Sony Cyber-shot RX100 VI: Video overview

Who cares? I'm a professional shooter and when I need video I use a real video camera. There are a bazillion solid P&S models like this one. I see absolutely nothing extraordinary in the samples shown. Nothing at all. The bokeh looks horrible and the optics are slow. This camera has "consumer grade" written all over it. Any small DSLR will deliver better IQ and versatility and those will fit in the same bag.

I looked up "arrogant" in the dictionary, and it just said, "see MrHollywood". Weird.

dr. Jim, I'd rather be arrogant than rude and petty. My comments are about the camera, not YOU. You're so small and insecure that my comments about a camera you don't own actually led to you making it personal. Can you imagine such behavior from anyone but a child?

@MrHollywood

"Any small DSLR will deliver better IQ and versatility and those will fit in the same bag"

And that pretty much sums up the accuracy of MrHollywood's statements...

Totally accurate. The sensor in a D5500 is superior and you can use FAR better glass. Let's not get silly. I can put Zeiss or ART glass on a low end DSLR and it'll blow the baby Sony away in every respect relevant to IQ. The baby Sony's main selling point is the SIZE. That's it. Beyond that you can buy a much better camera for the same money; but it'll be bigger. If you think the Sony can match a DSLR or larger mirrorless, you are seriously misinformed.

I own a tiny Ricoh GRII, which has a sharper lens than the Sony. So I understand the value of the Sony RX100 so far as size goes. But my Ricoh, legendary as it is, doesn't get much use.
I'm a professional shooter, but even on a casual outing I like to have the better camera with me. Even my little Ricoh travels in a small bag. The thing is this: The D5500 fits in the SAME bag.
Certainly there are situations where the Sony or my tiny Ricoh are a good idea...but 95% of the time I'd rather skip the compromises.

Rob

Plus I can't get involved with someone going low and calling my shots mediocre while he has nothing to show. I get paid for my work. None of that matters though as it's a kids move to bash someones work.
Bottom line is that Sony has a very expensive P&S camera, but it's also very limited. Small sensor, slow optics, poor handling. Good for some, but a poor value for many to say the least. Fanboys will defend it, but it's just another camera.

Rob

The one inch sensor is a deal breaker for me. Or at least it's such a low grade element that I can't accept in such an expensive camera. The 1 inch sensor has been tweaked and tweaked, but it's a bokeh killer. Inferior subject isolation characteristics are the hallmark of small sensors. The typical look from these sensors tends to be 2 dimensional and processed looking, especially when compared to something like my Ricoh (which is also somewhat overpriced for what it is). The RX100 is a 600 dollar camera that they sell for twice the money, and one that can take a picture, but rarely a good one. If you've seen the output of the Fuji X100f or the Ricoh, then you already know what you're giving up with the smaller sensor. In the end we all have the choose what works for our style of shooting, right?

Rob

@MrHollywood
"I'd rather be arrogant than rude and petty. My comments are about the camera, not YOU."

Actually your comments are mostly about YOU. The camera only gets a mention late on:
'I'm a professional shooter and when I need video I use a real video camera.'
'I own a tiny Ricoh GRII, which has a sharper lens than the Sony.'
'I can put Zeiss or ART glass on a low end DSLR and it'll blow the baby Sony away in every respect relevant to IQ.'
'I'm a professional shooter, but even on a casual outing I like to have the better camera with me.'
'I get paid for my work.'
'The one inch sensor is a deal breaker for me.'

In the space of just 7 comments you told us 3 times that you are a professional shooter who gets paid for his work so you obviously think this lends weight to you to what you say. What would actually lend weight would be evidence that you've even glanced at the spec sheet of the RX100vi, which I don't think you have since you think it can be replaced by a D5500 or an GRII.

@Rubberdials.. certainly you would not think that being a professional photographer, having a portfolio/gallery and professional equipment should have any bearing on @hollywood's opinion having any relevance.. since you are not a professional photographer (being able to write off equipment for your job does not make you a photographer, professional or otherwise.. a real estate agent, production assistant, stylist etc.. can also write off a camera), do not have a portfolio/gallery and certainly do not own any professional equipment...

I for one... do see advice, opinions given about photographic equipment by people that are actually paid to use it ...a professional photographer, as very valuable. As a rule of thumb, most professionals are "professionals" because they have much experience, education etc in their field.

Exactly. And I get a lot of my guidance from a friend who's in 70's and is among the top shooters around, handling everything from shooting miniatures for movies to wildlife for various magazines. Experience matters, but we have some serious Sony fanboys here.
Somewhere in my closet is a Nikon P7800. It's a better handling "old" version of the RX100 VI. It's a fun little camera as it has a 28-200mm that is even faster. But it's crippled by a small sensor and there's just no getting around that limitation. Eventually I found that it wasn't worth carrying. Lousy Bokeh, lousy higher ISO...I just ended up regretting not having something better with me. The Sony is better, but the limitations remain.
Now look, if you want a POCKET camera, there are a ton of choices. But buying one for this kind of money seems a bit goofy to me. There are better cameras that ARE larger, but they really won't slow you down in most situations and the weight difference is tiny.

Rob

@MrHollywood.. also quite telling/funny that Rubber puts little to no weight on actually being a professional photographer.. but in true fanboy (Sony) fashion.. puts it on the spec sheet instead.

We're in the era where people want their ignorant views to be the equal of the educated ones. It's like the people who run around saying there's no need for fast glass because we have higher ISO's now.
I can see the benefits of the RX100 VI. I even thought about buying one for a couple of seconds. Then common sense stepped in and I remembered that the IQ of a 1" sensor camera is still poor for subject isolation and bokeh. This is even worse because the Sony's lens is not very fast.
If this fits the bill, then buy it. It's among the best of its "class." The problem is that the class in question isn't all that good.

Rob

"Make the camera smaller, and give me a bigger zoom! No, it's too small, and the zoom is too slow!"

-___-

Only so much that can be done. There are grips available if you want the camera to be bigger...

What does the A6300 costs with a 24-200mm (FFequivalent) F2.8-4.5 zoom lens?
And what is the size of that camera/lens combination?
Oh wait it costs a lot more and is a lot larger. These are two cameras for different markets. We have to see how good the new lens is in combination with the 1" sensor and all the rest.
Don't get me wrong, I will always buy the A6300 over the RX100 vi but others will buy this camera for its small size and large zoom....

https://www.amazon.com/Sony-a6300-Mirrorless-Camera-18-135mm/dp/B07BQF8NJ5/ref=sr_1_6?s=photo&ie=UTF8&qid=1528374056&sr=1-6&keywords=sony+a6300

1200. Sure it is larger but you can also use small pancakes on it. It is an ILC not a P&S.

It’s ridiculously priced.

Very good point Esmu. The Sony touch screens cannot be used to control menus. Actually, the entire menu system and camera control is absolutely crap on Sony cameras for "today standards/requirements". I have the A5100, the first touch-screen camera (after NEX5). I'd fire the entire UI design and development team: 5 years were not enough for them to make a semi decent touch screen operable camera OS. They live in the stone age. I can live with that, but it is really ridiculous what Sony does in this department.

This narrative gets really old. You want "cheap", go elsewhere. If you take a moment to actually see what's going on n this camera and how it compares to others, the price range is really not that bad.

I was waiting for what the Mark6 had. Seeing it, I'm going with the Mark5. Even at $950 for the MarkV, it's still an incredible, portable camera.

Sony is one of the few companies that doesn't gimp their lower end products for the sake of protecting their higher end versions. As early as the RX100 IV, the cameras had S-Log2. The IV was the first appearance of the stacked sensor, which went on to get super sized for the A9. It also allowed a burst speed of 16fps in RAW, and up to 1000fps(!) video.

Then they added the fast LSI in the V for 24fps RAW shooting. Not even gimped high speed burst, either. You get 3 full seconds at 24fps. PDAF was also added for the first time in any 1" sensor outside of Nikon 1.

Continued...

The VI gets probably the best touchscreen out of any Sony so far, along with the first hinge on an RX100 to do a full 90 degrees downward. HLG, which has only been featured in FF cameras, is added, along with S-Log3 + S-Gamut3. Not to mention AF has been sped up 40%! A pretty nice feat, considering the lens has been slowed down by a little over a stop. Finally, you can use Bluetooth to record GPS information to images via your phone.

And these are just some of the headlining features. There are TONS of other smaller features and quality of life improvements on each model. That's what Sony is bad at injecting into advertising.

that is one point of view the other is you can buy a fine apsc, m43or even full frame camera for the same money and have enough left over for some fun

here is a sony a6000 with lens for $548 https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1029860-REG/sony_ilce6000l_b_alpha_a6000_mirrorless_digital.html
or a6300 ? $898.00
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1383467-REG/sony_ilce_6300l_s_alpha_a6300_mirrorless_digital.html

here is a 24 mp full frame with kit lens for under a thousand , wow!
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1008113-REG/sony_ilce7k_b_a7_mirrorless_digital_camera.html

i believe in value and fairness for a manufactured object and the fact is this is a one inch sensor [1\8 of a full frame !!...??] camera in the 6th virtually unchanged body with a "me too" boring zoom ..not worth $1200 not worth being a corporate apologist either.

it is overpriced for what it is, the 6th,same sony 1 inch compact with updated processor, with a lens nobody wants. period

Meanwhile, you can't fit any of that in a jean pocket. At least comfortably or with the lens attached. You pay dearly for miniaturization.

Small isn't necessarily beautiful for all photographers. . . I prefer cameras with controls that allow me to easily access the essential settings, especially in manual mode. There is simply a point when a camera becomes too small for photographing quickly changing subjects. And a minuscule viewfinder is frustrating to use especially when wearing eyeglasses. This Sony is OK for portraits where the subject is sitting stock still but I wouldn't use it for street photography.

We indeed pay dearly for miniaturization. . . In this case the price simply isn't worth what you get.