A6300 or RX100V?

[DivealotZA]

Hey Guys,

So I'm looking at getting a proper (well better than my Sealife DC1400) setup, my question is, which would be the better of the two?

I'd like to get some macro mostly, but the occasional trip about 4 times a year for some larger life, wide angle etc.

I'm looking at the Fantasea housings for a good price, but I'm not deadset on them.

Any recommendations?

Thanks in advance!

 

[Hoag]

Both cameras have their advantages and both cameras have their disadvantages. Having said that, they are both good cameras that you should be able to get some great images with.

The A6300 will give you more flexibility both above and below the water. It gives you the option of choosing the right lens for the task at hand. You can pick a lens that is "right for the job". It can use the outstanding Zeiss 50mm f2.8 macro lens, or for wide angle you could switch to the Sony 10-18 f4 OSS zoom or even the Zeiss 12mm f2,8 Touit. All of these lenses have great reviews. (I have an A6000 and the Sony 10-18mm lens and although I haven't dove with it yet, I am very happy with it with the shots that I have taken with it above the surface.) This flexibility, however comes at a cost. In most cases, each different lens will typically require a different lens port meaning that the system (and the case to transport it) becomes bigger.

There is of course no absolute need to buy a dedicated macro or wide angle lens right away. (You have the flexibility to have your system grow as you do.) The kit lens is very good for a kit lens. You could start of with it and a macro and/or wide-angle wet lens for it.

Another advantage that the A6300 has over the RX100V is that it has an APS-C sized sensor while the RX100V uses a 1inch sensor. Make no mistake, Sony makes/uses some outstanding sensors, so both cameras will yield good results. I tend to be a bit "old school" though in that I believe (my opinion not hard fact) that all other things being equal, a larger sensor is better than a smaller sensor. (The actual answer is not nearly that simple.)

The RX100V has two big advantages. The first is its compact size. Pardon the pun, but this can be huge. This means that you will be pushing a significantly smaller "package" through the water. It also means that when you need to pack it for a trip, it can be packed in a smaller bag and with airlines becoming increasingly more restrictive, this can not be completely overlooked.

The second big advantage of the RX100V is that it has Zeiss optics. For a fixed lens camera, I don't think that you will be able to find any real fault with a Zeiss lens. Having said that, given the zoom range of this lens, you will likely need to use macro and/or wide angle adapters (wet lenses) to fully exploit it.

Both cameras have some of the "Go/No-Go" features that I look for in a camera whether I plan on using it above or below the surface. The both are capable of shooting RAW format. This is essential underwater. Both cameras are capable of shooting in Manual mode. This is important underwater.

If I were in your shoes, I think it would come down to will how you prioritize flexibility compared to size.

I hope this helps. Good luck with whatever you ultimately choose.

 

[DivealotZA]

I hope this helps. Good luck with whatever you ultimately choose.

Thanks for your long and informative response!

I think I'll wait a little to see what happens, currently the few places where I can get the RX100V are really expensive (as opposed to importing) and I can get the 6300 a little cheaper, however the 6300 housing is quite a bit more.

I have a trip in September, but it's not so far so I guess I dont HAVE to have it by then (although I do WANT it by then)

I'll just keep troving through reviews and galleries until then

 

[Joelage]

Yes, an excellent and insightful review of these two cameras.

Thank you!

Now i need to research the cost of these wet-lenses!

 

[Boaty McBoatface]

I'm an above water Sony photographer noodling this same question.

The main improvement of the rx100-v over the rx100-iv is the autofocus system. If you want the camera to shoot action above the water, as well, that advancement could help, but for underwater use, I'm not sure you'll get much benefit from the latest model. You can still buy an rx100-iv or even an Rx100-iii brand new for less money. The IV got a sensor upgrade over the iii, but I haven't investigated how substantial it was. Sony offers a single housing that works for all generations of Rx100 models. Just an FYI - I haven't used or even inspected one.

The Rx100 gives you an all in one solution for a lot less money total, but it's not expandable, and you won't get results as good as you can with the A6300. A larger sensor can capture images with a lot less noise in the lower light frequently encountered underwater. The sensor on the A6300 is almost twice as large. Or,just look at the diameter of the front lens elements, and it will be obvious which let's in more light. The total cost is going to be a lot higher with an A6300, though, and you'll need different components to make different lenses work in the various housings. Each of these ports and gears costs a fair amount of money. There are cheap housings, but if you're going to take a more expensive kit underwater, you can easily justify a more expensive housing to protect it. The Fantasea seems like a decent budget option.

To go with the A6300, you need to figure out which lenses you want to use and then find a housing with ports available for the lenses you want to use. Make sure the Fantasea actually has your desired lenses covered.

I'm a minor fan of Zeiss and own a lot of Zeiss glass, but even so I wouldn't get too hung up about the Zeiss badge. There are Zeiss lenses, there are Sony lenses with Zeiss' T* coatings, and there are Sony lenses which Sony claims to have some participation by Zeiss in the design process (so called "Zony"). Zeiss' own lenses tend to be good, for a price; worth it to some people. But, the Rx100 isn't a Zeiss lens. Rather, it got their T* coating, and I doubt they have any other involvement. The T* coating is good. It bumps color contrast. But, I doubt you'll see much difference underwater, really, given the lighting down there. There are true Zeiss lenses for the A6300 (the Touit line), and they are relatively good, but neither Sony nor Zeiss put their best efforts into APS-C lenses. I'd just consider the Zeiss nameplate little more than marketing for the purpose of this discussion, frankly. You'll get the best images by putting Sony's full frame glass on the A6300. Those lenses also tend to cost more and there may be issues getting the housing to accommodate them; dunno.

My $0.02...

 

[Barmaglot]

FWIW, I recently went through the same choice and ended up going with A6300 and SeaFrogs/Meikon housing. Unless one goes for the professional-grade housings from Nauticam, et al, the cost difference is minor - both RX100 V and A6300 with kit lens cost around $800-1000, and housings are $150-250, and I figured that the extra flexibility afforded by A6300's interchangeable lenses on land (I bought a SEL18200LE for travel purposes, hiking and the like) plus the larger APS-C sensor are worth (to me) more than the RX100's diminutive size.

 

[r0cky]

.

 

[Hoag]

What hasn't been mentioned is the closest focus distance. The RX100 is 5cm, the a6300 depends upon the lens, but can be 20cm. For underwater photography that could be a deal breaker. The a6300 will need a diopter adding or a macro lens. Also bear in mind the depth of field will be less on the a6300, another negative for macro work.

Your post is very misleading. I don't know if it was intended to be that way, or if you are just randomly quoting specs that you don't really understand the application of, so I will give you the benefit of the doubt.

While it is true that the RX100 has a close focusing distance of as little as 5cm (about 2inches) this is while it is at its widest angle setting, not while at a setting that would typically be used for macro. When at 25.7mm focal length (35mm equivalent of 70mm), the close focusing distance is 30cm (11.81inches). To compare that to some macro lenses for the A6300, the Sony 30mm f3.5 macro (35mm equivalent: 45mm) the close focus distance is 9.5cm (3.74"). The Sony 50mm f2.8 macro (35mm equivalent: 75mm) has a close focus distance of 16cm (6.30") and the Zeiss Touit 50mm f2.8 has a close focusing distance of 15.29cm (6.02"). Your claim of the RX100 having a superior close focusing distance may be true at its widest setting, but that is not what would be used for macro. At a focal length that would typically be used for macro, its close focusing distance is actually farther away than what a macro lens on the A6300 is. one of these lenses for the A6300 would require a diopter.

Your claim that the "depth of field will be less on the a6300, another negative for macro work." is again either deliberately misleading or displays a lack of knowledge. Again, I will give you the benefit of the doubt. The aperture is what determines the depth of field. At any given focal length, the same aperture will give the same depth of field (within a margin of error). This means that your claim that the depth of field will be less on the A6300 simply does not make sense since the depth of field will be dependent on which lens is chosen.

Your claim that a narrow (or shallow) depth of field is a negative for macro, shows that you have a lack of knowledge of how macro photography works. The goal in macro photography is to isolate a very specific subject. This subject should be in "razor sharp" focus and the remainder of the image should be blurred or darker. One of the most common ways to achieve this is to use a fast aperture (for example f2.8) and a very shallow depth of field. This will give you a subject that is in focus and a blurry background and foreground. A shallow depth of field is actually a very sought after capability of a lens that will be used for macro work. It is absolutely not a "negative".

 

[r0cky]

Completely disagree with you, and no reason to be so rude.

 

[Barmaglot]

The ability to focus to 5cm at 24mm focal length equivalent is more properly referred to as close-focus wide-angle rather than macro. Nothing wrong with it - it's a very useful feature to have underwater - but macro photography is technically defined as having a reproduction ratio of 1:1 or better; RX100's lens won't fill the frame with a subject 13.2mm wide by 8.8mm high.