Is This the First 'VII'? (Sony RX100 Mark VII)

The Sony RX100 Mark VII. The little editorial comment in the
upper right is B&H's. My comment on that: they wish.

This view of the new Sony RX100 Mark VII reminds me of those onion-ring volcanos the chefs like to make at Japanese hibachi restaurants. Zooms like this always strike me as funny. And a little unstable.

With most digicams having gone the way of the Dodo, this camera has been enduringly popular. I really liked the Mark I version of it, which was the last one I tried. That was no less than six iterations ago. Does everything have to make me feel old these days?

Is this the first "Mark VII" version of any camera? By the way, I'd be in favor of calling the next one the RX108. Here's my reasoning: the RX100 came out in June, 2012, so the rate of updates is one per year. At this rate, Sony will have to call 2052's camera the "RX100 Mark XL," and I'm sorry, but this camera just isn't extra-large. This isn't an immediate problem, but I'm looking ahead on Sony's behalf.

For non-photo-writer civilians, it might be really tempting to ditch everything and use this as one's only camera. And you can put it in your pocket.

Shopping ninjas, take the challenge!
As a shopping problem, there would be two major dilemmas. First, would you rather have this or the Micro 4/3 Panasonic LX100 Mark II? (There, I don't feel old—the LX100 is only on version II.) There are distinguishing differences, but I think I'd really have to do a hands-on shootout to decide which one is the better option.

Second, there are those down-market comps...the (shudder) smartphone cameras. These days, it's getting to be that the first question you have to ask about any new camera is, "is it really that much better than a smartphone?" Insolent, disruptive little buggers! You want to swat them like flies. Honestly, I'm starting to like full-frame mirrorless (FFM) more and more, because it makes the most sense as a complement to a phone. I know I'd rather have a phone camera and a Sony A7R IV (FFM über alles) than a phone camera and this.

A few of the advantages of this series in general and this little guy in particular:

• Pocketable, like I said—it could be carried in the front pocket of a pair of men's pants.
• One-inch (1") sensors (it's just a name—nothing to do with an "inch" as a measurement) are getting better and better. You'd need to do some direct comparisons to know for sure, but they're probably as good now as Micro 4/3 sensors were in 2012.
• Generous zoom range for a camera with a sensor this size (although it doesn't match "bridge" AKA superzoom cameras with smaller sensors): 24–200mm-e ("-e," in TOP-speak, means "angle-of-view equivalent." The Mark VI—not yet marked down in price at B&H—had this lens too).
• Zeiss-labeled lens
• Pop-up 2.36m-dot OLED electronic viewfinder for eye-level viewing or three-inch (this one is a measurement) 921.6k-dot LCD touchscreen
• 100% EVF with diopter adjustment
• Fast operation. Very fast.
• Flippy touchscreen, with selfie position for narcissists
• Photo capture function in video mode
• Wi-Fi connectivity for instantly transferring pictures to mobile devices
• Silent electronic shutter option
• Selectable aspect ratios
• RAW files available
• 10.65 oz./302g

Downsides:

• It's bigger than a pack of cigarettes
• No GPS
• Way too expensive at $1,200—like on the order of double what it should be at this point
• Way, way, way too complex for any sensible conception of its target market
• Won't respond to vocal commands in realtime like Alexa, clip your toenails for you, or go get you a beer from the fridge (DPReview chorus shout-sings: "dealbreaker!!!")

THHHWACK!!
Should anyone update from a Mark VI? No way; they're not identical, but way too close to justify parting with another $1,200. I'd personally prefer a Mark VA, which was the last version that had the much shorter (24–70mm-e) but faster (ƒ/1.8–2.8 vs. ƒ/2.8–4.5) lens. (And for the same bucks and ~lens specs as the VA, don't forget that Panasonic with its usefully larger sensor.)

But we have to admit that this new Sony will pretty much do it all, for any sane definition of "all." It's not as good as an interchangeable-lens (ILC) full-frame camera, no. But on that score, it reminds me of an old cartoon I saw in a car magazine in study hall in the '70s. I had good grades in high school so I got to spend study halls on my own in the library, where, typically, I put my time to good use (?) reading every word of all the car magazines. Anyway, in the multi-panel cartoon, a giant, preening Blower Bentley is lording it over a tiny car that looks like a cross between a Fiat 500, a VW Bug, and an early, tiny Civic. The bug-car is depicted as smiling and eager. Determinedly, the Bentley sets about outrunning the chipper little fellow, and careens around furiously this way and that. But the little car clings to the big car's back bumper no matter where it goes or what it does. Finally, the cartoon Bentley pulls up exhausted, panting, while the little guy is still smiling cheerily...and still right there behind him. At which point the Bentley's trunk opens, a giant fly swatter emerges, and thhhwack! slaps the little car flat.

Heh. Order in the world, restored.

'Kay now...I really am going to take tomorrow off to work on my book and catch up on my other responsibilities. Rather than, you know, engage in the current equivalent of reading car magazines in study hall....

Hope you have a very nice midsummer weekend. I might have some new camera news soon myself.

Mike

Original contents copyright 2019 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

Amazon.com • Amazon UK • Amazon Canada
Amazon Germany • B&H Photo • Adorama

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

John Camp: "I have an RX100 from a couple of iterations ago. One of my all-time favorite cameras, I have to say, both for quality of the images and for physical size. I've actually put two Panny GX8's and three lenses in a friggin' Dopp kit, which you'd think would allay concerns about camera size, but sometimes, you just don't want to carry anything and GX8's still have to be carried. The RX100 is functionally nothing (and also easy to forget you have, so you gawk at great photos, instead of taking them. At least, I do.) $1,200 is too much, but I'm interested."

Moose (partial comment): "A quick check shows that less than 60% of the photos in my galleries over the last year from Bhutan, southern Utah, and Ireland could have been made with this camera."

Kenneth Tanaka (partial comment): " Honestly, I might never have made perhaps 20%–25% of my favorite images over the past seven or so years if not for having an RX100 at the ready."

[You can read the full texts of "partial comments" in the Comments Section. Here I just thought it was interesting that Moose and Ken were saying such opposite things. —Ed.]

Kristine Hinrichs: "I purchased the RX100 VI right after it came out last fall. Every time I 'popped up' the EVF I had to readjust the diopter, so I sent it back. I waited a month and bought another; same issue. I could have solved the problem with a little electrical tape, but figured that for $1,200 I shouldn’t have to do that. I bought the Panasonic LX100 II and I’m very happy with it, even though I don’t come close to using all the cool features."

Bruce Hedge: "Well, you've set the cat among the pigeons again...any discussion on sensor size will get blood boiling all round. Here's my tuppence worth. At the beginning of the 'drone' revolution in 2013, I bought a DJI Phantom 1. No camera was included—you could sling your own GoPro underneath, but the still photos weren't high quality. I saw the possibility of using the unit for my real estate business, taking aerial views of larger properties. After much research, I decided to plunge forth and bought a Nikon J1 with 10mm lens (28mm equivalent). Three hundred grams, a 1" sensor, and, most importantly, a time lapse function, which allowed me to set it going so it would take a photo every five seconds. I rigged up a Heath Robinson light platform underneath, with the camera angled down at about 15 degrees. After a bit of practice, I was able to send it up, point it in more-or-less the right direction by eye (no telemetry back to phone then!), and bring it back four minutes later with one or two decent pix out of the forty or so taken.The extra weight of the camera drastically reduced the already short flight time of those early DJIs.

"Clients loved the photos. I even used it at a wedding, where it created quite a sensation back then—I took possibly the first-ever high-quality drone pic of a wedding in Australia. November 2013. The 1"sensor was more than adequate for high-end brochures, and we even made a billboard with one image which was more than OK when viewed from normal viewing distance.

"Suffice to say, I loved that Nikon. Still do. Solid, rugged, reliable quality. I never upgraded, but bought two more cheap J1's when Nikon dumped the range. I took the camera with the 10mm lens on a trek to Mount Everest Base Camp in 2016. Porters carried my Olympus E-M1 with three small primes, but I carried that light little Nikon, with three extra batteries on me the whole way, and got some absolutely wonderful photos, because it was immediately available in my top pocket. I have a one-metre wide panorama taken at Gorak Shep which is a stitch of five vertical shots taken with my beloved 1"sensor, which is rather impressive!

"So, my take is this.... if the 1" sensors were that good back then, I can't imagine why we need any more quality today for general everyday photography.My oldest one has now done over 80K clicks and is still chugging along. My E-M1 does give slightly superior results, but I don't need a Ferrari when a Lexus will get me there just as well at a third the price. (My real car is a fifteen year old Mitsubishi Magna which also continues to do the job.)

"Oh, and incidentally, you're back to your best—the break did you good, and the posts during your recuperation were wonderful!"

Mike Plews: "My beloved Canon S95 perfected but at three times the price. Love it but can't put a house payment in my pocket right now."

Shaun: "You can find a very nice used RX100 III for less than $300, and for me it's the best version of this camera. The newer sensor loses something. I tried the IV and V and went back to the III for image quality. And I prefer the faster lens to the longer reach of the VI and VII. In a pinch, I could use it for all my work, it's that good."

Comments

[MikeR]

So, what magazines? I pored endlessly over Road & Track, Sports Cars Illustrated, and Hot Rod.

[Mostly Road & Track and Car & Driver, which were competitors back then. (Now they have the same ownership.) I eventually got to meet David E. Davis, the legendary editor of Car & Driver. I actually visited him at his home in Ann Arbor to see an old Mexican view camera he had! --Mike]

[Speed]

According to Wikipedia, Lincoln went up to VIII.

[Michael Perini]

This camera was at it's best with the 24-70 (Eq.) f/1.8-2.8
And I think the sensor is the same.

[hugh crawford]

Well there’s this
https://camerapedia.fandom.com/wiki/Flexaret_VII
This camera looks pretty great for shooting videos of bands playing in clubs a specialized niche for sure but I can’t think what else I would use it for.
It seems more targeted at video. Otherwise birds maybe?
On the other hand I just bought a Sony 7ii for over $300 less a few weeks ago.

The cartoon was probably Stan Mott.

[Jim Grey]

I bought my wife an RX100 Mk 1 last year, new, when she admired my little Canon S95 that I use all the time and said she wanted one. I think the RX100 series is sort of the successor to the old Canon S series. My S95 is still pretty darned good despite its age. It didn't make sense to me to spend a grand on the latest iteration of the RX100 when the Mk 1 is still a hell of a camera for a lot, lot, lot less.

[Stan B.]

One extension- fine, anymore... embarrassing.

[Richard Skoonberg]

I have a Sony RX100 Mark I. I bought it used for $300 from B&H a couple of years back (and through your site, I might add) but I thought it was time to upgrade. All the versions are still available on Amazon. So I started reading reviews and tried to figure out what the differences were. After much research, I realized that in terms of image quality, there really isn't much difference between the Mark I and the Mark VI except a lot of features that weren't important to me. The camera is very convenient in its carrying case, takes wonderful, sharp pictures with its little Zeiss zoom. I have full-frame cameras, but I am always pleased with the results I get from the little Sony.

[Rob L.]

I've tried, several times, to like the 1 inch sensor cameras (both Panasonic and Sony), but they just fall down in dark conditions still. So I'm sticking to my succession of Nikon A, X70, and whatever comes after that for a pocketable 'good' complement to my phone.

[Clayton]

I am still using the original RX100, and only recently has it started to develop glitches. I agree that shorter and faster is better on these small cameras, though on bigger stuff I spend a lot of time beyond 100mm-e.

[Arg]

Don't feel old, Mike. Sony years are like dog years.

[Ernie Van Veen]

I bought a Sony RX100 M2 after reading Michael Reichmann's review of the first iteration of that camera. It was the perfect complement to my 5DIII, (my iPhone 4 was not up to the task).

Unfortunately, I left the Sony outside in a Cat 1 hurricane for 3 days and, while it still works, it requires special knowledge to turn it on and off. So, if I had the dosh (Australian for moolah) I would happily upgrade to the RX100 M7. In fact, my dream, dosh-no-object combination would be the RX100 M7 and a Fujifilm GFX100 with a wide zoom. (Yes, I prefer the zooms to the primes and digital to film - maybe it's a southern hemisphere thing. I'll just get back to enjoying my midwinter weekend.)

[c.d.embrey]

Not that many people who use Roman Numerals in their daily life. The next iPhone is being refereed to as iPhone 11, not iPhone XI. Sounds like smart marketing to me.

[Kenneth Tanaka]

I have been an enthusiastic owner of a Sony RX100 since its first version and have had the "RX100 VI" for a year or more. Honestly, I might never have made perhaps 20%-25% of my favorite images over the past seven or so years if not for having an RX100 at the ready. Those who dis it are, frankly, foolish. It is one camera worth getting to know and taking along, even if you also have a more olde-timey camera with you. You say you're old, arthritic and can't carry your enormous Nikon or Canon rigs any more? You say you can't focus your 50 year-old Leica M with failing vision? Get over it and get an RX100 and just start making great memorable images again, man!

That said, I don't feel any need to update to the new "VII" which matches the VI almost feature-for-feature. (I don't make home movies or vlog so I don't care about any of the video features, nor the higher burst frame rate.) But this should depress the prices on existing new VI stocks for anyone waiting to jump in!

[Moose]

'But we have to admit that this new Sony will pretty much do it all, for any sane definition of "all." '

Popular definitions of sanity are vastly over-rated.

This camera doesn't even come close to my personal definition of "all", a definition grounded in my photographic practice.

Leaving aside any factors from difference in sensor size, and based on focal length alone, a quick check shows that less than 60% of the photos in my galleries over the last year from Bhutan, So. Utah and Ireland could have been made with this camera.

Circumstances vary, of course. In the countryside outside of Duvall, WA, 26%; in Dublin, 90%. Although I'd have missed a handful of shots I like, I could have done Dublin with the RX100 VII with only moderate frustration. (But why?)

[Sarge]

I prefer the cigarette-pack sized Ricoh GR III to this, but am a fan of the Sony RX10 IV superzoom. The RX10 is more robust in build (environmentally sealed), easier to handle than its diminutive sibling, almost duplicates the RX100 at the wide-angle zoom range, and is only slightly more expensive.

The GR III-RX10 IV combo meets my favorite photography interests, landscape and birding. And will easily fit inside my favorite Brady camera bag. After a 2-year break (from shooting) and 5 years since my last camera buy (a GXR second body), I'm in a GAS mood.

For my other interests (portrait and macro), I can still use my aging Ricoh GXR using native and adapted lenses. Will have to sell some of my L/M lenses though to raise money to buy the GR III. As for the RX10, will need to talk to Honey. :-)

[HR]

I bought the wonderful Panasonic TX1 (ZS100, TZ100 outside Japan) in January in Hiroshima for $419. It has a great 1" Sony 20mp BSI sensor, Leica 25-250mm f2.8-5.9 lens, EVF, is fast to turn on, fast AF, doesn't have an EVF hump, has a built-in flash, and is very satisfying to use. The TX1 is actually a bit lighter and the size is very similar to the Canon G16. The TX1 has lots of configuration choices which I like. Overall I am very pleased with it. I have the rear dial set to do exposure compensation and the front dial around the lens sets the aperture when using A mode and does program shift when using P mode. When I shoot jpegs I set noise reduction to the minimum -5. This has become my current carry-everywhere camera.

[Ilkka]

I have the TX1 and it is otherwise just about perfect travel camera, except the lens is slow at anything but it's shortest focal length. At 50mm equivalent it is already f/4 and it goes quickly to 5.6 from there. But it happens to use the same battery as some GF models and I have couple of GF3's lying around. So I have some spare batteries and a charger that works with the TX1 battery (TX1 doesn't come with charger, you are supposed to charge in camera from USB, which is handy to have) and I can put a 1.7/20 (or 25 or 45) on the GF3 and get a very small two camera outfit using same battery and charger and covering 25-250 in a zoom and a fast 40 or 50 or 90. That is perfect for travel.
The TX1 has a ridiculous amount of functions including all sorts of cool movie tricks. If one is willing to try and learn.

[NikoJorj]

For me, the demarcation with smartphones is clear on two points :
- An EVF means you can accurately frame even in bright daylight,
- General responsiveness means you don't need to wait a few seconds for the camera app launch when you see something to photograph.
Your mileage may vary, especially as I limit myself to entry-level phones.

And having had a LX100 for work, it wasn't smaller than a GM5 + 12-32 combo... but the lens was 2 stops faster, of course.

[Matt]

At 1200 usd I'd rather have a Fuji xt30 or even xt20 and whatever lens it comes with (23mm f2 or 18-55mm).

I understand the appeal of a compact camera but the price is outrageous for such a toy that will be replaced next year.

[HR]

I forgot to mention that I also have the Canon S95 and Sony RX100. I bought the RX100 last year new for $380 and it has firmware 2.0. The latest version you can download from Sony is 1.1. The 2.0 is different than the 2.0 for the RX100III, etc. though. This post is from someone who found what is different in the menus and speculates that the current RX100 has an updated BIONZ processor that uses 2.0, but older RX100s can't use the new firmware because they have an older BIONZ processor.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/61429424

[Ian Goodrick]

Only last month I purchased a RX100 VA which by my calculation would be classed as the 7th iteration of this camera as it was quietly slipped out last July after the VI was launched, this would then make the VII the 8th version of the camera.

It is small, but a SmallRig cage is a great addition and helps the handling.

I carry the camera all the time now and keep the camera and cage, 2 spare bartteries, 2x125GB memory cards, a small note book and pen, an allen key and a couple of other odds and ends in an old lowe pro pouch that I used to keep a small zoom lens in.

The main reason I got the camera was for my daughters wedding.The outright ban on me carrying my big camera was the impetus to spend the money. I had researched the options many times and knew that this was the camera I wanted. The longer reach of the MkVI was tempting but the larger aperture of th VA won out.

I would also add that the images from the camera must be accepted by my picture library, Alamy. Which they are.

[Steve Biro]

My first RX100 was the original. I still have it - but use it only for underwater work with a diving housing.

But I do have the RX100 VA and the VI. They are the perfect travel pair, with the VA for indoor and low-light situations and the VI for most outdoor and telephoto shots. They use the same battery and charger (although the batteries can be charged in camera). And together they take up about the same space as one compact micro four-thirds camera (say, a GX9 or Pen F) with kit zoom lens.

I'm with the contingent who believe those who dismiss the Sony RX100 series are being foolish. It's worth learning how to use them. And if you can't be bothered, then just put them on Intelligent Auto and watch them get the shot right - almost every time. These cameras can easily be handed to non-photographers and still deliver great results.

I'm fine with those who have defaulted to iPhones and Pixels for their compact camera needs (I can't do it yet on a regular basis). But the RX100s complement the full-frame A7 series nicely.

[John Igel]

Wait, why isn't the Sony Alpha a7R IV called a 'Mark IV'?

[Bill S.]

I have an RX100V and it is an amazing camera, but it's not really a pants pocket camera, unless you have cargo pockets. It's more than a 1/4" thicker than the Rx100m1 you looked at, and 1/2" thicker than Canon's G9x (and 3x the price.) Yes, the Rx100V is a much better camera than the G9x, but when I'm headed out the door the G9x often goes and the RX100V stays home. If I'm willing to carry something to get better performance than the G9x, I usually take my m43 camera. For my use case the RX100 is too big for a pants pocket yet has the limitations of a digicam. For others the RX100 series may be an ideal coat pocket/small bag compact camera. It's all about the compromises that best fit ones needs.

Of course, the advent of multiple camera cell phones will likely greatly reduce the market for a truly pocketable digicam like the 28-84mm Canon G9x.

[Dan Montgomery]

To be honest, realistic and humble, this is probably all the camera I need for business (lots of web and video, some smallish prints) or pleasure. But I can't quite make the leap.

And you are so right about those diminishing-telescoping zooms. If a manufacturer designed one with the fat piece -- fitted with a largish filter -- at at the end, some of us old guys would probably feel better about it, if only at a marketing-to-the-subconscious level!

[Kenneth Tanaka]

John Igel: "Wait, why isn't the Sony Alpha a7R IV called a 'Mark IV'?"

The A7R line is designed by a guy named Frank.

[Robert Roaldi]

Nothing wrong with 1" sensors for most people. The Nikon V2 was a terrific sports camera. If they had a weather-protected model with more lens choice, I don't see why pro sports shooters couldn't use them. How many sports photographers make 3 foot wide prints? The current mirrorless cameras are only now approaching the AF and frame rate performance of the V2.

[Sylvain G.]

A complete side note I admit, but reading this from Bruce Hedge ticked a box !
"Oh, and incidentally, you're back to your best—the break did you good, and the posts during your recuperation were wonderful!"

Indeed! incredibly fun and educative to read as it's been 99% of the time, mind you.

Can't imagine when that second eye gets done !

Greetings,
S.

[Kodachromeguy]

One-inch (1") sensor. Danger, danger Will Robinson. The "experts" and "photographers" on Dpreview can prove with a million obtuse arguments that no professional work is possible with any sensor smaller than their "full-frame." They know everything, don't they?

[Moose]

Here I just thought it was interesting that Moose and Ken were saying such opposite things.

Without context, it's hard to tell if we are really far apart.

When I'm traveling and taking pictures, I'm carrying two cameras around my neck and one clipped to my belt. Those, and a fisheye in a pocket or vest, give me a focal length range of 14-800 mm -e, plus the ~150º AoV of the fisheye. Yup, use it all.

In those circumstances, an RX or LX model is less capable in both sensor and lens.

In the case of someone using an ILC with primes or a fast, short FL range zoom, and where light is decent, I can easily imagine how one of these compacts would add significantly to the photographic possibilities.

When compared to no camera, or a 'phone camera, one of these would be marvelously better, esp. for those for whom the FLs of 'phone cameras are insufficient (as for me.)

My light/non-serious kit is a GM5 with 14-140/2.5-5.6. Again, one of these super compacts would fall short for all but widest angle. Pano stitching takes care of 24 mm -e and much wider. With a real lens, with front filter threads, I can, and do, also use an achromatic close-up lens to get far closer.

Remember, I am not trying to sell, or un-sell, anything, only responding to the idea that '. . . this new Sony will pretty much do it all, for any sane definition of "all."', when that's not true for me.

As I am addicted to long FLs, I also have a Panny ZS50, 2/3" sensor, 24-720 mm -e. Remarkably capable in daylight. That comes closer for me to the role of pocketable camera I can always have with me.

[Bear.]

I have a Mk 2 (I think). What sold me was that the battery and the clip on EVF was the same as for my Rx1 making a terrific and tiny travel set. I find the 1 inch 20 mp sensor won't res-up to A2 prints - but for anything less it was a pocket powerhouse. I haven't tried a more recent model but perhaps its time.

[Wojtek]

Leica M7 is en earlier VII ;)

[RayC]

I had a MK2 and then a MK3, both were capable cameras, neither saw the level of action they should have because they aren't really "pocketable" and as such they were with me less often than they should have been. I've severely cut my camera collection down to:
"gasp" an iPhone XS, and a Sony A6400.

The XS truly is with me always and is generally "good enough" particularly when you extract RAW from it.

The 6400 is more than good enough, generally showing my limitations not the camera's. I pair it with the only barely good enough kit lens zooms: The unfairly maligned PZ 16-50mm and the more fairly maligned 18-135mm 3.5-5.6 which hits my sweet spot for size when I'm traveling. I have a host of other "prime lenses" may of which are adapted to the 6400 for special purpose uses, but the above fit my every day use, and ride in my backpack.

[John Wilson]

One of my favorite photographers that I follow Matt Black a Magnum photog uses these Sony’ s if you get a chance check out his Geography of Poverty b/w series, it’s eyeopening. I bought into Ricoh GR 11 to go with my Leica x’s, Sony menu not my cup of tea.

[JOHN GILLOOLY]

I am a HUGE fan of the RX10 iv and this camera shows us how small the lens can be if you only need a more typical focal length range of 24-200. Knowing the image quality of the RX 10, this camera is very appealing to me. I was thinking today about another twist of this 1 inch sensor Sony lineup. Could they make a camera the same exact size as the RX10 iv but instead of the 24-600 F2.8-4 equiv lens, how about a fast 24-200? Some of the technical folks may have an idea how fast the lens could be to make a similar size camera/lens. Could it be an F2 lens? 1.8?