Sony surprised the photographic world with the announcement of the RX1R III, a full-frame fixed-lens compact camera. It’s a followup to the RX1R II, which was released 10 years ago. I wasn’t intending to write about it, but a couple people asked for my opinions, so I thought I’d chime in. If you’re interested to know what I think, read on.
Whenever I write these types of articles, invariably someone will get upset. If I criticize any aspect of any camera that’s not Fujifilm, people will say that I’m a hater. If I don’t criticize Fujifilm cameras enough, I’m accused of being a fanboy (meant negatively; I consider it positive). For some people—and they’re found all over the internet but very rarely in real life—I (and other Fujifilm bloggers) must speak only positively about other brands, but at least 50% negative about Fujifilm, or else the opinions expressed are to be disregarded as rubbish. It’s weird. So I think it’s important for me to state right up front where I’m coming from, and if your perspective is similar to mine, maybe you’ll appreciate this article; if not, take all of this with a very large grain of salt, and don’t let it bother you. I like retro-styled cameras (preferably with traditional exposure controls and not PASM) that are compact and lightweight, and that produce excellent straight-out-of-camera pictures that have an analog-like look to them and don’t need to be edited. Fujifilm cameras are by far my favorite, but I have used (and occasionally still use) other brands, including Sony (among others).
Above: Sony a7 IV and the FL “Film Look” profile
To begin with, I think it was smart for Sony to make this camera. It will sell quite well. I have no doubts that this camera will be a hit, and will be a money-maker for them. The specific questions I received about the RX1R III were: how will it impact Fujifilm? Will people leave Fujifilm for this model? Will it affect the sales of the X100VI and GFX100RF? I want to avoid getting into the spec sheet, or criticisms of the rear LCD or things like that—plenty of other people have already discussed those things at length. I’m going to focus more on answering the questions that I was asked.
I don’t think the RX1R III is a direct competitor to the Fujifilm X100VI, but the success of the X100VI certainly influenced Sony to make this camera. And there are enough similarities on paper that one might think they’re competition; however, simply looking at the cameras, it’s obvious they’re significantly divergent in philosophy and design, not to mention price. In my estimation, not many X100VI customers will be lured away by the RX1R III, and not many RX1R III customers will be lured away by the X100VI (probably more will be attracted to the X100VI simply due to cost). I can imagine that some photographers will even have both cameras, although that’s likely going to be a pretty small number. People on YouTube will make the comparison, I’m sure, but overall I don’t see these two models as major competitors.
The RX1R III will more directly compete with the GFX100RF, even though their focal lengths are different. Do you want the bigger, heavier GFX100RF with a larger, higher-resolution sensor and wider but slower lens, or the smaller, lighter RX1R III with a tighter focal length and larger f-stop? Do you want the traditional tactile controls of the Fujifilm, or the PASM and slightly more minimalistic approach of the Sony? Do you want Fujifilm’s renown colors and JPEG engine, or Sony’s better AF and video output? Do you want a striking retro-styled camera, or a more discrete design (to put it nicely)? Do you want to pay $5,100 for the RX1R III, or $4,900 for the GFX100RF? Both have their pluses and minuses, so it really comes down to personal preferences. I’d choose the GFX100RF (and I hope to someday when my budget allows), but that’s just me, and I can see this being a tough choice for some.
Above: Sony a7 IV and the FL “Film Look” profile
Of course, the Sony RX1R III is also competing against the Leica Q3 and Q3 43. I don’t see this camera taking people out of the Leica camp, but it could certainly convince some not to get into it. I can see this as a Leica alternative for those who can’t quite afford to buy a Leica. Mostly, though, the RX1R III is simply a fixed-lens camera for those who are already in the Sony ecosystem. It’s a pocketable-ish camera that’s great for everyday carry or travel due to its compact size, when you don’t want to lug around something like the Sony a7 IV.
I’m not against Sony or the RX1R III. It’s a camera that you’re likely going to shoot RAW with and not JPEG, although Sony has made some notable strides in that department. Most of Sony’s JPEG profiles are so-so, but FL (“Film Look”) is pretty good—kind of similar to the Negative Film effect on the Ricoh GR III and GR IIIx. Apparently there are now three FL options: the original one that’s now called FL1, a more subdued and vintage-looking one called FL2, and a more vibrant and contrasty option called FL3. While these can be customized into Recipes (if someone made them), and Sony does offer interesting customizations like Fade, there’s no faux grain, which is a bit of a bummer. Also, you cannot reprocess the RAW files in-camera, should you need to boost or reduce exposure or apply a different look altogether. From my experience, Sony’s JPEGs can be a bit prone to banding, especially in clear blue sky situations. Fujifilm is a long ways ahead of Sony in regards to camera-made JPEGs, which is one reason why I’m not personally interested in the RX1R III.
I don’t have strong positive or negative opinions about Sony’s new camera. If I was offered one to try, I certainly wouldn’t say no (I doubt that will happen, though). I’m saving up for the GFX100RF, which I’m sure I would like better; however, if I were in the market for a Sony camera, the RX1R III is the only one that I’d consider purchasing right now, and I do think I’d enjoy it, especially with the three FL profiles set to the 1, 2, & 3 positions on the top dial. And that’s my two pennies, for anyone who might be interested.
I think the price point is getting a little crazy for a compact camera, tho the specs are very impressive for its size. On spec only I would love to shoot full frame 61 mp raw files but in reality my 24mb sensors produce really well. The more annoying thing is how good all new camera releases are now, I’ve love to shoot with them all on some level but who has bank for that haha
24/26mp seems to be a nice little sweet spot. Sometimes it’s good to have more—if, for example, you are going to print very large and/or crop very deeply… which is the point of why I purchased a GFX100S II: to print large panoramics (XPan)—but for most people and situations, the middle-twenties is a great place to be for resolution. Enough for good size prints like 16″x24″, enough to crop a fair bit if you need to, but not so much that it is cumbersome to speed and storage.
I guess, if I had to choose (which I do, actually), I would choose to keep my X100vi, because none of these three really good cameras have my kind of soul. Oh, they each are fabulous, and I am sure that someone is going “Thank you Jesus” for the one they love. I suppose I must be waiting on the Xpro-21, which will be coming out just after the next millenium, or the GFX100R, which I hear will have a three-D Fovean sensor and virtual controls. Alas. I may not last that long.
Choosing to keep your X100VI is the best choice, I think. Out of all the cameras I mentioned in this article, the X100VI is the “best” for most people, and there’s a reason why it will outsell all of the others, including the Sony.
The thing that seems awkward about the RX1Riii is where it fits in Sony’s lineup, compared to where other similar cameras fit with regards to their own lineups.
The Leica Q3 and Q3 43 are both cheaper than an SL3, but the SL3 does not include a lens.
The GFX100RF is cheaper than the GFX100Sii, but the 100Sii does not include a lens.
The x100vi is nominally cheaper than a X-T5 or X-E5 (that is, the MSRP is lower… not that it’s going to be easy to find at that price), and the X-T5 and X-E5 do not include lenses.
The RX1Riii is slightly cheaper than an a7RV… if you include the $1500 35/1.4 GM lens. An a7CR with the 35 GM is cheaper. A regular A7Cii with a 33mp sensor and 40/2.5G or Sigma 35/2 is less than 60% of the price of an RX1R. The extra compactness costs a lot, and trades off a lot of flexibility and features compared to the rest of the Sony camera line.
It’s all a bit confusing, since the asinine tariffs added to inflation have thrown any sense of what cameras ought to cost out the window. Certainly for me, but I suspect for everyone else, too. But it still feels like the RX1Riii sits much higher in relative price than other compacts.
Still, that more-than-5k sticker shock is a bit painful. Fuji offers medium format. Leica offers the cache and brand recognition of The Almighty Red Dot. I’m sure there are lots of ways where on a purely functional level it’s every bit as good a camera, sometimes better. Yet Sony are just the folks who made cassette tape players back when cassettes were a thing. The RX1Riii asks nearly Leica money, but Sony doesn’t have the glamour.
The price of the RX1R II ten years ago was $3,300. Accounting for inflation, that’s $4,500 in today’s dollars. Add in the tariffs (which are likely not $600, but double that… Sony might be passing along the cost to everyone), and $5,100 makes sense.
Camera companies are just now beginning to adjust for inflation (and tariffs in America), and we’re going to see (and already are seeing) the prices go up. Everyone will be raising their prices, and cameras will be more expensive. Leica’s will be even more expensive. Sony, Canon, Nikon… have already raised some of their prices, but I’m sure that’s just the beginning. Fujifilm has only raised the prices on new releases, but that might change soon.
The price is out of control
I think it’s just the new normal, because of inflation and now (in America) tariffs. Money just doesn’t go as far as it used to. From what I can tell, Sony should be charging $600 more for the camera, so in that perspective, it is a bargain.
IMHO, it’s not that the price is necessarily unjustified given specs, inflation, and asinine tariffs, but where it sits in the lineup. Was putting the RX1R so high up on the Sony food chain the right call? Being this much more expensive than an A7RV or A7CR just feels odd, and perhaps by picking a different pricepoint and adjusting the specs to match the camera would make more sense to more people.
I guess it’s like if Fuji eventually makes the x70 successor, and it’s either going to be an X-M5 with a fixed 18mm/2.8 lens, or an X-H2 with a fixed 18mm/2.8 lens. Either of those decisions is going to have a big impact on price. I think a lot of folks would be frustrated if it had X-H2 internals and appropriate price, since that puts it out of reach, even if they price is fair.
Or if Fuji was still selling a GFX 50R (and maybe 100R) at $3000, maybe $4000 in a kit with the 30mm. That makes the GFX100RF a tricker of a proposition.
That said… maybe Sony has the cache and name to justify a luxury camera, and I’m just far enough out of brand expectations to not realize that Sony can command that kind of a price in luxe circles.
But Sony just seem such utilitarian cameras to me. Folks use them for the good autofocus, the wide selection of 3rd party lenses, and just because other photographers and videographers they’re working with are already in the Sony workflow, and it doesn’t make sense to introduce another log profile when color grading. There’s a “Leica Look” and folks love the Fuji JPEGs. Sony seems to assume everyone is going to spend time in photoshop, which seems at odds with a status-icon product.
The Sony a7R V saw a price increase of $300. I wouldn’t be surprised if this was just the first in a series. They may be slowly acclimating people to these higher prices to see how it affects sales. $300 doesn’t cover the tariffs, not even close (it’s likely over $1,000). So at the moment Sony may be eating quite a bit of it, which I’m sure they won’t do forever. If they raised the price from $4,700 to $5,800, that might cause people to stop purchasing them. A ton of people buy Sony cameras and spend a lot of money on them, but such a price increase will certainly slow sales, at least a little.
I hope that an X70 successor isn’t like the X-M5 or X-H2. It should be just like the X70, except with a new sensor and processor, and maybe updated optics and AF. Perhaps they’ll need to increase the size slightly, but it needs to stay as compact as possible. Fujifilm: no PASM, please, on this camera.
The reason why the GFX 50R sold for so cheap is because there were no buyers. It was originally $4,500 for the body, which is about $5,800 in today’s dollars (not including tariffs). At $3,000, Fujifilm was either breaking even or (more likely) taking a small loss, but that was how they were able to move them out of the warehouse. And that’s why there has never been a successor: Fujifilm views the GFX 50R as a commercial flop, even though it has a cult-like following now. If Fujifilm made a GFX100R, it would sell well, but it wouldn’t be anywhere close to $3,000. I’d guess around $5,000 to $6,000, before tariffs.
As far as the Leica Look… almost everyone who shoots Leica are RAW editing. While Leica has recently added some JPEG profiles (which are divergent aesthetics from the “look” people often talk about), by far most are not shooting JPEGs. I think that the “look” is a combination of sharp lenses and Lightroom edits. The “Leica look” (whatever that is… there’s not a consensus, it’s more of “you know it when you see it”) is less about the camera than people give it credit for, I think.
I appreciate the thoughtful comment!
It must be said again. The space occupied by the Fuji X70 needs more attention: compact fixed lens, but wider than the X100 series.
Thanks for writing about this interesting new entry by Sony: pricey though!
I agree: Fujifilm really needs to work on an X70 successor. It doesn’t have to be exactly the same, but smaller than the X100VI and wide angle. Definitely needs to have tactile controls (like the X70), and not PASM.
Hello this website great blogger, I can talk to you about the situation in China, Chinese bloggers found that it still uses the old lens may have the common problem of the old lens, and there is no anti-shake But its sales are higher than the sales of Sony FX3 in the first 4 months of release, many people began to ridicule that it is not as cost-effective as Fujifilm GFX100RF And China is a magical market They reject xhalf and cause xhalf to be declining in price hahahaha
I know that the X100VI and X-M5 are both selling like crazy in China. I think Fujifilm suspects that the X-E5 will, too, and that’s why they had the X Summit there. I searched the internet and couldn’t find anything on X half discounts in China (or anywhere). I read that it’s $4,999 RMB, the same as at launch, but I have no idea of the situation on the ground. What I do know is that China has a heck-of-a-lot of Fujifilm photographers.
Aha, the Chinese market is crazy. Currently, the x100vi is sold more expensive than Leica’s m11 plus a lens (this is the result of second-hand vendors raising prices). The current situation in our country is like this. About 800000 people are competing for 10 x100vi models of cameras. Chinese girls are particularly fond of the Classic neg filter. As long as there is a Fuji camera with this filter, the price will be inflated except for xhalf because he is not satisfied with what he takes pictures of than a mobile phone. Generally, retro products such as Fuji that are purchased by suppliers will be snatched up by second-hand vendors, causing ordinary people to need to raise prices to buy them. Moreover, local suppliers use hunger marketing methods similar to him. In fact, the supply of goods is sufficient, but any official or non official products will be sold by second-hand vendors. The official platform only sells a few units per day, and now our domestic electronic products are like this: Nikon Z30 and ZFC When I first came out, I was also so crazy
Thanks for the report. I don’t think a lot of people worldwide are aware just how big Fujifilm is right now in China.
Gfx100rf has tilt screen, enjoyable evf, shorter lens with more sharpness and resolution, AF is good(not for sports), huge battery life, tactile controlls, joystick, nd filter, weather sealing option, 70% larger area sensor, body is more ergonomic, easier hold steady, accesory lens hood. Rx1riii has better AF, but I don’t think it’s suitable for fast approching subjects because the slow motor. So unless you want a bit higher separation (for mid distance it’s significant higher) and more sophisticated AI Af, the GFX100RF is better.
I think especially for landscape photography the GFX100RF is better. Of course, I’m saying this having never used either camera. Thanks for the input!