-used ones. If you browse the buy and sell board from past years, you'll find plenty of RX1R II cameras selling for that amount. Most of those sales came with a bunch of accessories, many of which are quite pricey when bought new...things like thumb rests, hoods, four or five extra batteries, half-cases, and so on. Over the last three to four years, inflation has pushed prices up across the board, including for used gear. And when it comes to selling, those expensive Sony accessories often end up being thrown in for free. For example, the RX1R's external EVF originally cost $600, which is now almost the going price for the entire camera.
You don't have to go that far back. Only four months ago, a RX1R II with tons of accessories in box sold for $1,550. (probably less with negotiations) https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1900095/
What I mean is that this is the fair price. Sometimes, due to availability, one might end up paying more, but that's really just overpaying....Show more →
meh, i am unconvinced that $1500 was ever the going rate, maybe $1800. i do an ebay search every 6 months or so of completed listings and an fm search for available ones at roughly the same rate. the going rate is the rate anybody can get one. if you have to be lucky with timing you are getting a deal, not the going rate. i wouldn't really consider accessaries contributing to the price either (ebay prices reflect this), they are mostly things that the owner won't be able to use once they sell the camera and have negligible resale value on their own (viewfinders being the exception here). fair price is the going rate imo.
sebboh wrote:
meh, i am unconvinced that $1500 was ever the going rate, maybe $1800. i do an ebay search every 6 months or so of completed listings and an fm search for available ones at roughly the same rate. the going rate is the rate anybody can get one. if you have to be lucky with timing you are getting a deal, not the going rate. i wouldn't really consider accessaries contributing to the price either (ebay prices reflect this), they are mostly things that the owner won't be able to use once they sell the camera and have negligible resale value on their own (viewfinders being the exception here). fair price is the going rate imo....Show more →
FM Buy & Sell isn't the same as eBay, and that's really the main point. eBay's high fees often force sellers to raise prices, and even then, they don't always get the amount they were hoping for. Believe what you like, but FM Buy & Sell works differently, and that's the perspective I'm coming from here.
Fred Miranda wrote:
FM Buy & Sell isn't the same as eBay, and that's really the main point. eBay's high fees often force sellers to raise prices, and even then, they don't always get the amount they were hoping for. Believe what you like, but FM Buy & Sell works differently, and that's the perspective I'm coming from here.
i'm talking about ebay completed sales, NOT asking prices. fm buy and sell is certainly better and more trustworthy than ebay, but I haven't been able to buy an rx1rii on it for the price you say is a fair price (and i have certainly tried). ebay is a good way to find the market rate of something. fm buy & sell is a good place to get items below the market rate (good deals) because of the low fees and increased trust, but the prices and availability are more variable (much more so on low volume items).
Has anyone tested the external EVF with the new rx1riii?
Fred Miranda wrote:
It was the going price back then, and even less for well-used ones. If you browse the buy and sell board from past years, you'll find plenty of RX1R II cameras selling for that amount. Most of those sales came with a bunch of accessories, many of which are quite pricey when bought new...things like thumb rests, hoods, four or five extra batteries, half-cases, and so on. Over the last three to four years, inflation has pushed prices up across the board, including for used gear. And when it comes to selling, those expensive Sony accessories often end up being thrown in for free. For example, the RX1R's external EVF originally cost $600, which is now almost the going price for the entire camera.
You don't have to go that far back. Only four months ago, a RX1R II with tons of accessories in box sold for $1,550. (probably less with negotiations) https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1900095/
What I mean is that this is the fair price. Sometimes, due to availability, one might end up paying more, but that's really just overpaying....Show more →
Latouf wrote:
Has anyone tested the external EVF with the new rx1riii?
I've tested the Sony FDA-EV1MK on the RX1R II, and it works just like on the RX1R. I'm not sure about the RIII. The main benefits are higher magnification and the ability to tilt the viewfinder.
Hoping someone still has the evf and will have the new model of the camera. the possibility of the articulated evf would be a good addition.
Fred Miranda wrote:
I've tested the Sony FDA-EV1MK on the RX1R II, and it works just like on the RX1R. I'm not sure about the RIII. The main benefits are higher magnification and the ability to tilt the viewfinder.
I'm almost certain one of the hands-on YouTube videos mentioned that the add-on EVF doesn't work with the RX1r.3. Sorry, I don't remember which video.
Latouf wrote:
Hoping someone still has the evf and will have the new model of the camera. the possibility of the articulated evf would be a good addition.
Latouf wrote:
Hoping someone still has the evf and will have the new model of the camera. the possibility of the articulated evf would be a good addition.
Sony's official FDA-EV1MK viewfinder page does not list the RX1R III as a supported camera for the FDA-EV1MK viewfinder.: LINK.
My quick and slightly disorganized thoughts on the RX1r.3. I've owned it for 2 weeks, but the last 2 days was my first chance to properly test the camera. Quick trip to Ottawa visiting family, 3 young nephews who can't sit still.
This camera is a contradiction. It is simultaneously poor value, and incredible value. This is the most enjoyment I've had with a camera in recent memory, maybe ever.
A few pros:
-I can't overstate how tiny and unassuming this camera is. No one gives it a second look. The body completely disappears in the palm of my hand.
-AF is very good. This was my biggest concern before getting the camera in hand. It's not as consistently accurate as the A7c.2, which is damn near flawless, but I'd say the hit rate is 80%-90% of the A7c.2 paired with any modern Sony lens.
-The Zeiss 35/2 delivers. Rendering is beautiful. No distracting out of focus areas. Just butter. Especially nice for environmental portraits.
-The leaf shutter is so nice for candid pictures. Nearly silent. No potential issues of electronic shutter, like banding under mixed lights or jello effect.
-Did I mention how small and inconspicuous it is?
A few cons:
-Battery life is pants. Bring 2 or 3 batteries for a full day of shooting. I don't have scientific measures. I'd say battery life is comparable to an RX100 (I've owned 3 generations).
-The port door on the side of the camera feels like cheap hollow plastic. That is an impressive bit of cheapness by Sony. Come on!
-The body is a slippery bar of soap. Though to be fair, after using the camera for a day and getting over the day 1 jitters, I found it surprisingly comfortable to hold for long stretches. I plan to add some Sugru to the grip for added texture.
Summary (very early impressions):
-You will get this camera from my cold dead hands. I haven't felt this way about a camera since the NEX-7, which I purchased in April of 2012 and still own, though only for sentimental reasons.
-The contradiction: IMHO this is a $4k camera, not $5.1k. The bill of materials simply doesn't add to $5.1k....however, I can honestly say that I would buy this camera again at full price 10 times out of 10.
Conclusion (waaay too early):
-If you value what this is, AND you can live with the compromises (there are many), AND you can stomach the price (which is eye-watering), you will be delighted. That's my one-word review: Delightful.
-If you don't meet all 3 criteria, there are far more level-headed options in Sony land and elsewhere.
Sorry for the diatribe without pictures. I'll post some samples once I'm home. Way too many pictures to cull on a 3" screen.
Sharif Abdou wrote:
My quick and slightly disorganized thoughts on the RX1r.3. I've owned it for 2 weeks, but the last 2 days was my first chance to properly test the camera. Quick trip to Ottawa visiting family, 3 young nephews who can't sit still.
This camera is a contradiction. It is simultaneously poor value, and incredible value. This is the most enjoyment I've had with a camera in recent memory, maybe ever.
A few pros:
-I can't overstate how tiny and unassuming this camera is. No one gives it a second look. The body completely disappears in the palm of my hand.
-AF is very good. This was my biggest concern before getting the camera in hand. It's not as consistently accurate as the A7c.2, which is damn near flawless, but I'd say the hit rate is 80%-90% of the A7c.2 paired with any modern Sony lens.
-The Zeiss 35/2 delivers. Rendering is beautiful. No distracting out of focus areas. Just butter. Especially nice for environmental portraits.
-The leaf shutter is so nice for candid pictures. Nearly silent. No potential issues of electronic shutter, like banding under mixed lights or jello effect.
-Did I mention how small and inconspicuous it is?
A few cons:
-Battery life is pants. Bring 2 or 3 batteries for a full day of shooting. I don't have scientific measures. I'd say battery life is comparable to an RX100 (I've owned 3 generations).
-The port door on the side of the camera feels like cheap hollow plastic. That is an impressive bit of cheapness by Sony. Come on!
-The body is a slippery bar of soap. Though to be fair, after using the camera for a day and getting over the day 1 jitters, I found it surprisingly comfortable to hold for long stretches. I plan to add some Sugru to the grip for added texture.
Summary (very early impressions):
-You will get this camera from my cold dead hands. I haven't felt this way about a camera since the NEX-7, which I purchased in April of 2012 and still own, though only for sentimental reasons.
-The contradiction: IMHO this is a $4k camera, not $5.1k. The bill of materials simply doesn't add to $5.1k....however, I can honestly say that I would buy this camera again at full price 10 times out of 10.
Conclusion (waaay too early):
-If you value what this is, AND you can live with the compromises (there are many), AND you can stomach the price (which is eye-watering), you will be delighted. That's my one-word review: Delightful.
-If you don't meet all 3 criteria, there are far more level-headed options in Sony land and elsewhere.
Sorry for the diatribe without pictures. I'll post some samples once I'm home. Way too many pictures to cull on a 3" screen....Show more →
A nice review that makes a lot of sense to me. The compromise holding me back is the absence of IBIS, which I rely on a lot in the way I shoot. I had actually gone to B&H to place a preorder as soon as I read the title of the announcement thread on FM, but then canceled my preorder when I discovered IBIS was missing.
It may be that the moderate wide angle lens and the leaf shutter somewhat reduce the need for IBIS, and I understand that the engineering constraints made IBIS a bridge too far. For many people, it won't matter but my style of shooting uses IBIS to its full potential quite often.
It does look like a great camera and an instant classic, whatever the price may be. But I am very happy with my A7CR with its powerful IBIS and I know the A7CII has even more AF points and coverage than the A7CR does.
chiron wrote:
A nice review that makes a lot of sense to me. The compromise holding me back is the absence of IBIS, which I rely on a lot in the way I shoot. I had actually gone to B&H to place a preorder as soon as I read the title of the announcement thread on FM, but then canceled my preorder when I discovered IBIS was missing.
It may be that the moderate wide angle lens and the leaf shutter somewhat reduce the need for IBIS, and I understand that the engineering constraints made IBIS a bridge too far. For many people, it won't matter but my style of shooting uses IBIS to its full potential quite often.
It does look like a great camera and an instant classic, whatever the price may be. But I am very happy with my A7CR with its powerful IBIS and I know the A7CII has even more AF points and coverage than the A7CR does. ...Show more →
I have had the rxr1 iii for a good week now. I can confirm some of the pros and cons that are stated here so far.
First, its tiny. Compared to my Leica Q3/43 it is really small and weighs essentially nothing. But that is not only a positive in my book. I really like small and unobtrusive, but it is so small, it starts to feel more like a drawbrack than a real plus for me. I like the feeling of the Q much more in the hands. This is also partly due to the typical sony finish of the newer bodies. I much more prefer the solid metal feeling tactile experience of the leica.
Second, at first sight the AF is really good with the typical sony eye AF experience, as compared with the leica AF. But, after a few shots of my kids (3-8 y), the AF is really a disappointment when they start to move towards the camera, even when they are just slowly walking. The focus is nearly always behind the focused eye. And even worse in not optimal lighting, it seems as if it even misses more often than not even for still subjects. That was quite a suprise to me honestly. Maybe its a combination of a lack of sharpness which appears more obvious in dim lighting in combination with a not optimal focus motor system in the somewhat older lens. When the AF is spot on, the sharpness is more than good enough at aperture 2.0. But this only holds if the subject is not far from the camera like in a half body portrait. When the subject (e.g. my kids) are like more than a few meters away, the sharpness seems to drop quite a bit. This might also be due to the AF system that not always seems spot on.
This leads to some really nice shots due to the rendering of the zeiss lens, but also to quite some shots that leave me disappointed. My intention was to maybe replace both Qs (28 + 45) with just the sony and even get more shots in focus of my moving kids. But this is just not the case unfortunately. even more frustrating, my copy appears quite decentered. I can not get the left side really sharp. The right side is quite sharp from 2.8 onwards. That leads me to returning my copy. I am still thinking of trying another copy with the hope that the main negatives might be due to some bad decentering. But I guess the AF won't turn out any faster with my kids anyways.
davidmathar wrote:
The focus is nearly always behind the focused eye. And even worse in not optimal lighting, it seems as if it even misses more often than not even for still subjects. That was quite a suprise to me honestly. Maybe its a combination of a lack of sharpness which appears more obvious in dim lighting in combination with a not optimal focus motor system in the somewhat older lens. When the AF is spot on, the sharpness is more than good enough at aperture 2.0. But this only holds if the subject is not far from the camera like in a half body portrait. When the subject (e.g. my kids) are like more than a few meters away, the sharpness seems to drop quite a bit. This might also be due to the AF system that not always seems spot on....Show more →
Thanks for your report. I haven't used it personally, so this is just based on the technical details and what I've seen from others. The RX1R III's AF is much improved, but it's still limited by the 13-year-old lens design (Yes, the original RX1 was released in 2012 with this same lens). Tracking subjects fast moving toward or away from you still requires faster motors, even with advanced phase-detect algorithms. You can't expect the RX1R III to stick to moving subjects with great accuracy the way modern lenses do. For its purpose, the AF seems to do well for general shooting, but it struggles when you need it for fast action.
davidmathar wrote:
I have had the rxr1 iii for a good week now. I can confirm some of the pros and cons that are stated here so far.
First, its tiny. Compared to my Leica Q3/43 it is really small and weighs essentially nothing. But that is not only a positive in my book. I really like small and unobtrusive, but it is so small, it starts to feel more like a drawbrack than a real plus for me. I like the feeling of the Q much more in the hands. This is also partly due to the typical sony finish of the newer bodies. I much more prefer the solid metal feeling tactile experience of the leica.
Second, at first sight the AF is really good with the typical sony eye AF experience, as compared with the leica AF. But, after a few shots of my kids (3-8 y), the AF is really a disappointment when they start to move towards the camera, even when they are just slowly walking. The focus is nearly always behind the focused eye. And even worse in not optimal lighting, it seems as if it even misses more often than not even for still subjects. That was quite a suprise to me honestly. Maybe its a combination of a lack of sharpness which appears more obvious in dim lighting in combination with a not optimal focus motor system in the somewhat older lens. When the AF is spot on, the sharpness is more than good enough at aperture 2.0. But this only holds if the subject is not far from the camera like in a half body portrait. When the subject (e.g. my kids) are like more than a few meters away, the sharpness seems to drop quite a bit. This might also be due to the AF system that not always seems spot on.
This leads to some really nice shots due to the rendering of the zeiss lens, but also to quite some shots that leave me disappointed. My intention was to maybe replace both Qs (28 + 45) with just the sony and even get more shots in focus of my moving kids. But this is just not the case unfortunately. even more frustrating, my copy appears quite decentered. I can not get the left side really sharp. The right side is quite sharp from 2.8 onwards. That leads me to returning my copy. I am still thinking of trying another copy with the hope that the main negatives might be due to some bad decentering. But I guess the AF won't turn out any faster with my kids anyways.
i would guess the sharpness issues at distance are due to focus issues, my experience with the lens was always that it was little sharper at longer distances (as long as you don't trust AF).
davidmathar wrote:
I have had the rxr1 iii for a good week now. I can confirm some of the pros and cons that are stated here so far.
First, its tiny. Compared to my Leica Q3/43 it is really small and weighs essentially nothing. But that is not only a positive in my book. I really like small and unobtrusive, but it is so small, it starts to feel more like a drawbrack than a real plus for me. I like the feeling of the Q much more in the hands. This is also partly due to the typical sony finish of the newer bodies. I much more prefer the solid metal feeling tactile experience of the leica.
Second, at first sight the AF is really good with the typical sony eye AF experience, as compared with the leica AF. But, after a few shots of my kids (3-8 y), the AF is really a disappointment when they start to move towards the camera, even when they are just slowly walking. The focus is nearly always behind the focused eye. And even worse in not optimal lighting, it seems as if it even misses more often than not even for still subjects. That was quite a suprise to me honestly. Maybe its a combination of a lack of sharpness which appears more obvious in dim lighting in combination with a not optimal focus motor system in the somewhat older lens. When the AF is spot on, the sharpness is more than good enough at aperture 2.0. But this only holds if the subject is not far from the camera like in a half body portrait. When the subject (e.g. my kids) are like more than a few meters away, the sharpness seems to drop quite a bit. This might also be due to the AF system that not always seems spot on.
This leads to some really nice shots due to the rendering of the zeiss lens, but also to quite some shots that leave me disappointed. My intention was to maybe replace both Qs (28 + 45) with just the sony and even get more shots in focus of my moving kids. But this is just not the case unfortunately. even more frustrating, my copy appears quite decentered. I can not get the left side really sharp. The right side is quite sharp from 2.8 onwards. That leads me to returning my copy. I am still thinking of trying another copy with the hope that the main negatives might be due to some bad decentering. But I guess the AF won't turn out any faster with my kids anyways.
Have you tried maximizing the auto focus settings for your particular scenario? Even with the original a 7C and a 7C2, choosing how sticky the autofocus is, and if accuracy and/or speed is prioritized to make a large difference. I went from getting very few keepers of dogs moving around quickly to having a very high keeper rate just through settings changing.
Optimizing the settings results in much better results in my experience, even on Sony‘s new and very powerful auto focus modules. Out of the box settings are rarely best in my experience.
Thanks for sharing your experience so far. I’m leaving soon for vacation and will take my rx1riii with me. So far AF as been good for me. I didn’t get to shot fast moving subject so that might explain it. Clearly it won’t be on par with my A1ii.
If I were you, I would try and change the priority for AF-S or AFC to AF vs the default balance emphasis. This setting even made a change in my A1ii in some cases.
Let us know.
davidmathar wrote:
I have had the rxr1 iii for a good week now. I can confirm some of the pros and cons that are stated here so far.
First, its tiny. Compared to my Leica Q3/43 it is really small and weighs essentially nothing. But that is not only a positive in my book. I really like small and unobtrusive, but it is so small, it starts to feel more like a drawbrack than a real plus for me. I like the feeling of the Q much more in the hands. This is also partly due to the typical sony finish of the newer bodies. I much more prefer the solid metal feeling tactile experience of the leica.
Second, at first sight the AF is really good with the typical sony eye AF experience, as compared with the leica AF. But, after a few shots of my kids (3-8 y), the AF is really a disappointment when they start to move towards the camera, even when they are just slowly walking. The focus is nearly always behind the focused eye. And even worse in not optimal lighting, it seems as if it even misses more often than not even for still subjects. That was quite a suprise to me honestly. Maybe its a combination of a lack of sharpness which appears more obvious in dim lighting in combination with a not optimal focus motor system in the somewhat older lens. When the AF is spot on, the sharpness is more than good enough at aperture 2.0. But this only holds if the subject is not far from the camera like in a half body portrait. When the subject (e.g. my kids) are like more than a few meters away, the sharpness seems to drop quite a bit. This might also be due to the AF system that not always seems spot on.
This leads to some really nice shots due to the rendering of the zeiss lens, but also to quite some shots that leave me disappointed. My intention was to maybe replace both Qs (28 + 45) with just the sony and even get more shots in focus of my moving kids. But this is just not the case unfortunately. even more frustrating, my copy appears quite decentered. I can not get the left side really sharp. The right side is quite sharp from 2.8 onwards. That leads me to returning my copy. I am still thinking of trying another copy with the hope that the main negatives might be due to some bad decentering. But I guess the AF won't turn out any faster with my kids anyways.
davidmathar wrote:
I have had the rxr1 iii for a good week now. I can confirm some of the pros and cons that are stated here so far.
First, its tiny. Compared to my Leica Q3/43 it is really small and weighs essentially nothing. But that is not only a positive in my book. I really like small and unobtrusive, but it is so small, it starts to feel more like a drawbrack than a real plus for me. I like the feeling of the Q much more in the hands. This is also partly due to the typical sony finish of the newer bodies. I much more prefer the solid metal feeling tactile experience of the leica.
Second, at first sight the AF is really good with the typical sony eye AF experience, as compared with the leica AF. But, after a few shots of my kids (3-8 y), the AF is really a disappointment when they start to move towards the camera, even when they are just slowly walking. The focus is nearly always behind the focused eye. And even worse in not optimal lighting, it seems as if it even misses more often than not even for still subjects. That was quite a suprise to me honestly. Maybe its a combination of a lack of sharpness which appears more obvious in dim lighting in combination with a not optimal focus motor system in the somewhat older lens. When the AF is spot on, the sharpness is more than good enough at aperture 2.0. But this only holds if the subject is not far from the camera like in a half body portrait. When the subject (e.g. my kids) are like more than a few meters away, the sharpness seems to drop quite a bit. This might also be due to the AF system that not always seems spot on.
This leads to some really nice shots due to the rendering of the zeiss lens, but also to quite some shots that leave me disappointed. My intention was to maybe replace both Qs (28 + 45) with just the sony and even get more shots in focus of my moving kids. But this is just not the case unfortunately. even more frustrating, my copy appears quite decentered. I can not get the left side really sharp. The right side is quite sharp from 2.8 onwards. That leads me to returning my copy. I am still thinking of trying another copy with the hope that the main negatives might be due to some bad decentering. But I guess the AF won't turn out any faster with my kids anyways.
Have you tried the same focus tests with the Q3 and Q3 43mm APO? I just sold my Q3 43mm - part of the reason is I found the AF to be sluggish (nothing out of the ordinary - had two of these that all performed the same) and I think it would fail the same test you described of a kid moving towards the camera with some speed. The GFX100RF which I also have right now would also fail this test.
I actually ended up picking up a Sony RX1RIII for the smaller size and hopefully better AF performance. However, I'm not getting mine until early next week so reserving judgment until then.
