Honey, I shrunk the A9....

I'm not sure how to feel about Sony's new RX100 Mark VI. It has a 24-200mm F2.8 – F4.5 Zeiss lens, 24fps with focus and metering, enhanced EVF, improved readout to virtually eliminate rolling shutter, 200+ shot buffer, Eye-AF, 4K HDR, 120fps 1080p...and the list goes on.

$1,200 for a pocketable compact with those specs might be actually worth it?

Entry-level DSLRs just took another hit below the waterline?

Here's DPReview's coverage of the announcement: https://www.dpreview.com/news/1644577141/sony-announces-cyber-shot-rx100-vi-with-24-200mm-zoom

Dave

My reaction was the opposite. They slowed the lens to increase the reach.

$1200 for a 24-200 camera with a slow lens.

Same price and range as the Rx10 ii, but the Rx10ii has a faster lens.

How often do you really need to shoot 24 fps?

And what types of things do you shoot at 24fps? At 200mm maximum, the rx100vi is too short for sports shooting.

Video specs look great... but somewhat crippled by the lack of a mic port.

To me, this is a step backwards.

If they could have done a 24-100 1.8-2.8 lens, that would have been a step forward. Because the lens got slower, IQ will effectively take a step backwards— and phones were already starting to match the IQ.

I had an RX100 for a few years, which I ditched — because the iPhone was starting to match the RX100 in quality while the a6300 was filling the need for small size.

An entry level ILC is much cheaper and will produce better results— better low light performance, better narrow DOF, etc.

So you’re paying an awful lot for “pocketability”— but it’s still actually too big for most pockets. Fits well in a large coat pocket.

I give Sony credit for introducing the RX models a few years ago. They prolonged the profitability of the point and shoot — high end product as regular P&S started to get swallowed by phones. But the phone tidal wave is now catching up to the rx models.

My reaction was the opposite. They slowed the lens to increase the reach.

$1200 for a 24-200 camera with a slow lens.

Same price and range as the Rx10 ii, but the Rx10ii has a faster lens.

 

How often do you really need to shoot 24 fps?

And what types of things do you shoot at 24fps? At 200mm maximum, the rx100vi is too short for sports shooting.

 

Video specs look great... but somewhat crippled by the lack of a mic port.

 

To me, this is a step backwards.

If they could have done a 24-100 1.8-2.8 lens, that would have been a step forward. Because the lens got slower, IQ will effectively take a step backwards— and phones were already starting to match the IQ.

 

I had an RX100 for a few years, which I ditched — because the iPhone was starting to match the RX100 in quality while the a6300 was filling the need for small size.

 

An entry level ILC is much cheaper and will produce better results— better low light performance, better narrow DOF, etc.

 

So you’re paying an awful lot for “pocketability”— but it’s still actually too big for most pockets. Fits well in a large coat pocket.

 

I give Sony credit for introducing the RX models a few years ago. They prolonged the profitability of the point and shoot — high end product as regular P&S started to get swallowed by phones. But the phone tidal wave is now catching up to the rx models.

I would love to see an interview with someone who could explain their reasoning for going with this model. Customer response? Success of HX long zoom compacts? Tossing against the wall to see if it sticks? I guess we'll see how it sells. Maybe they will split the model? A fast wide to short tele and an all-in-one like the Mark VI?

Like you say, it's hard to guesstimate the market at this level with the phones marching up the hill with pitchforks and torches. Granted, the phones with the biggest pitchforks and brightest torches are in the same $800 - $1000 range of the premium compacts and not getting any cheaper.

On the subject of phones as an invasive species, though I shoot a fair number of pictures with my phone and the quality of the Pixel's camera is remarkable, I still find shooting with a phone to be fiddly. The form factor and lack of any tactile controls other than the option to use the Vol- button to release the shutter makes it an incomplete tool. The trade-off is that it is always with me and performs myriad functions beyond phone calls and photos. As much as I love shooting with a camera, it is probably a sign of the state of the market that I currently own a premium phone and don't own a premium compact camera.

First World Problems, eh?

Dave

- Yes, a phone is just as expensive.... But may be subsidized by your wireless carrier, and most people are getting a phone regardless. So why get an expensive phone AND an expensive camera?

- My guess is they are feeling the pinch from the phones, and this camera is a misguided effort to stay ahead of that curve. 5 years ago, when the phone pinch first started, what did the P&S makers do? They went with superzooms, essentially a cheap feature but what that couldn't be replicated by phones. Sony went a different route with the RX100 (though they did the superzoooms too)... they went with a quality that the 2012ish smart phones couldn't match.

Now that Smart phones are catching up with the 1" sensor quality.... it's the same playbook.... give it more zoom range, to set it apart from the smart phones. Besides, people can still buy an RX100iv or v (or even earlier models).

But what's the real world advantage over an A6000 kit or RX10 model?

Slightly more portable, but as lesser image quality, lesser range...

When you had a fast lens on the RX100, you really could say it was capable of "dSLR-like" quality -- 1.8 on a 1" sensor could give you similar quality to F4 on a aps-c sensor. But take away that lens speed advantage.. you fall behind in IQ.

Like I said, as much as i love cameras, I own a phone but not a compact at the same price point. It just make sense both in convenience and economics.

I did see where Canon just announced a camera phone with DSLR-like IQ:

;)

Dave