Cost of Sony vs Panasonic: I have noticed that Sony cameras are much more expensive than what appears to be Panasonic near equivalents. For example, I purchased the Panasonic DMC-ZS100...

PHRubin Loc: Nashville TN USA

I have noticed that Sony cameras are much more expensive than what appears to be Panasonic near equivalents. For example, I purchased the Panasonic DMC-ZS100 for $497.99 while the similar appearing Sony DSC-RX100 VI is $1,198.

While the sale prices exaggerate the differences slightly, is there a good reason to pay so much more?

Wingpilot Loc: Wasilla. Ak

PHRubin wrote:

I have noticed that Sony cameras are much more expensive than what appears to be Panasonic near equivalents. For example, I purchased the Panasonic DMC-ZS100 for $497.99 while the similar appearing Sony DSC-RX100 VI is $1,198.

While the sale prices exaggerate the differences slightly, is there a good reason to pay so much more?

I think some of it is in the name, for one thing. Maybe Sony figures their research is more valuable that that of others? But I've noticed the same thing.
I've been toying with the idea of getting the Sony RX100VI, but have been put off by the high price of the camera, so the Panasonic Lumix ZS100 is a more likely subject.

Kozan Loc: Trenton Tennessee

PHRubin wrote:

I have noticed that Sony cameras are much more expensive than what appears to be Panasonic near equivalents. For example, I purchased the Panasonic DMC-ZS100 for $497.99 while the similar appearing Sony DSC-RX100 VI is $1,198.

While the sale prices exaggerate the differences slightly, is there a good reason to pay so much more?

The short answer is NO. The Sony brand may have a better reputation. That is, the public thinks more highly of Sony products versus Panasonic products. It doesn't matter if it is justified, or not.

I work for a company that actually owns 5 companies. We make the same identical products between two of the companies. The only difference is the faceplates on the equipment. One brand sells for more money than the other. It's a matter of perceived value-- nothing more. Even parts are sold at different prices.

I personally would not hesitate to buy the cheaper product if the specs are similar, and the product lasts as long.

Kozan

repleo Loc: Boston

PHRubin wrote:

I have noticed that Sony cameras are much more expensive than what appears to be Panasonic near equivalents. For example, I purchased the Panasonic DMC-ZS100 for $497.99 while the similar appearing Sony DSC-RX100 VI is $1,198.

While the sale prices exaggerate the differences slightly, is there a good reason to pay so much more?

The ZS100 has been around for 3 or 4 years. It was $700 when first introduced. I have had several Panasonic compacts and always felt they were very good value for money. Sony is a bit further up the ladder towards a premium brand and can charge more. Sort of like why does a Mercedes cost more than a Toyota.

User ID

PHRubin wrote:

I have noticed that Sony cameras are much more expensive
than what appears to be Panasonic near equivalents. For
example, I purchased the Panasonic DMC-ZS100 for $497.99
while the similar appearing Sony DSC-RX100 VI is $1,198.

While the sale prices exaggerate the differences slightly, is
there a good reason to pay so much more?

One good reason to pay that much more is that
the chosen item costs that much more. You pays
you money and takes you pick !

.

Wingpilot Loc: Wasilla. Ak

Kozan wrote:

The short answer is NO. The Sony brand may have a... (show quote)

Here's a good example of that. Years ago (1982) a friend I was working with was getting ready to retire. He bought a Cadillac Seville (one ugly car, but the price was right) to take into retirement. It needed a new exhaust system, so he went to the local GM dealership and was told that a new exhaust system would set him back just over $900.00. Bruce knew the parts department manager so he asked him about it, and the guy told him there was no need to pay that much for a new exhaust, as the exhaust system for the Pontiac Grand Prix was exactly the same thing. It just had a different part number, was badged for Pontiac instead of Cadillac, and was less than half the price for the Caddy system. So yeah, your point is well taken.

Wingpilot Loc: Wasilla. Ak

I sometimes have to wonder if "better" might actually be something perceived by any given user, rather than a reflection on the overall quality of say, a camera. So is the Sony really that much better than the Panasonic, or do we think it's better because we're told that it is. Or perhaps the amount of "better" may be so slight that the average user may not be able to really tell the difference. But yeah, if you wanna dance, you've got to pay the band, as they say.

rgrenaderphoto Loc: Hollywood, CA

PHRubin wrote:

I have noticed that Sony cameras are much more expensive than what appears to be Panasonic near equivalents. For example, I purchased the Panasonic DMC-ZS100 for $497.99 while the similar appearing Sony DSC-RX100 VI is $1,198.

While the sale prices exaggerate the differences slightly, is there a good reason to pay so much more?

Follow the link to see Japanese Camera Manufacturer's market shares. See that small grey wedge? That is everybody else after Canon, Nikon and Sony

https://photorumors.com/2018/08/01/2018-canon-nikon-and-sony-market-share-latest-nikkei-bcn-and-cipa-reports/

Panasonic costs less because they need to be more competitive for their dwindling slice of the market.

"Nikkei published their 2018 interchangeable lens camera worldwide market share report:

Canon: 49.1%
Nikon: 24.9%
Sony: 13.3%

All other companies (Fuji, Olympus, Panasonic, Ricoh) combined have less than a 13% market share (the top 3 camera manufacturers gained 6.2% in 2018 to a total of 87.3%). The compact (fixed lens) digital camera market share shows similar numbers."

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

PHRubin wrote:

I have noticed that Sony cameras are much more expensive than what appears to be Panasonic near equivalents. For example, I purchased the Panasonic DMC-ZS100 for $497.99 while the similar appearing Sony DSC-RX100 VI is $1,198.

While the sale prices exaggerate the differences slightly, is there a good reason to pay so much more?

There may be differences in focus speed, processing and processing speed, and image quality. They may or may not be readily discernible. And some of it could be name recognition pricing. And definitely the age difference, older release versus newer release, is some of the price difference.

zug55 Loc: Naivasha, Kenya, and Austin, Texas

Perhaps it comes down to better quality, particularly quality of the lens?

https://www.dpreview.com/articles/4579350611/sony-cyber-shot-dsc-rx100-m6-vs-panasonic-lumix-dc-zs200-tz200-vs-dmc-zs100-tz100-best-for-travel

"Our impressions so far are that it also has the best lens, the best autofocus and video that's both cleaner and more detailed. There are also a couple of things the RX100 does that the Panasonics can't. Its frankly ridiculous continuous shooting performance may be a differentiator for some photographers, and its Eye AF performance alone would make a huge difference for anyone taking portraits."

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

PHRubin wrote:

I have noticed that Sony cameras are much more expensive than what appears to be Panasonic near equivalents. For example, I purchased the Panasonic DMC-ZS100 for $497.99 while the similar appearing Sony DSC-RX100 VI is $1,198.

While the sale prices exaggerate the differences slightly, is there a good reason to pay so much more?

Maybe - it depends on what you want and what you are willing to pay for it.

This review may lift the cloud of confusion. It does not rate the ZS100 very highly.

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonic-lumix-dmc-zs100-tz100

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

As Wingpilot said, the name means a lot. It seems that every Sony upgrade comes with a big price increase. Canon and Nikon charge about the same for upgrades - D7000, D7100, D7200, etc. If people keep paying those high prices, why should Sony lower them?

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

PHRubin wrote:

I have noticed that Sony cameras are much more expensive than what appears to be Panasonic near equivalents. For example, I purchased the Panasonic DMC-ZS100 for $497.99 while the similar appearing Sony DSC-RX100 VI is $1,198.

While the sale prices exaggerate the differences slightly, is there a good reason to pay so much more?

You can pay $15,000.00 for a car, and you can pay $180,000.00 for a car. They will both go from point A to point B. Which one you drive is up to you and your budget.

lamontcranston

rgrenaderphoto wrote:

"Nikkei published their 2018 interchangeable lens camera worldwide market share report:

Canon: 49.1%
Nikon: 24.9%
Sony: 13.3%

Interesting numbers. I would like to see the numbers for "rate of growth" for the Big 3. I'm guessing Sony would have the largest rate of growth because of the move to mirrowless by so many people.

dpullum Loc: Tampa Florida

At Bestbuy the Sony RX100 ... old... not the III, IV, or V is down under $400. I paid $500 for my TZ100 several months ago I liked the long reach. The TZ200 is the latest Panasonic. Canon has now a 1" sensor pocket cameras but it has a only 4x [?] reach.

But, yes, your comment about Sony being higher for side by side cameras ... the RX100 was significantly more expensive than the TZ100 when first introduced. Reviews said RX better IQ [but can you really see it?] but shorter reach, I like the longer zoom. Sort of a Great vs Greater... both fab cameras in your pocket ready to capture that 10second duration happening. [especially if you do a 4K video at 30 frames per-second and chose a frame with 8 meg]