So, RX 100 II or III ?

[huwporter]

I haven't seen a comparison of the fully extended lens length, but if that is shorter as well, it would get the lens closer to the port for WA work.

I've just picked up an RX-100 mkIII (for abovewater use), and I can confirm that the lens extension at full wideangle is about 10mm longer than the lens extension at full telephoto. So, there is the option for a flat glass port to be immediately close to the lens at full wideangle - good news for potential compatibility with WA converters.

Also, in the day or two I've had the camera, so far I've been very impressed by performance in low light.

Cheers,
Huw

 

[boletus1973]

One thing I noticed on the specs: While the zoom is shorter (70mm vs. 100mm) the minimum focus at full zoom has gone from 55cm to 30cm giving a focal distance of less than 1' at full zoom, compared to almost 2' on the II. This means the working distance from the port will be less than half with the new camera. I haven't seen a comparison of the fully extended lens length, but if that is shorter as well, it would get the lens closer to the port for WA work.

this speech is not important with macro wet lenses.... with one or two diopters the factory focus distance change drammatically with the depth of field, that is very tiny!
more zoom=more magnification.....

---------- Post added June 25th, 2014 at 06:35 PM ----------

Wouldn't it also mean macro was easier? I notice this camera has a macro mode as well vs the mark 2.

Sent from my LG-D800 using Tapatalk

with the bare lens it's possible..... but with wet lenses is useless....

---------- Post added June 25th, 2014 at 06:47 PM ----------

I've just picked up an RX-100 mkIII (for abovewater use), and I can confirm that the lens extension at full wideangle is about 10mm longer than the lens extension at full telephoto. So, there is the option for a flat glass port to be immediately close to the lens at full wideangle - good news for potential compatibility with WA converters.

Also, in the day or two I've had the camera, so far I've been very impressed by performance in low light.

Cheers,
Huw

also the mk I & II in the nauticam housing have the lens extremely close to the port at full wideangle.... but the WA/FE wet lenses are barely compatible.... i think with 24mm you have to forget the FE like inon h100 plus dome or uwl04.... i think only the h100 without dome can do a decent work with little vignetting like on the pana lx5-lx7...... i have the mk I with nauticam and h100 plus dome..

 

[Interceptor121]

I have just been on a photo workshop in the Red Sea see pictures on the specific thread. The mark II had a great performance I could see my wide angle images has more dynamic range and depth that the olympus EM1-5-10. I have not identified any weaknesses of the camera other than the shallow depth of field so for stills this remains the camera of choice. The mark III camera seems very interesting for video but not for stills as most likely no fisheye lens will work with the wider lens. The 70mm zoom will require +14 diopters to achieve macro and at that point you are to close to the fish that is a weakness that can't be overcome

 

[rickpreve]

Hey guys, sorry to butt in with a somewhat unrelated question, but I have used a Sealife DC1400 for the last few years (and a DC1200 before) and would like to "take a step up" without jumping into the SLR world (because of $$$ and weight while travelling), is this Sony RX100 III a good alternative for that move up?

And from what I see there is not an UW housing for it at this time, correct? But there is for the II? Please advise.

Assuming the III has no housing now, what would be a solid upstep from the Sealife DC1400 at this time?

I am a PADI Master Scuba Diver /some tech diving experience with nearly 500 dives and all oceans dived except Antartica, but all in the last 4 years. I feel I have "put in the dives /time" but I am unsure how to step up in the compact UW compact camera world.

Thanks!
All my best /Rick

 

[Interceptor121]

Pick up the mark II

Those are my pictures from Red Sea it gives you an idea of what the camera can do

https://www.flickr.com/photos/interc...7645375379256/

 

[alien]

Step up without dSLR? Have you considered smaller interchangeable lens cameras like the Sony Nex 5/7 alpha6000 or the Olympus OMD?

 

[Interceptor121]

Step up without dSLR? Have you considered smaller interchangeable lens cameras like the Sony Nex 5/7 alpha6000 or the Olympus OMD?

The $$$ difference between a compact and micro 4/3 or ILC is huge and you need ports at the end you might be better off getting a high quality cropped sensor like the D7100

RX100 housing $950
OMD-E1 $1850
D7100 $3300

You need to add ports and lenses to the last two but only wet lenses to the Sony

I have just been on a trip where there were few Olympus and I have to say the images lacked depth compared to the Sony so if you really had to go ILC I would go Sony probably A6000

 

[alien]

yes trying not to look too biased

 

[DelrayDM]

re: "Lens length"

The dimension of the port have to be designed to accommodate the lens at its longest.


The RX-100 M3 is longest when full wide. The RX100 and RX100 M2 are longest at full zoom. This does not matter much for close-up lenses.

This is good news for wide angle wet lens users (or hope-to-be users). Because at full wide, the lens is as close as possible to any wide-angle wet lens you may attach. And full wide was 28mm (equivalent) on the original and M2, and with the M3 it is 24mm (which is wider).

I expect that in the very near future that we will hear from at least one housing manufacturer what wet-mate wide-angle conversion lenses are compatible. Very near future. Very very near future.

Macro? Well, no housing is available today, but you can test this yourself if you have access to the M3 and one of the earlier versions.

At full zoom (telephoto) the width of an object that will fill the field of view for the RX100 and RX100 M2 is 220mm (about 8+1/2 inches wide). Though the M3 only zooms to 70mm equivalent (compared to 100mm for the earlier ones), because it does focus so much closer, the width of an object that completely fills the field of view (at minimum focus distance again) is only 160mm (about 6+1/4 inch). This was measured in air and this is encouraging. Again, we will have to wait until a housing is available and then lots of wet-mate close-up lenses can be tested. I expect good news.

 

[Interceptor121]

re: "Lens length"

The dimension of the port have to be designed to accommodate the lens at its longest.


The RX-100 M3 is longest when full wide. The RX100 and RX100 M2 are longest at full zoom. This does not matter much for close-up lenses.

That is not true. Both the Mark I and II exactly like the mark III have the lens physically longer at wide end.

For what concerns the other reasoning the close up lens sets for most part the working distance not the camera lens. That makes maybe a half inch difference not more and that means very little in terms of magnification at the same focal length. So macro performance will depend on zoom more than working distance. Almost certainly the Mark III will have less magnification. The RX100 Mark II at 70mm equivalent focusses almost at the same distance of the mark III
Where there will be some difference if fish portraits at one foot difference where the reduced working distance may help however if you use a weak diopter on the 100mm lens you probably get the same result anyway
In terms of IQ the Mark I II and III are very similar cameras and for stills there is really not much of a difference until ISO 800
The main difference between the three cameras are the features, especially for video but for stills not much in it when it comes to underwater use with strobes

The RX100 is an incredible camera and even an upgrade to a micro 4:3 does not mean a huge quality leap you need to go cropped sensor to really feel a difference and for stills all the 3 versions are totally fine there are no controls or features that make substantial difference