Updated (June 2012): Compare the Sony Cybershot DSC-RX100 vs Sony NEX F3

Sony Cybershot DSC-RX100 vs Sony NEX F3

Winner
Sony Cybershot DSC-RX100

67

Sony NEX F3

40

Runner-up

Reasons to buy the Sony Cybershot DSC-RX100

Wide aperture
Aperture
f/1.8
High resolution screen
Screen resolution
1,229k dots
Image stabilization
Image stabilization
  1. Lens
High true resolution
True resolution
20 MP
 

Reasons to buy the Sony NEX F3

Overall image quality
Great image quality
73.0
Supports 24p
24p movies
For that film look
Startup delay
Almost no delay when powering up
1500 ms startup delay
Color depth
Great color depth
22.7 bits

galleries

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

$389 - $428

Zoom More zoom
Supports 24p Supports 24p
Aperture Much narrower aperture
Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 II

Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 II

Pro digicam

$648 - $700

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

Sony Alpha A5000

Mirrorless interchangeable-lens

$287 body only

$398 with 16-50mm lens

Overall image quality Better image quality
Supports 24p Supports 24p
Image stabilization No image stabilization

Sony NEX F3 Competitors

Sony NEX-5N

Sony NEX 5N

Mirrorless interchangeable-lens

$887 with 16-50mm lens

Touch screen Has a touch screen
Overall image quality Better image quality
Startup delay More startup delay
Sony Alpha NEX-3N

Sony Alpha NEX-3N

Mirrorless interchangeable-lens

$268 body only

Size Slightly smaller
Shutter lag Less shutter lag
Screen resolution Lower resolution screen
Sony Alpha A5000

Sony Alpha A5000

Mirrorless interchangeable-lens

$287 body only

$398 with 16-50mm lens

Overall image quality Better image quality
True resolution Higher true resolution
3D Doesn't take 3D photos

discussion

Sony Cybershot DSC-RX100
Cybershot DSC-RX100
Sony

Report a correction
Sony NEX F3
NEX F3
Sony

Report a correction

Showing 0 comments