Six months ago, I predicted that Sony would release a new RX1R, guessing many of the specs, including the price. What I should also have predicted is the backlash that Sony would receive for releasing a camera that is so ludicrously expensive. Here’s why pricing this insane camera at five grand was exactly the right thing to do and why we should be happy about it.
The RX1R III is a bizarre combination of specifications: a 61-megapixel, full frame, backside-illuminated sensor, a fixed 35mm f/2 lens that’s ten years old, no flippy screen, no IBIS, and released alongside a selection of accessories that will make your wallet wince, even before you get to the camera’s $5,100 price tag. It’s simultaneously overpowered, under-featured, and not quite small enough—a surreal mixture from such a massive manufacturer.
Earlier this year, Sony ambassador Mark Galer put together a 45-minute video detailing what people love about its predecessor, prompting many of us to speculate that the third generation was due sometime in 2025. After having put my thoughts together, one thing became clear: however polarizing this camera might be, there was a hardcore of enthusiasts ready to hand over their cash the instant that the thing hit the market. Whatever the specs, they were ready to buy.
Everyone seems to have given their two cents on the new version. Apparently, those buying it are idiots and Sony has gone mad because, for all of the fanboy fanfare, this is not going to sell in vast numbers. However, that was never the intention; this camera is expensive precisely because hardly anyone is going to buy it. Production runs will be small, economies of scale will make manufacturing several times more expensive than something like an a7CR, its closest equivalent, and while it might become hard to find, that won’t be because the waiting lists are on par with the Fujifilm X100VI.
In short, five grand is both overpriced and exactly the right price, and if that somehow makes you angry, then there are three things that you need to understand: first, this is not a camera; second, it’s not meant for you; finally, regardless, we should be grateful that it exists.
It’s Not a Camera
Every camera sits somewhere along a spectrum of functionality and luxury. Perhaps the most functional is something like a Sony a7 III; it’s a soulless box with buttons and flaps designed by gray men in gray suits to tick boxes and sell in vast quantities. And it was brilliant.
It’s Not Meant for You
Sony knows what it's doing. They will have invested next to nothing in R&D for the RX1R III, but they understand that this is a niche product that will shift enough units to be worthwhile, at the same time as creating something fun and different along the way. I was going to argue that Sony is brave to bring such a camera to market, but if you think they’ve not done the math on this a thousand times over, you’re mistaken. That said, this is still a courageous move on their part, especially given the backlash; they’re not obliged to make unicorns or white elephants or lemons, and yet here’s the RX1R III with its silly horn, useless trunk, and sour citrus tang.
We Should Be Grateful
To be clear, I’m one of those annoying people who puts black tape on their cameras to cover up the brand name, so don’t think I’m totally in thrall to these manufacturers and their marketing. So maybe "grateful" is not the right word, but I’d hate for the camera industry to be a world where every manufacturer is like Canon, completely void of imagination, and playing it as safe as possible.
We’ve seen a raft of ridiculous cameras come to market in 2025 alone: the aforementioned Sigma bf, the recently released Fujifilm X half, and now the Sony — and if we look further back, there’s the Nikon Zf and the Pentax 17. At a time when Chinese companies are looking increasingly likely to put a serious dent in proprietary lens sales (Viltrox 85mm f/1.4, anyone?), and tariffs and flip-flops are creating chaos, I’m grateful that we have so many manufacturers who aren’t afraid to undermine expectations. In the not-too-distant future, these sorts of gambles might be a quirk of history that we come to miss.
Hey, Canon, Read This
The exception that proves the rule is Canon. For the Japanese giant, safety first is the order of the day, and perhaps the bravest project they’ve mustered in recent years was to try to crowdfund (yes, crowdfund) the IVY REC, a nonsensical absurdity that, to no one’s great surprise, went nowhere.
I’d love for them to draw on their rich analog history, take some inspiration from the likes of the A1 and the Canonet, and show Sony how to make a 35mm fixed-lens full frame camera that isn’t just a luxury item. You could go even crazier—kit it out with a slimline 40mm f/1.4 reminiscent of a Bessa R3 and even ditch the autofocus. No doubt that’s too far, but I’m amused by the thought of a Canon exec reading this and hyperventilating at the prospect of taking such a bold step.
In Conclusion
I will never buy the Sony RX1R III, but I’m delighted that in a world of spreadsheets, earnings calls, and twitchy shareholders, these daft cameras exist, and I hope you are too. Be sure to let me know your thoughts in the comments.
18 Comments
ok
Nobody "needs" this camera.. 200 extra for a f. Lens hood? Seriously
Are you Jeff and do you live in Arizona?
No. I can honestly write what I think
Ok Jeff.
Didn't you catch the genius humor in Andy's response to your first comment? You responded to him in a way that makes it seem like you are not seeing the clever reference to his hypothetical character in the article.
Aaaaaa thats what that was.. I was scratching my head for two days.. The Camera is overpriced and underfeatured. The only strong point is the size. The hood is extra and costs 200 dollars. Are you all maď?
Well with only one exception, all of us here in the comments agree with you that it is overpriced and underfeatured. That was one of the author's primary points in the article.
Of course we're all mad, but that madness is chronic and residual, and not just due to our thoughts about this camera. The madness was here long before the Sony 1x1r 3 came along, and will still be with us long after it is discontinued.
The A7Cr is such a better camera in the same form factor, same sensor, with interchangeable lenses, for $2K less. Why would anyone buy this?
Q3, then move on. Thanks
.
This is a wonderful piece of writing, Andy!
This was especially fun to read, and I marvel at your fun and creative wordsmithing:
"..... they’re not obliged to make unicorns or white elephants or lemons, and yet here’s the RX1R III with its silly horn, useless trunk, and sour citrus tang."
.
Thanks Tom! Glad you enjoyed it. I had fun writing it, that's for sure.
They had a great concept with a drop down LCD screen and I wonder what in their calculations convinced them that they did not need the sales to street photographers that want a drop down screen as their approach to street photography, to make the rIII successful?
.
It is because this was not designed as a camera for serious photography work, nor for those who "must get the shot". It is actually designed to be more of a fashion accessory and fun toy for the wealthy who can afford to buy expensive things that do not fulfill any actual purpose. And, like the author, I think it is cool that they went ahead and made such a thing!
.
Way overpriced. Sony has zero credibility togo up against Leica which seems to be their premise.
For 5K euro I would take a serious look at the Fuji 100RF but not a collection of bits from an old camera with a new sensor. No. The mkII updated to current pricing would be around 3900 so Sony is just gouging customers as the sensor has been mass produced and used in various other cameras.
What they should have done is go whole hog after the Fuji 100V/VI customers. They could have charged a premium say 3K euro and they would sell like hot cakes and get non-Sony shooters to try out the Sony eco system. For 5K i would just buy a second z9 body or another prime lens or other cool kit.
It would have sat by my Zf for comparision but not at 5K!
Kind of reminds me of when VW announced they were going to build a new beetle... people were frothing at the mouth... people including myself were queuing here in Germany and saying take my money BUT VW decided their bread and butter customers in their home market could wait while they introduced it in the US market. By the time VW decided to introduce it to the German market in enough numbers without a 12 month waiting list most people had moved on. I went with Volvo and numerous others with Mini. Sony is heading that way with this overpriced trinket. Shame as it was the only thing that had me currently interested in Sony. Then I guess it will be more Nikon kit.
I really enjoyed this article, thanks a lot, Andy!
It’s honestly a little baffling to see the same handful of critics filling up the comments here as they do everywhere else, confidently declaring this is just a rich person’s toy and insisting everyone would be better off with the GFX100RF—or the Q3, for that matter.
These takes really miss the point, in my opinion.
This is the world’s smallest full-frame camera; the whole concept centers on delivering the best image quality in the most compact form possible. When the rear lens element sits almost flush with the sensor and the optics are precisely engineered to cover exactly the image frame—nothing more—there’s simply no physical space for IBIS. If you want an ultra-slim profile and there’s zero room at the back of the body, the tilt screen is the next thing to go.
Frankly, it seems lost on many that the GFX100RF and the Q3 both weigh nearly 50% more and are significantly larger than the RX1R III. They aren’t even in the same league in terms of size. For some, being able to get images of this quality from something that small is a real, practical advantage.
Then there’s the claim that “this wasn’t designed for serious photography work, or for people who actually need to get the shot.” I’d really like to know how someone arrives at that conclusion. The RX1R III does lack a few features that are nice to have, but none are truly essential for professional work. I like the tilt screens on my cameras as much as anyone, but I’ve done documentary work for years without them.
Just look at Romain Laurendeau, who won World Press Photo’s Story of the Year in 2020 with a stunning documentary series shot entirely on the Fujifilm X100T and X100F: “Kho, the Genesis of a Revolt.”
https://www.worldpressphoto.org/collection/photo-contest/2020/romain-la…
Laurendeau used fixed-lens, 35mm (equivalent) cameras with no tilt screen, no IBIS, and no weather sealing—specifically because they were more discreet and unobtrusive than typical press gear, allowing him to work in sensitive environments without the baggage that comes with a “professional photographer” designation.
The Sony RX1R III would be a perfect tool for documentary and reportage work just like that. It’s currently out of my price range, but I have no doubt I’d put it to great use in my own shooting.
Good points, well made. Thanks for your thoughts. 😊
I just bought one.
I’m a full-time photographer and work with various cameras, including the Sony Alpha 1 Mark II and the Leica SL3. I was trained in analog photography and started out 30 years ago with a Pentax K1000.
Going back to working with a small camera really suits me. The fact that some features were left out—like a tilting screen and IBIS—is something I can easily live with. The other option I considered was the Leica Q3, but it’s larger again.
I’m looking forward to using this camera professionally as well. I truly believe these compact cameras allow for a more discreet way of working, which can result in very different kinds of images.
I’m excited to get started—it makes me move and shoot in a completely different way than with the bigger workhorses.