Sony RX - 100 or canon 100d

Please register or login

Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.

Benefits of registering include

  • Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
  • A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
  • You can make this box go away

Joining is quick and easy. Log in or Register now!

bvanant

Contributor
Messages
2,369
Reaction score
418
Location
Los Angeles (more or less)
# of dives
I think Mr. Interceptor is looking at JPEG images from each camera, if you shoot in Raw then color balance etc. is something you do for yourself. Otherwise you are just looking at what Mr. Canon and Mr. Sony think of as appropriate pics. As for the suggestion that I get a proper DSLR, I have several but this month at least am mostly shooting u 4/3 stuff. In any case, I like the SL1 a lot, if I could make the Ike housing shoot optical strobes I would buy it tomorrow, but I can't yet and so I wait for Bill Libecap to make his optical gizmo (or maybe build it myself).

Bill
 

Interceptor121

Contributor
Messages
4,316
Reaction score
642
Location
Weybridge, UK
No I am referring to the RAW images as well. I am looking at the gallery on the ikelite site, all ok with the fish portrait but if you look at the sponge with the diver in the background or to other shots with blue water behind you can see that even if the image is sharp the background is somewhat dead despite the good conditions and the foreground looks orangey
Anyway who is happy with this camera so be it to me in terms of dynamic range looks similar to my old Canon S95 actually the newer S120 seems better
Of course performance at low ISO is better but there are many ways to spend $2,700 on a housing + camera these days
 

chile7236

Contributor
Messages
1,329
Reaction score
118
The IQ of the 100D with any of the lenses I have used (18-55mm, tokina 10-17 & 60mm) is far superior IMO. Although it is a bit bigger than my old rx100 in the recsea housing, I am already past that initial minor irritant. Its a very compact dslr set up and I put the IQ of it with 70D shots ive seen. Another housing may be more ergonomically friendly but the camera itself offers far more than the rx100...then again, this is an apples to oranges comparison.
 

Interceptor121

Contributor
Messages
4,316
Reaction score
642
Location
Weybridge, UK
The IQ of the 100D with any of the lenses I have used (18-55mm, tokina 10-17 & 60mm) is far superior IMO. Although it is a bit bigger than my old rx100 in the recsea housing, I am already past that initial minor irritant. Its a very compact dslr set up and I put the IQ of it with 70D shots ive seen. Another housing may be more ergonomically friendly but the camera itself offers far more than the rx100...then again, this is an apples to oranges comparison.

If you are talking about the kit lens I would not go that far

haas-canon-100d-b.jpg

Masked Butterflies by Interceptor121, on Flickr

I even think the shot on ikelite is with a macro lens so I really don't see a huge gap, plus you can see how the canon image looks flatter in comparison
 

chile7236

Contributor
Messages
1,329
Reaction score
118
I think when ike posts those gallery shots, they aren't uploaded with the best IQ in mind...
 

Interceptor121

Contributor
Messages
4,316
Reaction score
642
Location
Weybridge, UK
So you advertise a camera with a shot below average? I don't think so
both shots are framed very similar and the fact is that there isn't a huge difference in the IQ
But there is a $1000 dollar difference in price lol

---------- Post added July 16th, 2014 at 03:33 PM ----------

Or $1,500 if you buy the rx100 ikelite housing
 

dhaas

Contributor
Messages
1,001
Reaction score
170
Location
Stow OH
# of dives
2500 - 4999
Interceptor121,

Maybe you should actually USE and shoot a Canon SL1 with various lenses UW before you claim things as absolutes...........

Web site images never look as great as they might in print or on various monitors.........Too many photographers study brick wall photos, corner 100% crops and decide on a camera / lens choice that way..........

In my old age I like to think I'm open to new changes and technology..............Today digital UW photographers are simply duplicating what has already been shot UW decades ago........Very little new images but because it's new to them it MUST be the BEST and great............

Please.................I beg to differ...............

As I've posted in these debates maybe we'll meet and dive and debate UW photography one day...............Then laugh at how each of us (that would be me too) was passionately insistent on our choices...........

I know people shooting (as you may still have) a lowly Canon S90 /95 /100 / 110 and 120 with minimal accessories in a lowly plastic Ikelite housing and produce wonderful images THEY like to show and share.......I know others who absolutely won't shoot without a Canon 5D MKIII or Nikon D800..............To each his own.........

I just wish you'd stop posting in absolutes as some camera / housing / flash / etc. is the "BEST"..............It's like arguments of where the "BEST" diving is.........

For me any ocean is the "BEST" as I delight in spending time below the waves.........Photography now is a supplemental JOY to capture and show people why we dive............Maybe that's the difference in all these debates.........

You're in earlier years of diving and photographing (less than 20 years?)...............I'm closing 45 years and have come full circle to make it simple and fun and not a chore...........

99% of the people I sell Ikelite equipment to want the same.........To enjoy themselves.............

Good luck and I'll do my typical Australian style "Walkabout" now leaving those who wish to go on debating and arguing and criticizing :)

Safe Diving,

David Haas
www.haasimages.com
 

Interceptor121

Contributor
Messages
4,316
Reaction score
642
Location
Weybridge, UK
I think it was someone else here saying there was a huge difference in iq and wasn't me. The point I am making is that to the eye contrast dynamic range and color depth are more relevant than sharpness unless you print an image at large size. I don't run comparison sites but I know my own equipment very well and I regularly compare my shots with other people rigs. On a recent trip I have had the pros and even the nauticam distributor saying that the gap between the rx100 and the micro 4:3 was not visible on screen and you needed to go to a good cropped sensor to be worth it. I think those two images demonstrate it pretty well. On the same trip there were also smaller sensor compacts and the difference instead showed significantly. This canon entry rig looks very interesting for training and you can start building you lenses and port knowledge before going to something or expensive but to say that there is a huge difference with the RX100 once this is used at its best seems not true. It so it seemed to 3-4 random people I asked to compare those images. Sometimes people blame their camera for their average pictures and once they upgrade they are forced to learn so it leaves a bitter feeling when sOmeone else pulls out great shots from a less expensive rig. But that just demonstrates that ability goes a long way
 
K

KeithG

Guest
we seem to have lots of passion and OPINION on this thread, but not much fact. i use SB as a learning center. opinions do not contribute to knowledge.

can someone post some actual factual scientic evidence of the camera performance? that way i can form my own opinion based upon my personal criteria.

maybe we can start with "dynamic range"? i fully understand the term from a scientific instrumentation basis, but not from a camera perspective.

are the cameras similar? both great? both crap? no human detectable difference?

Discuss...
 

chile7236

Contributor
Messages
1,329
Reaction score
118
I think it was someone else here saying there was a huge difference in iq and wasn't me. ...On a recent trip I have had the pros and even the nauticam distributor saying that the gap between the rx100 and the micro 4:3 was not visible on screen and you needed to go to a good cropped sensor to be worth it. I think those two images demonstrate it pretty well. ...but to say that there is a huge difference with the RX100 once this is used at its best seems not true. It so it seemed to 3-4 random people I asked to compare those images. Sometimes people blame their camera for their average pictures and once they upgrade they are forced to learn so it leaves a bitter feeling when sOmeone else pulls out great shots from a less expensive rig. But that just demonstrates that ability goes a long way

i stand by my IQ opinion based on MY extensive use of my RX100MkI and the SL1. not sure what the definition of a good crop sensor is but the SL1 is an APS-C and not M4:3 so the comparison between the seemingly unnoticeable differences between the RX100 and M4:3 is irrelevant. using the two photos as the sole basis for comparison doesn't exactly provide a broad range of examples to come to any conclusion...my RX100 rig was more expensive than my SL1 rig so the quip about "less expensive" is kind of moot as well.

giffenk, both are great cameras. i just think the SL1 is better (even with the kit STM lens)....and the pictures are much sharper (yes, yes...i know what interceptor121 says about sharpness vs color/depth) using the 60mm macro on the SL1 than using the RX100 with a diopter.
 
https://www.shearwater.com/products/teric/

Top Bottom