Barmaglot_07
Lives in
Israel
Joined on
Mar 25, 2017
|
Comments
 |  |  |  |  |  |
| Couples' oh No moment! by mythshri from Seated Couples | The king of the mountain by Dan Paris from Landscape with Wildlife | PA020047.Bald Eagle Approach.2 by Hornsbee from BIF | Bon appetit! by valenttin from Van een mug een olifant maken | Big eyes by Minas_Eye from Eye - macro/close-up | THREE BOWLER HATS by FINEART4YPvK from Men Wearing Hats |
Any word on autofocus performance with macro lenses at close focus, i.e. close to and at 1:1?
nabpaw: As a scuba diver I can tell you
light is live
Get the best light equipment you can afford
and then a cheap camera will do.
This report should also point out the light system used,
not just the 4K camera.
Thinking about it though, at those depths, there is no sunlight, so you don't need to overpower it, no plankton, so much fewer particles to absorb your beam, and the subjects are small, so no need to light vast expanses. Therefore, the demands on lighting, aside from pressure-resistance, should be relatively modest.
User4286416121: Now add passengers
Wish cousteau was still around
My first thought was "this would be a nice thing to recon diving conditions (currents, visibility, etc) prior to splashing down".
Windeguy: Another solution to a problem that doesn't exist.
My battery box containts: 5x NP-FW50, 2x 26700, 2x27650, 2x21700, 12x18650, and 40x AA. A 4-port USB charger will take *a while* to charge all that.
Barmaglot_07: As a Sony APS-C user who shoots almost exclusively underwater, this is giving me serious lens envy. 16-50mm FF-equivalent is an *extremely* useful range for underwater photography; it's wide enough to get close to larger subject, yet capable of zooming onto smaller fish and other critters. You can't change lenses mid-dive, and neither 10-18mm nor 16-50mm give this kind of flexibility.
You got my hopes up there for a moment; an 11-30mm lens for APS-C would've been quite awesome.
Barmaglot_07: As a Sony APS-C user who shoots almost exclusively underwater, this is giving me serious lens envy. 16-50mm FF-equivalent is an *extremely* useful range for underwater photography; it's wide enough to get close to larger subject, yet capable of zooming onto smaller fish and other critters. You can't change lenses mid-dive, and neither 10-18mm nor 16-50mm give this kind of flexibility.
Tamron 11-30? What's that? There is a Tamron 11-20 f/2.8, but that isn't materially different from the Sony 10-18mm f/4 that I already have.
As a Sony APS-C user who shoots almost exclusively underwater, this is giving me serious lens envy. 16-50mm FF-equivalent is an *extremely* useful range for underwater photography; it's wide enough to get close to larger subject, yet capable of zooming onto smaller fish and other critters. You can't change lenses mid-dive, and neither 10-18mm nor 16-50mm give this kind of flexibility.
Ed Ingold: The zoom key on the FX3 is a first for Sony. In order to use Sony's excellent PZ lenses, I've had to use a USB dongle to take full advantage of them. Sony also has a virtual zoom capability, which can be used alone or in conjunction with power zoom on the lens. That said, I don't think touching the camera itself is the best way to shoot video.
I am really liking the small footprint. In the age of COVID, i'm using 2-4 cameras most of the time. That's more gear to schlepp, and there's no way to make an FS5 or FX6small, even without the handle, cage or rails.
Not quite first; A5100 had a similar rocker switch, not to mention all the Cybershot cameras.
nabpaw: With a decent small housing this thing
makes a great underwater camera.
How exactly would you use it to fire strobes?
ozturert: So why is this 16-55mm is a lot more expensive than the very good 24-105mm? 24-105mm even has OSS.
>> I think we have a new winner as far as expensive APS-C glass goes...
We'll always have Leica ;)
JavaJones: It's stunning to me that the only manufacturer doing 1" sensors in this space is a tiny company no one has ever heard of. Why isn't Sony absolutely owning this market with a waterproof/"tough" version of the RX100 series? I personally won't ever be buying one of these until they have 1" sensors. FFS.
And yes, I know the engineering on a tough camera and lens is different (and probably more difficult) than the typical RX100. Make it a bit bigger, that's fine with me, make the lens have less reach, whatever. Just give me a 1" sensor and Raw with decent buffer and operation speed. Why are waterproof cameras still in the dark ages?
Most housings for RX100 don't expose the EVF, so it's less important underwater. Some have an optional add-on magnifier hood for the display, so that you can use it like a viewfinder while wearing a diving mask.
JavaJones: It's stunning to me that the only manufacturer doing 1" sensors in this space is a tiny company no one has ever heard of. Why isn't Sony absolutely owning this market with a waterproof/"tough" version of the RX100 series? I personally won't ever be buying one of these until they have 1" sensors. FFS.
And yes, I know the engineering on a tough camera and lens is different (and probably more difficult) than the typical RX100. Make it a bit bigger, that's fine with me, make the lens have less reach, whatever. Just give me a 1" sensor and Raw with decent buffer and operation speed. Why are waterproof cameras still in the dark ages?
SeaLife DC2000 still needs a housing to go past 18m, so what's the point in getting it over the same sensor in Sony RX100 III, which has a much better lens and image processor? A universal RX100 series housing costs $255 (Meikon) or $330 (Sony) - far cry from $2k that you claim.
JavaJones: It's stunning to me that the only manufacturer doing 1" sensors in this space is a tiny company no one has ever heard of. Why isn't Sony absolutely owning this market with a waterproof/"tough" version of the RX100 series? I personally won't ever be buying one of these until they have 1" sensors. FFS.
And yes, I know the engineering on a tough camera and lens is different (and probably more difficult) than the typical RX100. Make it a bit bigger, that's fine with me, make the lens have less reach, whatever. Just give me a 1" sensor and Raw with decent buffer and operation speed. Why are waterproof cameras still in the dark ages?
Because few people who are serious about underwater photography bother with waterproof cameras in the first place. With very few exception, their waterproofing is limited to 15-18 meters, which means that for scuba diving, you need to house these waterproof cameras anyway. TG-5 is popular with underwater shooters for its macro capability, not for waterproofing.
Without a shutter to enable strobe sync, this is mostly useless. You can't bring back the red colors that aren't there in the first place.
Duncan M: Knowing Sony the A6500 is just around the corner.
It is then the version that streaks out all the problems the A6400 will have.
The beta testers will then be left in the cold. This is how Sony markets its products.
Remember A6200 -> A6300.
Those who bought the A6200 were duped by Sony when they introduced the less overheating A6300 less then 5 month after... It was the same camera just with less issues.
Greetings traveler! Welcome to the planet Earth - over here, we never had an A6200 released to market.
syberman7: Wow. Trouble is you'd have to buy two so one could be backup. That's an immense amount of data to put on an old fashioned HDD. They are severely limited in usefulness by antiquated transfer speeds.of around 200 MB/s. It really only makes sense if the size and speed increase together. For instance NVME M.2 drives are an order of magnitude faster in transfer speeds. What we actually need is a 14TB NVME drive - that would make more sense.
$11k and Samsung has you covered - https://www.samsung.com/semiconductor/ssd/enterprise-ssd/MZILS15THMLS/
I believe a 30TB version is going to hit the channel sometime soon.
Rich Evans: Sony is really pushing the envelope with these little cameras.
Portability and high IQ are insane! My daughter uses my old RX100III (syncs to her iPhone) and I occasionally take it fishing. It produces stunning pictures! The new one will find its way into my bag.
As I've said before, for most folks out there very little will be missed when using one of these. And now the longer reach will take a lot of weight of those who like to go hiking, fishing (me), vlogging and overall photographing. Great product.
Quite amazing that thanks to BSI and stabilization the IQ improvements are matching the not so much bigger Micro Four Thirds. No need to lug around a much heavier, bigger and less efficient setup like Micro Four Thirds since this surpasses it in many aspects. Great stuff!
I'd like to see the pocket that will fit an E-M1 II with a decent lens.
Jesse_Just_Him: I thought I read "Nikon developing pancake lightweight 500mm F5.6 lens"
Minolta had one. It still works on modern E-mount cameras via an adapter.
...and this marks the end of RX100 line being the delight of underwater photographers. This new lens, with external zoom, will be impossible to put into a housing.
terryreid: Buy a a6500 with a 16-50mm lens for $200 less which is half the weight and bulk and has a APS-C sensor that gathers 15 times more light with much better IQ.
Plus the flexibility of adding other lenses.
This camera is for someone who walks into a store who has not done any homework. Heck a RX100 V is 40% less money and a fourth the weight and size and much more usable being a true pocket camera with the same size sensor and 20 FPS.
Either of these is a no brainer over the RX10 IV IMHO
A 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 zoom to put on that A6500 is going to cost you $2500 by itself though, to say nothing about the bulk and weight thereof.