Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 III vs Sony Cybershot DSC-RX100

Winner
Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 III

82

Sony Cybershot DSC-RX100

76

Runner-up

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

Wide angle lens
Wide angle
24 mm
High speed movies
High-speed framerate
120 fps
24p movies
Supports 24p
For that film look
Flip-out screen
Screen flips out
Great for movies
 

Reasons to buy the Sony Cybershot DSC-RX100

Size
Really small
Compact (102×58×36 mm)
Battery life
Great battery life
330 shots
Thickness
Thin
1.4"
Weight
Light-weight
213 g

galleries

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

competitors

Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 III Competitors

Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 IV

Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 IV

Pro digicam

$832 - $898

Movie format Higher resolution movies
Continuous shooting Shoots faster
External flash No external flash support
Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX100

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX100

Boutique

$535 - $698

Movie format Higher resolution movies
Sensor size Much larger sensor
Built-in flash No built-in flash
Canon PowerShot G7 X Mark II

Canon PowerShot G7 X Mark II

Pro digicam

$679

Touch screen Has a touch screen
Light sensitivity Better maximum light sensitivity
High-speed framerate Doesn't record high-speed movies

Sony Cybershot DSC-RX100 Competitors

Sony Cyber-shot DSC-HX90V

Sony Cyber-shot DSC-HX90V

Travel zoom

$448

Zoom Much more zoom
Wide angle Significantly better wide angle
Aperture Much narrower aperture
Canon PowerShot G9 X

Canon PowerShot G9 X

Pro digicam

$399

Touch screen Has a touch screen
Size Smaller
Battery life Significantly shorter battery life
Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 II

Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 II

Pro digicam

$598

Supports 24p Supports 24p
Screen flips out Has a flip-out screen
Weight Significantly heavier

discussion

Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 III
Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 III
Sony

Report a correction
Sony Cybershot DSC-RX100
Cybershot DSC-RX100
Sony

Report a correction

Showing 0 comments