Sony RX100MK II vs MK VII
- Thread starter funscuba
- Start date
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
scrane
Contributor
As far as Image Quality goes they are equal. Lenses are different.
www.dpreview.com
www.dpreview.com
Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 II Review
True breakthrough products are rare in consumer electronics and perhaps even more rare in the digital camera space. The Sony Cyber-shot RX100 was one of those rare products that caught the attention of casual photographers, enthusiasts and critics alike. It successfully fitted a large 1”-type...
www.dpreview.com
Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 VII Review
The Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 VII is the most capable pocket camera currently on the market thanks to a combo of good image quality, smooth stabilized 4K and an industry-leading autofocus implementation. For these reasons it receives our gold award.
www.dpreview.com
Not possible. The control layout and other significant features changed significantly between different models, as did lenses - M1/M2 have a 28-100mm equivalent, M3/M4/M5 have a 24-70mm equivalent, and M6/M7 have a 24-200mm equivalent, this latter lens requiring interchangeable ports in order to house. There are a couple models (Sony's own, plus SeaFrogs/Meikon) that support M1 through M5, and a SeaFrogs model that supports M3 through M7, but if you upgrade your RX100M2/Nauticam setup to a new camera, you will absolutely need a new housing.
As for differences - it's still a 1"/20MP sensor, but the newer models feature much better autofocus capability (M5 and up bring phase-detection autofocus, whereas earlier models are contrast-detection only) along with better burst capabilities, although this latter feature is largely useless underwater, especially if you shoot with strobes. The 24-200mm lens on M6 and M7 is capable of extreme macro with close-up lenses (see Jim Decker's review for samples), but is difficult to use and requires different ports for macro and wide. It can be argued that the 28-100mm lens on the original RX100 and M2 is the most versatile for underwater use - the 28mm wide end is perfect for wet wide lenses, and the 100mm long end is better for macro than the 70mm found on M3/M4/M5, while still functioning with a fixed port.
As for differences - it's still a 1"/20MP sensor, but the newer models feature much better autofocus capability (M5 and up bring phase-detection autofocus, whereas earlier models are contrast-detection only) along with better burst capabilities, although this latter feature is largely useless underwater, especially if you shoot with strobes. The 24-200mm lens on M6 and M7 is capable of extreme macro with close-up lenses (see Jim Decker's review for samples), but is difficult to use and requires different ports for macro and wide. It can be argued that the 28-100mm lens on the original RX100 and M2 is the most versatile for underwater use - the 28mm wide end is perfect for wet wide lenses, and the 100mm long end is better for macro than the 70mm found on M3/M4/M5, while still functioning with a fixed port.
When Sony made the RX100 mark III it became apparent that this was the end of compact cameras and wet lenses as we knew them till then. Some time later I switched to Panasonic, the slow sync speed of Sony APSC has been a deterrent for me to embrace the A6XXX series.
Canon still had a camera going with 28-100 lens not sure what happened to it.
With the decreasing costs of cropped format mirrorless and increased costs for compact to have a port system coupled I think compact cameras are finally dead for underwater photography use.
Canon still had a camera going with 28-100 lens not sure what happened to it.
With the decreasing costs of cropped format mirrorless and increased costs for compact to have a port system coupled I think compact cameras are finally dead for underwater photography use.
The autofocus is must faster, but the lens is 24-200m.
There is the following tradeoff: One advantage of compact camera is that you can switch macro/wide angle lens under water. With the new extended lens - you can still do it but you need to buy a short port for your Nauticam housing. with the short port, you will not be able to zoom to the full 200mm on the VII, but rather something closer to 67mm (?).
So 2 options basically:
Use standard port with macro lens flip adapter - You can shoot portrait (24-200m) and macro (with diopter)
Use short port - you can shoot macro, portrait and wide angle with the right lenses/adapters at the expense of not being able to take advantage of the additional zoom.
There is the following tradeoff: One advantage of compact camera is that you can switch macro/wide angle lens under water. With the new extended lens - you can still do it but you need to buy a short port for your Nauticam housing. with the short port, you will not be able to zoom to the full 200mm on the VII, but rather something closer to 67mm (?).
So 2 options basically:
Use standard port with macro lens flip adapter - You can shoot portrait (24-200m) and macro (with diopter)
Use short port - you can shoot macro, portrait and wide angle with the right lenses/adapters at the expense of not being able to take advantage of the additional zoom.
Sure Squintsalot
Contributor
Has anyone actually ever used the 200mm tele at its full extension? That'd be shooting way past typical video lights.
Is there a compact-like camera that shoot 4K 60fps macro and wide angle without having to swap out ports on a housing?
Is there a compact-like camera that shoot 4K 60fps macro and wide angle without having to swap out ports on a housing?
I think using the 200m is for super macro. When you zoom in that far, you need to be careful with exactly which diopter is used as your like usable autofocus range can be very short in terms of working distance. For anything else, I would say it's not very useful.
David Haas
Contributor
Search for my name and posts on using the Sony RX100 VII underwater (whales in Moorea') and above water shots with the Sony RX100 VII.
Basically I used a Fantasea FRX100 V II housing which fits both the Sony RX100 VI / VII. I used it underwater shooting available light counting on the spectacular AF. The Fantasea housing's flat port allows 24-66mm zoom range and that was fine on a 1" sensor compact.
The Nauticam (and maybe other housings with removable ports) require an added super macro lens to utilize the 200mm focal length. As others posted a long tele-macro lens will be VERY challenging. Your depth of field / focus will be razor thin and shooting with strobe(s) will be necessary to shoot at low ISO and some smaller f-stops.
My main reason owning a Sony RX100 VII was an African safari. Those photos are on here in my posts too. For that it was a spectacular choice allowing me to travel light yet get photos I was very happy with.
I sold it after those two trips and still use a 1" sensor Canon G7X II in Fantasea housing. I simply like it better with a fixed 24-100mm focal length and wet lenses.
PM or email me if you have further questions.
David Haas
davidhaas4596@gmail.com
Basically I used a Fantasea FRX100 V II housing which fits both the Sony RX100 VI / VII. I used it underwater shooting available light counting on the spectacular AF. The Fantasea housing's flat port allows 24-66mm zoom range and that was fine on a 1" sensor compact.
The Nauticam (and maybe other housings with removable ports) require an added super macro lens to utilize the 200mm focal length. As others posted a long tele-macro lens will be VERY challenging. Your depth of field / focus will be razor thin and shooting with strobe(s) will be necessary to shoot at low ISO and some smaller f-stops.
My main reason owning a Sony RX100 VII was an African safari. Those photos are on here in my posts too. For that it was a spectacular choice allowing me to travel light yet get photos I was very happy with.
I sold it after those two trips and still use a 1" sensor Canon G7X II in Fantasea housing. I simply like it better with a fixed 24-100mm focal length and wet lenses.
PM or email me if you have further questions.
David Haas
davidhaas4596@gmail.com
Similar threads
