Point-and-shoot cameras have taken a huge hit over the last five years but several premium and feature-rich models have managed to become quite popular. Sony's RX100 line is often reviewed as one of if not the best in this premium compact category. However, at almost $1,200 dollars who is Sony's newest version meant for?
I'm a huge fan of my original Canon G7x compact camera and at the time of purchase had a hard time deciding between it and the original RX100. The deciding factor for me is how the tilt screen was designed. I have used the G7x for everything from location scouting, everyday carry camera, to even commercial video b-roll clips, and stock photography. It's an incredibly powerful device for its size that came with a premium price tag of just under $600.
With the rise and quality of cellphone cameras on just about every brand's flagship, devise and the shift in smaller sized Micro Four Thirds cameras just where does a premium compact camera fit in? Now the newest version of the RX100 is worlds better than my now aging G7x, however, is it really two times the cost better? Do its improved features and 4K video really cost that much more to produce?
Well, I'm not the only one asking these questions as the talented Matt Granger discusses these very same ideas in his first-look review of the RX100 VI.
What are your thoughts? Is $1,200 too much for a pocket camera or are the improved features worth carrying in addition to your very capable cellphone?
I do not think the G7x has a EVF viewfinder. I can not use cameras without one. I shoot Sony, but this is way too expensive. I have also the RX10M3 and RX100M3, i bought during a price drop, but these are too expensive as well. Also I have Sony cameras whose rear buttons became unresponsive. Expensive logic board replacement for such issues. Never happened in the years I shot with Nikon. All the repairs were caused by impact / accidents. With Sony I get more failures. Anyway Panasonic seem to have more competitive prices. I ordered a FZ1000 that offers 3 year warranty. Some of my Sonys fail after a year and a half.
I think it's worth it if the IQ is there. I've seen mixed examples on line -- some are incredibly crisp; others have look that is more reminiscent of P&S cameras. The key to me is the reach in a true pocketable camera. I have the Mark I and like its reach to 100mm equiv. so 200mm has caught my interest. Reach is the one single challenge no smart phone has been able to crack. Best I can do on my Plus model is the Moment 2X extender on the phone's longer 56mm equiv. lens, taking me to about ~110mm equiv.
Yes, $1,200 for a pocket camera is WAY too expensive.
PnS is going to disappear soon, that's the truth. In my view, no reason to pay 1.200$ and get only PnS. iPhone can do daily shots with a fraction of price. If you're a pro or amateur, likely we will pay for a full-frame or mirrorless if we want something portable and flexible in lenses.
Most honest review I've ever seen. With every new generation of any Sony camera the price is driven up.
I adore my RX100 MkII for the excellent IQ and the pocketably but I will not spend a times 2 price for any successor.
Hopefully the AF is much improved from my RX100 III, the AF is trash on mine. Initial start-up time too. After not being on for a while, it takes the RX100 III a while to be ready. I can turn on my Nikon J4, take a shot, and shut it off in the time it takes my RX to be ready to shoot after being off for a while. Lost a few fleeting moments because of it. Fragile as an egg too. And that menu system, sheesh! Wonderful image and video quality, but I can't recommend these things unless you have money to burn and just want a new toy.
Good review. Thanks for putting this offering into perspective...