Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 IV vs Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 VI

Winner
Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 IV

100

Placeholder

94

Runner-up

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

Wide aperture
Aperture
f/1.8
Shoots UHD movies
Movie format
UHD @ 30fps
High speed movies
High-speed framerate
120 fps
24p movies
Supports 24p
For that film look
 

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

Touch screen
Touch screen
Fewer buttons
Continuous shooting
Rapid fire
24 fps
Badge
Phase detection autofocus
fast and accurate
Focus points
Many focus points
315

competitors

Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 IV Competitors

Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 V

Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 V

Pro digicam

$898 - $1,010

Autofocus Faster autofocus
Focus points Many more focus points
Battery life Shorter battery life
Canon PowerShot G7 X Mark II

Canon PowerShot G7 X Mark II

Pro digicam

$529 - $649

Touch screen Has a touch screen
Light sensitivity Better maximum light sensitivity
High-speed framerate Doesn't record high-speed movies
Sony Alpha A6000

Sony Alpha A6000

Mirrorless interchangeable-lens

$444 - $448 body only

$448 - $548 with 16-50mm lens

Viewfinder size Much larger viewfinder
Interchangeable lenses Has interchangeable lenses
High-speed framerate Doesn't record high-speed movies

Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 VI Competitors

Placeholder

Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 V(A)

Pro digicam

$899

Aperture Significantly wider aperture
Lowest price Cheaper
Touch screen No touch screen
Placeholder

Panasonic Lumix DC-ZS200 (Lumix DC-TZ200)

Travel zoom

Battery life Much longer battery life
Light sensitivity Better maximum light sensitivity
Autofocus Slower autofocus
Sony Alpha a6500

Sony Alpha a6500

Mirrorless interchangeable-lens

$1,198 body only

$1,598 with 18-135mm lens

Light sensitivity Better maximum light sensitivity
Viewfinder size Much larger viewfinder
Continuous shooting Shoots significantly slower

discussion

Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 IV
Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 IV
Sony

Report a correction
Placeholder
Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 VI
Sony

Report a correction

Showing 0 comments