Compact vs Mirrorless

[lbedogni 4]

Hi all, I am currently shooting with an Olympus Em1.2. I am considering changing the camera for topside shooting and going with a different brand, and I do not want to keep two separate camera kits. So I am considering whether for underwater shooting an advanced compact camera (i.e. Canon G7 mark III, Lumix LX10, Sony RX100) might do the job.

I am seeing more and more photos from compact camera which are indistinguishable from more expensive gear, so here are my question:

1. Has anyone switched form one system to another and see any major drawback/advantage?

2. How do these compact cameras work with respect to autofocus?

3. Is there any specific underwater scenario in which compact camera will struggle or simply can't get the job done? 

[nudibranco 27]

For macro you will not see much of a difference but for wide angle and CFWA yes you will have worse quality and less iso flexibility. Egonomics is also an issue depending on model and housing. If you use manual focusing especially. I have been waiting for a killer compact but only Nikon was coming with an interesting one which never arrived.

In the end i am still using panasonic Gx9 in a compact nauticam housing and only slightly bigger than Rx100 type.

Hope it helps.


Inviato dal mio SM-A325F utilizzando Tapatalk

[NWDiver 42]

Will trot this out again, lol.

https://aquabluedreams.com/#/page/my-digital-de-evolution/

 

[ChrisRoss 150]

I can't comment specifically on the quality and usability, however on the lens front you can have a bit of a jack of all trades setup with certain drawbacks. 

Firstly the bare lens is not a particularly usable range so you will be  using wet lenses.  On the wide end you can use a WWL and get good results, there is however not really an equivalent to a fisheye lens for reef scenics and things where a fisheye works so well.  You need to pick your compact carefullt as not all give you the maximum working field with wet lenses. 

On the other end of the range a closeup wet lens is needed for macro work and the quality can be decent at the cost of having quite  a limited range with not much working distance for macro work.  You can see this in the Nauticam port chart here:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1MDc77-ZaL4CKXwgstW9KcyoaqA2BO58H/view

For example the 24-70mm equivalent RX-100 can use the CMC lenses,  which for the CMC-1 will shoot an area of 35 x 23mm which is about equivalent to life size framing with a full frame.  This is achieved at a working distance from the front of the lens of 55mm which is pretty short and the setup will only focus between 55 and 75mm working distance. 

By comparison the Oly 60mm macro will cover 18mm x 13mm at min focus with about 80mm working distance.  It will focus from this point to infinity.  This allows you to fill the frame with a critter about half the size of one that fills your frame in compact like the RX-100 and will be easier to use for framing and finding your subject. 

While you can certainly take nice shots with these compact for macro, the flexibility is significantly reduced with limited working distances and less magnification.  The longer focal length compacts like the RX-100VI and VII  allow more magnification but with additional trade off like the need to change ports for best wide angle and narrower working distance in macro.

So yes you can downgrade but there are trade offs, I wouldn't do it, but your requirements could well be different.

[ChrisRoss 150]

5 minutes ago, NWDiver said:

Will trot this out again, lol.

https://aquabluedreams.com/#/page/my-digital-de-evolution/

 

The link has been fixed - it was previously pointing to a WP post

 

 

[Interceptor121 763]

1 hour ago, lbedogni said:

Hi all, I am currently shooting with an Olympus Em1.2. I am considering changing the camera for topside shooting and going with a different brand, and I do not want to keep two separate camera kits. So I am considering whether for underwater shooting an advanced compact camera (i.e. Canon G7 mark III, Lumix LX10, Sony RX100) might do the job.

I am seeing more and more photos from compact camera which are indistinguishable from more expensive gear, so here are my question:

1. Has anyone switched form one system to another and see any major drawback/advantage?

2. How do these compact cameras work with respect to autofocus?

3. Is there any specific underwater scenario in which compact camera will struggle or simply can't get the job done? 

1. When compact had 28-100mm equivalent and you could use a fixed port the key benefit was flexibility of use with wet lenses. When ports are required to use all lenses this benefit vanishes which is the reason why in the first place I moved out of the Sony RX system

2. Autofocus is generally weaker as most are contrast detect and have slow lenses with small physical aperture, however those cameras due to crop have lots of depth of field so you don't need to be as accurate

3. Actually not as long as the flash syncs at 1/1000 and faster you can overcome most limits

This is a now vintage album with my RX100 https://flic.kr/s/aHsjZczii3

I was one of two compact cameras on the boat and my images were on par wit some larger formats I lacked compositional technique otherwise they would have been better

 

Edited January 31 by Interceptor121

[fruehaufsteher2 19]

@Interceptor121 great pics!

I had RX100VA in Isotta housing with the INON UWL-C95 and I can say that this is a great combination. Fast, reliable, by far less expensive than most of the mirrorless solutions. Main downside for me was the limited battery life (empty after one hour). 

It works with the full zoom range and external strobes, is small, lightweight and easy to use. If I hadn't been given the opportunity to switch to the new A7 IV with Nauticam I I'd stayed there.

Many other points have already been mentioned by Interceptor. I cannot confirm slow or weak AF - I had no missed shots. But size matters especially with respect to size of the sensor, and terefore FF is often better but at 4x the price tag.

[Dann-Oh 40]

I had the RX100Va but then I upgraded to the Olympus PEN EPL10.  I think you might be better off lookin to changing out your EM1 for the EPL10 and then get what ever you want for topside photography,

[lbedogni 4]

Thanks for all your comments. AF is a major concern to me, and as far as I can see I can notice a significant performance reduction, so I guess that the compact world is not right for me, until at least I can get my hands on one I can try before making the switch.

[ColdDarkDiver 25]

I have gone between the two, and still either use or dive with people who use compacts as I use mirrorless. I am routinely astounded at the quality of the compact images (G7xii) as well as the simplicity of its use.  I really only see a couple downsides: 1) Battery since it fires the flash to fire the strobe so you get one dive per battery and 2) Video – no 10bit - 4k – which I need for certain things, but most people don’t (and I sometimes just us a gopro strapped to the top of the compact anyway).  My full frame has a lot more latitude in post but is also a much newer camera body.

Using strobes and the aiming lights on strobes – I have no issues with focus.  Sure it doesn’t focus as fast as a mirroless body but I am not shooting fast moving pelagics, although I very likely could. No experience there.  But what is fast enough comes to mind.

The simplicity in a flat port and small housing is big.  Mostly because it can become less of the entirety of your dive and I do clip my compact to my BC and do something, where I would not do that with a huge port.  I don’t even think about whether I should take it in the water – I always do.  Whereas my mirrorless, that is the focus on the dive.  I have numerous times almost pulled the trigger on an WWL for the compact, but each time think – at that point I might as well just take the dome and mirrorless.

The G7xii is a 24mm-(something..?) lens and I have both the wee dome and the flat port for it. And I usually just use the flat port.   

On my blog, it is very hard to know which is shot with my R5 and which is shot with the G7xii.  Working with the images in post, it is very easy to tell – they dynamic range, cropability and many other aspects of the R5 really come to shine, but the final product is suprisingly close sometimes– at least for screen and moderate print.  The difference between the TG-6 (of which I also own) and the other two is obvious except for macro and near macro.  I bring the TG-6, as if it is a phone - it plus a video light or cheap strobe clipped to my BC just in case I see something I want to photograph.    

So, if you can only have one, I would stick with mirrorless.  But I still reach for simplicity sometimes – especially if diving with a less experienced diver or when task loaded with other stuff.  Just simply having a much less expensive body and port makes all the difference in certain cases to have the camera in the water when diving, rather than doing a dive for image collection.

I do see a reason to have and use both depending on the purpose of that dive.

[fruehaufsteher2 19]

It has to be mentioned, that you need to transport less weight. In the plane and in the water.

this is isotta for rx100

[dhaas 32]

As ColdDarkDiver and fruehaufsteher2 said there are benefits to compacts, especially any 1" sensor cameras from Canon and Sony (the most popular.) I've used both and today use a Canon G7X II in Fantasea housing.

I left the SLR housing / strobe(s) / larger travel footprint behind in 2016 for many reasons. 

Compacts are cheaper (I routinely see clean used Canon G7X II for $350 USD or less) and the housing and any accessories are smaller and lighter making travel much easier.

Battery life isn't as much of a problem. I can change a camera battery between dives in about 60 seconds even on a boat once prepared with a dry towel, etc. Depending how many shots per dive I can get a couple dives usually. If shooting all ambient I've got over 800 shots such as with whale sharks in Philippines as an example.

I've made large prints from compact images underwater and surface and they look fine. Post processing even as simple as Apple Photos I use works fine.

As others in this thread posted many times people could never tell the difference in well exposed post processed photos. Obsession on corner sharpness plus people zooming in to 100/200/300% means little in today's imaging world, especially for typical UW photo enthusiasts.

I spend my $$$$ on travel and experiences these days

David Haas

Random Indonesia shots, some ambient light and some using two small Inon S2000 strobes on S-TTL.

 

 

Edited February 2 by dhaas

[lbedogni 4]

Thanks for your inputs.

 

Yes, size/weight saving Is a huge plus Indeed.

@dhaas

I am not concerned at all about quality. I perfectly understand that a vast majority of the time you wouldn't notice any difference unless you print 100x70 or so.

 

My main, and only, concern Is about the autofocus. I do not want to struggle in macro or with fishes because i can't get a focused shot.

[dhaas 32]

lbedogni,

I understand your AF concern. Are compacts different in AF capability than SLRs or mirrorless cameras?

Of course but have other problems including being stuck with one lens choice (unless going the WWL / WACP route), physical size, weight and finally $$$$ including extra travel costs.

I'd venture to say most who criticize compacts have never owned one long enough to maximize whatever AF the camera has. Contrast only like Canon G7X II or PDAF in Sony RX100 VA or VI / VII as two examples.

There are numerous online videos showing ways to set up and use AF features.

For example shooting wide angle I set my Canon G7X II on AiAF and all the active AF blocks active.  At f5.6 (roughly equivalent to f11 on the 1" sensor) it works fine. For shooting tight fish or macro shots I'll sometimes switch fixed center point, etc.

Does it miss sometimes, sure.....But my SLRs had missed too.....

The Sony RX100 VII I had for about 9 months had incredible AF. But I didn't care for the menus and I lost a simple "pop on" Air Lens option I use with the Canon G7X II Fantasea housing. After an African safari and Humpback whale trip I sold it. 

Just my personal choice and others will make their own decision.

Good luck if going with a compact camera!

David Haas

 

 

Edited February 3 by dhaas

[ChrisRoss 150]

It's not so much the AF as such, it's what happens when you want to shoot macro and add a wet lens.  The working distance is a lot less than a dedicated macro lens and the working range can be extremely small making them fiddly to frame your subject and light it.  If you want to achieve life-size macro it can be done on certain compacts only and even then there are significant limitations.  Larger subjects are relatively simpler.

[nudibranco 27]

the quality you will get with an epl10 and a fisheye lens is way better than what you get with a compact and even more compact than a compact!  You can also get fantastic CFWA.  And add a flat port and a 60mm macro lens ...  you will get almost supermacro and way more flexibility for your focus!.   A jack of all trades: add a 14-42mm lens with wwl1 wet lens and get from wide to mid focal subjects ...  :9

Edited February 3 by nudibranco

[lbedogni 4]

On 2/3/2023 at 12:41 PM, dhaas said:

lbedogni,

I understand your AF concern. Are compacts different in AF capability than SLRs or mirrorless cameras?

Of course but have other problems including being stuck with one lens choice (unless going the WWL / WACP route), physical size, weight and finally $$$$ including extra travel costs.

I'd venture to say most who criticize compacts have never owned one long enough to maximize whatever AF the camera has. Contrast only like Canon G7X II or PDAF in Sony RX100 VA or VI / VII as two examples.

There are numerous online videos showing ways to set up and use AF features.

For example shooting wide angle I set my Canon G7X II on AiAF and all the active AF blocks active.  At f5.6 (roughly equivalent to f11 on the 1" sensor) it works fine. For shooting tight fish or macro shots I'll sometimes switch fixed center point, etc.

Does it miss sometimes, sure.....But my SLRs had missed too.....

The Sony RX100 VII I had for about 9 months had incredible AF. But I didn't care for the menus and I lost a simple "pop on" Air Lens option I use with the Canon G7X II Fantasea housing. After an African safari and Humpback whale trip I sold it. 

Just my personal choice and others will make their own decision.

Good luck if going with a compact camera!

David Haas

 

 

Thanks for your comments. Indeed, the best way to convince me would be to try before buy, but it's not so.easy..

[lbedogni 4]

On 2/3/2023 at 12:50 PM, ChrisRoss said:

It's not so much the AF as such, it's what happens when you want to shoot macro and add a wet lens.  The working distance is a lot less than a dedicated macro lens and the working range can be extremely small making them fiddly to frame your subject and light it.  If you want to achieve life-size macro it can be done on certain compacts only and even then there are significant limitations.  Larger subjects are relatively simpler.

Yes Life sized macros Is something i definitely want to do. I was looking specifically at the Canon g7 III or the rx 100, i'm not sure whether It Is possible on these.

[lbedogni 4]

On 2/3/2023 at 2:19 PM, nudibranco said:

the quality you will get with an epl10 and a fisheye lens is way better than what you get with a compact and even more compact than a compact!  You can also get fantastic CFWA.  And add a flat port and a 60mm macro lens ...  you will get almost supermacro and way more flexibility for your focus!.   A jack of all trades: add a 14-42mm lens with wwl1 wet lens and get from wide to mid focal subjects ...  :9

I doubt It Will be more compact when you count the lenses and ports. Right now i am shooting with a pana 8mm and and Olympus 60mm, so in case i keep It i'll Stick to that.

[ChrisRoss 150]

3 hours ago, lbedogni said:

Yes Life sized macros Is something i definitely want to do. I was looking specifically at the Canon g7 III or the rx 100, i'm not sure whether It Is possible on these.

Currently you have a olympus 60mm macro which will do 1:1 which is a frame 17.3 x 13mm.  If you refer to the Nauticam N50 port chart I linked above it gives the min frame size.  A G7XIII can do down to 23 x 13 so not as good as you currently have.  The RX-100VI/VII can do a smaller frame of 14.3 x 9 but only focuses 84-94mm from the port which means you have a big gap between what it can with the diopter and the bare lens.    In other words you are stuck around the 14 x 9mm frame size with a big gap to the bare lens.  You would be really hard pressed to match the experience using the 60mm macro if you change to a compact. 

As for the EPL-10, the AOI housing for that really is quite compact, but the AF won't be a match for the EM-1 MkII.

[lbedogni 4]

On 2/5/2023 at 10:34 AM, ChrisRoss said:

Currently you have a olympus 60mm macro which will do 1:1 which is a frame 17.3 x 13mm.  If you refer to the Nauticam N50 port chart I linked above it gives the min frame size.  A G7XIII can do down to 23 x 13 so not as good as you currently have.  The RX-100VI/VII can do a smaller frame of 14.3 x 9 but only focuses 84-94mm from the port which means you have a big gap between what it can with the diopter and the bare lens.    In other words you are stuck around the 14 x 9mm frame size with a big gap to the bare lens.  You would be really hard pressed to match the experience using the 60mm macro if you change to a compact. 

As for the EPL-10, the AOI housing for that really is quite compact, but the AF won't be a match for the EM-1 MkII.

I see, thanks for the detailed answer. I believe I'll have to stick with the EM1.2 for now.

[fruehaufsteher2 19]

On 2/5/2023 at 10:34 AM, ChrisRoss said:

The RX-100VI/VII can do a smaller frame of 14.3 x 9 but only focuses 84-94mm from the port which means you have a big gap between what it can with the diopter and the bare lens. 

That's why most UW photographers stick to the RX100V(A) - here the full zoom range can be used.