So, RX 100 II or III ?

[funscuba]

Has anyone been testing the newest III underwater for macro and wide angle use, is it worth the purchase or shpuld I still stick to the idea or buying the II instead ? Really scratching my head bout it.
Thanks for the info !

 

[serpentara]

Someone finally posted a hands on review and said it was the best compact they have ever tested. Crossing my fingers! http://www.photographyblog.com/reviews/sony_cybershot_dsc_rx100_iii_review/

Sent from my LG-D800 using Tapatalk

 

[Interceptor121]

I think that unless you are into video the Mark III is not going to be an improvement over the Mark II

 

[serpentara]

Another glowing review of the mark iii calling it "peerless" http://m.dpreview.com/reviews/sony-cybershot-dsc-rx100-m3

Sent from my LG-D800 using Tapatalk

 

[didekeer]

I am also considering to pull the trigger in the mkIII (I do plan to shoot video), but would like to see an annoucement first from Nauticam on a housing.

 

[boletus1973]

the camera is really good without doubts, but 24mm isn't good for the existing wideangle wetlens, and 70mm isn't enough for a good magnification with the macro wet lenses..... for underwater photography the mark 2 is better! IMHO.....

 

[Larry C]

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.

 

[serpentara]

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

 

[Larry C]

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

The II lists a macro mode as well, but the macro performance was widely criticized. It will be interesting to see the first UW reviews and how macro compares on the III. The electronic viewfinder may or may not be a plus as well.

 

[didekeer]

It would be great if one of the housing vendors (Nauticam, Recsea, Ikelite) would comment on the suitability of this camera for underwater. Especially in combination with external lenses (wide and macro).

I would use it primarely for video with some occasional photography, and I live in Canada with very dark, green, waters. So the extra sensitivity and better sensor of the mkIII would be a huge benefit for me. But I don't want to buy a camara that would limit my possibilities later on.