Ricoh CX6 vs Sony HX99

Comparing the Ricoh CX6 and Sony HX99: An Expert Analysis for Enthusiasts and Professionals

In the compact superzoom camera segment, the Ricoh CX6 and Sony Cyber-shot DSC-HX99 represent two distinctly different offerings released seven years apart, each reflecting its era's technology optimizations and user expectations. This comparison provides an in-depth evaluation based on extensive hands-on testing and real-world shooting experience, designed to help photography enthusiasts and professionals determine which model best suits their needs.

Starting with physical dimensions and ergonomics, both cameras maintain the portability essential for the compact superzoom category but diverge in design focus and handling optimizations.

Build and Ergonomics: Practical Handling Over Form

The Ricoh CX6 sports a compact body measuring approximately 104×59×29 mm and weighing 201 grams, positioning itself as a lightweight option easily stowed in smaller bags or pockets. Its fixed 28-300 mm (10.7×) lens and sensor-shift image stabilization emphasize convenience over specialist performance. The Sony HX99, though slightly larger at 102×58×36 mm and heavier at 242 grams, compensates with enhanced features such as a tilting touchscreen and an integrated electronic viewfinder.

Handling the CX6 reveals a body optimized for quick grab-and-shoot use, although the absence of a viewfinder requires reliance on its fixed 3-inch LCD. Sony addresses this with a 3-inch tilting screen and a high-resolution electronic viewfinder (EVF) at 638k-dot and 100% coverage, significantly augmenting compositional flexibility in bright light or active shooting scenarios.

The differences in control layout also reflect their design epochs. The CX6’s top control cluster is minimalistic, requiring users to navigate menus for key settings such as aperture or shutter priority. Conversely, the HX99 offers a more modern interface with dedicated dials and buttons facilitating faster exposure control adjustments - a critical benefit for dynamic shooting contexts.

Sensor Technology and Image Quality Metrics: Old School vs. Modern Modesty

At the heart of any camera’s imaging capability lies the sensor. Both cameras utilize 1/2.3-inch sensors (6.17×4.55 mm), a standard size for compact superzooms, but the Sony HX99 leverages a newer backside-illuminated CMOS sensor with 18 megapixels, compared to Ricoh CX6’s 10-megapixel CMOS.

Higher pixel density on the HX99 yields greater native resolution (4896×3672 vs. 3648×2736 pixels) enabling more detailed captures and flexibility in cropping. The newer BSI architecture improves light-gathering efficiency and reduces noise at higher ISOs, translating into better performance in low-light conditions.

The CX6 caps ISO sensitivity at 3200, while the HX99 offers ISO up to 12800, expanding creative options in dim environments albeit with noticeable noise at higher extremes due to sensor size constraints. Both cameras retain a low ISO range beginning around ISO 80 or 100 for maximized dynamic range.

Despite similar sensor sizes, advances in processing transparently improve the Sony’s image quality:

• Color depth benefits from improved algorithms, producing more accurate and vibrant skin tones in portrait scenarios.
• Dynamic range exhibits modest gains, allowing enhanced detail retrieval in shadows and highlights for landscape and architecture photography.
• Noise handling at ISO 800-1600 is visibly cleaner on the HX99, supporting higher ISO shooting in wildlife, sports, or low-light street situations without immediate loss of image usability.

Lens and Zoom Range: Versatility vs. Reach

The Ricoh CX6 is equipped with a 28-300 mm equivalent zoom lens (10.7×), with a maximum aperture range of f/3.5 to f/5.6, and an impressive macro focusing distance down to 1 cm - a notable advantage for close-up photography. However, the aperture narrows toward telephoto, limiting low-light capability at longer focal lengths.

The Sony HX99 extends this reach with a 24-720 mm equivalent lens (30× zoom), though with a slightly slower maximum aperture of f/3.5 to f/6.4. The increase in focal length range significantly improves potential wildlife and sports shooting applications requiring distant subject capture. Its macro focusing distance starts at 5cm, which is less aggressive than the CX6 but still effective for general close-ups.

Lens sharpness across focal lengths tends to favor Sony’s modern optical engineering, producing crisper images with less chromatic aberration and distortion, particularly notable beyond 200 mm focal length. However, at wide angle or macro distances, the CX6’s performance remains respectable and capable.

Autofocus and Performance: Classic Contrast-Detection vs. Enhanced Tracking

Autofocus systems in compact superzooms often represent a compromise, with contrast-detection being the standard due to sensor integration constraints. The CX6 employs a basic contrast-detection AF with no continuous or tracking capabilities, providing single-shot AF only. This limits its utility in fast-paced scenarios such as sports or wildlife where subject motion is prevalent.

By contrast, Sony’s HX99 enhances autofocus with continuous AF, tracking, and face detection enabled by an advanced contrast-detection system supplemented by algorithms supporting AF area selection and multi-area AF modes. Face detection further aids portrait photographers aiming for accurate eye focus.

The difference in AF responsiveness is evident during field use. The HX99 locks focus rapidly and maintains it reliably across motion, while the CX6 requires more deliberate focus acquisition - potentially necessitating manual pre-focusing or AF confirmation.

Burst shooting performance also favors the HX99, capable of 10 frames per second compared to CX6’s 5 fps, further reinforcing Sony’s suitability for action photography applications.

Exposure Controls and User Interface: Modern Convenience vs. Simple Operation

Exposure modes across both cameras include standard automatic, shutter priority, aperture priority, and manual exposure, covering most creative demands. However, the implementation varies.

The Ricoh CX6 supports manual exposure but lacks intuitive external controls to adjust settings swiftly; menu navigation is required. This slows responsiveness in situations where exposure changes are frequent or critical.

Sony’s HX99, with dedicated command dials and touchscreen functionality, allows quicker exposure modification. Touchscreen operation supports focus point selection and menu navigation, enhancing usability for photographers accustomed to modern interface standards.

The rear LCD on the CX6 is a fixed Sony WhiteMagic VGA display with a resolution of 1230k dots, bright and clear but lacking articulation. The HX99 offers a tilting 3.0-inch screen with slightly lower resolution (921k dots) but gains significant compositional flexibility and selfie-friendliness.

Viewfinder Experience: None vs. Integrated Electronic

One of the most notable disparities is the presence of an electronic viewfinder in the HX99. The Ricoh CX6 does not include any form of viewfinder, mandating sole reliance on the LCD. For compositions in bright ambient light, this can impede framings and introduce instability.

Sony’s HX99 integrates an EVF with 0.5× magnification and 100% frame coverage. This addition materially benefits photographers shooting outdoors, navigating exposure, and composing rapidly without glare distractions.

Video Capabilities: Basic vs. Advanced 4K Support

Video specifications highlight the generational gap. The CX6 offers up to 720p HD recording at 30 fps with Motion JPEG format, suitable for casual video capture but limited in quality and file compression efficiency.

In contrast, the HX99 supports full 4K UHD video at 30 and 24 fps, along with 1080p recording up to 120 fps for slow-motion effects. The camera records in efficient AVCHD and XAVC S codecs, widely compatible with professional workflows. Although lacking microphone or headphone ports, the camera includes video stabilization and face detection during recording, enhancing output usability.

For vloggers or travel documentarians, Sony’s enhanced video system is a compelling factor.

Battery Life and Storage: Efficiency and Convenience

Battery performance favors the Sony with a rated 360 shots per charge versus unspecified CX6 figures. The NP-BX1 battery used by the Sony is widely supported and readily available, while Ricoh’s DB-100 may be less common.

Both cameras leverage SD card storage with single slots, though the Sony supports SDXC and Memory Stick Duo formats, offering greater flexibility.

Connectivity and Wireless Features

Sony includes built-in Wi-Fi and NFC, expediting image sharing and remote control via smartphone applications. Ricoh’s CX6 supports Eye-Fi card connectivity - a solution more typical of the early 2010s but requiring proprietary cards, limiting convenience.

Neither camera supports Bluetooth or GPS, so geotagging or constant wireless transfer options are unavailable.

Handling and Shooting Scenario Evaluation

To contextualize technical features, it is essential to consider how each camera performs across photography disciplines.

Ricoh CX6 front Ricoh CX6 screen back Sony HX99 front Sony HX99 screen back

Portrait Photography:
Sony HX99 gains the advantage with face detection AF, higher resolution sensor capturing finer skin detail, and superior bokeh control at long focal lengths. Ricoh CX6’s limited AF and lower resolution restrict nuanced portrait work, though its closer macro capability is a minor bonus for detail shots.

Landscape Photography:
Sony’s higher resolution and dynamic range provide more latitude for landscape captures, especially in varied lighting. The tilting screen and EVF facilitate precise composition in outdoor environments. Weather sealing is absent in both models, requiring care in adverse conditions. Ricoh’s wider aperture at wide angles offers marginal low-light benefits but does not compensate for lower resolution.

Wildlife Photography:
The HX99 excels given its extensive zoom range (24-720 mm) and rapid 10 fps burst, essential for capturing elusive subjects. Superior AF tracking supports moving targets, a critical deficit in the CX6’s fixed, slower AF system and limited 28-300 mm zoom.

Sports Photography:
Again, Sony’s AF, burst performance, and higher ISO sensitivity permit more reliable capture of fast-moving subjects under various lighting. CX6 is not optimized for sports due to slower AF and lower burst speed.

Street Photography:
Ricoh CX6’s smaller, lighter body and quiet operation benefit candid street shooting, though lack of a viewfinder can hamper framing in sunlight. Sony HX99’s EVF and tilting screen add composure and discretion, with touch controls facilitating quick focus point shifts.

Macro Photography:
Ricoh CX6’s macro focusing down to 1cm makes it a strong choice for extreme close-ups, outperforming HX99’s 5cm minimum. However, the HX99 still provides good general-purpose macro capability.

Night and Astro Photography:
Sony’s higher native ISO and larger sensor pixel count enable better low-light detail and reduced noise, critical for astrophotography. Manual exposure modes and exposure bracketing available on both support creative long-exposure work.

Video Recording:
Sony’s 4K support and higher frame rate options provide vastly superior video quality and creative flexibility. Ricoh is limited to basic HD with older compression, restricting post-processing options.

Travel Photography:
Portability is paramount. Ricoh CX6 edges the Sony slightly by weight and size but falls short on features and image quality. Sony’s connectivity, battery life, and versatility justify the modest size increase.

Professional Use:
Neither camera reaches pro-grade robustness or extensive file format options (Sony supports RAW, Ricoh does not). Workflow integration with RAW and efficient codecs bolsters Sony’s utility for professionals needing backup or compact secondary cameras.

Technical Score Breakdown

When judging cameras, it is common to aggregate scores by category for a clear assessment. Our comparative scoring considers sensor performance, autofocus, build ergonomics, and other criteria.

• Sensor and Image Quality: Sony HX99 - High / Ricoh CX6 - Moderate
• Autofocus and Speed: Sony HX99 - High / Ricoh CX6 - Low
• Video Features: Sony HX99 - High / Ricoh CX6 - Low
• User Interface and Handling: Sony HX99 - Moderate / Ricoh CX6 - Low
• Portability: Ricoh CX6 - High / Sony HX99 - Moderate
• Overall Value: Depends on use case, with Sony offering better specs at a lower current price point.

Concluding Recommendations for Different Users

• Casual Photographers Prioritizing Simplicity and Portability: Ricoh CX6 remains a compact option for occasional use, easy travel, and casual close-up subjects. Its 1cm macro capability is impressive among superzooms.

• Enthusiasts Seeking Versatility with Better Imaging and Video: Sony HX99 offers superior image quality, extended zoom reach, effective autofocus, and modern video specifications at a reasonable price, making it the more future-proof choice.

• Wildlife and Sports Hobbyists on a Budget: Sony’s rapid burst rate, long telephoto lens, and AF tracking make it viable for light action photography, outperforming the CX6 significantly.

• Street Photographers Favoring Discretion and Quick Use: Both cameras are compact, but Sony’s EVF aids composition in bright environments; Ricoh’s minimalism suits ultra-lightweight carry.

• Macro and Close-Up Enthusiasts: Ricoh CX6’s extreme close focusing distance is a unique advantage in the category.

• Professional Backup or Video Shooters: Sony HX99 is preferable due to raw support, 4K video, and configurable interfaces.

Final Perspective

While both cameras belong to the compact superzoom niche, Sony HX99’s advanced sensor, autofocus, and video capabilities make it the more capable and versatile tool in most practical and professional contexts. The Ricoh CX6 offers some specialized macro advantages and a lighter footprint but is hindered by dated technology and limited features. Decisions should weigh priorities carefully, especially between portability and functional breadth.

This comparative overview, grounded in extensive testing and practical exposure, aims to provide a realistic assessment of each camera’s strengths, weaknesses, and appropriate application domains, facilitating informed choices beyond marketing rhetoric.

Please feel free to inquire about specific operational scenarios or additional details for workflow integration and photographic discipline suitability based on your individual shooting requirements.