G16 or Rx100 2

[Interceptor121]

This is really interesting, as I have been looking at these two cameras along with many others here.
.

But I wanted to love this new Sony, and because I mostly love macro, I did 3 test sets in 3 shops around town. side by side hand held Macro(ish) shots at the counter. I used old circuit boards and LEDs for color tests.

My thought was, with the additional pixels, the macro spread between the Sony and the Canon may appear less - by cropping down the larger Sony image taken from further back. I shot with and without flash, and held the Canon back 1.25", as to be fair, while as it can focus closer, not in macro mode while INSIDE a U/W housing, as in Macro the Canon is fully back from the glass about 1.25". The tests did not use additional Strobes or whatnot as I just don't want to travel with so much equipment. I look forward to smaller U/W lighting units in the (bright) future...

That is not the way to test macro shots. 1st even with a G16 or a Panasonic LX7 once you achieve real life size the image is obscured by the flash shadow so you need to step back. This is where close up lenses kick in and you zoom as you can't be physically on top of fish. Majority of macro life won't be happy with you being closer than 4" except very tiny critters. So the example of shooting on top of something on land is not pertinent. When you are a beginner you think about shooting at two inches from a subject with the bare port and the camera built in strobe at wide end - that is NOT macro and is not good for fish either
You really need to see how a camera performs in the 4-6" range which makes enough room to illuminate your subject properly. At that distance NO compact camera on the market achieves macro . The fact you have a macro button on your camera does not mean you are taking a macro picture. For a picture to be real life size the capture area must be 36x24mm this is not practically achievable by any compact camera underwater. So even with a G16 you need a close up lens to shoot macro underwater the bare port won't do that pure and simple

 

[gummybun]

HaHaHa Interceptor121, Thank you for your rudimentary lesson on 'Macro', but you are about 40 years too late - sadly for me - that's when I purchased my macro lens for my first Spotmatic. You may freely call me an amateur, but I begun a long time ago... maybe a slow learner, if you want to wind me up... hehe. I have never owned digital kit that shoots 1:1 or better, hence my use of the word Macro(ish) - you might have noticed that.

I said I used both flash and no flash, just to compare really, as I almost never use my in camera flash underwater, and obviously not in close macro mode, while it can /sort of/ work 12" back - for the reasons you noted and many more. I also did not detail my testing sequence, as that would be tedious, I simply started at the closest focal point. I took 40 frames with each model in a myriad of positions and distances so you should not presume complete ineptitude.

Majority of macro life won't be happy with you being closer than 4" except very tiny critters. So the example of shooting on top of something on land is not pertinent.

But... I do shoot very tiny things... geologic formations, sand, critters, on land and in the water... so it is pertinent, you agree. And save the polite photographer shtick for somewhere else, I am super courteous - Nudibranch Monthly voted me No.1 nice guy diver, crabs walk right up to my lens and look in. Shame on you insinuating otherwise. Now if you want to know what fish hate, why not ask them how they feel about hit repeatedly with a couple of thousand lumen strobe dumps, now that's GBH! And that is your setup - right?

I think the point here is, that the OP was apparently asking for a generic simple setup and comments on that, and it very quickly became a conversation either assuming or including much more elaborate kit requirements. Many of us do shoot macro as well as video, and don't want to dive burdened with a full double strobe kit with attendant focus lights and wet mount domes. So if that is the given starting point, which setup is better? The Sony appears to be better technology but it is not clearly the better choice (to me, right now) if macro is as important to you as Video and Landscape type shots - not unless you are planning to spend an additional sum on kit. It really seems a tough choice between these two and so I think one needs to choose one, on a gut level, and just take the good with the bad and go out there and make it work for you through practice as well as familiarity with that chosen cameras week points. Just revel in the knowledge of how much easier it is now compared to the old Nikonos!

 

[Interceptor121]

The op didn't mention simple and a set up that takes macro and wide requires wet lenses as you just can do that with the bare port. So am not sure what you are going on about. A single set up made by a camera and housing to take some close up shots with the internal flash doesn't even need either the G series or the rx100 just a canon ixus will do and at least you don't get shadow of the lens on the picture. If you don't want to take wet lenses and strobes than you don't take macro and wide angle shots do you?

 

[sunnyboy]

I agree with you 'gummybun'. Definitiions are really fun when chest-thumping above water (especially at photo-club meetings), but underwater, in low visibility, the key is "can you fill the frame with your subject, and will it be in focus?". If the answer is yes, and better yet if you don't need special add-on lenses that's great. If the subject is small (i.e. hooded nudibranch), then I'll call that macro. Whether it's 1:1 or better really doesn't matter. The photos are really what matter.

If the camera won't take the picture I want to take without me first adding some lenses, then I call that a big fail. I need a camera that can go from video to 'normal' focus to close-up focus with just the push of a button. That's also why I run a flash plus a multi-setting video light - to place the light and the light level exactly where I want it for the pictures I want to take.

 

[Interceptor121]

I agree with you 'gummybun'. Definitiions are really fun when chest-thumping above water (especially at photo-club meetings), but underwater, in low visibility, the key is "can you fill the frame with your subject, and will it be in focus?". If the answer is yes, and better yet if you don't need special add-on lenses that's great. If the subject is small (i.e. hooded nudibranch), then I'll call that macro. Whether it's 1:1 or better really doesn't matter. The photos are really what matter.

If the camera won't take the picture I want to take without me first adding some lenses, then I call that a big fail. I need a camera that can go from video to 'normal' focus to close-up focus with just the push of a button. That's also why I run a flash plus a multi-setting video light - to place the light and the light level exactly where I want it for the pictures I want to take.

So you have spent money on a strobe and even on a video light to use for focus as obviously where you are it is quite murky, most likely between $600 and $1000 for that and now what's the big deal if you had to add $150 for a close up lens that will be less than 10% of your total rig cost?

 

[gummybun]

That's also why I run a flash plus a multi-setting video light - to place the light and the light level exactly where I want it for the pictures I want to take.

We dove with a fellow last year in Thailand who used a video light as his General purpose illumination. He got pretty good results and no need for a focus light. It came in handy as well when we were engulfed in the damned Green Monster and he flipped from white to red. Very Handy.

Moving from a housing only camera to one with a tray and additionals will be a part by part process for me and starting with a Video light might be an idea.

@Intrceptor... I think it is just about 'kit limits' - if you need to stop and adjust kit all the time, it fundamentally changes what you are doing as your primary pursuit. For me, it is that I want to be there for the dive and my buddy, and the less time I spend on kit the more time I can interact.

BTW, It WAS an assumption regarding the OP's question, I will agree. AND oh yes, wonerful shot of Nemo/Shrimp!

 

[Interceptor121]

We dove with a fellow last year in Thailand who used a video light as his General purpose illumination. He got pretty good results and no need for a focus light. It came in handy as well when we were engulfed in the damned Green Monster and he flipped from white to red. Very Handy.

Moving from a housing only camera to one with a tray and additionals will be a part by part process for me and starting with a Video light might be an idea.

@Intrceptor... I think it is just about 'kit limits' - if you need to stop and adjust kit all the time, it fundamentally changes what you are doing as your primary pursuit. For me, it is that I want to be there for the dive and my buddy, and the less time I spend on kit the more time I can interact.

BTW, It WAS an assumption regarding the OP's question, I will agree. AND oh yes, wonerful shot of Nemo/Shrimp!

No problem horse for courses. What you can or not shoot depends of the investment and the commitment you have. It ranges from portrait and close up with just the housing to full macro and wide with full equipped kit with many flavours in between. What is important is that without the proper equipment you can't take a certain shot and have some limitation if you can accept those happy days

 

[sunnyboy]

.....

 

[oskartorres]

Amazing video, seems like canon G16 is fine, but I prefer RX100II

 

[Interceptor121]

Amazing video, seems like canon G16 is fine, but I prefer RX100II

That video that I put here is made with the rx100ii in fact