Sony Cybershot DSC-RX100 vs Sony Cyber-shot DSC-WX300

Winner
Sony Cybershot DSC-RX100

83

Sony Cyber-shot DSC-WX300

48

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-WX300

Size
Really small
Compact (96×55×25 mm)
3D
Takes 3D photos
View photos in 3D on 3D televisions
Battery life
Great battery life
500 shots
Thickness
Thin
1"

galleries

Explore our gallery of 36 sample photos taken by the Sony Cyber-shot DSC-WX300.
Explore our gallery of 50 sample photos taken by the Sony Cybershot DSC-RX100.

competitors

Sony Cybershot DSC-RX100 Competitors

Sony Cyber-shot DSC-HX90V

Sony Cyber-shot DSC-HX90V

Travel zoom

$428

Zoom Much more zoom
Wide angle Much better wide angle
Aperture Much narrower aperture
Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 II

Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 II

Pro digicam

$648

Supports 24p Supports 24p
Screen flips out Has a flip-out screen
Weight Significantly heavier
Sony Alpha A5000

Sony Alpha A5000

Mirrorless interchangeable-lens

$287 body only

$448 with 16-50mm lens

Overall image quality Significantly better image quality
Low light performance Much lower noise at high ISO
Image stabilization No image stabilization

Sony Cyber-shot DSC-WX300 Competitors

Sony Cyber-shot DSC-WX350

Sony Cyber-shot DSC-WX350

Travel zoom

$268

Light sensitivity Better maximum light sensitivity
Weight Lighter
3D Doesn't take 3D photos
Sony Cyber-shot DSC-WX500

Sony Cyber-shot DSC-WX500

Travel zoom

$298

Zoom Significantly more zoom
Supports 24p Supports 24p
Size Significantly larger
Nikon Coolpix S7000

Nikon Coolpix S7000

Travel zoom

$120 - $177

Light sensitivity Better maximum light sensitivity
Aperture Slightly wider aperture
Battery life Much shorter battery life

discussion

Sony Cybershot DSC-RX100
Cybershot DSC-RX100
Sony

Report a correction
Sony Cyber-shot DSC-WX300
Cyber-shot DSC-WX300
Sony

Report a correction

Showing 0 comments