It says a lot that Sony felt confident enough to keep an nearly 3 year old camera around in its lineup, but the RX100 really is that good. It won our award for the best compact camera of 2012 and it's still probably the best compact camera available for $500. If you're looking at the Sony RX100 for $500 (or less!) and fretting that you can't afford the latest and greatest, fear not. Sony outdid themselves with the RX100 and it's a no-brainer if you've only got $500.
Size matters
Skipping two generations like this means we're comparing two pretty different cameras. The size and weight of each generation inched up a bit, and while the difference was negligible between each generation, it's more pronounced when comparing the Mark III with its grandfather. The original RX100 is a noticeably more compact camera than the Mark III: 17% lighter and 12% thinner.
Much to love in the Mark III, for enthusiasts and casual shooters
Since the RX100 III returns to the original formula in dropping the hot-shoe found on the Mark II, that drawback relative to the Mark II is moot. Enthusiast photographers will sorely miss the superb electronic viewfinder on the Mark III and will be disappointed to lose the built-in 3-stop neutral density filter, among other features. Casual shooters will miss the 180 degree tiltable screen and Wi-Fi (lackluster though it may be).
Low-light performance is a night-and-day difference
The big difference between these cameras is in low-light situations. While the original RX100 is no slouch in this department, the RX100 III is the clear champion. There are two big advances that enable the Mark III to shine here. The first is the backside-illuminated sensor Sony introduced in the RX100 II and retained on the RX100 III. This is good for a 1-stop improvement when comparing JPEGS from the RX100 to the RX100 II: ISO 1600 on the Mark II looks as good as ISO 800 on the Mark I. The second factor is the faster lens at 70mm on the Mark III, which means you can shoot at ISO 800 and f/2.8 on the Mark III when you'd need to jump to ISO 1600 and f/4.0 on the Mark I. Put together, the RX100 III is 2 whole stops faster than the RX100 at 70mm.
Not a fair fight, but an interesting one
It's easy to give the nod to the RX100 III. Its only actual downside in terms of features is the loss of 30mm of zoom, which is compensated somewhat by a 4mm wider wide angle. But that leaves out the RX100 III's $300 premium, meaning this isn't really a fair fight. If anything, it's interesting to see what 3 years of development have yielded. Perhaps more interesting is the fact that a 3-year-old camera still arguably holds the title of best compact camera under $500. That in itself says a lot about the maturity of the digital camera market and Sony's ascendancy.
--Arthur Etchells
