Sony RX100 III (M3) Compact Camera @ UK Digital (£405 with cashback)
379°Expired

Sony RX100 III (M3) Compact Camera @ UK Digital (£405 with cashback)

42
Found 6th Dec 2015
20.1MP 1" Exmor R BSI CMOS Sensor
BIONZ X Image Processor
Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T* f/1.8-2.8 Lens (24-70mm)
1440k-Dot OLED Tru-Finder Pop-Up EVF
3.0" 1229k-Dot Multi-Angle Xtra Fine LCD

One of the best compact cameras you can buy.

£499 - £100 Sony Double cashback = £399 (Offer ends today 6/12)

Postage £5.95

42 Comments

used these guys before, came alright and cashback went through ok
'funny' thing was they used scrunched up newspaper to pad out the packaging... either very ecofriendly or some guy in a basement

£505 for a compact camera?...this isn't 2005.

For that money you're better getting a medium level DSLR.

Original Poster

spenspuma

£505 for a compact camera?...this isn't 2005.For that money you're better … £505 for a compact camera?...this isn't 2005.For that money you're better getting a medium level DSLR.


A sharp F1.8-F2.8 lens would cost you more than this for a DSLR.
It wouldn't fit in your pocket either (_;)

brilly

used these guys before, came alright and cashback went through ok 'funny' … used these guys before, came alright and cashback went through ok 'funny' thing was they used scrunched up newspaper to pad out the packaging... either very ecofriendly or some guy in a basement



I had exactly the same experience last week and I found the paper in the box most off putting as I assumed a dodgy grey market import.

I had the Mark I of this for a year or so and found I hardly used it - it was just no fun to use (awful handling) and I found the zoom really sluggish. It did take great photos though so if you have smaller hands its probably more for you. The fact that they have squeezed a pop up viewfinder into this is amazing! Anyway hot as a good price!

srobshaw

I had exactly the same experience last week and I found the paper in the … I had exactly the same experience last week and I found the paper in the box most off putting as I assumed a dodgy grey market import.



Most off putting indeed, I'm surprised you've lived to tell the tale - it must have been one hell of an ordeal for you. Well done you, you've put the Great in Britain !!

I'd get a Panasonic LX100 over this tbh.

I don't doubt this takes good pictures and I'm in the market for a decent compact, when the DSLR needs to stay at home. The price though good, have voted hot, is very difficult to stomach. Even though it's a third of my 24-70 lens.
Maybe I just hate paying for miniaturisation.

mikeyfive

I'd get a Panasonic LX100 over this tbh.



What a very insightful reply, i'm sure members will consider you're short, but constructive feedback on their future conquest to getting the right camera.

Nice price but would rather have the A6000 for the same price (touch less actually).

Bulkier but better at high ISO and faster AF.

spenspuma

£505 for a compact camera?...this isn't 2005.For that money you're better … £505 for a compact camera?...this isn't 2005.For that money you're better getting a medium level DSLR.


The RX100 is a very special compact camera, and it easily beats entry level DSLRs. It may seem a bit expensive, but actually you would have to pay very much the same to get this quality.

Of course if you are into using primes, then this is no good :-)

TK42

A sharp F1.8-F2.8 lens would cost you more than this for a DSLR.It … A sharp F1.8-F2.8 lens would cost you more than this for a DSLR.It wouldn't fit in your pocket either (_;)


True, but you have to consider the crop factor. So a comparable lens would be F3.5-F4.5 on APS-C and F4.5-F8 on full frame 35mm.

spenspuma

£505 for a compact camera?...this isn't 2005.For that money you're better … £505 for a compact camera?...this isn't 2005.For that money you're better getting a medium level DSLR.


You probably have no clue what this camera is capable of.

Fantastic camera,it's quality betters most entry oevel DSLRs.

MrPuddington

True, but you have to consider the crop factor. So a comparable lens … True, but you have to consider the crop factor. So a comparable lens would be F3.5-F4.5 on APS-C and F4.5-F8 on full frame 35mm.



why are you quoting a different F number?
josephjamesphotography.com/equ…ce/

I don't get why people insist on decrying enthusiast grade compacts in favour of the larger, bulkier interchangeable lens cameras that they would rather have whenever these deals are posted, they're not in competition with each other. People who are looking for a camera with all the qualities of a DSLR or mirrorless camera won't even consider this, and people looking for high quality cameras while prioritising maximum portability won't care about DSLRs in the same price group. It's completely moot.

This is a superb camera for this style of product and it's a solid price after cashback (sony also seem to have been pretty good for cash back this year, Sony paid me for my A7 in the allotted time). The LX100 is a solid alternative with better specs in most areas, but it's quite a bit bigger while the RX100 is truly pocketable.


Edited by: "ElGofre" 6th Dec 2015

MrPuddington

The RX100 is a very special compact camera, and it easily beats entry … The RX100 is a very special compact camera, and it easily beats entry level DSLRs. It may seem a bit expensive, but actually you would have to pay very much the same to get this quality.Of course if you are into using primes, then this is no good :-)



Absolute nonsense. I own one, and although it takes great images, it in no way beats even an level entry DSLR in anything except for size. The sensor is FAR smaller in the RX100 meaning low light images are noisier compared to the DSLR at the same ISO. The focus is also faster and more accurate in an entry level DSLR.
You are paying for a better performing COMPACT camera, compared to the cheaper, smaller sensored alternatives.

A DSLR, even an entry level one, is in a class above.

You'll never get one in your pocket though




Edited by: "tony4563" 6th Dec 2015

Red Devil

Most off putting indeed, I'm surprised you've lived to tell the tale - it … Most off putting indeed, I'm surprised you've lived to tell the tale - it must have been one hell of an ordeal for you. Well done you, you've put the Great in Britain !!


hah, that amused me but i think its does reflect on their business a bit.
i used them 3 years ago i think so for them still to be using newspaper is a bit odd.


mikeyfive

I'd get a Panasonic LX100 over this tbh.


its much bigger though seems a great camera.

Tequila

Fantastic camera,it's quality betters most entry oevel DSLRs.



Absolutely clueless. Have you ever used even an entry level DSLR or do you just make stuff up as you go along?

Original Poster

mikeyfive

I'd get a Panasonic LX100 over this tbh.



Having owned a LX100 and a RX100 mk1 I would go for the RX100. The LX100 is only 12.8MP whereas the RX100 is 20.1MP. Makes a massive difference with landscapes. Really wanted to like the LX100 but the difference in image quality was not slight.

tony4563

Absolutely clueless. Have you ever used even an entry level DSLR or do … Absolutely clueless. Have you ever used even an entry level DSLR or do you just make stuff up as you go along?


Yes,I use a Canon 60D.
or maybe you tought you are the only one how used a dslr?

Edited by: "Tequila" 6th Dec 2015

speculatrix

why are you quoting a different F … why are you quoting a different F number?http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence/#1


As it says right there, the F number is not equivalent across different formats and focal lengths. It takes the same absolute apperture size to get the same DOF and amount of light, so the equivalent F number changes with a larger format due to the longer focal length.

Original Poster

MrPuddington

As it says right there, the F number is not equivalent across different … As it says right there, the F number is not equivalent across different formats and focal lengths. It takes the same absolute apperture size to get the same DOF and amount of light, so the equivalent F number changes with a larger format due to the longer focal length.



You are correct on this but the RX100 m3 does have a very sharp lens, much better in this respect than what you would get with a £399 dslr. The beauty of this camera is that is capable of taking dslr compare quality photos and is truly pocketable.

This has a lens which resolves superbly for the size, and features a very wide aperture throughout the zoom range. Incidentally, this camera is also superb for video using external clean HDMI capture if you didn’t want to capture internally (which it is of course excellent at too).

I actually traded my a6000 to get the rx100.
I could never be bothered to carry all those lenses, rx100 takes great pics, except for long tele, but that's fine.
Basically this still is the best small camera money can buy.
Anything better is massively bigger.

xchaotic

I actually traded my a6000 to get the rx100. I could never be bothered to … I actually traded my a6000 to get the rx100. I could never be bothered to carry all those lenses, rx100 takes great pics, except for long tele, but that's fine. Basically this still is the best small camera money can buy. Anything better is massively bigger.



Absolutely spot on.

Tequila

Yes,I use a Canon 60D.or maybe you tought you are the only one how used a … Yes,I use a Canon 60D.or maybe you tought you are the only one how used a dslr?



Your 60D is quite an old camera now. The latest Canon entry level DSLR (1200D I think) probably has a sensor equal to or better than the 60D that you own now and probably better specification

Would you say the Sony was a better camera than your 60D?


Edited by: "tony4563" 6th Dec 2015

Tequila

Fantastic camera,it's quality betters most entry oevel DSLRs.



What's it like at full zoom?

If you do not mind getting a open box item, you could grab one from Amazon for 416. You can forget worrying about the cashback.

Original Price - 489.54
15% Discount Applied at checkout - 73.43
Nett Price - 416.11

tony4563

Absolute nonsense. I own one, and although it takes great images, it in … Absolute nonsense. I own one, and although it takes great images, it in no way beats even an level entry DSLR in anything except for size. The sensor is FAR smaller in the RX100 meaning low light images are noisier compared to the DSLR at the same ISO. The focus is also faster and more accurate in an entry level DSLR. You are paying for a better performing COMPACT camera, compared to the cheaper, smaller sensored alternatives.A DSLR, even an entry level one, is in a class above.You'll never get one in your pocket though



Probably need to change the kit lens on a lower priced DSLR but totally agree. The Sony is about all portability.

I picked up a Sony A5100 the other night when it was on a lightening deal with Amazon. Would I have been better to go with the RX100 just to capture family snaps and videos? The A5100 seems to have a faster autofocus and was looking to add the 35 and 50 Sony primes.

Thanks, ordered! Torn between this and the LX100 but the pocketability of the RX100 won through. The LX100 isn't truly pocketable - at least in my pockets - so bag needed, at which point I might as well bring the Canon 650D and 17-55 f2.8 instead...

Unexpected_Error

Thanks, ordered! Torn between this and the LX100 but the pocketability of … Thanks, ordered! Torn between this and the LX100 but the pocketability of the RX100 won through. The LX100 isn't truly pocketable - at least in my pockets - so bag needed, at which point I might as well bring the Canon 650D and 17-55 f2.8 instead...



True, RX 100 without case is definitely pocketable.

All depends on how serious you want to take your photography.
The RX100 is a great camera to carry around with you if you dont want the bulk and weight of a DSLR and lenses.
Its a lot smaller and pocketable, but it has its limitations. Low light shots will be cleaner and have less noise with your Sony A5100 due to its larger sensor, and it will focus faster and more accurately when taking shots of your children playing, or any sports for instance. The 35 and 50 primes are "fast" lenses, meaning they let a lot more light in so you can shoot in even lower light levels and still get good results. The "bokeh" or background blur will be even better when these primes are used wide open at full aperture compared to the RX100

Can't emphasize enough just how good the RX100 M3 is if you want a camera that gives great results without the bulk.

If you are serious about your photography though and want even better image quality and control, then it's the DSLR route for you (and unfortunately the weight that goes with it)



Edited by: "tony4563" 6th Dec 2015

Unreasonable! Very expensive! My friend has got one and i laugh everytime he uses it! My iphone 6 could produce better looking photos than this! Do urself a favor just buy an iphone!

tony4563

All depends on how serious you want to take your photography.The RX100 is … All depends on how serious you want to take your photography.The RX100 is a great camera to carry around with you if you dont want the bulk and weight of a DSLR and lenses.Its a lot smaller and pocketable, but it has its limitations. Low light shots will be cleaner and have less noise with your Sony A5100 due to its larger sensor, and it will focus faster and more accurately when taking shots of your children playing, or any sports for instance. The 35 and 50 primes are "fast" lenses, meaning they let a lot more light in so you can shoot in even lower light levels and still get good results. The "bokeh" or background blur will be even better when these primes are used wide open at full aperture compared to the RX100Can't emphasize enough just how good the RX100 M3 is if you want a camera that gives great results without the bulk.If you are serious about your photography though and want even better image quality and control, then it's the DSLR route for you (and unfortunately the weight that goes with it)



I already have a DSLR set-up but limit that to defined shoots and not snaps as it is overkill for family days out. I looked at so many options and had whittled it down to things like the RX100, A5100, LX100 but the lightening deal @ £279 swayed me towards the A5100 to capture the kids.

I don't care for any landscape or capturing arty exhibits when out with the family so wanted something to take shots of them in action.

I guess I am questioning my decision against my other options including the RX100 III/IV whilst I await delivery.

Edited by: "speedking" 6th Dec 2015

blueice_ron88

Unreasonable! Very expensive! My friend has got one and i laugh everytime … Unreasonable! Very expensive! My friend has got one and i laugh everytime he uses it! My iphone 6 could produce better looking photos than this! Do urself a favor just buy an iphone!


Yeah,if you just point and shoot in automatic mode..
but then this camera is all about manual settings..shutter speed settings..those manual adjustments that a dslr camera provides..with those settings it can take phots your iphone 6 or even iphone 16 can only dream about.

blueice_ron88

Unreasonable! Very expensive! My friend has got one and i laugh everytime … Unreasonable! Very expensive! My friend has got one and i laugh everytime he uses it! My iphone 6 could produce better looking photos than this! Do urself a favor just buy an iphone!



For you of course this is true...for anyone who has good photography skills no it won't....

blueice_ron88

Unreasonable! Very expensive! My friend has got one and i laugh everytime … Unreasonable! Very expensive! My friend has got one and i laugh everytime he uses it! My iphone 6 could produce better looking photos than this! Do urself a favor just buy an iphone!


you are doing a great job of combating the common image problem of apple users....

speedking

I picked up a Sony A5100 the other night when it was on a lightening deal … I picked up a Sony A5100 the other night when it was on a lightening deal with Amazon. Would I have been better to go with the RX100 just to capture family snaps and videos? The A5100 seems to have a faster autofocus and was looking to add the 35 and 50 Sony primes.


main benefit is the focus speed really... apparently rx100IV is pretty fast as well though

you are going to be spending a fair bit more on the other lenses ~4-500

i find i fairly often use longer zoom with my kids than the 50mm would allow which isn't an option with rx100
Post a comment
Avatar
@
    Text