Jump to content

Sony announced the ultimate compact camera today,… but pricy SONY RX1R III

Adventurer
in Compact System

Featured Replies

This is a real challenge for Compact Categories in contests. Compact Categories were started to enable those with lesser cameras to show what could be achieved without spending the big bucks. In recent years some Compact Category winners have been rightly criticised for using super expensive lenses, that take the system cost way above that of most SLRs or FF mirrorless. Now we have a compact that costs more than most of those cameras too...

    • Like 2
    • Haha 2

    I am sure that this camera is not for me. Besides this, this camera has a fixed 35mm lens. I am not sure whether wet lenses exist to make the camera useful for UW, 35mm alone is not really phantastic (if no wetlenses fit, I doubt that someone will ever make a housing)...

    A Sony A7cR e.g. has the same sensor, is much cheaper, has similar size&weight and, with the 28-60mm lens, goes very well with different wet lenses the way just as compact cameras are normally used (in addition, all other lens/domeport combinations would work as well as this is a real interchangeable lens camera)...

    •
    • Like 3
    • Author
    1 hour ago, Alex_Mustard said:

    Compact Category winners have been rightly criticised for using super expensive lenses, that take the system cost way above that of most SLRs or FF mirrorless. Now we have a compact that costs more than most of those cameras too...


    Let me guess, it's repeated winners who mounted EMWLs on a Sony RX100 series camera. 😅

    @Davide DB there is also a tradition for expensive compact cameras by Leica
    https://leica-camera.com/en-GB/photography/cameras/compact-cameras

    But I guess this new Sony beast is much more performant.
    The 35mm fixed focal length is actually not that bad, I can imagine that some uw optics will work fine with it.
    24cm MFD is not that bad. In Macro-Mode it will focus between 14 and 29 cm.

    •
    • Like 2
    13 minutes ago, Adventurer said:


    Let me guess, it's repeated winners who mounted EMWLs on a Sony RX100 series camera. 😅

    @Davide DB there is also a tradition for expensive compact cameras by Leica
    https://leica-camera.com/en-GB/photography/cameras/compact-cameras

    But I guess this new Sony beast is much more performant.
    The 35mm fixed focal length is actually not that bad, I can imagine that some uw optics will work fine with it.
    24cm MFD is not that bad. In Macro-Mode it will focus between 14 and 29 cm.

    Yes, of course, we can do many crazy things. And certainly, this camera steps into Leica territory in terms of price.

    The point is, I don't see what advantage it could possibly have underwater, other than being a pure exercise in style for its own sake and a waste of money. As @Architeuthis wrote, an A7Cr is the solution worth spending money on.

    •
    • Like 1

    I love compacts, and I might consider this one if it were half the price. Also, I’d prefer a 28mm fixed.

    2 hours ago, Adventurer said:


    Let me guess, it's repeated winners who mounted EMWLs on a Sony RX100 series camera. 😅

    2 hours ago, Adventurer said:

    The failing is not the entrants or winners, but I fear that Compact Contest Categories are not really achieving the purpose they set out to. Compacts are increasingly niche and that niche has also become incredibly wide.

    • Like 2

    That really is not compact camera. It is a fixed lens camera much like old film range finder types. It needs to have a short range 24-75mm zoom lens if fixed. None of it matters as there will likely not be a housing for it and combined with a housing it is too much money. Compact at least to me implies a sub M4:3 sensor, like the RX or G series or the old Canon S series. Not just the external size.

    I guess there might be others but right now the only three compact sensor cameras that UW housings are available for are the OM TG, Canon G and Sony RX?

    •
    • Like 2
    6 hours ago, Davide DB said:

    The point is, I don't see what advantage it could possibly have underwater,

    Such a camera has a leaf or iris shutter and therefore has no limitation on X-sync speed.

    • Like 1
    • Thanks 1

    Money… is also needed for all the rest of the experience like travel, dive centers, guides, tips etc. No UW photographer is poor, but this is only for the really rich ones. If you can - enjoy!

    Personally I will rather go for what @Chris Ross once called « buying better water » .

    • Like 4
    • Haha 1

    This camera is clearly aimed at those for whom spending more is better. Now a hypothetical customer can boast about having a 61 megapixel camera!

    Edited by Tom Kline

    • Like 2
    • Author
    23 hours ago, Nemrod said:

    Such a camera has a leaf or iris shutter and therefore has no limitation on X-sync speed.

    Yes exactly! And I really wish more cameras would move into that direction. It saves you up to 800 bucks on HSS converters. So that can be deducted from the very high cam price.

    By the way, the leaf shutter is a cool Hasselblad feature, which also does not suffer from x-sync speed limits. Also it‘s noteworthy that the no longer offered Canon G7X Mark III had one.

    •
    • Like 2
    3 hours ago, Adventurer said:

    Yes exactly! And I really wish more cameras would move into that direction. It saves you up to 800 bucks on HSS converters. So that can be deducted from the very high cam price.

    By the way, the leaf shutter is a cool Hasselblad feature, which also does not suffer from x-sync speed limits. Also it‘s noteworthy that the no longer offered Canon G7X Mark III had one.

    My little Canon S90 (FIX aluminum housing, pre-Nauticam) will sync at speeds up to 1/2000. Still going strong.

    Screenshot 2025-07-16 at 12.13.22 PM.png

    •
    • Like 3

    Wow. Thanks for this, but yes, no thanks...

    As much as I am (or was) a compact enthusiast, on the video front I’m still sticking with my now ten-year-old Lumix LX10.


    I got a compact because it was the most financially accessible manual video tool for my dive-pro budget — the Nauticam housing tray pack was around $1,200 USD at the time, to which I added wet optics and, eventually, lights for medium to macro work.

    It’s still the rig I dive with to this day — though a little souped-up like a hot rod these days, which somewhat contradicts the whole idea of a “compact form factor.” Anyway, such is life.

    Limitations of this 10 year old compact? Oh, plenty, of course.


    The main physical ones I run into are lenses (ah, to have a real macro lens instead of working with a zoom + strong diopter combo to reach macro…), battery packs to extend battery life (so crucial for video, but no room in a compact housing), and an option to rig an HDMI screen for my weary eyes.

    Software-wise, I miss the now-ubiquitous 4K 60fps (I’m not a slow-mo fan, but 50% speed is a useful tool), and then there’s... AF.

    AF for video isn’t crucial (I shoot in manual), but it does come into play for tracking small, fast-moving subjects — think blackwater or bonfire videos, for instance — where adjusting focus manually means losing a sequence.

    Despite the amazing demos in some videos — like the one above, where it seems you could track a subject’s nostril hair while skateboarding — the unmentioned fact is that video AF is a totally different beast, and there’s no way to know how it would actually work for moving pictures (which also means needing unicorn-like video-optimised lenses that can keep up...).

    This fast video AF, a specialist application, is still mostly a chimera. With the possible exception of the Sony lineup (to be confirmed… the internet remains suspiciously free of solid video AF tracking examples).

    Oh, and then there’s general image quality, of course, which is relative, all that.

    And all of that said, as others have frequently reminded us, smaller sensors are often an advantage for UW video.


    My upgrade (again, video only) when the stars do align would be an APS-C body like a Canon or Sony (a6700, or, giving up on AF dreams, the FX30).

    So, for now, for better or worse, the aging LX10 lives on. It's a workeable tool.

    And yes, I do love the idea of purchasing better water, or at least more time in it!

    cheers

    Edited by bghazzal

    • Like 5
    32 minutes ago, bghazzal said:



    Despite the amazing demos in some videos — like the one above, where it seems you could track a subject’s nostril hair while skateboarding — the unmentioned fact is that video AF is a totally different beast, and there’s no way to know how it would actually work for moving pictures (which also means needing unicorn-like video-optimised lenses that can keep up...).

    Have to agree, though the examples provided are relatively low stress as magnification is very low and whole frame is close to being in focus. Shift to low depth of field macro (or a long tele lenses for that matter) and it's a different story.

    It's obvious from the video that it's a Leica wannabe rangefinder imitation, the language used, the pricepoint - it's all about style and selling to a very specific crowd that has the income to blow on items like this. Like a it's a $5k plus camera and they don't include a lens hood and they charge $200 for it.

    •
    • Like 5
    Go to topic listing

    Important Information

    Terms of Use Privacy Policy Guidelines We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.