I'm SO confused...what compact camera(s) should I look at??

[stuartv]

I'm not disputing that RX100 series cameras take great images, but the shutter lag, particularly when trying to shoot a moving subject, can be infuriating. I dipped my toes into UW photography with a rented Panasonic DMC-FX35, and compared to that, my Sony A6300 is simply a joy to shoot - and it didn't cost me that much more than your quoted number of $750; I paid $837 for the camera with kit lens and $251 for the Meikon/SeaFrogs housing.

I am prepared to believe that the Panasonic you rented has issues with shutter lag. All I'm saying is that it is not valid logic to say that the Panasonic had CD AF and therefore all cameras with CD AF have issues with shutter lag.

As I said, my camera has CD AF and I mostly shoot sharks. I don't have any issues that I can attribute to shutter lag. I am pretty confident in saying that my buddy that was shooting an RX-100 Mk IV would say the same thing about his camera. He has gotten many REALLY nice photos of swimming sharks.

I do agree that an A6300 rig for $1100 would be a nice rig and a reasonable price. That is just up to the OP and his budget which he would prefer. The RX100 is way more pocketable than an A6300. Maybe the OP would prefer that, for use on land. Certainly not my call.

The best bet, really, is to look for a used rig here and on WetPixel. A used camera already with a housing will generally be a lot more affordable than buying a new camera and a new housing. If you give yourself a fixed budget, you can get a lot more Image Quality for the buck by going used.

 

[stuartv]

I'm not disputing that RX100 series cameras take great images, but the shutter lag, particularly when trying to shoot a moving subject, can be infuriating.

Maybe I am making a bad assumption.

Have you actually shot an RX100??

 

[Barmaglot]

As I already mentioned, no, I have not used it myself, but when I was looking to get a camera specifically for shooting underwater, RX100 IV was one of my top picks, and asking around, I got multiple similar opinions that while it's fairly quick for a compact, it doesn't hold a candle to PDAF cameras with regard to focusing speed. Eventually I narrowed my choices down to RX100 V and A6300 and picked the latter for better flexibility on land and future growth potential.

 

[Storker]

my camera has CD AF and I mostly shoot sharks. I don't have any issues that I can attribute to shutter lag.

Don't forget that the lens and the amount of light can have a tremendous effect on AF speed. And IME that's even more pronounced on cameras with CDAF.

I might of course be wrong; my only hands-on experience is with three Nikon dSLR models, two Olympus m43 models and three or four different compacts. I've only taken one of the Olympuses and one of the compacts underwater, though. OTOH I'm pretty certain that AF performance isn't particularly affected by whether the camera is in a housing underwater, or if it's used topside

 

[stuartv]

Don't forget that the lens and the amount of light can have a tremendous effect on AF speed. And IME that's even more pronounced on cameras with CDAF.

Definitely. That said, a lot of my shooting with my m43 and my buddy with his RX100 Mk IV has been sharks, on wrecks greater than 100'. Often, inside the wreck. So, definitely not a lot of ambient light. I still don't have issues I can attribute to shutter lag or AF speed. My issues run more along the lines of having my camera in M (always with Auto Focus on, though) and my strobes set to expect a pre-flash. Or vice versa. Or not set bright enough. Or having my ISO set lower than I should. Or forgetting to pop up the built-in flash inside the housing. Or getting reflections off the white lettering on the front of my lens, reflecting from the back side of the housing port and into the image. Or... or... or...

Not saying that PD AF wouldn't be better. I would LOVE to have a new OM-D E-M1 Mk II! But, my experience with CD AF is definitely not something that I would apply the word "infuriating" to. Quite the opposite, really.

 

[Barmaglot]

Perhaps 'infuriating' was too strong a word but my point is, you can get PDAF without spending $2-3k on a camera body - RX100 V has it, and while it does cost more than the previous models in the series (looking at ebay right now, there's an open-box offer from Best Buy for $800), my feeling is that this is one of those cases where the higher cost is justified, plus, with RX100 VI due soon, prices for used model V might get depressed some by those looking for the latest shiny.

 

[stuartv]

@Barmaglot: I agree with pretty much all that. The one area where I would probably diverge is that the higher cost is justified for a Mk V. But, that is just me and financial decisions are, of course, always a personal matter.

To ME, if I'm going to spend up that much to get PD AF, I would also want an interchangeable lens camera and more control wheels, to make quick adjustments much quicker. An u/w camera rig is a complex system and it doesn't make sense (to ME) to, essentially, max out one feature while having other features still be very rudimentary.

With all the compromises that come with a fixed lens, compact camera, I would say that it makes sense to save some money and also compromise a little on the AF system. The AF on the earlier Sonys (and other, even better cameras) may be CD, but they are still very good.

For land-based photography, it seems to me that the Mk V (with its PD AF) makes a bit more sense. I can easily imagine shooting your kid's soccer game, shooting on full Auto, and having the PD AF would be really handy for catching fast action in sharp focus. I feel like u/w shooting is a bit different. At the point where you are shooting things where PD AF actually offers a real advantage over a good CD AF camera, I think you would also be likely to really want the other "trimmings" that come along with a "better" camera. Like interchangeable lenses and more control wheels.

Again, just my opinion. People with a lot more disposable cash than I have could easily feel like the extra for a Mk V is total chump change. In which case, heck yeah. Gimme that!

 

[mcohen1021]

I am not saying that anyone should get a sealife. But your comment may say more about your brothers photo taking then it does about the sealife camera.

If a gun always misses the target it may be the shooter and not just the gun.

LOL - yes I agree - he does not know how to use it well. I did not mean to imply the sea life is a crappy camera at all. I was just saying that what I have captured with a $200 set up has beat him for the last 2 years. his setup should totally destroy what I get on my camera. for ease of use however, mine is easy easy

 

[Barmaglot]

To ME, if I'm going to spend up that much to get PD AF, I would also want an interchangeable lens camera and more control wheels, to make quick adjustments much quicker. An u/w camera rig is a complex system and it doesn't make sense (to ME) to, essentially, max out one feature while having other features still be very rudimentary.

With all the compromises that come with a fixed lens, compact camera, I would say that it makes sense to save some money and also compromise a little on the AF system. The AF on the earlier Sonys (and other, even better cameras) may be CD, but they are still very good.

...and that's how I ended up picking the A6300 I figured that the ability to fit a proper zoom lens, plus the extra control options, are worth more (to me) than the RX100's portability.

Regarding the cost though - the way I see it, after you finish paying for housing, tray, arms, lights/strobes, wet lenses, etc, not to mention the diving gear, the $300-400 difference between CDAF-only and PDAF-enabled body will be a relatively minor part of your total capital outlay - yet it will be felt every time you press the shutter button.

 

[Storker]

LOL - yes I agree - he does not know how to use it well. I did not mean to imply the sea life is a crappy camera at all. I was just saying that what I have captured with a $200 set up has beat him for the last 2 years. his setup should totally destroy what I get on my camera. for ease of use however, mine is easy easy

"what typewriter brand are you using, Mr. Hemingway?"