RX100/G7X/A6500 - Another camera decision thread :)

[Blatchy]

Hi All

Hope everyone is staying safe with all that is going on in the world at present.

I've moved to PNG a year ago and now have the luxury of diving great reefs every weekend. As part of this I bought along my old (6 years) clear ikelite case and RX100. I've been getting very much into underwater photography however I feel I am hitting the limitations of the camera and case in natural light. I am planning on buying a strobe to help but also looking to upgrade to a newer camera system (before this old case floods haha). For reference I currently have the RX100 mk1 so have experience with this system, and a A6500 + 18-105, 35mm 1.8, 12mm 2.0 for land use.

I enjoy both macro and wide angle photography, and would prefer to be able to shoot both on the same dive as we generally encounter both sharks/rays and critters like pygmy seahorses/ghost pipefish etc on every dive.

I am in a dilemma of deciding whether to get a fantasea case plus a suitable zoom lens for the A6500, or get a new compact, either a newer RX100 or G7X mkii with fantasea case. I will initially include a macro diopter for the smaller stuff and down the line look at wide angle wet lenses too. I looked at the TG6 but was turned off by the lack of full manual control.

Obviously budget is a consideration and don't want to have to sell a kidney, however I am happy to pay a little extra for robust gear, with decent photo performance that won't be obsolete in 3 months.

My main questions are:

- Would the quality of the A6500 + 16-50 kit lens + diopter be on par or better than the quality I would get from a newer RX100 or G7X? Sample pictures would be appreciated if possible.
- Are there any other zoom lenses that are compatible with the A6500 fantasea case that could provide better results than the 16-50 and allow the option to swap between wide and macro diopters on the same dive?
- Are the newer RX100's really that much better than the G7X mkii or mkiii considering the obscene price of the Sony's (Buying in Australia so may be different in the States/Europe etc)

I know i'm asking a lot of a camera system to be able to cater for various shooting scenarios underwater, and am aware there will be compromises. If you have any other suggestions I'm all ears, but would prefer not to have to change main camera systems again if possible (Went from Nikon D7000 to Sony A6000, now A6500).

Thanks for reading and sorry for the essay haha

Pete

 

[Lewis88]

I personally would not go RX100 or G7X solely for the lack of hot shoe. I HATE waiting for internal strobes to charge, and want to use a TTL converter to fire my strobes fiber optically.

Out of that choice, I would get a Seafrogs housing for your A6500, with a UW technics TTL converter.

 

[Caolino]

HATE waiting for interna

I have a Sony rx100iv with single strobe and I hate to wait too.

 

[Nemrod]

OP, you are all over the place, considering a TG, a Sony RX and a Canon G7 and you own a Sony A6500 and you think you have outgrown ambient light and you do not want it to be obsolete in 3 months? And not cost much?

Since the demise of film and the inherent therein ability to update the sensor with each fresh roll of film we are stuck with digi-cams that are obsolete on a two to three year cycle (but only so if you must have the "best" and "latest" and most super duper). Otherwise an aluminum housed system could operate for a decade or more.

An Olympus TG not only does not have Manual control but it has a sensor the size of a pin head. But it is cute and does take good macro images for fun photography purpose. A fun little system with lots of cool options.

The Sony RX one inch sensor camera has no hot shoe nor does it allow lens interchangeability. The lens with each new release gets a longer zoom ratio such that as far as I am concerned, it is a no go now. And the Canon, same thing.

So that leaves you with the most logical choice, house the A6500 (which is now an end cycle camera, thus obsolete). You already have the camera, you can get the aluminum Nauticam housing and WWL wide angle system and the CMC-X macro lenses or go with one of the plastic housings and I cannot advise there.

Things that irritate me but did not stop me from getting the new A6400 and Nauticam:

1. The 1/160 sync speed (there is HSS if you can afford Retra strobes)
2. No manual flash, it always preflashes even in Manual exposure mode (note, this can be good if you want strobe sTTL in Manual!) So you have to buy an expensive after market LED strobe trigger for fully manual flash trigger.
3. No true E mount fisheye zoom lens (you have to use a Metabones adapter and the Tokina or Canon fisheye lens) but you can get super wide with the Sigma 19mm f2.8 and the WWL-1.
4. Mediocre battery life (Nauticam offers a booster pack).

Note: some people say the Sony AF is slow, some (like me) think it fast. Whatever it is, it is good enough.

Your other choices, M4:3 systems or go Sony FF mirrorless. How much money do you have? Neither of these get you a native fisheye zoom. Go dSLR and portability becomes increasingly difficult and as has been pointed out, dSLR future lies in FF and the dSLR APS-C and possibly all M4:3 is going good bye. Sony has specifically stated recently multiple times that they intend to advance and offer new product in the APS-C mirrorless line, that being the A6XXX.

You need strobes, note that is plural.

N

 

[stuartv]

Stick the a6500 in one of these:

SeaFrogs 60M/195FT Waterproof housing for Sony A6xxx series Salted Line

And add a Nauticam WWL-1 wet wide angle lens, with the Sony 16-50 lens. I guess you'd need to buy the Sony lens, but I'm also guessing it is cheap.

For $300 (for the housing), it's cheap enough to toss if if you ever decide you want to upgrade to a more capable camera.

I have been using a Meikon housing for my Olympus E-M10 for over 3 years now. I've done virtually no maintenance and it has never leaked and worked fine the whole time.

I also have been using a WWL-1 on that housing. If the housing for the Sony has a port with 67mm threads for filters or their wet wide angle dome, then you can definitely mount a WWL-1 on it. Not sure about other sizes, but I think there are ways to mount it to other sizes as well.

I did have to DIY part of the mounting solution for the WWL-1. It took 2 minutes and only required sacrificing one 67mm filter to have just the filter's threaded ring. If you get that far and need more details, drop me a line.

 

[Barmaglot]

If the housing for the Sony has a port with 67mm threads for filters or their wet wide angle dome, then you can definitely mount a WWL-1 on it.

The bundled port with that housing has no threads at all, and is considerably wider than 67mm. If you want to use 16-50mm + wet lenses you need this port: Flat Short / Macro port for Salted Line with 67mm thread 40M/130FT

 

[saxman242]

The bundled port with that housing has no threads at all, and is considerably wider than 67mm. If you want to use 16-50mm + wet lenses you need this port: Flat Short / Macro port for Salted Line with 67mm thread 40M/130FT

I just spent two weeks shooting using that port, going between a sigma 19mm with a wet dome and a sony 30mm macro with a diopter. Worked great, other that some bleed light around the 19mm with the wet dome coming through the transparent back of the housing. Something that can be very easily sorted by installing the 16-50 zoom gear on the sigma lens as a light blocker.

 

[Nemrod]

If you go WWL-1 I would get the bayonet adapter to M67 thread so you can click from Macro to WA with a simple twist.

Just from my pool testing, the kit 16-50mm works wonderful with the WWL-1. I have a lens board so I can see some idea of what level of distortion there is. It is a pretty clean set up. But, that said, the Sigma 19mm f2.8 is better and noticeably wider but no zoom of course since it is a prime. But how that all would work with a SeaFrog etc., I cannot say. It works great with the Nauticam though.

James

 

[stuartv]

@Nemrod How is the 19 wider than the 15 end of the zoom? Are you using the 19 with some kind of dome, rather than the WWL-1?

 

[Nemrod]

@Nemrod How is the 19 wider than the 15 end of the zoom? Are you using the 19 with some kind of dome, rather than the WWL-1?

@stuartv, I still have 30 minutes on my fluid trainer, but I am taking a coffee break, lol! The luxury of riding indoors I guess.

The Sony APS-C is a 1.5 crop factor. That makes the Sigma 19mm equal to a 28.5 mm FF. The WWL-1 was designed for 28mm native FF equivalent (so that includes the Sigma 19mm). The Sony 16-50mm kit lens is not fixed length as it is zoomed, it retreats slightly to mid focal length then once again extends. The 16-50mm must be zoomed to approximately 19mm focal length to avoid vignetting (28mm equivalent). But, the lens retreats slightly from the port doing so (whereas the Sigma 19mm is fixed). This is not optimal and thus slightly reduces the FOV for the 16-50mm compared to the prime 19mm Sigma. I estimate about 110 degree FOV for the kit 16-50mm at 19mm and over 130 degree FOV for the Sigma 19mm (behind the WWL-1).

BTW, it is my understanding the new WWC (designed for 24mm native) works at no zoom or minimal zoom with the 16-50mm kit lens. But does not work with the Sigma 19mm. Just from what I have read, the WWC could be a good choice for some.

James