Sony Cybershot DSC-RX100 vs Sony Cyber-Shot DSC-HX300

Winner
Sony Cybershot DSC-RX100

95

Sony Cyber-Shot DSC-HX300

52

Runner-up

Reasons to buy the Sony Cybershot DSC-RX100

Wide aperture
Aperture
f/1.8
High resolution screen
Screen resolution
1,229k dots
High true resolution
True resolution
20 MP
Large sensor
Sensor size
1" 13.2x8.8mm
 

Reasons to buy the Sony Cyber-Shot DSC-HX300

Screen flips out
Flip-out screen
Great for movies
Viewfinder
Great viewfinder
Digital
Fastest shutter speed
Fast shutter speed
1/4000 of a second
Sensor type
CMOS Sensor
Better in low light

galleries

Explore our gallery of 49 sample photos taken by the Sony Cyber-Shot DSC-HX300.
Explore our gallery of 50 sample photos taken by the Sony Cybershot DSC-RX100.

competitors

Sony Cybershot DSC-RX100 Competitors

Placeholder

Canon PowerShot SX740 HS

Travel zoom

$399

Wide angle Much better wide angle
Screen flips out Has a flip-out screen
Aperture Much narrower aperture
Placeholder

Panasonic Lumix DC-LX100 II

Boutique

$998

Longest exposure Much longer exposures
Wide angle Much better wide angle
Built-in flash No built-in flash
Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZS60 (Lumix DMC-TZ80)

Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZS60 (Lumix DMC-TZ80)

Travel zoom

Wide angle Much better wide angle
Continuous shooting Shoots much faster
Aperture Much narrower aperture

Sony Cyber-Shot DSC-HX300 Competitors

Sony Cyber-shot DSC-HX350

Sony Cyber-shot DSC-HX350

Super zoom

Light sensitivity Better maximum light sensitivity
Zoom Slightly less zoom
Sony Alpha ILC-3000

Sony Alpha ILC-3000

Mirrorless interchangeable-lens

Battery life Much longer battery life
Size Significantly smaller
Screen resolution Much lower resolution screen
Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ70

Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ70

Super zoom

$439

Wide angle Much better wide angle
Battery life Significantly longer battery life
Screen resolution Significantly lower resolution screen

discussion

Sony Cybershot DSC-RX100
Cybershot DSC-RX100
Sony

Report a correction
Sony Cyber-Shot DSC-HX300
Cyber-Shot DSC-HX300
Sony

Report a correction

Showing 0 comments