Sony RX100 VI vs Panasonic ZS200 vs Panasonic ZS100: which is the best travel companion?

Having had and retired several sony cameras, largely because they all started to have internal problems, they just didn't hold up., i switched over to Nikon then went to Panasonic, and boy am i happy. You didn't mention the crappy menu system of Sony compared to Panasonic. I have the zs 40, zs50, the fz100 travel zoms plus the LF1 and am pleased with each one. I loan out the zS40 and ZS50 to my photo students and they turn in amazing photos and the cameras still work. I have taken the fz100 on several trips to Europe and Asia and never once have I longed for my Nikon D90.

After doing a great deal of research I purchased my first "adult" camera in June - an RX-100 M3 - and am devouring the 500-page Friedman tome on its operation.

On a lark I picked up a ZS100 today in the store and..WOW is the operation easy! I know that the Sony's learning curve will pay off with better technical image quality, but feel like I might miss fewer shots with the Panasonic's intuitive interface.

After testing the ZS200 and sending it back, trying out the Sony in a shop, lovely but really, $1100? I ordered the ZS50. Yup,"old-school." I don't need 24 MP, I don't need a touchscreen, I don't print beyond 11 x 14, much of output is shared online, have a lovely X T-2, a D7200 an iPhone X... I think my travel-pocket is good to go...

Sony is the best. You just have to make the decision whether you want or need the best. On the other hand you can also have a blinged up ZS200 in the Leica C-Lux. First world problems ...

So it'll be the ZS100 for me then.

The price is too high. I think many people will prefer the cheaper panasonic.
I hope Panasonic try to catch the things to make next better cameras
All cameras manufacturer need to consider using AI to improve the image quality such as Huawei P20 pro improve the image quality

Read other photographers review on others sights with no so stellar reviews of the new Sony. I will stick with my Canon G7X M2. For my needs, the focus works fine and the controls are very intuitive and the camera works fantastic. My LG v10 is still taking incredible pictures as well. I went into a Verizon store and compared all new cameras with the V10 and the rep was blown away and said keep your LG instead of upgrading. Will dump $1200 into Red's Hydrogen 1 if it’s is the real deal before I would spend the same for a Sony point and shoot.

Is there a reason the g7xii wasn't included in the comparisons?

EDITORS....

when talking about the lens and focal length, wouldn't it be nice for you to actually state what the lens ranges are?? I had to back out and go look up what the Panasonic had, as only the sony was mentioned (on a different page).

You say Panasonic has the longest range...but what is it?! :/

For travel I will bring none of these cameras because they have no GPS.
I find geotagging my travel pictures even more important than time/date. Carrying a second device for geotagging gives me a lot of extra work and is really an obsolete solution in 2018. I like to concentrate on taking pictures rather than using time checking extra devices. I have been using my Olympus TG4, Sony HX90V for travel, and even my Sony A65 and A99. All of them having OK working GPS.
For travel I will not upgrade to a camera not having GPS.

i have a Panasonic LX5 and i consider this the best travel camera besides my GX7, the Sony is just a little too small to operate. but a good trade off 24-105 f2.0 lens. wish Panasonic would stick with the same focal length and aperture and maybe update the sensor. the body size is just perfect.

Today I noted that Sony has just released a 400mm f2.8 for $11,998.00. That's 12 RX100s. Can we now stop griping about the we price of the we compact? Thanks.😀

Very good article but I think the Panasonic LX100 is the best travel camera yet: it's a Micro Four Thirds sensor; it has a prime fixed lens (24-75 millimeter Leica DC Vario-Summilux, F1.7-2.8); 4K 30p; EVF; and a very affordable price (just around US$598.00). Unbeatable!

My best travel companion camera is still my iPhone 8+. A fine camera that fits a multitude of other needs. I would still pack my ZS200, because I own one. Staring from scratch as the biggest bank for the buck.

" the RX100 M6 is still a pretty reasonable size for an 8x travel zoom." Please stop using this term when describing the zoom capabilities of a camera as it is incredibly deceiving. 200mm is approximately 4x zoom (50mm being standard, or 1x). A camera that tops out at 200mm with 35mm at its widest would be considered 6x optical zoom but a camera that is 24mm at its widest and goes to 200mm is considered 8x optical zoom. You aren't getting more zoom but 8x sounds better. Just use the lens information, that is the most honest way, as in 24-200mm.

I don't understand the logic in the price comparisons on these cameras. The sony is 100% plus more expensive than the one and nearly 100% more expensive than the other.......where do you calculate anything less than 100%, when the camera is more than twice the cost of the others???

Video shuts down in "warm" environments....Well first of all I have never seen a Panasonic shutting down prior to the maximum amount of minutes quoted in their booklets.
Chris' RX100VI warned for overheating after a mere 2 minutes in 24 C weather. That is nothing warm. That is just above room temperature. I also checked two metstations in the Calgary area both located in the city or a small town north of it (always warmer than the countryside) and indeed from 1-26 June the mercury never rose above 27,4 C so the 24 C could be accurate.

How is 24 C warm? It is a very normal temperature and surely when people go on holidays in the mediterranean for instance it gets much above 24 C easily for extended amounts of time.

Do you have any evidence the Panasonic suffer the same fatih?

If rx100m6 still compressing RAWs lossy and with errors, than we have three cameras with tiny sensors, but despite of this, with deliberately crippled RAWs. All top-notched and premium. So answer which is really out of question for anyone, who understands, that with small size you'll get 'smaller' quality. But in case of these cameras, you can't hope to remedy your photos in post. Believe me, I tried... Canon g7xm2, with old sony sensor behaving much better. Old, no 4k, but true RAWs.

Whatever happened to the Canon G3X, which I find does what it says on the can? (These cameras somehow prompt the question about the future of viewfinders -perhaps the EVF is some sort of compromise)?

Hey Richard, I just wanted to express my respect to you for authoring a review that is guaranteed to generate no end of whining, carping and outright hate —from folks like me who can’t afford the Sony RX100 Mark VI.

So I’m trying my darnedest to stay respectful in this comment. Here’s the deal. I already own an RX100 Mark II, which I stopped using about a year ago, after discovering that it couldn’t do justice to a friend receiving an award in a medium-sized hotel auditorium. I realized that I should have manned up and brought my Olympus EM1 MarkII with a decent (not huge) flash. Simple as that.

So I’ve got my iPhone X and a Samsung Galaxy s8 Plus. Baby bears.

And my Olympus EM1 Mark II with 12-40mm f2.8 PRO zoom or 40-150mm f2.8 PRO zoom, and a small flash. Momma Bear.

And my Sony a7rIII with 70-200mm f2.8 GMaster and Godox v860IIs speedlite system. Papa Bear.

And even if there’s a super-baby niche, maybe it’s just too nichey?

$1200 for a compact is way too rich for me. I am out.
Sony priced themselves out of this already dead compact market but who cares? Like some others, they are banking on the 'this-is-so-ridiculous-it-may-actually-work' effect.
One thing is for sure Sony is single handedly keeping the camera market, certainly the camera review world, alive.

Why does the “travel compact” challenge not include the phone already purchased and in your pocket?

Is this written from the consumer’s perspective- or just edvertorial?

The best travel camera ever made--the Rollei 35S--was the size of a pack of cigarettes and could faithfully render a 16 x 20 print on demand (at home in a bathtub of Dektol) with its gorgeous 40 mm f/2.8 Sonnar retractable lens. Using this camera in the heyday of film I grew to understand that 40 mm is absolutely the do-all focal length for portraits and landscape, when there is nothing else handy and you want professional results. Even today, no digital camera comes close to the Rollei 35S comparing weight, size, cost, and ease of use.

A really good companion to this high-end travel-camera review considers the new and equally capable Canon G1X MIII as a grab-and-go traveler's machine, written only a few months ago by HASSELBLAD'S CHIEF OF STRATEGY and deploying a host of deeply relevant ideas to consider on this subject of digital imaging on quick deployment:

https://blog.mingthein.com/2018/02/13/review-the-canon-g1x-mark-iii/

I have had a zs100 for a short time now and while it will never replace my dslr's, so far I am happy with the performance...especially for the money. The sony is just too expensive, at least for my application (taken on mtn bike rides mostly). I paid just over $300 for a mint used zs100 which is probably about 1/3 what a used sony will cost when they are around. Good enough for me.

As a traveller camera, "how sharp is sharp" is a question and it depends on person. I guess ZS100/ZS200 will be good enough for their purpose: travel, long zoom, compact, 1", less expensive... ...

RX100: "If you hold down a button to engage Eye AF you can essentially depend on your subject being perfectly focused"

Pressing the shutter release and another tiny button? C'mon DPR....

Three examples about zooming with your feet. I have an ancient Sony HX-9V which I used at a Jimmy Buffett concert, at a recent Stars on Ice show and at a bullfight in Madrid. Taking the same pictures with a Fuji X100, would have required to get first row tickets that cost more than the RX100VI at the concert for my family, it would have put me right next to Nathan Chen on the ice, and I really don't want to think about climbing into the arena with the bull.

These long zooms have their benefits.

I have owned an RX100III and a ZS100, I liked them both and they both took great pictures. I am one of those people who do not like a lot of features. I learned to take pictures with cameras that were completely manual, range finder and SLR. The one thing that I liked about the Panasonic was you do not have to stop and pull up a view finder like the Sony i missed a few shots having to do this (the screen could not be seen and a view finder was needed. I would buy any of the 3.

I have used a lot of cell phones and small cameras over the years and I have gotten fair picks out of a cell phone, that being said a camera with a 1 inch sensor can be zoomed in to see more detail. I used my cameras for work where i need detail to make cad drawings after a site visit. A cell phone could never give me the detail I needed, I know this is a special use but it does point out the deficiencies of the cell phone. Just my Opinion from experience.

I have used the first generation Rx100 for 5 years now, mostly carrying it in a jean pocket, with a magnetic ring to attach a polarizer. I've shot over 30,000 images with it. I also have a nikon and pentax dslr, both with less than 5k shots. The point is a combo of size + quality can't be beat... Until now:

Any iPhone x (or this latest gen.of smart phones) are more convenient, and are capable of taking daylight photos (which I mostly shoot) that rival the Sony. Add the gps, touch screen, cellular and I just don't see the point in carrying an extra camera. So I'm selling my rx100.

I do want a telephoto compact (I'm a birder as well) but the price point on this little sony is rather intimidating! Price does matter, and if the pannys are half the cost I'm gonna look there.

This article is a good illustration of how everything about photographic gear comes down to a matter of compromises.

Every camera ever made is missing something. Something that someone might want. It could be missing a feature, a capability, or even an affordable price.

If someone ever built a camera that had everything anyone could possibly want, then no one would buy it. Because it would cost a fortune and weigh a ton. And there would ALWAYS be some better alternative for any particular need.

Panasonic does not allow using exposure compensation in Manual mode with Auto ISO. Something needed if shooting some subject that is mostly white, black or backlit.

I returned a FZ1000 that I bought on sale as a lighter alternative to the RX10M3. The JPG colors were unrealistic, lens was way softer and probably decentered as the right edge was way too soft.
I considered the ZS100, but I imagined that it would be plagued by the same problems and probably the lens even worse.

Sony charges too much, and its cameras have its quirks and unfriendly menu, but the IQ is very good.

Yes, it IS very expensive but to me this is a camera that has no rivals. The Panas are nice but for one important feature: sharp lens.
I have been using mirrorless cameras on and off for a couple of years but my main camera was a RX100 MkI and now a MkIV. They are good enough for me to take them on a vacation as my only camera. I just don't want to carry around a bigger camera with lenses.
And as such, the RX100 is alone, the Panas have really too soft lenses and I wouldn't buy one even for 200$. Because to me sharpness is a must.
So in that respect, Sony has me in a weak position. I am willing to spend the money. Onyl thing is the lens is too slow. I would have been inclined to upgrade if it were a faster 24-120mm. That would have been my sweetspot.

If thise RX cameras are so good (i have evry single one till m5) why peoole sell them after less then a year use so eagerly?
Check out Adorama or BHphoto's used dep.
There are trackloads of RX100 5!
Prices star from $700. This means owners traded them off for as little as $350!
Do you see nearly any other camera overthere (used) in same numbers?
I checked yesterday they had only 1 (one) A6300 for both of them for and over 12 RX100 M5.
What does this mean?
1. It looses value like crasy
2. It was not a good value from the very beginning
3. It is not durable

The HFR i bought my M5 for was a crap and garbage. It is uoscalled to 1080 from say 200 pixels
Old Nikon 1 J5 has better high frame quality at 900 or so frames per second.

I sold mine ised on ebay for $650 after couple months of use.
Must be noble camera to loose value so quickly

Some very bad productshots here..
Thanks for the comparison though.

As a travel camera...

I admire this camera technically, but I fail to see the market for it unless you are thinking Leica fashion territory... But this is without the brand appeal. So I would imagine it's quite a niche positioning.

The Panasonic would meet 90% of the travel market need and at the right price point. The Sony offers very little more for this market level and consumer.

I guess I think about my own family and cannot think of a single person who would buy this. A snobbish Uncle perhaps who would go into a camera store and say give me the best. Maybe. But $1200.... That's around $1500 of my local money. That's insane territory.

Still, must be there I guess....

I'm laughing when you brag about 4K overheating with full-sensor readout. Especially in a small 1'' camera.

Guys, I own BM Ursa 4K (1st gen) where 70% of the camera size and weight is dedicated to the cooling radiator. Guess what? At +30c it overheats after 10 minutes or so. I should throw it away, really.

It is boring to see so many posts comparing those cameras to cameras with a fixed lens or 24-70mm lens. Guys, there are cameras for you but the point of the article was not compare them here. The same way it doesn't make sense to bring up RX100 VI when comparing A7r III and Nikon D850 !

There are people who are ok to trade IQ and aperture for the convenience of having a longer reach. And for those, they might be perfectly aware of the compromise they're making.
For Instance, I'm using a TZ200 that I bring with me on concerts or that my wife uses during holidays. I have other cameras should I need more IQ, shoot in low light, better AF, etc...

And for the record, so far the TZ200 has a better IQ than TZ100 (which I bought twice as the IQ was crappy on first one).

S8+ over any of these or my d750 + 24 120 f4:)

The only disadvantage the Sony has is the price but it'll be on sale sooner or later. With its relatively slow lens there is no need for an ND filter, at least not for photography, and there is a Sony app that simulates it. I wish it had a weather sealing though; probably the mark VII will. The rest are actually have the same zoom or less, taking in count that beyond 150mm it brings virtually unusable results, and both have slower lenses, poorer focus and no articulating screens, just to name a few of their drawbacks.

I better buy this now, but be watching for the Mkvii which will have one additional critical feature, but will omit a random different one too. Hence I will buy that one too for $1800!

Signed,
Ideal sony customer