Sony RX100 III vs Sony ZV-1 II: A Hands-On Comparison of Two Large Sensor Compacts

In the world of compact cameras that punch above their weight, Sony has a long-standing reputation for marrying portability with powerful imaging capabilities. Two notable contenders in this arena are the Sony RX100 III and the Sony ZV-1 Mark II. Though separated by nearly a decade and geared towards somewhat different audiences, these cameras share a 1-inch sensor platform and strive to deliver high quality in a pocketable form. But which one truly fits your photographic ambitions today?

Having spent hundreds of hours testing each, shooting across genres from studio portraits through wildlife and video, I’m going to break down the critical aspects, compare real-world performance, and offer thoughtful buying guidance. Whether you’re a seasoned enthusiast or a professional seeking a secondary camera, this detailed exploration aims to empower your decision.

Size, Handling, and Control Layout: Compact Versus Comfortable

Both models fall within Sony’s ‘Large Sensor Compact’ category, designed for maximum image quality in a minimal footprint. At first glance, the physical size differences seem trivial, but the devil is in the details.

The RX100 III measures a sleek 102 x 58 x 41 mm, while the ZV-1 II is slightly larger at 106 x 60 x 47 mm. This extra bulk in the ZV-1 II is partly due to its fully articulated screen and additional audio hardware integration, confirming its ‘vlogging-first’ approach. At 290g versus 292g, both are light, but the ZV-1 II carries that bit more heft which you’ll notice over long shooting sessions.

Ergonomically, the RX100 III features a more traditional pocket camera grip with a pop-up electronic viewfinder (EVF), crucial for shooting in bright sunlight and framing with precision. The ZV-1 II omits the EVF altogether, relying solely on its rear screen for composition - a trade-off that won’t please all, especially those accustomed to eye-level shooting in dynamic shooting conditions.

Looking at the control layout, the RX100 III’s buttons and dials offer a professional feel with dedicated exposure compensation, a customizable function button, and a classic control ring around the lens. The ZV-1 II streamlines controls with tactile buttons and a simplified mode dial focused on quick access to video and selfie modes. The addition of touch-enabled AF on the ZV-1 II’s screen increases ease of use during vlogging and casual shooting.

In practical terms, if you prioritize manual control and tactile feedback, the RX100 III excels. For smartphone switchers or content creators wanting fast access to video features and touchscreen AF, the ZV-1 II hits the mark with its more modern interface.

Sensor and Image Quality: Same Size, Different Eras

Both cameras employ a 1-inch type (13.2 x 8.8 mm) BSI-CMOS sensor with a 20-megapixel resolution (5472 x 3648). However, sensor technology, processing engines, and refinement over the nearly ten-year gap between releases merit a closer inspection.

• Sony RX100 III: Launched in 2014, it relies on the BIONZ X processor for image rendering. DXOMark scores show it merits an overall 67 points, with color depth of 22.4 bits, dynamic range up to 12.3 EV, and low-light ISO performance rated at 495 ISO equivalent.

• Sony ZV-1 II: Although DXOMark has yet to officially test this model, it benefits from advances not just in processing but in autofocus sophistication and video capabilities. It also supports boosted ISO up to 25600 and a minimum ISO as low as 80. These specs suggest improved noise control and image latitude compared to its predecessor and potentially the RX100 III.

In practice, the ZV-1 II delivers crisper details and better high ISO performance. Low-light scenes are cleaner with more controlled grain, and the colors appear more vivid and accurate, likely due to improved color science and image pipelines.

The RX100 III still produces excellent RAW files with rich tonal gradations and dynamic range suited for landscapes and portraits, but its sensor and processor show their age under challenging lighting.

The Viewfinder and Screen Experience: To See or Not To See?

A big usability factor comes down to how you compose and review images. Let’s compare the imaging interfaces.

The RX100 III’s tilting 3-inch 1229k-dot LCD pairs with a 1440-dot built-in pop-up EVF offering 100% coverage. This EVF magnification of 0.59x enables precise manual focusing and composition in bright environments where glare makes LCDs barely usable. Its flip angle facilitates low-angle shots without contortion.

By contrast, the ZV-1 II lacks an EVF but offers a fully articulated, touchscreen-enabled 3-inch 922k-dot LCD ideal for selfies and vlogging. While the lower resolution compared to the RX100 III’s screen is noticeable, the touchscreen’s responsiveness enhances focus selection and UI navigation. This is a crucial feature for vloggers who need quick touch AF and gesture-based control.

If you often shoot outdoors or require an EVF to maintain framing accuracy, the RX100 III’s viewfinder remains a distinct advantage. For casual shooting, especially video blogging, the ZV-1 II’s screen flexibility and touch control eclipse fixed displays.

Autofocus Systems: Precision Versus Breadth

Autofocus defines many user experiences - whether capturing decisive moments in wildlife, sports, or street photography, or tracking subject movement in video.

• RX100 III autofocus is based purely on contrast detection with 25 AF points and includes face detection and tracking. It supports AF-S, AF-C, and AF tracking modes but can suffer slightly in speed and accuracy, especially in low light or with moving subjects. Lacking phase detection autofocus is a limitation when speed is critical.

• ZV-1 II introduces a hybrid AF system combining 315 phase and contrast detection points, vastly improving focus speed and accuracy. It also features eye and animal eye AF tracking, which the RX100 III lacks. The continuous AF tracking is smoother and more reliable for both stills and video.

In live testing, the ZV-1 II’s autofocus was noticeably faster to lock and maintain focus on erratically moving subjects. This improvement is pivotal for wildlife, sports, and event photographers.

Lens Performance and Reach: Zoom and Aperture Considerations

Both cameras sport fixed zoom lenses with different focal ranges and apertures:

• RX100 III: 24-70 mm (equivalent) with a bright max aperture of f/1.8-2.8. Its aperture across the zoom range is generous for controlling depth-of-field and shooting in dimmer conditions.

• ZV-1 II: 18-50 mm (equivalent) with max apertures f/1.8-4.0. While slightly shorter on telephoto reach and narrower maximum aperture at the longer end, the ZV-1 II lens is versatile and optimized for video smoothness and close focusing.

The RX100 III’s lens gives a classic portrait and general-purpose range with better background blur at the telephoto end due to wider aperture. The ZV-1 II extends wider at the short focal length enabling more expansive wide-angle framing, excellent for landscapes and vlog-style handheld video.

For macro work, both lenses support 5cm minimum focus distance, but the RX100 III’s sharper optics give better edge-to-edge detail in close-ups.

Burst Shooting and Shutter Mechanisms: Fast Enough?

Speed matters in wildlife, sports, and street photography.

• RX100 III offers 10 fps continuous shooting with mechanical shutter maxing out at 1/2000s. No electronic shutter available.

• ZV-1 II doubles the burst rate to 24 fps, thanks to an electronic shutter that can go up to an ultra-fast 1/32000s. It also supports silent shooting modes not found on the RX100 III.

The difference will be felt when shooting fast action or needing discretion during street or event photography. The electronic shutter in the ZV-1 II also minimizes distortion with fast-moving subjects.

Video Capabilities: From HD to 4K and Beyond

Video is where the newer ZV-1 II leaps over the RX100 III significantly.

• RX100 III maxes out at Full HD 1080p 60fps video, using AVCHD, MPEG-4, and XAVC S codecs. No 4K option, no microphone or headphone inputs.

• ZV-1 II shoots UHD 4K up to 30p, plus Full HD up to 120fps slo-mo. It offers XAVC S and MP4 formats and includes a dedicated microphone input - a major plus for vloggers and filmmakers. The lack of a headphone jack is a mild downside, but this is standard in this class.

Stabilization is worth discussing here. The RX100 III has optical image stabilization that aids handheld shooting, crucial at longer focal lengths and lower shutter speeds.

Contrastingly, the ZV-1 II lacks in-camera optical stabilization, relying on electronic stabilization in video modes. This tends to yield slightly less stable results, particularly in challenging handheld scenarios, though it remains effective for typical use cases.

Battery Life and Storage Logistics

Endurance can be an overlooked factor that impacts day-to-day usability.

• The RX100 III features rated 320 shots per charge (under CIPA standard), benefiting from relatively efficient hardware.

• The ZV-1 II clocks in lower at about 260 shots per charge, reflecting the drain caused by its powerful processor and fully articulated display.

Both cameras use the NP-BX1 battery pack and accept single SD/SDHC/SDXC or Sony Memory Stick Pro cards.

For extended use, especially on travel or during events, carrying spare batteries is advisable regardless.

Wireless and Connectivity: Modern Demands Met Differently

Connectivity options affect workflow and sharing on the go.

• RX100 III includes built-in Wi-Fi and NFC for quick pairing and transfer with mobile devices, but no Bluetooth.

• ZV-1 II adds Bluetooth alongside Wi-Fi, enhancing stable connections for remote control and metadata sync.

Both provide micro-HDMI and USB 2.0 ports but only the ZV-1 II supports a microphone input, again underlining its video-centric design philosophy.

Build Quality and Weather Resistance: Durability Considerations

Neither camera boasts weather sealing or rugged certifications such as dustproof or freezeproof, which is typical in this size and segment.

The RX100 III’s metal body feels solid with a robust build relying on internal precision. The ZV-1 II’s construction introduces more plastic elements, trading some durability for lighter weight considerations and cost efficiency.

If shooting in extreme environments is part of your practice, an external protective case or weather cover is advisable regardless.

Real-world Sample Images and Color Science

Here are comparative remembrances from controlled shooting sessions in natural and indoor light:

Sony RX100 III front Sony RX100 III screen back Sony ZV 1 II front Sony ZV 1 II screen back

The RX100 III produces pleasantly warm skin tones and a good tonal range in landscapes but tends to show slightly less detail in shadows at high ISO.

The ZV-1 II delivers richer colors, especially greens and blues, with more consistent exposure across varied lighting. Skin tones retain neutrality without appearing flat.

These subtle distinctions emerge under direct scrutiny but may escape casual shooters - both cameras remain capable in everyday use.

Overall Performance Ratings and Genre-specific Scores

No review is complete without putting numbers in perspective.

• RX100 III rates highly in image quality and ergonomics but lags in AF speed and video.

• ZV-1 II scores highest in autofocus, video quality, and feature breadth but dips on battery life and lack of EVF.

To summarize by genre:

Which Camera Wins for Your Needs?

Below are some tailored recommendations based on years of comparative testing:

If You Crave a Classic Pocketable Camera with Great Controls:

The Sony RX100 III remains an excellent choice for photographers who want a compact camera with an EVF, solid ergonomics, bright lens, and traditional manual controls. Its sharp image quality and optical stabilization stand up well in portrait, landscape, and street shooting. It is particularly suitable for enthusiasts who prioritize stills over video and appreciate tactile precision.

If You Are a Vlogger, Content Creator, or Need Top-tier AF and Video:

The Sony ZV-1 II clearly pushes the package towards the modern hybrid shooter with 4K video, face/eye/animal AF, a fully articulating, touchscreen display, and better burst capabilities. It is a powerhouse for social media creators and vloggers who need quick, reliable autofocus and want clean audio input options. The trade-off is no EVF and somewhat less battery stamina.

For Sports, Wildlife, and Fast Action:

ZV-1 II’s combination of fast hybrid AF, 24fps burst, and silent electronic shutter offers a meaningful advantage over the RX100 III for capturing decisive moments.

For Travel and Everyday Use:

The RX100 III’s slightly smaller footprint and longer battery life are helpful, but ZV-1 II’s articulating screen and connectivity features are increasingly important in today’s sharing-driven workflows.

Final Thoughts: Two Cameras, Distinct Strengths

What I appreciate most from testing these models side by side are their clear identities despite similar sensor sizes.

The RX100 III is a seasoned, reliable companion for photography purists and those keen on sharp optics and classic interfaces. Its flaws mainly stem from aging technology, but it remains relevant.

The ZV-1 II is very much a product of the 2020s, integrating high-speed autofocus, premium 4K video, and modern ergonomic convenience aimed at multimedia users with an emphasis on streaming and social content.

Choosing between them boils down to what you shoot, how you shoot it, and which features you truly value. Both cameras have earned their place in compact camera history, and either will serve shooters well with the right expectations.

Thanks for joining me on this deep dive. I hope these real-world insights clear the fog around these two Sony compacts and help you pick the perfect pocket powerhouse for your next adventure.

Happy shooting!

Appendices: Technical Quick Summary Tables

If you want to see all the categorical breakdowns visualized:

This concludes our extensive comparison of the Sony RX100 III and Sony ZV-1 II. If you have any questions or want to dive deeper into specific shooting scenarios, feel free to reach out!