BuckeyeBilly Loc: St. Petersburg, FL

It has everything to do with reputation and marketing principles. For example, in some lean years 20 years ago, I made extra money for Christmas shopping by working for a company that packaged some well known cleaning and other household items put out by Proctor and Gamble. When those orders were fulfilled, the line simply changed containers to put the product in, reflecting either a generic name or grocery store name both which would cost less than half in those stores over the full price of the P&G product. Same product, different container, but the point is that P&G has been around for a very long time and they also heavily advertise its products. Sony has its reputation as well as being known for quality, both which contribute to its advertising costs. They use the same marketing principles and philosophy as that of thousands of other companies. And for those cameras we all love and eagerly wait for that brown truck to bring us that camera we crave, you honestly would NOT want to know how much of the cost you paid goes for reputation and advertising costs! All that to say, the Panasonic at a lesser price will give you just as good of results as the Sony.

MikeMck Loc: Southern Maryland on the Bay

For me, at 73 years old and a little shake, I sold all my Canon gear and took the proceeds and purchased a Sony RX10 IV. I was tired of carrying all that gear. I paid $1,700 for the RX10. That is a lot when you are on social security. My reasoning was that the RX10 IV had a 1-inch sensor, a 2.8 lens and a 600mm reach. Most of my photography is shooting stage plays and hockey games. Both these efforts require excellent low light ability. Sony has these attributes and I couldn't be happier. I live on the Chesapeake Bay and I sometimes need a little more reach. I purchased a used CyberShot DSC-HX400V. I guess in the final analysis, its all in what you use the equipment for.
RX10

gwilliams6

Opusx300

Yes, a lot of it is due to marketing and perception BUT there is a portion of it that could be due to better features and photos.

Ched49 Loc: Pittsburgh, Pa.

Great question. And you came up with a perfect example... In most cases, a more expensive camera will show you why it is more expensive in the specs. But in this case, there is no reason why the Sony should cost twice as much as the Panasonic.

Satman Loc: Indy

I have noticed for years that Sony TVs are more expensive than Panasonic TVs,

People just pay more, have for years,

The price is not always the final cost, even used Pano products are cheaper, and in less demand.

They both take nice pictures,

Naptown Gaijin

Small market share does not equate to quality.... ask any Leica owner.

User ID

`

Nobody has yet mentioned that the
OP price comparison is bogus. Since
the Panasonic is an earlier model and
of lower "aspiration" in the first place,
it would make sense to compare it to
the much more affordable pricing of
the Mk II and Mk III versions of the
RX100 series. If you do that, it's no
longer a crazily lopsided comparison,
and the OP question just evaporates.

Funny no one pointed that out, but all
just ramble on showing their "industry
marketing savvy" about market share,
branding, yadayadyadah :-(


.

PHRubin Loc: Nashville TN USA

While the lens on the RX10III has a better aperture spec, its zoom range is pitiful by the standards of the other models.

I'm getting the impression it is all hype and reputation, not better quality

BebuLamar

It's not Sony. It's the RX series. Sony priced their RX series price quite high (I believe because they are also very good). Others Sony prices aren't high. I think Sony has the lowest priced full frame camera the A7.

User ID

PHRubin Loc: Nashville TN USA

User ID (a regular here) (online) Joined: Jul 7, 2018 Posts: 1144


That raised the level.

IDguy Loc: Idaho

I have had both Sony and Panasonic cameras. I still have the Panasonic...

User ID

`


Similarly, but I've still kept the Sonys on hand.
Yet, I find I keep reaching for the Panasonics.
Nothing about quality differences, mainly it's
about size, mebbe secondarily about features.

The Sonys stick around to use various legacy
lenses that would look huge and be redundant
on the Panasonics. Example: Why put a 50mm
f/1.8 [legacy FF lens] on a Panasonic, instead
of the tiny, and inexpensive, 45mm f/1.8 from
Olympus ? Just ONE example :-)

OTOH, my old Maxxum 16/2.8 fisheye will work
only on a Sony, and there's no m4/3 equivalent
available. Again, just ONE example. So m4/3 is
getting more use, but Sonys are still needed.

.

nsilberma Loc: San Jose, Calif.

First I would check if you compare apples to apples. I can't say if the price is justified, but from photo sites reviews and friends who have the RX100VI there is no compare to it. It looks to me that the RX100VI is kind of a"mini A9" So the ultimate answer is with you to decide based on your needs and performance trade-offs you are willing to make for $$$. Recently I was on a wildlife photography tour and surprisingly several highly professional photographers had the RX100VI as their second camera (???). Hope this helps. Undoubtedly Panasonic and others make good pocket size cameras that many photographers love.