Considering Downsizing and looking for advice on RX100

[Hoag]

A few years ago, I upgraded my underwater camera from an Olympus ELP-1 to a Sony A6000. I got a Nauticam housing for the A6000 along with both the port (and zoom ring) for the 16-50mm PZ kit lens and a Dome Port for the 10-18mm wide angle lens.

I like this new Sony camera so much that I sold my Canon DSLR and a small "herd" of L Series lenses and made the switch to Sony. (Above ground I now shoot an A7iii and I am acquiring a new "herd" of Zeiss & G Series Sony lenses.)

As much as I like my A6000 for an underwater camera, I would like to downsize so that I can easily fit my camera & housing into my carry-on. I can pretty much do it now, but I usually get dirty looks and/or a snide remark when I tell the person at the luggage counter "No I do not want to check this bag. It is coming with me."

Here is my question: If I switch from an A6000 to an RX100, I would see a substantially smaller "package", but how is the image quality? Would I love the switch when packing only to regret it when I upload the pics to the computer or would the image quality be close to that of the A6000 given the difference in sensor sizes?

Looking for advice from anyone who shoots an RX100 or similar camera. (Also on my "short list is the Canon G7Xiii.) I would probably also be switching to a FantaSea housing.

I shoot almost exclusively stills, so video performance isn't really a factor. I am also currently using a pair of Inon S2000 strobes and expect to continue to use these, so I am considering them to be a "constant" not a "variable" in whatever my next step is.

 

[Barmaglot]

If I switch from an A6000 to an RX100, I would see a substantially smaller "package"

I would put this into question. The A6xxx series of cameras have remarkably compact bodies - I've had my SeaFrogs Salted Line housing next to a Nauticam RX100 and the difference in size wasn't all that significant; the Nauticam A6000 housing is smaller still. Looking at Nauticam website, their RX100V housing weighs 0.85kg and measures 150mm × 101mm × 109mm, while their A6000 housing weighs 1kg and measures 192mm x 124mm x 88mm, although that is without a port, but still - RX100 will save you 4cm of width, 2cm of height, and a little bit of weight - hardly something to spends thousands on. The big dome needed by the 10-18mm complicates packing, but you can just as well shoot the A6000 with 16-50mm and wet lenses, same way you'd shoot an RX100/G7X, and the flat port needed for 16-50mm is tiny. If you can handle manual focus, you can also shoot it with UW-Nikkor 15mm fisheye via a Nauticam adapter, skipping a port entirely.

By the way, what did you mean by '16-70mm kit lens'? Sony has two kit lenses for E-mount APS-C - the older 18-55mm and the newer 16-50mm PZ, but the only 16-70mm that I know of is the $1k Sony-Zeiss Vario-Tessar, which is definitely not a 'kit' piece of glass.

 

[Hoag]

By the way, what did you mean by '16-70mm kit lens'? Sony has two kit lenses for E-mount APS-C - the older 18-55mm and the newer 16-50mm PZ, but the only 16-70mm that I know of is the $1k Sony-Zeiss Vario-Tessar, which is definitely not a 'kit' piece of glass.

My mistake. I meant the 16-50mm PZ kit lens. Thanks for catching my typo. I'll correct the original post.

 

[Hoag]

I would put this into question. The A6xxx series of cameras have remarkably compact bodies - I've had my SeaFrogs Salted Line housing next to a Nauticam RX100 and the difference in size wasn't all that significant; the Nauticam A6000 housing is smaller still. Looking at Nauticam website, their RX100V housing weighs 0.85kg and measures 150mm × 101mm × 109mm, while their A6000 housing weighs 1kg and measures 192mm x 124mm x 88mm, although that is without a port, but still - RX100 will save you 4cm of width, 2cm of height, and a little bit of weight - hardly something to spends thousands on. The big dome needed by the 10-18mm complicates packing, but you can just as well shoot the A6000 with 16-50mm and wet lenses, same way you'd shoot an RX100/G7X, and the flat port needed for 16-50mm is tiny. If you can handle manual focus, you can also shoot it with UW-Nikkor 15mm fisheye via a Nauticam adapter, skipping a port entirely.

Yup, the 7" dome does complicate things. Maybe a wet lens might be a better (both in terms of cash and size) option. Thanks for the advice. I might even be able to sell my 10-18mm lens & the port for what the wet wide lens would cost.

 

[Barmaglot]

Yeah, my 8" dome goes into the checked luggage wrapped in a wetsuit, but if you're looking for a more compact option, you can use a fisheye (either Sony 16mm + converter, or Tokina 10-17mm via Metabones) in a 4.33" compact dome, or one of the Nikonos fisheyes (Nikon 15mm, Sea & Sea 12mm) via a NEX to Nikonos adapter, or any one of a number of wet lenses available for the platform, although these tend to get pretty heavy - Nauticam WWL-1 weighs 1.24kg in air, so with the case and buoyancy collar, you're looking at something like 2kg in your bag.

 

[hilljo88]

My 2 cents: I went from rx100iv to a7iii. I think there is a significant improvement in image quality shooting the SEL 90 macro with the a7iii. But it’s another level of expense, weight and complexity. Can you get good images with the RX...? Absolutely. Will the sharpest images equal those of a Canon/Nikon DSLR or Sony? Nope.

 

[Hoag]

My 2 cents: I went from rx100iv to a7iii. I think there is a significant improvement in image quality shooting the SEL 90 macro with the a7iii. But it’s another level of expense, weight and complexity. Can you get good images with the RX...? Absolutely. Will the sharpest images equal those of a Canon/Nikon DSLR or Sony? Nope.

Thanks. I have no intention of taking my A7iii underwater. I currently use it above the surface, and I use an A6000 below the surface. I am looking to downsize from my A6000. The big issue (pardon the pun) is the 7 inch Dome Port that is required for my 10-18mm f4 lens.

 

[Hoag]

So, if I keep my A6000 and Nauticam housing, and go for a Wet Wide Angle Lens, are there any recommendations given that I want to keep things as small as possible without destroying my image quality?

 

[Barmaglot]

Depends on how wide you need to go. A Fantasea BigEye weighs only 200g and is pretty small, but it's basically a wet dome - no real optics inside - and all it does is restore the in-air FoV of your 16mm (24mm equivalent) - basically the long end of your 10-18mm in a dome. If you need a wider FoV, matching or exceeding the wide end of your 10-18mm, then you need a real lens - Nauticam WWL-1 is considered to be the best (and it's the only one that I know of that has a glass front element), and Fantasea/AOI UWL-09F gets good reviews too. Weefine WFL01 (marketed Kraken KRL01 in North America) is another option, but all of these are quite heavy - they're not huge like a dome, but they have a lot of heavy glass inside, so your back will feel it when it's in your carry-on, and woe betide you if you hit an airline that enforces carryon weight limits.
The most IQ per unit of mass/volume that you can get is probably the UW-Nikkor 15mm f/2.8 via NEX-to-Nikonos adapter, but you'd be giving up zoom and autofocus. I've shot a manual fisheye underwater (7Artisans 7.5mm f/2.8), and it's not too difficult, but there is no denying that it adds to your workload quite a bit.

 

[outofofficebrb]

I think the most significant difference might be for macro (f11 max with a wet diopter has me wanting more) and depending on which generation of RX100, overheating with extended video recording in 4K. I’ve been using a RX100IV for the last 2 years/260 dives and my biggest want is better macro. The very narrow field of view at f11 offers a very limited focus range which can be quite challenging for some of the smaller critters Wide angle is fine..........but could also be better. But then again, I’m lusting after full frame already.