Rx100 - III, IV, V?

[watttyler]

I've just bought the mk V. I haven't used it underwater as yet. (Will be thinking about a housing soon.)

As you've seen from my previous posts I agonised a bit about the purchase (It's damn expensive for a compact). From using it on land for the past couple of weeks I'm really impressed so far. I've had the mk II and this one is far better (in my opinion). Focus is fab and low light performance is great. The noise feels more like my full frame A7r than previous compacts - its that fine grain which isn't at all offensive. The RAW files seem to have tons of latitude (dynamic range?) for adjustment. One thing that has surprised me is just how good the tiny little flash is for fill light on backlit subjects. The little pop up finder works really well and I would loathe to be without one on a compact now.

Battery life isn't great particularly when you test it (I managed an hour of 1080 video in 10 min bursts) but so far with real world family stuff its OK. I'm finding with 4K with say a 32gb card I'm filling up the card as the battery runs out anyway, so it's not the disaster I anticipated. Overheating does seem to be a bit of an issue so I'm seriously considering a metal housing now. The camera got very hot on some tests but once again when using on a daily basis it seems less of an issue as I tend to shoot shortish bursts of video - generally a minute or two max. The video quality is stunning - even with its limitations its the best video camera I've owned.

The omissions from the camera like mic input etc are well documented but one thing that I think it could really do with is a filter thread - its a serious camera and cries out for filter occasionally. (I think there's some sort of adaptor available but I think you have to stick it on (!) or something.)

All in all its a great camera and even with all its foibles and irritations I think I'd be disappointed with any other compact if I had to swop it to something else (of a similar size) after now owning it for a couple of weeks.

 

[watttyler]

Ah, just seen Brandon's shots - they look lovely. Thanks for posting

 

[Nemrod]

Those are nice shots but they look like shots taken with video lighting.

The reason there is no filter is that most people now use RAW and adjust in the program, why cut out part of the spectrum? Well, okay, UV, I could see that.

Does everyone use these only as a video camera, is that all it is?

What is the battery life for still shooting? Can this camera do still shots, maybe I am looking at the wrong type of machine? Something so heavily weighted to video is probably a poor photographic tool.

N

 

[watttyler]

Those are nice shots but they look like shots taken with video lighting.

The reason there is no filter is that most people now use RAW and adjust in the program, why cut out part of the spectrum?

...

What is the battery life for still shooting? Can this camera do still shots, maybe I am looking at the wrong type of machine? Something so heavily weighted to video is probably a poor photographic tool.

N

Hi Nemrod, there are times when using for video work on land being able to add a lot more ND would be great - and also perhaps a vignette filter for skies etc.

My experiences with terrestrial photography in the past two weeks is that this is a superb camera for still shooting and its the best compact I've used. To get better shots above water I think you'd be looking at stepping up to something like a mirrorless system camera like the A6500, a Fuji or an Olympus etc rather than another compact.

 

[Nemrod]

Hi Nemrod, there are times when using for video work on land being able to add a lot more ND would be great - and also perhaps a vignette filter for skies etc.

My experiences with terrestrial photography in the past two weeks is that this is a superb camera for still shooting and its the best compact I've used. To get better shots above water I think you'd be looking at stepping up to something like a mirrorless system camera like the A6500, a Fuji or an Olympus etc rather than another compact.

I guess I understand but I would think if video is the primary purpose then a dedicated video camera would be a better choice?

I am not talking above water, I mean in the water. I am sorry but video just is not interesting to me. Who has time to sit there and watch it and frankly most video I see is only interesting to the person who took it, not me. But photos, there is captured moment, even a bit of art, a view of the world but as well a view into the mind of the person who froze that moment, which I find far more interesting than video clips. Just me I guess, I realize still photography is dead. Apparently.

N

 

[Brandon]

Those are nice shots but they look like shots taken with video lighting.

Does everyone use these only as a video camera, is that all it is?

What is the battery life for still shooting? Can this camera do still shots, maybe I am looking at the wrong type of machine? Something so heavily weighted to video is probably a poor photographic tool.

N

OP is upgrading from a GoPro - I posted sample photos with video lighting so he can see what's possible in that regard. I have no doubts that an experienced photographer, using strobes, could produce much better results. The capabilities that I've seen so far are impressive, even if I'm not using them to their fullest potential. Manually setting shutter speed, exposure and focal length is all new to me... I think I'm learning fairly quickly, but I can easily see how a person could spend a lifetime mastering these skills.

Continuing to use my existing video lights saves costs and reduces complexity at the onset, and that may be a consideration for the OP as well. I would like to eventually move to something like the Symbiosis combo video lights/strobes. I'm happy with my current results for the time being though. It's a lot better than the GoPro.

With regards to photo vs video, keep in mind that for those of us making the transition to proper photography from a GoPro, the video capabilities of any new camera we're considering will always be of interest. I've shot exactly one video clip so far as I've been trying to learn how to take photos, but find knowing there's a high quality video mode in the RX100V comforting, and a welcome refuge from the barrage of settings I just gained access to. I can still shoot good video even if I'm struggling to make good photos, and I'm still going to like having both.

As for RX100 versions, in my pre-purchase research it seemed as if the main concern with the V is battery life. There aren't any tests out there that provide a good reference for divers, but I suppose I could fill my rinse bucket up with some 45F water and see how many shots I can capture with the strobe on before the battery dies. That's at least a repeatable baseline that others can use for comparison.

Nemrod, do you have any suggestions for parameters I might use to best simulate flash triggering for external strobes?

-B

 

[Nemrod]

Brandon, I think your shot look excellent. But they are clearly not strobe lit.

I understand you are in a learning mode, join the club.

For flash triggering, for base line:

1. Set camera on AV mode and set the strobe to auto (which is default) and let it rip!

2. Set the camera on manual, the strobe will default to manual (I think) and then set to lowest power.

I have read the manuals on these cameras. They can be confusing.

N

 

[gummybun]

I think Brandon's comments are on the mark to responding to the OP. I doubt anyone moving over from a Gopro will be wanting a full kit of multi strobes (just yet) and the plethora of support accessories that go with, no matter how satisfying the resulting photos might be. I suspect the OP will be shooting in 30 feet or so, where natural light can give excellent results, or an easy to carry video light can double duty and give quite good results.

I am interested in the new MarkV capacity for auto focus speed, and burst mode of 24fps (w/RAW) which will allow finer selection of a winning shot where foreground subjects and background fields are all moving. But this will suck power from the small battery! I love the manual focus compared to my old gSeries Canons, that had no focus ring, but my u/w housing does not really work well in this regard. Some of the more expensive ones appear to have the big knobs that would help. Moving from a gopro one might not be thinking about manual focus, but the OP used a Nikonos, so I think they might like to over-ride the autofocus - especially when doing macro work. I think the new Sony Housing might work well with the multi ring, but I have yet to see a review.

 

[Brandon]

This is what I did for a flash test:

1) Filled bucket of water with cold Alaskan tap water (45F)
2) Made sure camera battery was fully charged.
3) Let camera/housing sit in water for 30 minutes to simulate dive site prep time / chill everything.
4) Set camera in manual mode, with fill flash. This appears to be the highest powered flash I have access to.
5) Fired off as many shots as possible for 10 minutes
6) Took a 10 minute break, left camera on and in the bucket. I think I have it set to power off after 2 minutes.
7) Repeated last two steps until battery died.

Results:

Fill Flash: 462 images, took almost an hour and a half w/ breaks, almost 50 minutes constant of pulling the shutter release as often as I could.

Camera was set to highest quality RAW + jpeg.

Now my hands are cold and I don't want to go back and try again with the sync flash. Results should be better though.

I think you could get the 200 images you want, Nemrod. The poor battery life seems to be related primarily to video or the more intensive shooting modes.

-B

 

[Nemrod]

This is what I did for a flash test:

1) Filled bucket of water with cold Alaskan tap water (45F)
2) Made sure camera battery was fully charged.
3) Let camera/housing sit in water for 30 minutes to simulate dive site prep time / chill everything.
4) Set camera in manual mode, with fill flash. This appears to be the highest powered flash I have access to.
5) Fired off as many shots as possible for 10 minutes
6) Took a 10 minute break, left camera on and in the bucket. I think I have it set to power off after 2 minutes.
7) Repeated last two steps until battery died.

Results:

Fill Flash: 462 images, took almost an hour and a half w/ breaks, almost 50 minutes constant of pulling the shutter release as often as I could.

Camera was set to highest quality RAW + jpeg.

Now my hands are cold and I don't want to go back and try again with the sync flash. Results should be better though.

I think you could get the 200 images you want, Nemrod. The poor battery life seems to be related primarily to video or the more intensive shooting modes.

-B

Thank you for doing this test. That is very useful information. That does seem to be pretty good battery life. N