RX1R III Discussion (Patreon)

What follows are my thoughts in response to all the noise that has surrounded the launch of Sony's RX1R III full-frame compact camera.
The aim of this article is to help Patrons better understand Sony’s possible intentions when they were designing this camera, and the resulting disapproval of this new camera by some reviewers and photographers.
Please don’t shoot the messenger (me) if this article makes you a little angry (that is definitely not my intention), as I do not intend to sell, promote or even defend Sony’s decision to update a 10-year-old camera. I only aim to shed some light as to why I think this camera was released with the specifications it has. Many photographers felt the need to send me hate-filled messages for discussing this camera after I published my RX1R III camera preview, believing that simply listing comparative specifications and dimensions was somehow promoting a camera they strongly believed shouldn’t exist in its current form

As I mentioned in the first minute of my RX1R III preview video, “this camera will not make a lot of sense to all photographers …being a camera designed for the specialist where budget is not their primary concern”.

Why then, was the camera met with such negative reviews and a lot of anger and indignation from many in the Alpha community?

I think this is because many reviewers (and the avid viewers of these camera reviews) have become accustomed to measuring a camera’s worth by using a very long checklist of specifications and features they believe all cameras should have, in order to be deemed ‘the best’ camera in the category, and therefore considered a successful design worthy of merit. Inevitably, if a checklist list is long enough, any camera must grow larger to accommodate ALL of the features on that list (the items requiring hardware rather than software to be added). Because the RX1R lll does not tick ALL of the boxes on the spec’ list that reviewers refer to, should it therefore be considered a flawed design?

Compact camera with a compact EVF

The overarching aim for the Sony engineers, when designing the original RX1 camera, was to make the camera the smallest and lightest fixed-lens full-frame camera that had ever existed. In this they succeeded.

The RX1 camera, when released in 2012, was born into an era where tilt screens, high-resolution EVF’s and Image Stabilisation were rarely found in any digital camera, large or small (it was 32-years after becoming a photographer that I first encountered a tilt screen on a camera). The primary criticism that was levelled at the RX1 was its high price (more on the price later). As Sony had not yet released its full-frame interchangeable-lens mirrorless cameras back in 2012, there were few if any comparisons with other small full-frame digital cameras that could be made, because they simply didn’t exist. The original A7R, when released a year later in 2013, had no tilt screen, Phase Detect AF (PDAF) and no high resolution EVF. The original A7R was, however, smaller and lighter than today’s A7CR. The size of the A7R cameras keeps growing larger to accommodate features on ‘the list’ (which keeps getting longer with the passing of time).

35mm F2 Zeiss Sonnar - note how far the lens extends back into the camera body and how close it gets to the 60 MP sensor).

The RX1R lll is appearing at a time where many reviewers expect ALL features to be found on ALL cameras. If, however, Sony were to have added ALL these features to the new RX1R lll, the camera would have become as large, or larger, than the A7CR (the A7C ll, A7CR and A6700 use the same small and lower resolution built-in compact-EVF to keep these cameras compact). Z-series batteries, in-body image stabilisation, lens mounts and tilting screens render the interchangeable lens cameras larger than the fixed lens RX1 cameras. The design of this fixed lens (the Zeiss Sonnar 35mm F2) is integral to how small Sony can make the camera body, as the lens extends deep inside the camera body and is not simply bolted or glued onto the front of it.  Some have wondered why Sony have not updated this Zeiss lens when designing their new RX1R lll, but the complexity of design and assembly surrounding this lens, and its close proximity to the sensor, may hold the answers to this question. It possibly also holds the answer as to why Sony were unable to add stabilising into this camera, i.e. not enough space behind the rear element of the lens and the precise positioning of the sensor (the exacting nature of the assembly means that this camera has to be assembled in Japan and precludes the use of cheap labour costs, typically used when manufacturing cameras in China and Vietnam).

I imagine that Sony’s main decision when designing a successor to the RX1R ll (which has now become a much sought after camera since Sony ended its production some years back), was whether to add all the new features and lose its title of ‘smallest and lightest’ or a second option, to maintain the diminutive size and NOT add ALL of the new features, the ones that now appear on ‘the list’ (which has become much longer than the one that was around when the original RX1 was released).

I think that there was a potential third option open to Sony, which was to abandon the RX1 design concept altogether (given the 10-year gap between the RX1R ll and the new version). This is what many thought Sony had decided prior to the surprise announcement of its RX1R lll.

There are no prizes in guessing which of the first two options Sony decided to take. The decision was made to keep the camera the same size (and a little bit lighter than the RX1R ll) by leaving out a few features (a tilt-screen and stabilisation. Options that many consider to be indispensable for all cameras to be considered worthy of praise in 2025). This decision by Sony has, however, released a bucket-load of anger that has spread like wildfire across the interweb. Sony may have been surprised to the response received by the new RX1R camera given that very few are happy to acknowledge the difficult decision that was taken (keep small or go big). I am sure if they had taken the second option (to add the features in question) it would have resulted in a more expensive fixed-lens version of their A7CR, which would have no real reason to exist, and would have, most likely, drawn the same level of anger (but for an altogether different set of reasons).

Size comparison with the A7CR (with a 35mm F2 Sigma lens attached).

Many who are upset about the RX1 III's features may have overlooked the fact that simply adding more increases the camera's size.  We expect Sony’s dual-card cameras to be feature rich (rightfully so) and many express the desire for the cameras to be even larger (every new A7 camera is larger than the previous version), but there is a large number of photographers who want their cameras to be as small as possible (one of the driving forces for many photographers who wanted to switch from using large DSLR cameras to smaller Mirrorless cameras). Some equate small with cheap. Cheap is often achieved by removing features, but also by producing the cameras in large volumes - think A6000 and ZV-E10. Cameras like the Sony RX1R III are, however, produced in very small numbers because of the smaller demand for these 'niche' products.

If the main priorities for a street or travel photographer (one where cheap is not on their checklist but quality is), is to own a camera that is both small in size and also has a high-resolution full-frame sensor, then adding all of the specifications that are deemed necessary for the camera to be considered ‘the best’, will see the camera (with ALL features) fail in meeting the first priority (to be really small).

The Subject of Price

If Sony had really been aiming to create a small camera to compete with Fujifilm’s hugely popular X100Vl, I believe they would have made an APS-C fixed-lens compact with a silver body and a 23mm lens. I would, however, argue that Sony were not seeking volume when they decided to make a third version of their RX1R camera. A camera that has never seen volume sales in any of its iterations. I think the only aim was to maintain their status as the manufacturers of the smallest full-frame camera with integral viewfinder in current production.

The Sony RX1R III is a niche camera which will only be produced in low volumes. The economics of any low volume product (book, car, etc) is that the item will have a high price attached to it. And yes, the three RX1R III accessories (lens hood, thumb grip and half-case), are pricey too, for the same economic reason. If those who are interested in the accessories, (but not the higher prices), wait before purchasing, we might find that over time a company like SmallRig may make the accessories at substantially lower prices.

The only valid questions (for photographers considering owning this camera)

I personally don’t think Sony are competing with Leica’s Q3 or Fujifilm’s medium-format fixed-lens cameras, as neither can be considered that compact. They are not even as small as Sony’s A7C interchangeable-lens cameras. Although reviewers (including me), are obsessed with drawing comparisons , the reality is the only competing full-frame camera for the Sony RX1R lll is a second-hand RX1R ll. Perhaps the only real question for a photographer who has prioritised the size of the camera as the most important factor in their purchase is this, does the full-frame sensor offer significant advantages over a crop sensor fixed-lens camera or would they be better off acquiring a second-hand RX1R ll with different specifications at a lower cost? The RX1 R ll has a tilt screen, but the RX1R lll has the latest AF systems and a significantly bigger battery (the small battery of the previous versions of this camera have been a point of pain for many owners). The RX1R III has also acquired 10 years worth of firmware upgrades (too numerous to mention) which will make the user experience significantly different.

In addressing the features the RX1R lll doesn’t have, rather than the features it does have, I hope to clear up, in some people’s minds, whether it is possible to live without the modern day conveniences of tilt-screens, stabilization and weather sealing (all three of which I seem to have lived without for the first 34 years of my professional career as a photographer).

Feature 1: Weather Sealing

I consider this feature to be essential for pro photographers who must cover events, rain hail or shine at a timing NOT of their choosing. I have covered automotive races where the rain was so hard, they stopped the racing, but as a photographer I was not the one who could decide whether the racing should stop or continue. When I change my hats and I am now taking photographs as a travel photographer or street photographer, I simply use an umbrella or hang out in a cafe and wait for the rain to stop. Would the lack of weather sealing be a deal-breaker for me? I would prefer any camera to have it, but not if adding it made the camera too big for my coat pocket.

Feature 2: Tilt Screen

What on earth did we do before tilt screens were added to our cameras? One of my favoured vantage points (especially for landscapes) is low to the ground and a tilt-screen certainly makes these low angle shots easier to capture. These low-angle shots were, however, possible in the days before tilt-screens. They were even possible in the DSLR era where we had no live-view on the monitor. For the first 25 years of my career the cameras didn’t even have monitors (analogue SLR cameras). We either had to physically get down low to use the finder, estimate the angle of view and crop later, view the fixed monitor at an acute angle (my head positioned higher than the camera) or capture, review and adjust (possible now in real-time using Sony’s Creator’s App). Whatever we did to circumnavigate the need for a tilting monitor, we did without feeling the camera was somehow seriously flawed. Even now that most of my cameras have tilting monitors, I still prefer to use the finder for more than 99% of my shots. Would I prefer the RX1R lll to have a tilting monitor? Yes, but not at the expense of size (the ‘depth’ or ‘thickness’ of the new camera has already grown bigger to accommodate the larger battery). Will I miss the absence of the tilt-screen when out and about with the RX1R lll? Probably not after the first 30-minutes (I would remember that I had a photographic life that preceded the arrival of tilting screens). The last time I looked smart phones don't have tilting screens and we all seem to get by without making too much of a fuss.

Feature 3: Stabilization

I can shoot hand-held with shutter speeds of 0.5 seconds or slower when taking low-light landscapes with my A7CR, which has impressive in-body image stabilisation (IBIS). Most of the time, however, I have the camera’s Auto Minimum Shutter Speed set to 1/250 seconds and faster. Not because I am trying to avoid camera-shake, but to freeze slow-moving subjects so they are captured pin-sharp. How often would I normally rely on IBIS when using a 35mm focal length? Perhaps less than 1% of the time. What will I do in those instances when using an RX1R lll that doesn’t have stabilization? I normally travel with a light and portable tabletop tripod (even when traveling with cameras that have IBIS) so this might see a little more use when traveling with the RX1R llll. For street photography, where others are photographed in the street without being asked to strike a pose, I suspect the lack of IBIS will not be a deal-breaker either.

My Personal Experience with the RX1R II

I purchased a 2nd hand RX1R II back in January after reviewing a camera that I had borrowed. The Real Time AF Tracking and Subject recognition of the RX1R III will be very welcome as I found I had and have to slow down when shooting portraits with the RX1R II. Sony's Eye AF technologies had not yet become super-reliable when the RX1R II was released and requires a custom key to be held down to initiate the function. If my subject turns slightly, or the eyes become shaded, the Eye AF can easily fail and the focus ends up on the tip of the nose rather than the eye. I will often see myself stopping down to F4 or F5.6 when using the RX1R II in order to ensure the eyes are pin-sharp (especially when shooting close to my subject). Some may see a fixed lens as an inhibitor to creativity but the 60 MP resolution lends itself to cropping. I am sure the fact that I can crop 'non-destructively' when shooting in the Raw file format using 1.4x and 2.0 crops (giving me 50mm and 70mm full-frame equivalent angle of view) will make this camera more useful then many will imagine. The resolution has me covered so I can zoom by simply cropping. and still have megapixels to spare.

The bottom line - what will be the legacy of this camera launch?

Q. Will many Photographers purchase the RX1R III?

A. Probably not,

 but Sony say there has been lots of preorders.

Q. Will Sony create a fixed-lens camera that adds additional features (the ones that most reviewers thought should have been added with this model)?
A. Probably not (for the reasons stated in this article).

Q. Will there be a version IV of the RX1R camera?

A. Given the reviewer and public response to this version, my opinion is that Sony will probably not want to leave themselves open to this much criticism again in the very near future (I’m guessing the next 10 years).

Q. What will the long-term opinion of the RX1R III be, when the dust from this release has settled?
A. Production will end (sooner or later), stock of new cameras will dry up and those interested in getting hold of one of these cameras will start having to pay higher prices for mint-condition units (as they will assume there will never be a full-frame camera that will ever be this small again). Some may end up calling the RX1R III a ‘classic camera’, because of its unique design and the high prices photographers may be prepared to pay for 2nd hand copies of the camera …while others will see it as a Sony camera that flopped and pour scorn on those that have been "foolish" enough to purchase one (even though the camera met their needs while they owned it and may well offer them a handsome return when they sell it 10 years later). The potentially relatively high 2nd-hand prices of the RX1RIII in 10 years’ time, will probably mean that those (“foolish” folk), who ignored popular opinion and ended up purchasing the camera, may end up owning a bargain (and achieving a bigger return on their initial purchase).

The 'Wise Words' of critics

It’s worth remembering that the debut albums from Led Zeppelin and Black Sabbath were both canned by the critics, but these two albums went onto transform popular music forever. Critics often get things spectacularly wrong.

Criticism may well end up being responsible for killing Sony's tiny full-frame camera, but should Sony be “ashamed” for having ever designed and manufactured one? If only the Germans are deemed to be entitled to design and manufacture premium quality niche cameras (in the eyes of the reviewers and public), then I feel history will have dealt Sony a harsh blow. Leica receives little to no criticism for making fixed-lens compact cameras that are not very compact, use lens designs that date back more than 50 years and for purchasing technologies from the Japanese that they cannot design and manufacture themselves (Sony sensors). Leica make fabulous cameras, but I feel their little red badge protects them from the sort of criticism that is levelled at Sony for also wanting to make a niche product (all be it with a reputable German designed lens).

Drop your thoughts in the comments section below, but please note that angry comments may be removed if I don't find they add anything useful to the discussion. I am happy to discuss this camera in greater detail on the Q&A forum for Premium Plus patrons, but it is worth noting that I won't get to do a hands-on review of this product until the second half of September, as I am currently on assignment in Asia.