When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission. It turns out the RX1R III takes the kinds of photos I like to take, and does so in a package I can carry around, without too much inconvenience or intimidating would-be subjects.
Sony DSC-RX1R III | F2. 8 | 1/125sec | ISO 160
Photo: Richard Butler
I'll be the first to admit: I love a small camera with a big sensor and a prime lens. They were commonplace in the film era, but had all but died out after the transition to digital, with only Ricoh keeping the faith with its GR Digital models. I remember distinctly when Sigma announced it was developing the DP1, and the excitement when Fujifilm pre-briefed us about its plans to make the type of camera we'd been asking for, for years: the X100.
I want to make that clear, because recognizing this about myself was critical to making sense of my time shooting with the RX1R III. I'd just been writing about how its specs and size compare to the a7CR: an ostensibly a better camera in nearly every respect. So why was I enjoying the RX1R III more?
It was a friend's wedding reception. He'd asked if I'd be willing to DJ for a bit and maybe take some photos, leaving me switching between multiple roles. I agreed on two conditions: that I'd DJ early enough that I wasn't responsible for getting the crowd dancing, and that I wasn't going to be the principal photographer. Both those tasks are highly skilled and specialised, and although I enjoy both, I'm not the best person to turn to, for either.
Having received the Sony earlier in the day, I decided to pack it alongside the Nikon Z5 II I already planned to take (with 24-70mm F2. 8 and 85mm F1. 8, just in case portrait opportunities arose, since you ask).
Very quickly, I realised that the RX1R III was the better camera for the job. With the Nikon I kept switching lenses, as I vacillated between asking people to pose for photos and trying to capture the uninterrupted atmosphere of the event. With the zoom mounted, I couldn't quite work out what I was shooting, and kept framing too wide and getting photos with a lot of background and venue.
This isn't a photo I was planning to take, but I had the camera on my wrist, just as a friend glanced down at her phone. The camera focused quickly enough for me to take this grabbed shot.
Sony DSC-RX1R III | F2. 8 | 1/250 sec | ISO 640
Photo: Richard Butler
The RX1R III was completely different: its size meant I didn't feel I was switching roles from guest to photographer, as I could comfortably leave it hanging off my wrist. It was also it was much less obtrusive than the Mirrorless camera. The Z5 II isn't a big camera, but with the 24-70 F2. 8 on the front, it couldn't help but attract attention. By contrast the RX1 let me just pop up over people's shoulders or as I was seemingly walking past. Occasionally someone would spot me, but no one seemed intimidated by the little camera I was wielding.
I also feel the fixed focal length really helped me get my head into the task. The only question I had to ask myself was: 'how many people am I getting in shot, so how close do I need to be?' This simplicity quickly had me seeing the room through a 35mm lens, and working out where I needed to put myself. It's a similar experience to the one I had when reviewing the Leica Q3 43.
Beyond the basic concept of the camera, the thing that really jumped out at me was how well the autofocus performed. I remembered the Mark II feeling like it was being held back by its rather ponderous lens: revisiting the review immediately invoked a memory of how the camera would rumble slightly as it focused, as well as resurfacing a long-buried horror of the phrase 'Center Lock-on AF. '
The RX1R III was better in every regard, and better by a greater degree than I'd expected. You can still feel the lens as its elements are shunted around but it moves more swiftly, either through smarter algorithms minimizing the amount of movement required or some increase in the AF motor's speed. Either way, the RX1R III did a good job of finding and achieving focus, with it feeling more confident than the Nikon, as the light level fell: the opposite result from the one I'd expected.
One detail I noticed was the Auto ISO using a 1/125 sec exposure as its Auto shutter speed threshold. This use of 1/ four-times-focal-length is presumably to maximise sharpness, in the absence of any stabilization but wasn't always enough to get some of my candid shots gallery-sharp.
I didn't once notice the low resolution of the viewfinder: possibly because I've spent the last few years of my life reviewing cameras with low res finders. I tend to find changes in viewfinder resolution much more distracting than consistent low resolution, as in the moment, I'm usually only trying to get a sense for composition and checking where the focus point is, rather than trying to scrutinize detail.
As soon as I started shooting with the RX1R III, I started getting shots that reminded me of this photo: the moment at which I understood the case for the original RX1.
Sony Cyber-Shot DSC-RX1 | F2 | 1/800 sec | ISO 100
Photo: Richard Butler
One of the first shots I got from the evening immediately reminded me of a photo I took with the original RX1. I instantly recalled how much I'd loved the distinction between the sharp regions and the significantly out-of-focus background. I'm not someone who really thinks of 'pop' in photos, but it's this one I always picture, when I try to imagine what people mean by it.
I was, by that stage, already an owner of the ur-X100 and I remember thinking 'this is like the X100, but more so. ' But the slow focus, poor battery life and high price (or what I thought was one, back then), significantly undercut the appeal of the camera overall.
Its 35mm lens and relatively small form-factor means I can take exactly the kinds of shots I like to take with an X100, but with more detail and better image quality (albeit for a much higher price).
Sony DSC-RX1R III | F4. 0 | 1/125 sec | ISO 6400
Cropped and selectively warmed with Adobe Camera Raw
Photo: Richard Butler
The RX1R III addresses the first two of those issues while still delivering that 'like a super-X100' experience. The dedicated aperture ring and exposure comp dials make it feel much more photo-focused than the otherwise similar a7CR, and much closer to what I enjoy about the X100.
I even found myself thinking that it's almost the photo-only camera that so many people say they want. It can shoot video if you insist, but there's no headphone socket, no tilting screen, no stabilization and no record button, so Sony hasn't exactly gone out of its way to encourage it.
In practice, it's probably the most purely photography-focused camera Sony is ever going to make. And, while its menus and interface aren't as dedicated to that cause as Leica's are on the Q3 series, the experience is still one that puts photography to the fore.
. dpreview.com2025-7-29 17:00
