Sony RX10 III Review

Overview

With a powerful 24-600mm f/2.4-4 zoom lens and a high-resolution 20.1-megapixel image sensor, the Sony RX10 III takes the large-sensor RX-series into ultrazoom territory for the first time. It comes with a hefty pricetag, but boasts performance, features and image quality to match. But can it compete against its large-sensor, long-zoom rivals which cost barely more than half as much? Find out below in our Sony RX10 III field test! You'll also want to check out our performance test results, and browse our extensive gallery of real-world sample images.

If you're looking for our full Sony RX10 III overview, please click here to jump further down the page.

Sony RX10 III Review -- Overview

by Mike Tomkins
Preview posted 03/29/2016

In July 2015, Sony released its RX10 II digital camera, a follow-up for the original RX10 model which first shipped at the very end of 2013. Now, just eight months after the RX10 II hit the market, the next-generation Sony RX10 III has arrived and sells alongside that camera, offering a whole lot more zoom reach in a slightly bigger package!

The mighty ultrazoom lens is the really big news

The big story here is the Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T*-branded lens. Where the Sony RX10 and RX10 II shared the same 24-200mm-equivalent optic, the RX10 III opts for a much more powerful 24-600mm zoom with f/2.4-4 maximum aperture across the zoom range. Actual focal lengths range from 8.8 to 220mm. This much greater reach suggests that rather than being a replacement for the RX10 II, the RX10 III is instead intended to sell alongside the existing camera. (And indeed, we've received confirmation from Sony that this is indeed the case.)

Despite its huge zoom range and wide aperture, the lens has low to very low chromatic distortion, especially towards the wide end of the range. Sony has really pulled out all the stops in lens design for this zoom-monster, and the lens not surprisingly has a very complex formula. Compared to the earlier 14-element, 11-group design with seven aspheric elements, the Sony RX10 III instead opts for a whopping 18-element design with a total of 13 groups. That includes no less than eight ED glass elements, of which there's one super ED glass element, five ED glass elements and two ED aspherical elements. A nine-bladed aperture provides attractive bokeh; Sony didn't provide details on the aperture of earlier models, suggesting this figure is likely upgraded too.

As you'd expect in a lens this far-reaching, image stabilization is included. Sony rates the Optical SteadyShot system in the RX10 III as good for a 4.5-stop corrective strength. Focusing is possible to as close as three centimeters at wide-angle, or 72cm at telephoto. Maximum magnification at the telephoto position is 0.49x.

Aperture, zoom and focus rings are included on the lens barrel, providing an SLR-like shooting experience. There's also a focus hold button on the left side of the lens barrel near its base, making it easy to stop autofocus operation if you want to reframe before image capture. There are also 72mm filter threads on the front of the lens, should you wish to mount creative or protective filters.

A bigger and heavier camera, but not as much as you might expect

Not surprisingly, given its impressive new lens, the Sony RX10 III is both larger and heavier than is the RX10 II, but the change in size is rather less significant than one might expect. With dimensions of 5.2 x 3.7 x 5.0 inches, the RX10 III has grown by about a tenth of an inch in width, two tenths in height, and an inch or so in depth compared to the earlier camera.

With a loaded-and-ready-to-shoot weight of 38.6 ounces, the RX10 III is significantly heavier than its 28.7-ounce sibling, doubtless due in large part to all the glass in its new lens. That makes the RX10 III about one-third heavier than the RX10 II.

Like the RX10 II before it, Sony describes the RX10 III's body as being both dust and moisture-resistant, but provides no information on the number or location of seals. Nor does it provide any specific rating indicating the degree of sealing provided.

A new sensor, but with familiar specifications

The 1"-type, backside-illuminated image sensor itself also looks to be new, although sensor resolution is essentially unchanged from that of the earlier models. With an effective pixel count of 20.1 megapixels, the Sony RX10 III's sensor does differ just fractionally from the 20.2-megapixel chips of its siblings, however. As in the RX10 II, the sensor uses a stacked design with DRAM chip, and its output is handled by a BIONZ X-branded image processor. This provides performance enough to allow for extreme high frame-rate or 4K video capture.

Sensitivity ranges from ISO 64 to 12,800-equivalents, also unchanged from the RX10 II. Continuous burst shooting is possible at a maximum of 14 frames per second with focus locked from the first frame, again unchanged from the RX10 II. Even with AF active between frames, the RX10 III is capable of up to 6.3 frames-per-second burst capture. (Our test target for this is static, yielding this maximum figure; Sony rates the RX10 III as capable of five fps.)

Swift autofocus using contrast detection

Just as in the RX10 II, the Sony RX10 III focuses using a contrast-detection autofocus system, branded by Sony as Fast Intelligent AF. Subject-detection algorithms operate even before a half-press of the shutter button, and are said to be able to determine a focus lock in as little as 0.09 seconds.

The same viewfinder as the RX10 II...

Sony has retained the same excellent electronic viewfinder from the RX10 II for the new Sony RX10 III. Based around an Organic LED panel with a 0.39-inch diagonal and a total resolution of 2,359,296 dots, the finder has 0.7x magnification (35mm-equivalent), and a 21.5mm eyepoint from the eyepiece frame. Manufacturer-rated coverage is 100%, and a dioptric adjustment for eyeglass-wearers spans the range from -4 to +3 diopters. As well as automatic brightness control there is also a five-step manual brightness adjustment provided.

...and the same dual-LCD design

On the rear and top decks of the Sony RX10 III, there are separate LCD displays, just as in the RX10 II. The rear-panel 2.95-inch display has a resolution of 1,228,800 dots, and as well as those specifications being unchanged from the earlier RX10 II, so too is the articulation mechanism. This will allow tilting upwards by 107 degrees, or downwards by 42 degrees. The top-deck LCD, meanwhile, is a small monochrome status display providing basic exposure and operational information, again just as in the RX10 II.

Made with movies in mind

Like the RX10 II before it, the Sony RX10 III was clearly made with movie capture in mind. For one thing, there is no Full HD limit here: The RX10 III can capture 4K video at rates of either 30, 25 or 24 frames per second, and with bitrates as high as 100Mbps using full-pixel readout with no binning. You can, of course, opt for Full HD or HD capture if you don't need this resolution, and here capture rates top out at 120 fps.

And like the RX10 II before it, the Sony RX10 III also allows high frame-rate capture at rates up to 960 fps, although the rather frustrating requirement to have clips upsampled to Full HD resolution in-camera post-capture remains, meaning that you may potentially miss shooting a subsequent clip if the camera has yet to finish rendering the previous one. (We continue to hold out hope that Sony will eventually allow saving at the actual capture resolution, as there's little advantage to upsampling in-camera.)

Wireless connectivity

The Sony RX10 III includes both in-camera Wi-Fi wireless networking and NFC radios, just as did the RX10 II before it. This allows both for remote control and capture, and also for cable-free transfer of photos to your Android or iOS smartphone or tablet. We've found Sony's implementation to be one of the more impressively easy to use, with Android users in particular enjoying the ability to send a photo to their phone simply by viewing it in playback mode on the camera, and then bumping the two devices' NFC antennas together.

Wired connectivity

Of course, there's all the wired connectivity you'd expect, too. Just as in the RX10 II, the Sony RX10 III includes a USB 2.0 High-Speed data connection to get photos and movies onto your computer, and a Micro HDMI connector to let you see them on your TV. There's also Sony's proprietary Multi Interface Shoe, which doubles as a hot shoe for Sony strobes and an attachment point for various other accessories. And catering to video capture, there is both external microphone and headphone connectivity, too.

Power

The Sony RX10 III draws power from the exact same 7.2-volt NP-FW50 lithium-ion rechargeable battery pack as did the earlier RX10 and RX10 II. Battery life is rated at 420 shots on a charge when using the LCD monitor, or 370 shots on a charge with the electronic viewfinder. That's 20 frames more with the LCD, or 10 more with the viewfinder, than was possible on the RX10 II. That's pretty impressive given that the RX10 III has triple the zoom range of the earlier cameras, and the CIPA test used requires that the camera rack across the entire zoom range once after every shot.

Optics

Lens Test Results

Zoom
A very generous 25x zoom for a 1"-type sensor, with excellent optical performance.

The Sony RX10 III is equipped with a 8.8-220mm lens, offering a zoom ratio of 25x for an extremely versatile 35mm-equivalent focal range of about 24-600mm. Like other recent Sonys, the RX10 III also offers Clear Image Zoom up to 2x and standard digital zoom up to 4x.

Maximum aperture is a relatively fast f/2.4 at wide angle that drops only 1.5 f-stops to f/4 at telephoto, already at about 100mm equivalent. The following table reflects the maximum and minimum apertures as reported by the camera at various focal lengths:

Focal length (eq.)	24mm	27mm	35mm	56mm	100mm+
Max. aperture	f/2.4	f/2.8	f/3.2	f/3.5	f/4.0
Min. aperture	f/16 at all focal lengths

Far-field performance appears to be excellent at f/5.6, with very good sharpness and contrast across most of the frame across the zoom range, and only minor softening and coma distortion in the extreme corners. Chromatic aberration is fairly low (like most cameras, the RX10 III does a pretty good job at suppressing it), and flare appears to be reasonably well-controlled for such a long lens.

The above series is meant primarily to show zoom range so it isn't great for judging optical performance. See below for our lab results on macro performance, geometric distortion, corner and center sharpness, etc.

Macro
A slightly larger-than-average sized minimum coverage area, with very good detail. Flash worked fairly well at full telephoto, though exposure was a little dim.

The Sony RX10 III captured a slightly larger-than-average sized minimum area in Macro mode, measuring 2.67 x 1.78 inches (68 x 45 millimeters) at full telephoto, although that's quite good for such a long zoom. (Maximum reproduction ratio is specified as 0.49x at the tele end, versus 0.42x at the wide end.) Detail is excellent across much of the frame with corners only exhibiting a bit of softness at f/8 (most lenses show some softening in the corners at macro distances). At full telephoto the flash worked fairly well producing an evenly exposed though somewhat dim image, and the lens caused no shadow. (You'll likely get a lens shadow at wide angle, though.)

Geometric Distortion
Extremely low distortion in camera JPEGs, high in uncorrected RAW files.

Camera JPEGs

Barrel distortion at 24mm eq. is less than 0.1 percent

Barrel distortion at 600mm eq. is less than 0.1 percent

Geometric distortion in JPEGs is extremely well corrected, with hardly a pixel's worth of barrel distortion at both maximum wide angle and at full telephoto. This is the tendency for the lens to bend straight lines outward (like a barrel -- usually at wide-angle) or inward (like a pincushion -- usually at telephoto).

Uncorrected RAW

Barrel distortion at 24mm eq. is about 2.6 percent

Pincushion distortion at 600mm eq. is about 1.1 percent

Unsurprisingly, uncorrected RAW files show fairly high geometric distortion. We measured about 2.6% barrel distortion at maximum wide angle, and about 1.1% pincushion distortion at full telephoto. That's not unusual, though, and most RAW converters should automatically correct for it, however strong correction can lead to some artifacts and additional softness in the corners.

Chromatic Aberration and Corner Sharpness
Very low to moderate chromatic aberration. The lens produced some soft corners, though corner sharpness improved stopped-down.

Aperture: Maximum
24mm eq. at f/2.4: Upper right C.A.: Moderate Softness: Soft	24mm eq. at f/2.4: Center C.A.: Very low Softness: Very sharp
70mm eq. at f/3.5: Lower right C.A.: Low Softness: Slightly soft	70mm eq. at f/3.5: Center C.A.: Very low Softness: Sharp
200mm eq. at f/4.0: Lower right C.A.: Low Softness: Sharp	200mm eq. at f/4.0: Center C.A.: Low Softness: Sharp
600mm eq. at f/4.0: Lower right C.A.: Moderate Softness: Soft	600mm eq. at f/4.0: Center C.A.: Low Softness: Fairly sharp

Chromatic Aberration. Lateral chromatic aberration in camera JPEGs is fairly well corrected, with only moderate amounts in the corners at both wide angle and full telephoto, and low amounts at intermediate focal lengths. The center shows very low levels of C.A. at wide and intermediate focal lengths but slightly higher levels at telephoto, though still low.

Corner Softness. Sharpness and corner performance are generally very good for the type and speed of lens, though our copy appears to have a slightly decentered element or group (unfortunate, but not at all unusual). In our sample, at 24mm eq. and at maximum aperture (f/2.4), the top right corner is the softest while the other corners are better but still a bit soft, however the center is tack sharp, and what corner softness there is doesn't extend far into the frame. At 70mm equivalent, the lens isn't quite as sharp in the center wide open as at 24mm eq., but it's still pretty sharp, and corners are just slightly soft. At 200mm eq., the lens is remarkably sharp across the frame wide open. At 600mm equivalent, the bottom right corner is soft while the other corners are slightly better. The center is fairly sharp wide open, though likely not quite as sharp as maximum wide angle. (Be aware that our telephoto target for long-zoom cameras like the RX10 III is smaller than our wide-angle target, so resolution between wide and tele isn't directly comparable. Also note that the corner USAF resolution chart in our long-zoom telephoto target isn't in the extreme corners for 3:2 cameras like it is for 4:3 cameras.)

Vignetting. As you can see from the darker crops, there's some moderate corner shading ("vignetting") at full telephoto wide open, but less at shorter focal lengths.

Aperture: f/4.0 / f/5.6
24mm eq. at f/4.0: Upper right C.A.: Moderate Softness: Soft	24mm eq. at f/4.0: Center C.A.: Very low Softness: Very sharp
70mm eq. at f/5.6: Lower right C.A.: Low Softness: Sharp	70mm eq. at f/5.6: Center C.A.: Very low Softness: Sharp
200mm eq. at f/5.6: Lower right C.A.: Low Softness: Sharp	200mm eq. at f/5.6: Center C.A.: Very low Softness: Sharp
600mm eq. at f/5.6: Lower right C.A.: Moderate Softness: Soft	600mm eq. at f/5.6: Center C.A.: Very low Softness: Fairly sharp

Stopped-down: Stopping down to f/4.0 at 24mm equivalent improved corner sharpness and chromatic aberration slightly, but corners are still not as sharp as the center, and the center itself isn't quite as sharp as wide open though it's still very sharp. Stopping down to f/5.6 at 70mm eq. reduced chromatic aberration in the corners and improved corner softness significantly, though again, the center isn't quite as sharp as wide open. There is also a slight reduction in sharpness at 200mm equivalent at f/5.6 compared to wide open, though it's still quite sharp across the frame, and vignetting was reduced as well. At full telephoto the center remained about the same stopped down to f/5.6, however sharpness, CA, as well as vignetting all improved in the corners, though they are still a bit soft. Stopping down past f/5.6 generally does help a bit more in soft corners, however diffraction becomes stronger, softening the image elsewhere.

In-camera JPEG	Uncorrected RAW
24mm eq. @ f/2.4: Upper left: Camera JPEG	24mm eq. @ f/2.4: Upper left: Uncorrected RAW
600mm eq. @ f/4.0: Upper left: Camera JPEG	600mm eq. @ f/4.0: Upper left: Uncorrected RAW

Chromatic Aberration Correction. As mentioned previously, lateral chromatic aberration in camera JPEGs is fairly well corrected, with moderately low to moderate amounts in the corners. As you can see from the uncorrected RAW crops (above right), lateral chromatic aberration is actually quite high and bright at maximum wide angle when wide open, and a little higher at full telephoto wide open (the worse-case scenarios), so the Sony RX10 III's processor does a good job correcting for most of it in JPEGs.

Overall, excellent performance for a relatively fast 24-600mm equivalent f/2.4-4 lens.

Viewfinder Test Results

Coverage
Excellent accuracy from the electronic viewfinder and LCD monitor.

The Sony RX10 III's electronic viewfinder and LCD monitor both showed just over 100% coverage at wide angle and at full telephoto, which is excellent, especially given the amount of geometric distortion correction being applied.

The images above were taken from our standardized test shots. For a collection of more pictorial photos, see our Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX10 III Photo Gallery .

Exposure

Color

Saturation & Hue Accuracy
Slightly below average mean saturation levels and hue accuracy.

In the diagram above, the squares show the original color, and the circles show the color that the camera captured. More saturated colors are located toward the periphery of the graph. Hue changes as you travel around the center. Thus, hue-accurate, highly saturated colors appear as lines radiating from the center. Click for a larger version.

Saturation. The Sony RX10 III pushes some colors like dark blues, dark reds, dark greens and purples, but not as much as most cameras, and it undersaturates lighter greens, yellow and aqua tones moderately. The RX10 III's mean color saturation of 106.3% (6.3% oversaturated) is a bit lower than average these days, but the camera generally produces realistic colors in its images. You can of course tweak saturation to your liking, or choose a non-default color mode. Most consumer digital cameras produce color that's more highly saturated (more intense) than found in the original subjects. This is simply because most people like their color a bit brighter than life.

Skin tones. Here, the Sony RX10 III did reasonably well, producing fairly natural-looking Caucasian skin tones that were a bit on the warm, yellow side with Auto white balance. Manual white balance produced more pleasing, pinkish results. Where oversaturation is most problematic is on Caucasian skin tones, as it's very easy for these "memory colors" to be seen as too bright, too pink, too yellow, etc.

Hue. The Sony RX10 III shifts aqua toward cyan, cyan toward blue, orange toward yellow, and yellow toward green by small to moderate amounts, but most other shifts are very minor. The cyan to blue shift is very common among the digital cameras we test; we think it's a deliberate choice by camera engineers to produce better-looking sky colors, and we don't find the resulting color objectionable. The RX10 III's handling of yellows and yellow-orange colors is one of its weaknesses: Yellows are rendered closer to a yellow-green, and significantly undersaturated as well, making them look a little dingy. With a mean "delta-C" color error of 6.3 after correction for saturation, overalll hue accuracy is a bit below average. Hue is "what color" the color is.

Sensor

Exposure and White Balance

Indoors, incandescent lighting
Auto setting produced warm results, though Incandescent and Manual white balance worked well. Average exposure compensation required.

Indoors, under normal incandescent lighting, color balance was warm and reddish with the Auto white balance setting. Results with the Incandescent setting were pretty good, just a touch yellow. The Manual setting was the most accurate, just slightly on the cool side. (Note: The RX10 III also has a Kelvin Temperature White Balance option, however we did not test that mode.) The Sony RX10 III required +0.3 EV exposure compensation which is about average required for this shot. (Our test lighting for this shot is a mixture of 60 and 100 watt household incandescent bulbs, a pretty yellow light source, but a very common one in typical home settings here in the U.S.)

Outdoors, daylight
Realistic colors and very good exposure accuracy under harsh lighting.

Outdoors, the Sony RX10 III performed well for its class. +0.3 EV exposure compensation was required to keep the mannequin's reasonably face bright in our "Sunlit" Portrait shot, which is actually a bit less compensation than most cameras require. Contrast is a quite high as you might expect under such harsh lighting, but despite the bright appearance, the camera did a good job, holding on to the majority of highlights. (And at default exposure, almost no highlights were blown.) Auto color balance performed fairly well in our "Sunlit" Portrait shot, but Manual white balance produced more pleasing, pinkish skin tones. The Far-field shot with Auto white balance has natural-looking color, that's just a touch cool. Default exposure is perhaps just slightly underexposed but with very few highlights blown, and while there are some very deep shadows, detail in the shadows is surprisingly good for its class. Deep shadows do have moderate amounts luminance noise as well as some discoloration, but that's to be expected. Overall, very good performance in harsh lighting, especially considering DRO was off for these shots.

See full set of test images with explanations
See thumbnails of all test and gallery images

Resolution
~2,500 to ~2,600 lines of strong detail.

An in-camera JPEG of our laboratory resolution chart revealed sharp, distinct line patterns up to about 2,600 lines per picture height in the horizontal direction, and to about 2,500 lines per picture height in the vertical direction. Some may argue for more, but lines begin to merge and aliasing artifacts start to interfere at those resolutions. Complete extinction of the pattern didn't occur until about 3,100 to 3,200 lines. Adobe Camera Raw produced similar results though color moiré was much more visible. Use these numbers to compare with other cameras of similar resolution, or use them to see just what higher resolution can mean in terms of potential detail.

See thumbnails of all test images

Sharpness & Detail
Crisp images with good detail, but area-specific noise reduction and sharpening can produce an overprocessed look at higher ISOs.

Sharpness. The RX10 III produces fairly crisp, sharp looking images without heavy sharpening halos, but Sony's area-specific noise reduction and sharpening algorithms can lead to some unnatural or slightly crude looking results at higher ISOs. Edge enhancement creates the illusion of sharpness by enhancing colors and tones right at the edge of a rapid transition in color or tone.

Detail. The crop above right shows good detail for the class of camera, with moderate levels noise suppression in the darkest areas of the mannequins's hair, and almost no chroma noise. Quite a few individual strands are smudged together in areas of low contrast at base ISO, but performance here is not bad considering the size and resolution of the sensor. Noise-suppression systems in digital cameras tend to flatten-out detail in areas of subtle contrast. The effects can often be seen in shots of human hair, where the individual strands are lost and an almost "watercolor" look appears.

RAW vs In-Camera JPEGs
As noted above the Sony RX10 III produces sharp, crisp and clean images, but fine detail can suffer as a result of aggressive default processing. Compare a base ISO in-camera JPEG to an Adobe Camera Raw conversion below to see what we mean.

Base ISO (100)
Camera JPEG, defaults	RAW via Adobe Camera Raw

In the table above, we compare an in-camera JPEG taken at base ISO using default noise reduction and sharpening (on the left) to a matching RAW file converted with Adobe Camera Raw 9.1 via DNG Converter 9.6 using default noise reduction with strong but tight unsharp masking applied in Photoshop (in this case 300% USM with a radius of 0.5 pixels and a threshold of 0).

As you can see, ACR produced quite a bit of additional detail that isn't present in the JPEG from the camera. Fine detail in the mosaic crop for example is more realistic and refined-looking from the ACR conversion, while the in-camera JPEG is much cleaner and more contrasty, but isn't quite as detailed. This is also true of the fabric crop, where ACR was able to resolve much of the thread pattern in the red-leaf swatch which the camera's JPEG engine presumably treats as noise, and ACR also does a better job reproducing fine detail in the pink fabric. But as is usually the case, more noise can be seen in the RAW conversion particularly in flat areas as shown in the bottle crop, thanks to ACR's light default noise reduction. You can of course apply stronger noise reduction (default ACR NR used here) to arrive at your ideal noise versus detail tradeoff. Color is improved as well, with ACR producing slightly warmer and more accurate colors while removing much of the yellow-to-green shift seen in the JPEG bottle crop. Bottom line: You can do noticeably better than the camera with a good RAW converter, provided you're willing to apply your own noise reduction and sharpening to taste.

ISO & Noise Performance
Very good high ISO performance for its class.

Default High ISO Noise Reduction
ISO 64	ISO 100	ISO 200
ISO 400	ISO 800	ISO 1600
ISO 3200	ISO 6400	ISO 12,800

ISO 64 (extended) and ISO 100 produce clean, very detailed, crisp images containing almost no chroma noise. ISO 200 shows a very minor drop in image quality as noise reduction ramps, but fine detail is still quite good. ISO 400 shows an additional small step down in detail with very good overall image quality, but stronger sharpening attempts to compensate, making luminance noise more visible in some areas. At ISO 800, luminance noise is more noticeable, accentuated by fairly aggressive sharpening, but chroma noise is still welll-controlled and fine detail is still good. ISO 1600 is noticeably softer with more artifacts thanks to stronger noise reduction and more visible luma noise, but chroma noise is still very low. At ISO 3200, fine detail takes a larger hit, and the camera's aggressive processing produces images with a somewhat crystalline look in some areas. Image quality drops off very quickly from here, with ISOs 6400 and 12,800 looking more like impressionistic paintings than photos, with an almost hammered looked to flatter areas. Chroma noise in the form of diffuse purple and/or yellow blotches is also visible in darker midtones and shadows.

Overall, though, high ISO performance remains much better than average for a long-zoom camera and very similar to the RX10 II's, though perhaps just a touch noisier. We're of course pixel-peeping to an extraordinary extent here, since 1:1 images on an LCD screen have little to do with how those same images will appear when printed. See the Print Quality section below for our evaluation of maximum print sizes at each ISO setting.

Note: We used to shoot this series at f/4 because of the relatively low light, but we now shoot it at f/5.6 or f/8 for 1"-type and larger sensors, as lens performance well away from center where we take the above crops is often not optimal at wider apertures. The added depth of field for a scene with this depth is also a better compromise than the potentially slightly sharper but shallower focus depth that a larger aperture would produce.

Extremes: Sunlit, dynamic range and low light tests
Pretty good dynamic range for its class. Good low-light performance, capable of capturing bright images in near darkness.

Sunlight. The Sony RX10 III did fairly well under the deliberately harsh lighting in the test above. To keep facial tones reasonably bright, +0.3V compensation was required, which led to some clipped highlights in the mannequin's shirt and flowers, though not as many as we usually see from smaller sensors. Some may prefer the +0.7 EV setting for its brighter overall exposure, but we found too many highlights were clipped. Detail is quite good in the shadows at +0.3 EV, though very deep shadows are a little grainy with some discoloration, though noise is fairly fine-grained. Very good results in harsh lighting for a long-zoom camera, but consider using fill flash in situations like the one shown above; and it's better to shoot in the shade when possible.

Because digital cameras are more like slide film than negative film (in that they tend to have a more limited tonal range), we test them in the harshest situations to see how they handle scenes with bright highlights and dark shadows, as well as what kind of sensitivity they have in low light. The shot above is designed to mimic the very harsh, contrasty effect of direct noonday sunlight, a very tough challenge for most digital cameras. (You can read details of this test here.)

Face Detection
Aperture Priority, 0 EV Face Detection Off	Aperture Priority, 0 EV Face Detection On	Auto Mode, 0 EV

Face Detection. Like most cameras these days, the Sony RX10 III has the ability to detect faces (up to 8 in a scene), and adjust exposure and focus accordingly. As you can see from the examples above, face detection improved exposure in Aperture Priority at f/5.6, producing a slightly brighter exposure than without it. Full Auto mode performed even better. It selected a larger aperture of f/4 while using a faster shutter speed of 1/125s, and automatically applied DRO (see below) to reduce overall contrast.

Outdoor Portrait DRO Comparison
	DRO Setting: Auto (Default) Off Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5

Dynamic Range Optimization is Sony's name for their dynamic range enhancement technology. DRO divides the image into small areas, analyzes the range of brightness of each area, and adjusts the camera's image processing parameters accordingly to make the best use of the available dynamic range. Auto DRO is enabled by default on the Sony RX10 III. You can also set the level manually, from 1 ("weak") to 5 ("strong"), or turn it off. As one would expect, DRO is only available for JPEG files.

The above thumbnails and histograms show the effects of the various levels of DRO on our "Sunlit" Portrait shot with no exposure compensation. Mouse over the links on the right to load the associated thumbnail and histogram, and click on the link to visit the full resolution image. As you can see from the thumbnails and associated histograms, increasing DRO progressively boosts shadows and midtones while essentially leaving highlights alone, though boosting shadows does make noise slightly more visible. The Auto setting did a pretty good job overall, and the five manual levels give quite a bit of control over the effect.

Far-field DRO Comparison
Auto (default)	Off	Level 1	Level 2
Level 3	Level 4	Level 5

Above, you can see the effect of DRO settings on our Far-field shot. The default Auto setting produced a nicely balanced exposure, despite the harsh lighting. A useful feature. (Apologies for the change in framing in the "Off" shot.)

Far-field HDR Comparison
Off (Default)	Auto	1 EV	2 EV
3 EV	4 EV	5 EV	6 EV

High Dynamic Range. The Sony RX10 III's HDR mode takes three images in rapid succession, one nominally exposed , one underexposed, and one overexposed, then combines them into one high dynamic range JPEG automatically. Lighter areas from the underexposed image are combined in-camera with darker areas from the overexposed image to produce an image with compressed tonal range. The camera then saves a single composite image, as well as the nominally exposed image. The overlaid images are micro-aligned by the camera, but it can only correct for so much movement. If it can't micro-align successfully, an icon indicating HDR capture failed will appear. For best results, the scene should be completely static. There is also a manual mode where you can select from 1 EV ("weak") to 6 EV ("strong") difference in exposures.

Mouse over the links above to load the associated thumbnail, and click on the link to visit the full resolution image. (Again, apologies for the change in framing in the "Off" shot.) As you can see, the Auto setting did a decent job, similar to the 3 EV manual setting. Normally, we'd expect the higher the manual setting, the more highlights are toned-down and shadows opened up, however the 4 EV setting seemed to take a step back. As you can see, though, higher settings can produce flat and unnatural results. And watch out for ghost images and other artifacts from subject movement during the capture sequence, as can be seen in some of the shots above. (It seems the RX10 III attempts to avoid ghosting by including a moving subject from only one of the frames, however this isn't always entirely successful.)

Dynamic Range Analysis (RAW mode)
While we once performed our own dynamic range measurements based on in-camera JPEGs as well as converted RAW images (when the camera was supported by Adobe Camera Raw), we've switched to using DxO Labs' results from their DxOMark website. As technology advanced, the dynamic range of modern high-end cameras in some cases exceeded the range of the Stouffer T4110 density scale that we used for our own measurements. DxO's approach based on RAW data before demosaicing is also more revealing, because it measures the fundamental dynamic range of the sensor, irrespective of whatever processing is applied to JPEGs, or to RAW data by off-the-shelf conversion software.

In the following, we use DxO's "Print" dynamic range results, which are scaled based on camera resolution. As the name suggests, this scaling corresponds to the situation in which you print at a given size, regardless of how many megapixels the camera might have. (In other words, if you've decided to make a 13x19 inch print, that's the size you're printing, whether the camera's resolution is 16 or 300 megapixels.) For the technically-minded, you can find a discussion of the reasoning behind this here on the DxOMark website. Also note that DxO Labs uses a signal-to-noise (SNR) threshold of 1 when defining the lower boundary of acceptable luminance noise in their dynamic range measurements, which corresponds to the "Low Quality" threshold of the Imatest software we used to use for this measurement.

Here, we decided to compare the RX10 III (in orange) to its sibling, the RX10 II (yellow), as well as to its closest competitor, the Canon G3X (red). You can always compare other models on DxOMark.com.

As you can see from the above graph (click for a larger image), the two Sonys have nearly identical dynamic range, which isn't a surprise since they share the same or very similar 1"-type 20-megapixel BSI sensors. Dynamic range for the RX10 III and RX10 II peaks at about 12.6 EV at base ISO, falling to a minimum of 6.8 EV at ISO 12,800.

Dynamic range is similar to the Canon G3X as well, however the Sony's lower base ISO of 100 gives it a slight advantage when it comes to peak dynamic range, with the Canon offering about 12.3 EV at ISO 125. This is a very minor difference, though, which may not be discernible in real-world shots. Minimum dynamic range is also a bit lower, at about 6.2 EV, though measured ISO is actually much closer to 12,800 than the two Sonys. (Also note that the Sonys apply some light noise reduction to raw data at their top two ISOs, as indicated by the smoothed data points.)

Overall, excellent dynamic range performance from the RX10 III for a 1"-type sensor. Click here to visit the DxOMark page for the Sony RX10 III for more of their test results and additional comparisons.

	1 fc 11 lux	1/16 fc 0.67 lux	1/16 fc No NR
ISO 100	2s, f2.8	30s, f2.8	30s, f2.8
ISO 3200	1/15s, f2.8	1s, f2.8	1s, f2.8
ISO 12800	1/60s, f2.8	1/4s, f2.8	1/4s, f2.8

Low Light. The Sony RX10 III performed well in our low-light tests thanks to its relatively fast lens, capturing bright images at the lowest light level (1/16 foot-candle), even at the lowest native sensitivity setting (ISO 100). As expected for a 1"-type sensor, luma noise is a little high at ISO 3200, but fairly fine-grained, while chroma noise is well-controlled. The RX10 III's highest single-shot ISO of 12,800 is quite grainy with noticeable noise reduction artifacts, but that's no surprise.

Color balance is pretty good with Sony RX10 III's Auto white balance setting, just a touch cool, even at highest ISO and lowest light level. We didn't notice any significant issues with hot pixels, pattern noise or heat blooming. (Some hot pixels can be seen with long exposure noise reduction disabled (rightmost column), but that's normal.)

LL AF: The Sony RX10 III's AF system was able to autofocus unassisted on our standard low-contrast AF target down to -0.9 EV (just above 1/8 foot-candle) which is not bad, but it was able to autofocus down to -3.3 EV with our high-contrast AF target. With the AF assist lamp enabled, the RX10 III could autofocus in complete darkness on both of our low-light AF targets.

How bright is this? The one foot-candle light level that this test begins at roughly corresponds to the brightness of typical city street-lighting at night. Cameras performing well at that level should be able to snap good-looking photos of street-lit scenes.

NOTE: This low light test is conducted with a stationary subject, and the camera mounted on a sturdy tripod. Most digital cameras will fail miserably when faced with a moving subject in dim lighting. (For example, a child's ballet recital or a holiday pageant in a gymnasium.) For such applications, you may have better luck with a digital SLR camera, but even there, you'll likely need to set the focus manually. For information and reviews on digital SLRs, refer to our SLR review index page.

Output Quality

Print Quality
Excellent 24 x 36 inch prints at base and extended low; a nice 11 x 14 at ISO 1600 and a good 5 x 7 at ISO 6400.

ISO 64/100 prints look terrific at 24 x 36 inches, with crisp fine detail and pleasing color tones throughout. Wall display images are fine at an even larger 30 x 40 inches, but for critical printing at this resolution and sensor size, 24 x 36 inches is the largest suggested size.

ISO 200 images look quite nice at 20 x 30 inches, with virtually no issues to report. 24 x 36 inch prints are fine for less critical applications, but there is a bit of noise in a few flatter areas of our Still Life target apparent at this size.

ISO 400 yields a 20 x 30 inch print that also passes our good grade for prints. There is now a trace of noise seen in a few shadowy areas of our target behind the bottles, but otherwise fine detail and color reproduction are quite good at this size.

ISO 800 is generally where the corner starts to turn for image quality delivered by 1-inch type sensors, as there's simply too much visible noise apparent even in 16 x 20 inch prints to warrant our good seal. A reduction in size to 13 x 19 inch prints does the trick, although there is a bit of contrast detail now lost in our target's tricky red-leaf swatch, but this is quite common.

ISO 1600 delivers a good 11 x 14 inch print. There are a few mild and fairly typical issues with noise in flatter areas of our target and not much contrast detail remaining in our red-leaf swatch, but otherwise the print has good fine detail and full colors present at this size.

ISO 3200 prints are similar at 8 x 10 inches as the 11 x 14 at ISO 1600. There are a few of the same minor issues, but it's still a fairly good print all around for this sensitivity.

ISO 6400 produces a 5 x 7 inch print that just passes our good ranking. Anything larger is simply too noisy and muted to be usable.

ISO 12,800 prints are acceptably good at 4 x 6 inches, although just barely. It's a tad on the muted side, but still manages enough fine detail to pass the grade.

The Sony RX10 III delivers print sizes we'd expect based on the performance of both its predecessor and most 1-inch type sensored cameras in general. You can expect high-quality 24 x 36 inch prints at base and extended low settings, and then a typical size reduction occurring predictably after about ISO 800. Even ISO 12,800 allows for a reasonable 4 x 6 inch print, while good 8 x 10 inch prints are possible all the way up to ISO 3200.

The images above were taken from our standardized test shots. For a collection of more pictorial photos, see our Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX10 III Photo Gallery .

Not sure which camera to buy? Let your eyes be the ultimate judge! Visit our Comparometer(tm) to compare images from the Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX10 III with those from other cameras you may be considering. The proof is in the pictures, so let your own eyes decide which you like best!

Performance

Image Quality

Below are crops from our laboratory Still Life target comparing the Sony RX10 III's single-shot image quality to its shorter-zoomed sibling, the RX10 II, as well as to its nearest 1"-sensor rivals, the Canon G3X and Panasonic FZ1000. By way of comparison to other sensor sizes, we've also included the Panasonic FZ300 as an example of a smaller-sensored camera based around a 1/2.3" sensor, and the Sony A6300 as an example of an interchangeable-lens camera based around an APS-C sensor.

NOTE: These images are from best quality JPEGs straight out of the camera, at default settings including noise reduction and using the camera's actual base ISO (not extended ISO settings). All cameras in this comparison with the exception of the Sony A6300 have fixed zoom lenses. The A6300 was shot with our very sharp FE 55mm F1.8 ZA reference lens. Clicking any crop will take you to a carrier page where you can click once again to access the full resolution image as delivered straight from the camera. For those interested in working with the RAW files involved: click these links to visit each camera's respective sample image thumbnail page: Sony RX10 III, Sony RX10 II, Canon G3X, Panasonic FZ1000, Panasonic FZ300 and Sony A6300 -- links to the RAW files appear beneath those for the JPEG images, wherever we have them. And remember, you can always go to our world-renowned Comparometer to compare the Sony RX10 III to any camera we've ever tested!

Sony RX10 III vs Sony RX10 II at Base ISO

Sony RX10 III at ISO 100	Sony RX10 II at ISO 100
At base sensitivity -- ISO 100 for both cameras -- neither the Sony RX10 III or its predecessor exhibit much to speak of in the way of noise. The RX10 III turns in a slightly crisper mosaic label, but this looks to be down to slightly more aggressive sharpening, as there's not really any more detail than in the RX10 II's version. The newer model does better with the difficult fabric swatches, however, with slightly greater contrast in the red swatch and more thread pattern visible in the pink swatch.

Sony RX10 III vs Canon G3X at Base ISO

Sony RX10 III at ISO 100	Canon G3X at ISO 125
Compared to the Canon G3X, which has a slightly higher base sensitivity of ISO 125-equivalent, there's a much more noticeable difference. More noise processing shows itself in the bottle crop, which has a slightly plasticky feel as a result. There's also rather lower contrast in the bottle crop, making the Sony look sharper even though detail levels are actually pretty similar. And the same is true in the red fabric swatch, with the Canon showing noticeably lower contrast. Nor does the G3X pick up on the fine thread pattern in the pink swatch, which is clearly visible in the RX10 III's rendering.

Sony RX10 III vs Panasonic FZ1000 at Base ISO

Sony RX10 III at ISO 100	Panasonic FZ1000 at ISO 125
The comparison to the Panasonic FZ1000, which again has a slightly higher base sensitivity of ISO 125, is nevertheless rather closer. Noise and detail levels are similar, although the slightly higher contrast of the RX10 III gives its mosaic label the impression of being a little crisper. It's in the color renditions that the two differ most significantly. The Sony's image is more neutral, with that from the Panasonic having a cooler, slightly greenish color cast. This shows itself most obviously in the pink swatch and the border of the mosaic label. The RX10 III also does noticeably better with the difficult red swatch, with the FZ1000's result being a bit more muted and with rather less detail retained.

Sony RX10 III vs Panasonic FZ300 at Base ISO

Sony RX10 III at ISO 100	Panasonic FZ300 at ISO 100
We've included the Panasonic FZ300 in this comparison as an example of a recent, SLR-like long-zoom with a smaller 1/2.3"-type sensor, versus the 1"-type sensor of the RX10 III. At twelve megapixels, resolution of the FZ300 is significantly lower, but the lesser pixel count does offset the smaller sensor size somewhat. The FZ300's bottle crop does look just slightly more processed, but noise levels aren't dissimilar. Just a glance at the mosaic label, though, tells you that even at base sensitivity the smaller-sensored camera is gathering quite a bit less detail. And like that from the FZ1000, the FZ300's image also has a slightly cool, greenish cast along with lower contrast and less detail in the difficult red fabric swatch.

Sony RX10 III vs Sony A6300 at Base ISO

Sony RX10 III at ISO 100	Sony A6300 at ISO 100
And finally, we've included the Sony A6300 in this comparison as an example of what a recent, larger-sensored camera is capable of. Obviously, this is an interchangeable-lens camera, and so instead of a fixed long-zoom lens, we're looking at the result from a sharp 55mm prime lens. That's perhaps a bit unfair to the other cameras in the roundup, but then that's one of the advantages of an interchangeable-lens camera: You can choose an optic appropriate to the particular shot, rather than using a one-size-fits-all zoom. At base sensitivity, the A6300's slightly higher-res 24-megapixel sensor gathers a little more detail, as you can see both in the mosaic lable and fabric swatches. Its shot is also just a touch cleaner, but interestingly the RX10 III does a much better job with the pink fabric swatch -- the A6300 renders it quite a bit too warmly.

Sony RX10 III vs Sony RX10 II at ISO 1600

Sony RX10 III at ISO 1600	Sony RX10 II at ISO 1600
With the sensitivity dialed up to ISO 1600 equivalent, there's a little more difference visible between the Sony RX10 III and its shorter-zoomed sibling. Although noise is now quite noticeable in images from both cameras, the RX10 III's noise reduction is a little less heavy-handed, retaining more detail in the mosaic label and pink fabric swatch. The mosaic label in the RX10 II's image is rather blotchier and more mottled by comparison. The RX10 II's pink fabric swatch is also slightly crisper, although the finer thread patterns have all but vanished. And its red fabric swatch shows a touch more contrast.

Sony RX10 III vs Canon G3X at ISO 1600

Sony RX10 III at ISO 1600	Canon G3X at ISO 1600
Now that we're not at base sensitivity any longer, the Canon G3X trails its Sony rival by an even greater distance. On the plus side, its noise processing doesn't leave quite as mottled an appearance in the bottle crop. Unfortunately, its contrast is significantly lower, and a lot of the detail in the mosaic label and fabric swatches has been squashed, giving the Sony RX10 III's image quite an advantage overall.

Sony RX10 III vs Panasonic FZ1000 at ISO 1600

Sony RX10 III at ISO 1600	Panasonic FZ1000 at ISO 1600
At ISO 1600-equivalent, the Panasonic FZ1000 too gives a cleaner, more processed-looking image. In the bottle crops this gives a somewhat plasticky, artificial feeling, but for our money that looks a bit better than the mottled noise processing of the RX10 III, even if it feels a bit oversaturated. But in the mosaic label, the Sony RX10 III has a slight edge in the detail department, although there's still quite a bit of detail in the Panasonic's rendition too -- the white lines in the mosaic just aren't quite as boldly-rendered. The FZ1000 otherwise holds onto contrast pretty well, though. Sony definitely wins in the red fabric swatch, with the Panasonic FZ1000 having lost most of the detail at this point. And the RX10 III's color rendering remains more faithful.

Sony RX10 III vs Panasonic FZ300 at ISO 1600

Sony RX10 III at ISO 1600	Panasonic FZ300 at ISO 1600
It's once the sensitivity is ramped up that the smaller-sensored Panasonic FZ300 really starts to trail the field. Its bottle crop is quite noisy and mottled, and almost all of the finer details in the mosaic label have been lost. Likewise, its red fabric swatch is near-devoid of detail.

Sony RX10 III vs Sony A6300 at ISO 1600

Sony RX10 III at ISO 1600	Sony A6300 at ISO 1600
Conversely, the larger-sensored Sony A6300 really shows an advantage once the sensitivity has been raised above its base. Its bottle crop is still pretty clean, despite obviously much lower noise processing levels. And it retains far more detail in both the mosaic label and fabric swatches, especially in terms of contrast in the hard-to-render red swatch. There's even some thread patterning left in the pink swatch, and only a repetition of the too-warm coloring in that swatch holds the A6300 back from a perfect result.

Sony RX10 III vs Sony RX10 II at ISO 3200

Sony RX10 III at ISO 3200	Sony RX10 II at ISO 3200
Finally, we come to the comparison at ISO 3200-equivalent. Here, again, we have to give the edge to the Sony RX10 III over its earlier sibling. Although both cameras have lost all detail in the red fabric swatch by this point, the longer-zoomed RX10 III managed to retain just slightly more in the mosaic crop, and its rendition of the pink swatch is also a little better, with the RX10 II tending a bit too warm. Both cameras are about equally noisy and mottled in their bottle crops, though.

Sony RX10 III vs Canon G3X at ISO 3200

Sony RX10 III at ISO 3200	Canon G3X at ISO 3200
It's interesting just how different Canon's approach is from the rest. At ISO 3200-equivalent, the G3X gives an image with a much finer-grained noise pattern, but it also looks quite heavily overprocessed and plasticky by comparison to the Sony RX10 II's shot. Where the Sony still retains a reasonable amount of detail in the mosaic label and pink fabric swatch, the Canon's different approach to noise processing has obliterated most of the finer details, and even some of the not-so-fine ones. Both cameras struggle with the red swatch, but the Canon G3X does have slightly greater contrast for the small percentage of the detail that remains.

Sony RX10 III vs Panasonic FZ1000 at ISO 3200

Sony RX10 III at ISO 3200	Panasonic FZ1000 at ISO 3200
Again, at ISO 3200 the Panasonic FZ1000 offers up a less mottled-looking bottle crop than that from the Sony, and yet it still manages to hold onto quite a bit of detail in the mosaic label. The FZ1000's contrast is also higher, but again it feels a bit oversaturated. In the fabric swatches, the Panasonic still feels a bit too cool, but it definitely does a better job with the red swatch, holding onto at least a little of the printed pattern in the fabric.

Sony RX10 III vs Panasonic FZ300 at ISO 3200

Sony RX10 III at ISO 3200	Panasonic FZ300 at ISO 3200
By the time we reach ISO 3200-equivalent, there's simply no contest between the Sony RX10 III and Panasonic FZ300. The smaller-sensored camera trails in every way, yielding a noiser image with lower contrast and significantly less detail.

Sony RX10 III vs Sony A6300 at ISO 3200

Sony RX10 III at ISO 3200	Sony A6300 at ISO 3200
There's equally no contest when it comes to the RX10 III vs. the A6300 at ISO 3200-equivalent. The larger sensor of the A6300 shows itself in a much cleaner, less noisy image, and that's accompanied by far more detail in the mosaic label and especially in the red fabric swatch. Only the too-warm pink swatch keeps the A6300 from a perfect result, but it's the clear winner nevertheless.

Sony RX10 III vs. Sony RX10 II, Canon G3X, Panasonic FZ1000, Panasonic FZ300, Sony A6300

Sony RX10 III ISO 100 ISO 3200 ISO 6400	Sony RX10 II ISO 100 ISO 3200 ISO 6400	Canon G3X ISO 125 ISO 3200 ISO 6400	Panasonic FZ1000 ISO 125 ISO 3200 ISO 6400	Panasonic FZ300 ISO 100 ISO 3200 ISO 6400	Sony A6300 ISO 100 ISO 3200 ISO 6400
Detail comparison. Of course, it's important to look at high-contrast detail too. Here, the Sony RX10 III does noticeably better than its sibling, the RX10 II, with only the Panasonic FZ1000 coming close among the 1"-sensored cameras, and the Canon G3X trailing noticeably. Of course, there's simply no contest from the smaller-sensored Panasonic FZ300, especially as the sensitivity ramps up. And equally, while the Sony RX10 III is at least in the same ballpark at base sensitivity, it's simply demolished by the larger sensor of the Sony A6300 once you dial in a higher sensitivity. Of course, that's with a nice prime lens attached, and to match the Sony RX10 III's incredibly versatile zoom lens with Sony E-mount optics, you'd need to spend more money and carry quite a bit more gear.

Excellent 24 x 36 inch prints at base and extended low; a nice 11 x 14 at ISO 1600 and a good 5 x 7 at ISO 6400.

ISO 64/100 prints look terrific at 24 x 36 inches, with crisp fine detail and pleasing color tones throughout. Wall display images are fine at an even larger 30 x 40 inches, but for critical printing at this resolution and sensor size, 24 x 36 inches is the largest suggested size.

ISO 200 images look quite nice at 20 x 30 inches, with virtually no issues to report. 24 x 36 inch prints are fine for less critical applications, but there is a bit of noise in a few flatter areas of our Still Life target apparent at this size.

ISO 400 yields a 20 x 30 inch print that also passes our good grade for prints. There is now a trace of noise seen in a few shadowy areas of our target behind the bottles, but otherwise fine detail and color reproduction are quite good at this size.

ISO 800 is generally where the corner starts to turn for image quality delivered by 1-inch type sensors, as there's simply too much visible noise apparent even in 16 x 20 inch prints to warrant our good seal. A reduction in size to 13 x 19 inch prints does the trick, although there is a bit of contrast detail now lost in our target's tricky red-leaf swatch, but this is quite common.

ISO 1600 delivers a good 11 x 14 inch print. There are a few mild and fairly typical issues with noise in flatter areas of our target and not much contrast detail remaining in our red-leaf swatch, but otherwise the print has good fine detail and full colors present at this size.

ISO 3200 prints are similar at 8 x 10 inches as the 11 x 14 at ISO 1600. There are a few of the same minor issues, but it's still a fairly good print all around for this sensitivity.

ISO 6400 produces a 5 x 7 inch print that just passes our good ranking. Anything larger is simply too noisy and muted to be usable.

ISO 12,800 prints are acceptably good at 4 x 6 inches, although just barely. It's a tad on the muted side, but still manages enough fine detail to pass the grade.

The Sony RX10 III delivers print sizes we'd expect based on the performance of both its predecessor and most 1-inch type sensored cameras in general. You can expect high-quality 24 x 36 inch prints at base and extended low settings, and then a typical size reduction occurring predictably after about ISO 800. Even ISO 12,800 allows for a reasonable 4 x 6 inch print, while good 8 x 10 inch prints are possible all the way up to ISO 3200.

Field Test

All the zoom you could ask for in one seriously impressive large-sensor camera!

By Mike Tomkins | Posted: 07/08/2016

380mm-equivalent, 1/800 sec. @ f/4.0, ISO 100

Last summer, I wrote our review of the Sony RX10 II, a followup to the original RX10 which I'd also reviewed a couple of years earlier. I really loved both cameras, and own an RX10 II myself.

Like the RX10 before it, the Sony RX10 II really made for a great all-rounder camera when I didn't want to pack a larger-sensored body and some interchangeable lenses. (In our current era of increasingly expensive baggage fees and stringent weight limits when traveling, that's been rather often in my experience.)

The RX10 III's launch was much earlier than I'd expected, but made a lot of sense

When I first heard that Sony was preparing to launch the RX10 III a few months back, though, my initial reaction was one of surprise. Not because I couldn't think of anything I'd improve in its predecessor, necessarily, but more because it came so hot on the heels of the much-praised RX10 II.

With just eight months separating the two, the Sony RX10 III was clearly indicative of a different strategy -- and once I saw the specs, that strategy became clear. This wasn't to be a simple followup for the RX10 II, but instead a sibling which would sell alongside that camera, offering a more direct challenge to far-reaching enthusiast zooms like the Panasonic FZ1000 (16x zoom; 25-400mm equiv.) and Canon G3X (25x zoom; 24-600mm equiv.)

To achieve its much greater reach, the Sony RX10 III's lens no longer has a constant aperture

The most significant tradeoff to achieve the much greater zoom range -- the RX10 and RX10 II shared an 8.3x zoom 24-200mm equivalent lens -- was quite straightforward. In place of the constant-aperture design used for the earlier cameras, the Sony RX10 III opted for a variable-aperture optic like that of its Canon and Panasonic rivals.

That might seem a bit of a shame, but when one considers that the telephoto reach has literally tripled, going from 200mm-equivalent in the RX10 II to 600mm-equivalent in the RX10 III, it's a change that suddenly becomes much easier to live with. Both cameras share the same 24mm wide angle, incidentally.

The RX10 III's lens is brighter at wide angle, but falls behind the RX10 II from 34mm onwards

And when you are shooting at or near wide angle, the RX10 III actually offers a brighter maximum aperture than did its shorter-zoomed sibling. Where the RX10 II had an f/2.8 maximum aperture across the zoom range, the RX10 III starts from f/2.4 at wide angle.

48mm-equivalent, 1/250 sec. @ f/3.2, ISO 100

With that said, though, merely breathing on the zoom ring is about enough to get the maximum aperture to fall to f/2.5. The focal length doesn't even register a change before the aperture falls, as you turn the zoom ring just ever so slightly, with the camera reporting f/2.5 max. while still indicating the same 24mm-equivalent focal length it started from.

As you continue to zoom in, the maximum aperture falls again to f/2.8 at 27mm-equivalent, and to f/3.2 at 35mm-equivalent. This marks the first point at which the RX10 II's optic bests that of the RX10 III in terms of maximum aperture. Up to 34mm-equivalent, it's as bright or brighter than the RX10 II.

Finally, the RX10 III's maximum aperture falls to f/3.5 at 56mm-equivalent, and to f/4.0 at 100mm-equivalent. From there, the maximum aperture remains unchanged all the way out to 600mm-equivalent, far beyond the 200mm-equivalent limit of the earlier camera.

Some will prefer the RX10 II's brighter lens, but for most, the RX10 III's much greater telephoto reach will be far more useful

For some, the constant aperture of the RX10 II will be preferable, and if you're in that group the RX10 II remains available. For the rest of us, though, the far greater telephoto reach is more important than a constant aperture -- after all, the difference between f/2.8 and f/4 is only one stop, but for that you get triple the telephoto reach.

The ability to bring your subjects up close without having to zoom with your feet is arguably much more useful for the average shooter. At worst, you only need bump the sensitivity up by a stop to counter the less bright aperture -- and that's only once you've zoomed in to somewhere between 35mm and 200mm-equivalents. Up to that point, the RX10 III's lens is as bright or brighter, and beyond it, you've roamed into focal length territory that the RX10 II ignored altogether.

The RX10 III's lens is certainly larger and heavier than that of its sibling, but compares well against interchangeable-lens cameras

As well as the difference in apertures and focal lengths, the RX10 II and III do differ significantly in another important way. Comparing the duo side-by-side, the Sony RX10 III is a little taller and quite a bit deeper than the RX10 II. Its lens barrel is also much wider, and together, these differences also contribute to a significant (~30%) increase in weight.

43mm-equivalent, 1/800 sec. @ f/4.0, ISO 100

You'll definitely notice that difference when carrying the camera around all day or shooting handheld for lengthy periods, but its important to note that it's still much smaller and lighter than most interchangeable-lens cameras and lenses offering similar reach.

It's a little difficult to make a direct comparison, but for example, consider the Canon SL1. It's uncommonly small and light by DSLR standards, but equip it with battery, flash card and two consumer-grade zoom lenses -- the EF-S 15-85mm and EF 75-300mm -- for as much reach as possible, and it's already 50% heavier than the RX10 III, loaded and ready to shoot. And that's despite it offering only 20x zoom range with these optics, versus the 25x zoom that's built into the RX10 III.

Micro Four Thirds might offer an even more attractive proposition, but only if you don't mind juggling lenses

For Micro Four Thirds, the closest equivalent I could find was the Panasonic GM5 with 14-140mm and 100-300mm lenses, a range of about 21x with a little overlap at the middle of the zoom range. Here, the Micro Four Thirds setup, at 996g, was about 99g (9%) lighter than RX10 III. Or you could choose the 12-60mm and 75-300mm lenses, leaving a short gap in the zoom range for a ready-to-shoot weight of 844g and advantage of some 251g (23%).

So in terms of weight, at least, the Micro Four Thirds setup would win. (And it would also have a significantly greater light-gathering area.) But the GM5 lacks a comfortable handgrip, and shooting with this combo you'll face the inconvenience of needing to juggle lenses. And realistically, the GM5 plus lenses won't differ that much from the RX10 III in terms of size.

Even better ergonomics than the RX10 II

But enough of the on-paper comparisons -- how is the Sony RX10 III in-hand? Well, I already liked the RX10 II's handling, but the RX10 III is even better in this department. For one thing, the handgrip is a bit deeper and the body a little thicker. These combine to give a noticeably more comfortable grip overall, and also help offset the RX10 III's greater weight, although I should note here that at 6'1" tall, I have fairly large hands. If yours are on the smaller side, you may prefer a less substantial grip, but the friends I've let handle my review camera agreed that it was pretty comfortable to hold.

184mm-equivalent, 1/400 sec. @ f/4.0, ISO 1250

For another thing, the larger body has allowed Sony's designers more freedom with their top-deck control placements, and that's definitely a good thing. The flash button still sits where it did, and it's still a bit tough to reach single-handed without changing your grip, but the backlight button for the top-deck info display is now a good bit closer to the shutter button, and I can reach it quite easily with a single-handed grip now. There's also an extra custom button on the top deck.

Great news! The Sony RX10 III now sports another control ring on the lens barrel

And since the lens barrel is both wider and longer, there's also some more newly-added real-estate available there. Sony's designers have used this to add a second ring to the lens barrel, meaning that you can still control the zoom using the lens ring even when manual focus control is active. Like the zoom ring from the RX10 II, the Sony RX10 III's new focus ring has a fly-by-wide design, but it operates smoothly and has good precision.

And since it's fly-by-wire, you can also tailor it to your tastes. A really nice feature of the RX10 III is that you can select which ring controls focus and which is used for zoom control, and you can also select which direction focus or zoom should be adjusted, if you turn the rings in a given direction. It doesn't matter what past lenses or cameras you're used to, you should be able to mimic their operation with the RX10 III's updated control rings.

Of course, there's still an aperture control ring as well, and just as in the RX10 II, this can provide optional click detents when you want them, while allowing clickless operation if you flick a switch just inside the handgrip on the base of the lens barrel. I still think the location of this switch is a bit poor -- it's far too easy to forget it is there -- but it is nonetheless a handy feature.

A new focus hold button, and a subtly improved mode dial too

One other change on the newly-enlarged lens barrel is the addition of a button on the left side. This is nicely-positioned for twin-handed shooting, and defaults to acting as a focus hold button, preventing the autofocus from operating while it is pressed in. (It's also configurable, so you can choose from a very lengthy list of other features which can be controlled when it is pressed, if you don't think you'll use focus hold very often for your own shooting style.)

600mm-equivalent, 1/500 sec. @ f/4.0, ISO 125

And moving back to the top deck, the mode dial is also a little taller now, and that makes it easier to grip and turn. As in the RX10 II, both the mode and exposure compensation dials have a strong enough click detent to ensure they won't likely be turned by mistake, but not so strong that you can't turn them by rolling them.

In other respects, the Sony RX10 III's control layout is essentially unchanged from that of the RX10 II. All things considered, I think Sony has done a great job of utilizing the extra space on the newer camera's body and lens, and the result is that it helps keep you out of the menu system for even more of the time. After you've become familiar with where all the controls can be found by touch alone, this is a really satisfying camera to shoot with!

Same great viewfinder and articulated LCD monitor

The Sony RX10 III retains the same electronic viewfinder setup as used in the earlier RX10 II, and that's great news, if you ask me. It's an excellent viewfinder which provides a roomy view of your subject, has a good refresh rate and minimal lag, and is both bright and provides fairly realistic color.

Really, my only complaint about the finder -- and it's a very slight one -- is that although the eyepiece protrudes quite a long way from the camera, the hard rubber eyecup is not the most comfortable and won't conform to your face. That occasionally leads to your needing to shoot single-handed so you can use your other hand to shield sunlight that would otherwise disrupt your view.

The LCD monitor likewise provides a responsive and fairly bright view of your subject or captured images. Its articulation mechanism is great for waist-level or over-the-head shooting, as well as for capturing shots really low to the ground. It's less versatile than a side-mounted tilt/swivel type, though, as it can't be angled upwards or downwards for shots in portrait orientation, and doesn't allow the screen to be closed facing inwards for a little extra protection.

Excellent performance, but buffer clearing is still an issue

Like the RX10 II before it, the Sony RX10 III offers really great performance. Having compared both cameras side-by-side, the RX10 II is just fractionally faster to start up, likely because its smaller and lighter lens takes less time to extend. Once started up, it was hard to distinguish a performance difference between the pair, at least unless I zoomed in beyond the limits of the RX10 II's zoom range. Both can focus and shoot bursts of images extremely quickly, especially in the Speed Priority Continuous mode with JPEG-only file format.

Really the only time the RX10 III didn't feel fast in shooting was towards the telephoto end of its lens in low light or with low-contrast subjects, when autofocus could occasionally get a bit slow. (Sometimes it would rack through the entire focus range once or twice before managing to achieve a lock, but this wasn't frequent, and when it did, the conditions were challenging enough to make it quite understandable.)

Really, the only time I found myself concerned by performance in real-world shooting was when it came to clearing the buffer. Even with a really fast flash card, it could take as long as 30 seconds or so for the buffer to be entirely cleared. But then with such generous buffer depths, I rarely needed to fill the buffer in the first place, so in real-world shooting it wasn't such a huge issue, just enough to be mildly frustrating. I'd definitely like to see Sony improve its card-writing performance in future models, though.

123mm-equivalent, 1/250 sec. @ f/4.0, ISO 500

The Sony RX10 III is all about that sweet, sweet lens

Not surprisingly, there's no question in my mind what my favorite feature of the RX10 III is. And yes, it's enough to make me want to switch from my RX10 II -- or at least, I would if I could afford the cost right now.

OK, it's a bigger and heavier optic than in the earlier camera. And yes, it has a less bright aperture across much of the range that it shares with the RX10 II. And of course, in common with other large-sensor ultrazoom cameras, if you look at an uncorrected raw file you'll see some very obvious distortion in the images, something which almost all raw processors and the camera's own JPEG engine will silently correct for you as each image is capture.

But it is just so incredibly convenient. Straight out of the box, it covers everything from a very generous wide-angle to a seriously impressive telephoto, and it even offers up a pretty good macro performance too. Yet I don't need to carry a bag full of lenses to achieve this, and I don't need to juggle with changing them back and forth in the field, perhaps missing shots in the process.

Really, there was only one thing I found myself missing: The lack of a built-in ND filter. Sure, you can still mount one on the RX10 III's filter threads, but that's hardly as convenient as having one you can enable on-demand whenever you need it. I'm not sure why Sony decided to omit one -- the earlier RX10-series cameras both featured an ND filter -- but I hope to see it return whenever we get a follow-up to the RX10 III, not that I'm expecting one any time soon obviously!

The Zoom Assist function makes it even easier to take advantage of all that tele reach

One feature which makes the Sony RX10 III's zoom lens even more useful is the Zoom Assist function -- and yet curiously, it's not enabled by default. It solves a very common concern with such a powerful telephoto capability. If you stray off your subject by mistake (and it's very easy to do, especially as you approach the 600mm-equivalent end of the zoom range while shooting a distant, erratically-moving subject), it can be very difficult indeed to relocate it without first zooming back out.

200mm-equivalent, 1/400 sec. @ f/4.0, ISO 2000

The Sony RX10 III can automate that process for you with its Zoom Assist function, but you'll have to assign it to one of the physical controls first, since it's not assigned to any control by default. You can choose to assign it to the C1, C2, C3, Center, AEL or Focus Hold buttons, but you can't assign it to the left, right or down buttons.

You'll need to enable the function first though, as it isn't assigned any control by default

I found it best to set it to the center button, as this allowed it to be comfortably pressed whether I was controlling the lens using the zoom rocker or lens ring. Assigning it to the center button does mean you can't use that control to let you move the flexible spot point using the arrow keys, at least unless you first assign another control that responsibility. I felt that the C3 button filled this role admirably well, though, and it's not assigned any function by default, making it ideal to enable the flexible spot selection function.

Once Zoom Assist was enabled, simply pressing and holding my chosen button was enough to rack the zoom to the wide-angle position as quickly as possible. And as soon as I let go of the button once I'd found and centered my chosen subject -- even if I managed to do so before the zoom had racked all the way to wide-angle -- it immediately returned to my previous zoom level for a nice, tightly-framed subject.

You can change the zoom level you'll return too while you're still zoomed out, as well

Even better still, while the button assigned to Zoom Assist is held in, the zoom ring and rocker both remained active -- not as "live" zoom controls, but instead changing the size of the box indicating your intended zoom level in the viewfinder or on the LCD monitor. This meant that if my subject had also moved closer towards me or further away, I could change the zoom level to which the camera would return once I let go of the Zoom Assist-assigned button.

139mm-equivalent, 1/160 sec. @ f/4.0, ISO 12,800

All of this also works during movie capture, incidentally, but here I found it rather less useful. That's because, obviously, the change of zoom level is recorded in your final video -- and it also comes accompanied by the noise of the zoom drive mechanism operating at its fastest speed. Still, if you're planning to edit your video clip afterwards to cut out these sudden zooms, it's nice to know that Zoom Assist will continue to function during movie capture as well.

No question, all this long-zoom convenience comes with quite a pricetag, though

If there's one thing that really stands out to me as a potential downside of the Sony RX10 III, it's got to be its pricetag. It carries a rather weighty list price of around US$1,500, and compared to its sibling or the competition, that's a big ask. The RX10 II was already premium-priced at US$1,300 list, and even a year after its launch that has only fallen on the street by some US$100 (~8%), suggesting that the RX10 III's own price is unlikely to decline very rapidly.

The RX10 III carries an even higher pricetag compared to that camera, and yet the nearest competition -- the Canon G3X and Panasonic FZ1000 -- can both be found on the street for around US$800-850, only a touch more than half what you'll need to pay for the Sony. Even the upcoming Nikon DL24-500 lists for only US$1,000, fully one-third less than the RX10 III.

Obviously, I can't make a direct comparison against the Nikon given that it's been indefinitely delayed while the company sorts out some technical issues with its image processor. Compared to the Canon and Panasonic, though, I think the Sony RX10 III is definitely the better camera -- but is it good enough to justify paying almost twice as much? That's harder to say.

You can actually buy a full DSLR kit with at least similar zoom reach for the same price

And it becomes even tougher to justify that pricetag when you take a look at the cost of a competing interchangeable-lens camera kit. For example, that Canon SL1 with EF-S 15-85mm and EF 75-300mm lenses which I mentioned near the start of this review? The whole kit can be picked up for the same US$1,500 pricetag as the RX10 III at current street prices.

Sure, it's not going to give you the performance of the Sony, and it won't give you as much zoom reach despite weighing a fair bit more, but it provides similar resolution from a much larger image sensor. Sony's use of backside-illumination technology offsets the light-gathering advantage of that bigger chip to a good degree, but you could always buy better, brighter lenses for the Canon down the road to improve its low-light shooting capabilities still further. With the Sony RX10 III, what you buy on day one is what you'll be shooting with for as long as you own the camera.

221mm-equivalent, 1/500 sec. @ f/4.0, ISO 1600

I'd really like to see the Sony RX10 III offered at a more competitive price, and I'm fairly certain it would fly off the shelves were it priced more like its nearest rivals in the category. But then, Sony doesn't seem to have had too much difficulty selling the earlier RX10 II even though it, too, was priced well above the competition -- and I guess as long as there are enough customers willing to pay the premium for a Sony RX-series camera, we're not likely to see pricing adjusted any time soon.

Compare image quality against larger-sensored cameras, though, and the RX10 III does surprisingly well

Perhaps part of the reason people are willing to pay that premium comes down to the Sony RX-series' reputation not just for cameras that are for the most part pretty well-specified in terms of features and performance, but also for good image quality. The Sony RX10 III certainly doesn't disappoint in this area, either.

As I alluded to above, if you compare image quality with even larger-sensored Micro Four Thirds or APS-C cameras, the RX10 III acquits itself surprisingly well. Corner softness is certainly an issue, especially wide-open and towards the telephoto end of the zoom range, thanks in part to the need for significant distortion correction to achieve such a far-reaching optic at this sensor size. But for a lot of your photos, the corners are relatively less important in the first place -- your subject (and your viewer's attention) will likely be much further into the frame.

In my time with the Sony RX10 III, I've found myself very satisfied with its image quality. Shooting with my son on a road trip to Lexington, Kentucky -- I wanted some interesting, new subjects with which to really get a feel for the camera -- I found its exposure, white balance and color very pleasing in a wide range of shooting conditions, the majority of the time.

Getting great photos (and sharing them with friends and family) is what really matters, and the RX10 III does a great job of both

And the photos, after all, is what a camera is about. The Sony RX10 III is definitely capable of excellent results with no need to fiddle with changing lenses. Sure, there's a bit of a learning curve if you want to get the most out of its many features and capabilities, some of which you might never even be aware of unless you crack open the user manual, browse the menu system or read some reviews like this one.

63mm-equivalent, 1/160 sec. @ f/3.5, ISO 2000

It also helps that the Sony RX10 III -- like its siblings -- offers a really great and intuitive experience when it comes to sharing your photos. Pairing is quick and easy, especially on Android devices, and so too is sharing to your phone and from there to social networks. And as in the RX10 II, there's also a very useful and powerful remote control capability that makes light work of shooting images on the RX10 III while controlling it directly from your phone.

At least, that's true so long as you remember that the remote control functionality (and other PlayMemories apps for the camera) is completely siloed off from standard shooting, with a separate menu system and settings which apply only when using each app. That's a design decision which I still find unnecessarly obtuse and confusing, and I really wish Sony would change, but once you're aware of it, it's easy enough to work around.

Good battery life for its class, but I recommend picking up an extra pack or two along with your new camera

There's one last point I want to address before I conclude my Sony RX10 review: Battery life. Here, you're not going to manage as many shots on a charge as you'd get when shooting through the viewfinder of a good DSLR, but that's not really a terribly fair comparison. The DSLR's viewfinder uses no power, after all, where the RX10 III must power either its electronic viewfinder or LCD monitor for you to be able to see what you're framing.

But with that said, battery life is pretty good for its class, and even compares quite well against some entry-level DSLRs or mirrorless cameras. On my trip to Lexington, I actually exceeded Sony's battery life figures by quite some margin, shooting close to 600 images over a several-hour period, and I still had a little battery life left at the end of the day. That's in part because Sony's figures are based on CIPA testing standards, which are fairly tough in requiring regular zoom racking and flash usage on 50% of shots, where in the real world I didn't use either the zoom or flash anywhere near so much.

Certainly, if you plan to take the Sony RX10 III on multi-day trips or to shoot even more liberally than I did, I'd recommend buying an extra battery pack or two. Really, though, I found myself quite pleased with its battery life, and that's not something I was really expecting given its really far-reaching zoom lens.

The Sony RX10 III is a superb camera if you can afford it; if not there are some really good alternatives at a much lower price

And so I've come to the end of my field test, and with it, my time with the Sony RX10 III. Would I buy this camera myself? Were money no object, I'd give a very resounding "Yes!" in reply to this question. Were I on a tighter budget, I think it's a lot harder to answer, though. There's no question that you're getting a heck of a lot of camera for your money, but you can also get quite a bit of camera from the competition at barely more than half the price.

If you're on a tight budget, I'd recommend getting hands-on with the RX10 III and its nearest rivals before making your decision, either in a store or if you're fortunate enough to know friends owning these cameras, down that path instead. If money is an important part of the equation for you, though, you might well be better served by a camera like the Panasonic FZ1000.

Sure, you won't get all the bells and whistles of this Sony, nor quite the same image and build quality. You're going to get a lot of its capabilities for a whole lot less cash, though, and with the money you'll save you'll take yourself a long way towards being able to afford another upgrade a year or two down the road should Canon, Nikon, Panasonic or perhaps another rival offers a stronger challenge to Sony at a more affordable price.

But if you can afford the cost of the RX10 III, I'd say go for it! It's one heck of a camera, and you're going to feel more than a tinge of jealousy whenever you see someone shooting with it, even if you'll know deep down that your money is going to go further in the long term!

Flash

Sony RX10 III Flash

Built-in Flash Test Results

Coverage, Exposure and Range
Good flash range helped by the fast lens, with somewhat narrow coverage.

Coverage. Flash coverage was somewhat uneven at wide angle, leaving very dark corners and edges in our flash coverage test image. Narrow coverage at wide angle is common, though, and some of the corner darkening is likely from the lens itself. Illumination isn't very even vertically either, however we doubt that'll be an issue in most real-world shots. We no longer test flash coverage at telephoto, as it is invariably better, making wide angle the worst case scenario.

Exposure. Our Indoor Portrait test scene came out dim in our normal flash test at f/4 without any exposure compensation, but the camera selected a fairly fast 1/100s shutter speed which should help avoid subject motion blur in typical portrait shots. With +1.0 EV flash exposure compensation, however, the shot was well exposed, but the camera boosted ISO to 500 to achieve that while maintaining the same, relatively fast 1/100s shutter speed.

Manufacturer-Specified Flash Range
Telephoto
21.3 feet ISO 2000

Manufacturer Specified Flash Range Test. The Sony RX10 III's flash range is rated at 10.8m / 35.4 ft. at wide angle, and 6.5m / 21.3 ft. at telephoto, with Auto ISO. In the test shot above at telephoto and 21.3 feet, the RX10 III chose ISO 2000 and produced a well-exposed flash image, so Sony's flash range rating is credible. We shoot this test shot using the manufacturer-specified camera settings, at the range the company claims for the camera, to assess the validity of the specific claims.

Conclusion

by Mike Tomkins

Over the last couple of years, we've reviewed both the groundbreaking Sony RX10 and its followup, the RX10 II. And in both cases, we've found them to offer a whole heck of a lot of camera. In many ways, the RX10 II -- which went on sale a year ago this month -- has continued to lead the field in the segment which its predecessor created.

In one respect, though, both cameras trailed their nearest rivals. The original RX10 and its successor both shared the same zoom lens, and while its constant-aperture design was really bright, it had much more limited telephoto reach than cameras like the Panasonic FZ1000 and Canon G3X. The Sony RX10 III aims to resolve that. It doesn't replace the RX10 II, but rather complements it, with the two selling side-by-side in a new, broader RX10-series lineup.

Between both cameras, Sony gives potential owners a choice which its rivals don't offer: Do you want a bright, constant aperture while still retaining a very useful 8.3x zoom range, or would you favor even more telephoto reach at the expense of that constant aperture?

The Sony RX10 III's body exudes quality, and handles much like an SLR

You do get a lot more telephoto reach with the Sony RX10 III, as well. About three times as much, in fact, and yet it's not really that much larger a camera. It weighs a fair bit more than did the RX10 II, and you'll certainly notice that difference if you've shot with both cameras, but it's not unreasonably heavy, especially when compared to a similarly-versatile interchangeable-lens kit.

And handling is superb. The Sony RX10 III is comfortable and well-balanced in-hand, and boasts three rings around the lens for zoom, focus and aperture control. (The latter even offers the choice of an optional click-detent or a smooth, clickless rotation, useful when shooting video.) The result is a shooting experience that's extremely intuitive, and very reminiscent of what you'd get when shooting with an SLR camera -- just with an electronic viewfinder, and a fixed lens.

The RX10 III's powerful, far-reaching zoom lens is incredibly versatile

Clearly, the story of the Sony RX10 III revolves around its lens. It's an extremely far-reaching optic, and for many photographers the added zoom range will make for a much more versatile camera overall. Of course, it's not for everyone, but as we've noted throughout this review, the earlier, constant-aperture Sony RX10 II remains available if you favor a bright, fast lens over one that can bring your subject closer to you.

If you're not really sure which to go for, though, and if you can justify the greater cost of the Sony RX10 III versus its sibling, we'd strongly recommend that you opt for this model. With the backside-illuminated, 1"-type image sensor used in the RX10-series cameras, noise levels are lower than you might expect at higher sensitivities. In many situations, you'll be able to dial up the sensitivity some to account for the less-bright lens of the RX10 III at the expense of just a bit more noise, and attain the same shutter speed.

And if you're shooting at wide angle (around 34mm-equivalent or wider), the Sony RX10 III is actually going to offer an aperture that's as bright (or possibly even brighter than) its much-loved, constant-aperture sibling. Yet you'll be able to bring distant subjects right up close and personal in a way that RX10 II shooters simply can't do.

This camera also sports a great viewfinder and tilting LCD monitor

As we mentioned a moment ago, perhaps the biggest difference between the experience of shooting with a DSLR and the Sony RX10 III -- other than its fixed zoom lens -- is to be found in its viewfinder. Sure, you won't get quite the immediacy and razor-sharp image you'd get from the pentaprism-based optical viewfinder you'd likely find on a DSLR at this pricepoint, but in its place is a very capable electronic viewfinder.

The RX10 III's EVF is generously sized, sharp, bright and has very accurate coverage. It also allows capabilities that you won't get from the optical viewfinder on a DSLR, such as the ability to preview exposure levels or to browse the menu system without taking your eye away from the viewfinder. Really, our only complaint about the RX10 III's finder is that it could use a slightly more generous (and softer) eyecup, as you do occasionally have to shield it with your hand when the sun is in just the wrong position.

The articulated LCD on the rear of the Sony RX10 III is identical to that in the RX10 II, just as is the viewfinder. The articulation mechanism is a welcome feature, making it easy to see the display when you're shooting from the hip, low to the ground, or over your head, so long as you're shooting in lanDSC0ape orientaton. We still don't think it's as versatile as a side-mounted tilt/swivel, but that's only really a problem when shooting in portrait orientation, where the RX10 III's articulation won't help you out at all.

The RX10 III boasts superb performance, except when it comes to buffer clearing

Compared to most DSLRs and mirrorless cameras, the Sony RX10 III offers some pretty spectacular burst capture performance. In JPEG mode, you can expect to shoot images at up to a whopping 14 frames per second, and with generous buffer depths to boot. Raw shooters will find a rather slower 8 fps capture rate, but even this is right up there with what you'd expect in a DSLR at this price point. That's all with focus locked from the first frame, but even with AF active you can expect up to 5-6 frames per second.

And the swift burst capture rate comes accompanied by extremely low shutter lag, fast autofocus, and a swift electronic shutter function. Really, the only area where we'd like to see performance improved is in terms of card clearing times, which are rather pedestrian -- potentially as long as 30 seconds or so even with a fast SD card. This is doubtless not helped by the absence of support for the higher-speed UHS-II card standard. It's only really an issue if you're going to be shooting lots of lengthy image bursts of 40-50 JPEGs or 25-30 raws at a time. If you can be a bit more measured with your bursts, the write performance becomes less of a problem.

You can expect excellent image quality, especially at lower sensitivities

Just as we found with the RX10 II, the Sony RX10 III offers really great image quality for its class. Yes, if you look at uncorrected raws you're going to notice significant distortion, especially at wide-angle. That's part and parcel of how such a relatively compact and yet bright superzoom lens has been achieved at this sensor size, though, and you'll find the same thing with rival cameras. It's going to be corrected for you automatically in most raw converters anyway, and so other than yielding somewhat soft corners towards the ends of the zoom range, it's not a big deal.

At base sensitivity, you can expect sharp images with very good detail -- plenty to manage a 24 x 36-inch print, or perhaps even 30 x 40-inch with the right subject. And while noise levels won't compete with an APS-C camera towards the higher end of the sensitivity range, the Sony RX10 III also provides very competitive high ISO performance for its class. Couple that with accurate metering and fairly true-to-life color, and you have a recipe for a lot of great photos.

Not just for stills: The Sony RX10 III is a very capable video capture device

Nor is this a camera aimed just at stills shooting. Ultra high-def 4K, high-def video at up to 120 fps capture rates, and some impressively slow-motion video are all possible in-camera. Helping maximize image quality, there's also high bit-rate XAVC S compression, and video is recorded using full pixel readout with no quality-degrading binning as in many cameras. The RX10 III also offers up both external microphone and headphone connectivity

Really, our only complaint in the video department carries over from our RX10 II review. While the slow-motion video capabilities of the Sony RX10 III are incredibly fun -- arguably even more so in this model, thanks to its wider zoom range that lets you bring subjects even closer for detail shots of the action -- the user interface for slow-motion video is rather obtuse. That's coupled with the fact that nothing (not even the zoom control) can be used while video is buffering, and that time-and-storage-wasting upscaling of your content to Full HD resolution post-capture is mandatory. We'd really like to see a more polished user interface and less restrictions on operation, especially in allowing you to record slow-motion video at its actual capture resolution.

We're quibbling, though, as competitors don't even offer the slow-motion capabilities of the Sony RX10 III in the first place.

Quick, easy sharing frees your photos from the flash card

Image sharing is a very important consideration in the age of smartphones, and we're happy to say that the Sony RX10 III shares its Wi-Fi capabilities with its sibling, the RX10 II. Especially for Android users with NFC hardware in their phones -- and that's most, these days -- the process of sharing photos simply couldn't be any easier or more intuitive. A quick bump of phone to camera while viewing an image, and it's on its way to your phone. Once received, a few taps has it on its way to friends and family on social networks.

For iOS users, things aren't quite as simple, but that's Apple's fault, since it has opted not to allow third-parties access to the NFC hardware in your phones. Still, even here sharing is pretty straightforward, while Wi-Fi transfer performance is good. And there's also pretty comprehensive remote control available from your Android or iOS phone or tablet, as well!

The sole Achilles heel is a pricetag that's steep to say the least

Our biggest concern with the Sony RX10 III is one of pricing. The Sony RX10 II was already a fairly expensive camera, at least by the standards of fixed-lens models. We'd hoped, once we first heard of the RX10 III, that it might mean a price cut was on the way for the earlier camera, with the new one slotting in at the original price. That's not the case, though: The RX10 II remains much where it was, with the RX10 III landing at a premium of some US$200 above the earlier model.

What this means is that you could now pick up a larger-sensored DSLR kit -- complete with lenses that at least approximate the range offered by that built into Sony's camera -- for much the same price. Yes, you're getting a very powerful camera for your money with the RX10 II, and one which will outperform that DSLR kit in many ways. But you're also going to be paying a lot more than you would for competing cameras.

The nearest large-sensor, long-zoom models from Canon and Panasonic might not offer quite the same feature set and capabilities as the Sony RX10 III, nor have lenses that are quite so impressive, but they're at least in the same ballpark in terms of their capabilities. And yet you can expect to pay nearly twice as much for Sony's camera, and as we noted in our field test, that's a very big ask.

If you're not on a tight budget, the RX10 III should be at the top of your shortlist

At the end of the day, though, Sony clearly isn't having too much difficulty selling these cameras, price premium notwithstanding. And there's a reason for that: The camera offers an excellent combination of features, performance, build quality and versatility, and that allows the company to ask more than do its rivals. It seems the relatively high cost is simply a fact of life until a competitor brings a stronger challenge to the RX10-series cameras, whenever that might be.

In the meantime, if you can justify the cost -- and many can -- then the Sony RX10 III deserves a wholehearted recommendation. It's a truly spectacular camera which will handle most typical shooting situations with aplomb, and it will let you leave a whole kit's worth of interchangeable-lens gear at home, just so long as low-light noise levels aren't your primary concern. If you can't stretch as high as its asking price, though, then we'd recommend considering either the Sony RX10 II or Panasonic FZ1000 instead.

Like the RX10 II before it, the Sony RX10 III is one seriously impressive photographic tool, and a clear Dave's Pick!