Ok I saw some underwater shots on your site I thought you had it already
New Sony Cybershot RX100
- Thread starter LeeParrish
- 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
- Messages
- 1,329
- Reaction score
- 119
Interesting. The specs say it focusses at 5 cm and the exif of those pictures indicates a loot of zooming
I wonder if they had a diopter on
I wonder if they had a diopter on
Lovely images. I particularly like the tiny crab with eggs. It would appear that almost all were taken with additional wet lens..as most are at maximum zoom, and the minimum focus distance is around 21 inches at that point.
It does show the advantages of using a smaller, very high resolution sensor for super macro...as you get a huge improvement in depth of field. One is shooting with the field of view equal to a 100mm lens, while getting the depth of field of a 37mm lens.
I would guess this camera is one of the best, or the best for this type of image. The only way one can replicate this with a larger sensor, would be to stop the lens down to a point where defraction would seriously degrade the image.
Sadly, we don't know how much these images were cropped, as greater distance would also improve DOF, but however they were shot, the images are very impressive.
Note: Full images at maximum zoom, in tests, have shown serious soft corners, so if I had to guess, I would say these images were cropped a fair amount. However, with 20 meg images, one can do a fair amount of that and still have a nice image.. at least in macro.
Odd that all the supermacro were shot at F6.3, as the camera goes to F11. I would guess the lens is at it's best center focus around F 4 - 6, but it would have been nice to see something around say F8, assuming resolution does not drop off too much, it should have very impressive DOF, something no larger sensor camera would be able to duplicate.
My only complaint about this, is the images were selected to show the one thing this camera can do better than other camera...and it would be a shame if someone that does not shoot supermacro assumed this reflected how the camera does with other types of images. I think one can assume that general fish images will be of a similar high quality.
Wide angle quality is seriously effected by how much travel the lens does when zooming and how far back the lens is at the setting for the add on lens being used (usually around 35mm). Am surprised they did not shoot these images, as I'm sure they had the wet lenses available. Is this a case of not wanting to show a problem, or is it just a case of wanting to show what it does best?
If I shot supermacro, from what we have seen, I would put this camera at the top of my shopping list.
It does show the advantages of using a smaller, very high resolution sensor for super macro...as you get a huge improvement in depth of field. One is shooting with the field of view equal to a 100mm lens, while getting the depth of field of a 37mm lens.
I would guess this camera is one of the best, or the best for this type of image. The only way one can replicate this with a larger sensor, would be to stop the lens down to a point where defraction would seriously degrade the image.
Sadly, we don't know how much these images were cropped, as greater distance would also improve DOF, but however they were shot, the images are very impressive.
Note: Full images at maximum zoom, in tests, have shown serious soft corners, so if I had to guess, I would say these images were cropped a fair amount. However, with 20 meg images, one can do a fair amount of that and still have a nice image.. at least in macro.
Odd that all the supermacro were shot at F6.3, as the camera goes to F11. I would guess the lens is at it's best center focus around F 4 - 6, but it would have been nice to see something around say F8, assuming resolution does not drop off too much, it should have very impressive DOF, something no larger sensor camera would be able to duplicate.
My only complaint about this, is the images were selected to show the one thing this camera can do better than other camera...and it would be a shame if someone that does not shoot supermacro assumed this reflected how the camera does with other types of images. I think one can assume that general fish images will be of a similar high quality.
Wide angle quality is seriously effected by how much travel the lens does when zooming and how far back the lens is at the setting for the add on lens being used (usually around 35mm). Am surprised they did not shoot these images, as I'm sure they had the wet lenses available. Is this a case of not wanting to show a problem, or is it just a case of wanting to show what it does best?
If I shot supermacro, from what we have seen, I would put this camera at the top of my shopping list.
- Messages
- 1,329
- Reaction score
- 119
i needed (wanted) another compact and chose the G12 over the RX100 (money was really the overriding factor) because i am not seeing an incredibly obvious benefit for me just puttering around the reef and having to dig even deeper, and wait, to house it. then again, i am not known for my fiscal restraint.
Chile, Your G12 is an excellent camera....perhaps not in the same class of absolute resolution, but it has better macro when zoomed out, and one of those other things that people don't test for...a very large white balance range...larger than any other camera I've test. Not that important when using strobes, but shoot a video and you can adjust almost twice as far as say a Panasonic LX5, or Oly zx1.
As an all around camera, when you start adding up the total cost...the G12 is a serious bargin compared to this Sony, and if you were going to spend that much, then the Sony NEX series or the Pany GX1 would seem to be a better option.
If I was doing just super macro, then this camera would seem to be a better option....
And if you want to do wide angle/fish eye, one looses some of the size advantage, and now even the price advantage is gone over the interchangable lens camera's.
If this camera has a 24-100 or so zoom, and could do reasonable macro when at the 100mm point, I would buy one in a heartbeat as my travel camera, as it would allow a reasonable range of images to be taken, without any extra gear.
As an all around camera, when you start adding up the total cost...the G12 is a serious bargin compared to this Sony, and if you were going to spend that much, then the Sony NEX series or the Pany GX1 would seem to be a better option.
If I was doing just super macro, then this camera would seem to be a better option....
And if you want to do wide angle/fish eye, one looses some of the size advantage, and now even the price advantage is gone over the interchangable lens camera's.
If this camera has a 24-100 or so zoom, and could do reasonable macro when at the 100mm point, I would buy one in a heartbeat as my travel camera, as it would allow a reasonable range of images to be taken, without any extra gear.
Oops did not read the title in the page!
In terms of focus distance the specs say 5 cm which is the same of the S95 but not as close as the G12
Looking at those pictures the supermacro works however the exif says 1500x1500 whilst this camera should shoot 6000x4000 so I guess there is a bit of cropping there
This camera as less zoom than the Canon S95 and less than the G12 that is not such a bad thing for wet lenses I wonder if they will post some wide angle pictures
I agree with puffer fish and I wonder why the shots are not taken with smaller aperture, looking at the sea horse you see a F5.6 1/125 with the result that the background is blurred it is possible that this is intentional but would be nice to see what the camera does at F11?
In terms of focus distance the specs say 5 cm which is the same of the S95 but not as close as the G12
Looking at those pictures the supermacro works however the exif says 1500x1500 whilst this camera should shoot 6000x4000 so I guess there is a bit of cropping there
This camera as less zoom than the Canon S95 and less than the G12 that is not such a bad thing for wet lenses I wonder if they will post some wide angle pictures
I agree with puffer fish and I wonder why the shots are not taken with smaller aperture, looking at the sea horse you see a F5.6 1/125 with the result that the background is blurred it is possible that this is intentional but would be nice to see what the camera does at F11?
- Messages
- 1,329
- Reaction score
- 119
the ability to get close is what kinda sealed it for me with the G12...i figure i will use it primarily for macro and use my E-PL1 with 9-18 (and eventually 8mm FE) for WA...plus, even though it is smaller than a DSLR set up, sometimes i miss having a smaller rig to lug up and over the reef at low tide
. thanks, puffer fish
Interceptor,
When they list "Macro", they mean at wide angle...and it is from the sensor..not the front of the lens. I have Canon S series, G series, the Pany LX5 and the Oly ZX1 in small camera's (0k I also have several Fuji).
If these were an slr lens, then the closest focus would stay the same through out the entire zoom range, so maximum "macro" is at maximum zoom. But that is not what happens with these lens...as you zoom the distance goes out. Problem is, you cannot tell by the first number, how well they work when zoomed.
Nor can you tell by looking at the zoom range how much the lens will move, or the pattern (some just move out.. some move back and then out).
Compare, for example, the LX5, S95 and the R100..
LX5 listed macro distance is 1 cm (if you lay a paperclip on the housing port, the camera will focus on it)
S95 listed macro distance is 5 cm (but it only goes to 28mm, while the LX5 is a 24mm camera)
R100 is listed at 5 cm, or identical to the S95.
Try using any of these camera's underwater at those distances...as lighting would be impossible.
So you zoom out, and this is what you get:
LX5 goes to 1 foot (but it does not have the same maximum zoom as the other two camera's)
S95 is around 1.2 feet, and is a bit better magnification than the LX5.
R100 is 21.7 inches, and by far the worst of the three.
As a side note, the stock 14 - 42 mm lens that comes with any Panasonic micro 4/3rds camera is almost identical to the LX5 for magnification.
Oh, and I would expect the G12 to be better than all of the above (my last G series is the G10, and have not checked the G12).
So if you want a camera to carry with you to shoot a variety of different things, if you tend to like wide angle, the LX5 is the winner and if you like to shoot small stuff, the S95 is a bit better.
If you don't mind spending more money, then one of the 4/3rds will cover a better range and not be much bigger. But with that, you get the advantage of changing as time goes by. (and speed and image quality between the R100 and the other camera's)
But lots of people like to shoot super macro, and from what I can tell, the R100 would seem to be state of the art, and a far better deal over many of the much more expensive options. Actually, if one can afford it, it would make a great setup to take on a trip, along with a camera for wide angle shots. It would give you an emergency backup, it is not that big, and I would guess the total weight (over carrying extra lens and ports) would not be that bad. To be honest, even the cost, while more, would not be that bad (the pany 45mm macro is around $900 all by itself).
One other note, image tests of the R100 have shown that the lens has serious corner sharpness issues at wide angle settings, and putting a wet lens on any camera never improves that (would expect it to get worse). And while cropping of a macro image works really well, cropping a wideangle/fish eye sort of kills the reason for shooting the image.
Had the R100 actually been the same as the S95, I would already have one on order.
Note about using add on lens: To many people, taking neat pictures of say, tiny sea horses, is what macro photography is all about (happen to love the example in the R100 images). But some people are actually doing an entirely different type of photography. As I don't know a name for it, I'll call it discovery photography. It may just be new to the person taking the picture, or really new, as in never before seen new. But it takes a camera that is capable of taking a wide range of images. Sometimes it is a common fish, that is difficult to photograph. Sometimes it is an entirely new family. Or it just might be a new species to the area you dive in. If you like doing this type of photography, then the wider the range, the better the camera is. I average just over 4 new species a year (for well over 30 years) and if I had to change lens to get an image, would not have 2/3rds of them. It is the difference between actually going to africa and going to an adventure park. In the later, you know what you will be seeing, in the former, you don't.
When they list "Macro", they mean at wide angle...and it is from the sensor..not the front of the lens. I have Canon S series, G series, the Pany LX5 and the Oly ZX1 in small camera's (0k I also have several Fuji).
If these were an slr lens, then the closest focus would stay the same through out the entire zoom range, so maximum "macro" is at maximum zoom. But that is not what happens with these lens...as you zoom the distance goes out. Problem is, you cannot tell by the first number, how well they work when zoomed.
Nor can you tell by looking at the zoom range how much the lens will move, or the pattern (some just move out.. some move back and then out).
Compare, for example, the LX5, S95 and the R100..
LX5 listed macro distance is 1 cm (if you lay a paperclip on the housing port, the camera will focus on it)
S95 listed macro distance is 5 cm (but it only goes to 28mm, while the LX5 is a 24mm camera)
R100 is listed at 5 cm, or identical to the S95.
Try using any of these camera's underwater at those distances...as lighting would be impossible.
So you zoom out, and this is what you get:
LX5 goes to 1 foot (but it does not have the same maximum zoom as the other two camera's)
S95 is around 1.2 feet, and is a bit better magnification than the LX5.
R100 is 21.7 inches, and by far the worst of the three.
As a side note, the stock 14 - 42 mm lens that comes with any Panasonic micro 4/3rds camera is almost identical to the LX5 for magnification.
Oh, and I would expect the G12 to be better than all of the above (my last G series is the G10, and have not checked the G12).
So if you want a camera to carry with you to shoot a variety of different things, if you tend to like wide angle, the LX5 is the winner and if you like to shoot small stuff, the S95 is a bit better.
If you don't mind spending more money, then one of the 4/3rds will cover a better range and not be much bigger. But with that, you get the advantage of changing as time goes by. (and speed and image quality between the R100 and the other camera's)
But lots of people like to shoot super macro, and from what I can tell, the R100 would seem to be state of the art, and a far better deal over many of the much more expensive options. Actually, if one can afford it, it would make a great setup to take on a trip, along with a camera for wide angle shots. It would give you an emergency backup, it is not that big, and I would guess the total weight (over carrying extra lens and ports) would not be that bad. To be honest, even the cost, while more, would not be that bad (the pany 45mm macro is around $900 all by itself).
One other note, image tests of the R100 have shown that the lens has serious corner sharpness issues at wide angle settings, and putting a wet lens on any camera never improves that (would expect it to get worse). And while cropping of a macro image works really well, cropping a wideangle/fish eye sort of kills the reason for shooting the image.
Had the R100 actually been the same as the S95, I would already have one on order.
Note about using add on lens: To many people, taking neat pictures of say, tiny sea horses, is what macro photography is all about (happen to love the example in the R100 images). But some people are actually doing an entirely different type of photography. As I don't know a name for it, I'll call it discovery photography. It may just be new to the person taking the picture, or really new, as in never before seen new. But it takes a camera that is capable of taking a wide range of images. Sometimes it is a common fish, that is difficult to photograph. Sometimes it is an entirely new family. Or it just might be a new species to the area you dive in. If you like doing this type of photography, then the wider the range, the better the camera is. I average just over 4 new species a year (for well over 30 years) and if I had to change lens to get an image, would not have 2/3rds of them. It is the difference between actually going to africa and going to an adventure park. In the later, you know what you will be seeing, in the former, you don't.
Similar threads
