Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 II vs Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX10

Winner
Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 II

72

Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX10

68

Runner-up

Reasons to buy the Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 II

Wide aperture
Aperture
f/1.8
Really small
Size
Compact (102×58×38 mm)
Thin
Thickness
1.5"
Light-weight
Weight
281 g
 

Reasons to buy the Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX10

Wide angle
Wide angle lens
24 mm
Dynamic range
Wide dynamic range
12.6 EV
External mic jack
External mic jack
Record higher quality audio with a microphone
Battery life
Great battery life
420 shots

galleries

Explore our gallery of 50 sample photos taken by the Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX10.
Explore our gallery of 50 sample photos taken by the Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 II.

competitors

Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 II Competitors

Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 III

Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 III

Pro digicam

$698

High-speed framerate Records high-speed movies
Wide angle Significantly better wide angle
Battery life Shorter battery life
Sony Cybershot DSC-RX100

Sony Cybershot DSC-RX100

Pro digicam

$448

Weight Slightly lighter
Lowest price Slightly cheaper
Supports 24p No 24p support
Canon PowerShot G9 X Mark II

Canon PowerShot G9 X Mark II

Pro digicam

$479

Touch screen Has a touch screen
Weight Lighter
Screen flips out Screen does not flip out

Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX10 Competitors

Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ1000

Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ1000

Pro digicam

$708 - $798

High-speed framerate Records high-speed movies
Movie format Higher resolution movies
Size Larger
Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ300

Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ300

Super zoom

$493 - $598

Movie format Higher resolution movies
Touch screen Has a touch screen
Sensor size Much smaller sensor
Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX10 II

Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX10 II

Super zoom

$1,198 - $1,398

High-speed framerate Records high-speed movies
Movie format Higher resolution movies
Lowest price More expensive

discussion

Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 II
Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 II
Sony

Report a correction
Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX10
Cyber-shot DSC-RX10
Sony

Report a correction

Showing 0 comments