Canon S95 v Oly ZX-1 vs ?

[Nemrod]

I think adding in the $900 for the Oly was rather unfair, as it should be able to use the identical lens the FIX does.

Maybe but unknown. The 67mm port of the Oly housing will require a step ring. The step ring that comes with the UWL-04 that takes the 52mm lens thread to the 67mm port thread will set the lens forward of it's ideal position. Will it work, maybe, I suspect it will vignette and require zooming in to about 35mm and since the UWL-04 is intended for 28mm lens unlike the Inon UFL165AD and WAL1oo, there will be a loss of FOV as a result.

In order to get a similar DFOV with the Oly housing and XZ-1 as compared to the FIX/Recsea with the Fisheye UWL-04 it will most likely take the Inon WAL100 with dome kit and that is 900 dollars vs under 450 dollars for the Fisheye UWL-04.

But I don't think that most people go out and just buy $2,000 worth of gear and start taking pictures.

Most people I know that are getting into UW photography want to start with the lowest cost, best quality camera they can (with the low cost being a bit more important).

They want to take nice UW images, and learn to see if they like doing it and like the results.

Why are you assuming that all users will be beginners or students in your class? I am not following your logic. I don't think a dSLR is an end game that begins with an Oly XZ-1, do you? Maybe the XZ-1 is the end game and they want to utilize it's full potential

I believe the oly is a better camera to grow with, if one can afford it.

Well, it may be, but right now it is unknown. I will stay with my system cost estimate as being realistic of a typical advanced user. I don't follow the "grow with" as at this time it is not known if there is anything available "to grow" with in terms of lenses that can be utilized effectively. Like I said earlier, I hope there is and suspect it will all work out to the good but right now you guys are recommending an unproven and equally expensive system that may or may not have room "to grow" and so far, there are no photos of the system in use much less with any room "to grow" accessories installed over a proven camera and housing of comparable total system cost.

She loves me, she loves me not, maybe maybe not.

N

 

[Puffer Fish]

My step ring for the UWL-04 does not raise the lens...you can get it stuck on the case, but it holds the lens in exactly the same position as it would be without it...problem solved and no extra cost.

I would not put slr users in with the same class as people new to underwater photography. Would not be fair to either group. I would love it, if there were hundreds of slr users out there, but there are not. Besides, on a personal level, I am more interested in the new photographer getting started, and having a great time taking pictures at a price they can afford.

I would also comment that the majority of people don't ever buy extra lens... some do, but it is fairly rare for someone to have both macro, wide angle and fish-eye lens. To be honest, I use those lens on maybe 30 dives a year, or something around 15% of my dives, and of the good photo's I have (which are not what I post here), if I get two or three printable images I am pretty happy. If I dove in clearer water, that would be different, but I don't.

Note: I have promised myself I will do more super macro images this year...

The only unknown to me is the issue of lens travel..and where it is at various points (particularly at 28mm)..but from images I have seen, am not that concerned.

There are a fair number of issues with the S90/95, that I already know and don't like... it does not focus well in low light, it can miss focus, if you put a macro lens on, it may focus in the wrong place. Yes, you can add a focus light, but that increases costs (which you don't show) and it scares a lot of the life I take pictures of (I don't even use one for that reason).

The G10 and the LX-5 don't have any of the above issues, by comparison.

There is also the very narrow focus range with the s90, when zoomed in macro... that really sucks.

Also, I would never recommend that stock canon case...as it not a very good case. Fuji cases cost roughly the same and are very well made by comparison... they are double sealed, and the o-rings are easy to get. And I don't like the low cost Ikelite cases, as they are famous for sticky buttons.

I used to use an SLR, and have gone back to a P & S for a lot of reasons, so I do not think that everyone should end up using a Canon 7D in a housing.

In photography, one finds that most people end up with a brand they like... and will sometimes defend that position to the death as the only one for every one. Me, I just like cameras that work well for the job at hand. I think the only camera maker that I currently do not own is Nikon, and that is only because they don't have a camera I like right now (but that could change).

If I thought that Fix housing and a S95 was the best deal for customers, it would be what we would have at the shop. I don't. That is not to say it is not a very nice setup, it is. The case is really nice. It is not, however, the best bang for your buck, and it is not without it's own issues.

Maybe but unknown. The 67mm port of the Oly housing will require a step ring. The step ring that comes with the UWL-04 that takes the 52mm lens thread to the 67mm port thread will set the lens forward of it's ideal position. Will it work, maybe, I suspect it will vignette and require zooming in to about 35mm and since the UWL-04 is intended for 28mm lens unlike the Inon UFL165AD and WAL1oo, there will be a loss of FOV as a result.

In order to get a similar DFOV with the Oly housing and XZ-1 as compared to the FIX/Recsea with the Fisheye UWL-04 it will most likely take the Inon WAL100 with dome kit and that is 900 dollars vs under 450 dollars for the Fisheye UWL-04.



Why are you assuming that all users will be beginners or students in your class? I am not following your logic. I don't think a dSLR is an end game that begins with an Oly XZ-1, do you? Maybe the XZ-1 is the end game and they want to utilize it's full potential



Well, it may be, but right now it is unknown. I will stay with my system cost estimate as being realistic of a typical advanced user. I don't follow the "grow with" as at this time it is not known if there is anything available "to grow" with in terms of lenses that can be utilized effectively. Like I said earlier, I hope there is and suspect it will all work out to the good but right now you guys are recommending an unproven and equally expensive system that may or may not have room "to grow" and so far, there are no photos of the system in use much less with any room "to grow" accessories installed over a proven camera and housing of comparable total system cost.

She loves me, she loves me not, maybe maybe not.

N

 

[MMM]

On the topic of lenses, I'm guessing that my Oly PTMC-01 and PTWC-01 lenses will work just fine on the new Oly camera? Can anyone offer suggestions for others I might want to add?

 

[shaker]

Hi

The thread concerns the S vs the ZX. The LX-5, what lenses and housings support this camera that are widely and easily available? The 24mm lens is a poor choice for underwater use through a flat port and does not interface well with wet lenses.

I have the Lx3/Lx5 and i don't find the result at 24mm through the flat port to be poor! At f2-2,8 one can see some chromatic aberration and softness on the corners, but this can be corrected when stopping down to f4.
The majority of divers don't have wet lenses and a 24mm lens is a good choice for them.

... I would consider the Sony NEX over the PEN with an Aquatica housing or similar. The PEN seems to currently only support approximately 100 degree DFOV, not wide enough really.

Are the Panasonic 7-14mm and the 8mm fisheye not enough wide?
Which WA lens do you advise for the Sony Nex?

 

[ramasule]

Nec uses 16mm lens with either a fisheye or wide angle attachment. Use with dome port.

 

[slowhands]

On the topic of lenses, I'm guessing that my Oly PTMC-01 and PTWC-01 lenses will work just fine on the new Oly camera? Can anyone offer suggestions for others I might want to add?

Yes, for the macro.

About the wide angle converter though -- it is really heavy. I have one of those too. I don't know if a plastic housing can handle the stress of that weight. I think the weight of the lens would rip the port off. I might suggest using a bracket that supports it and attaches to your camera tray to prevent the lens from stressing the housing. It might have to be custom made, I've not seen one commercially available.

A much lighter alternative is the Dyron 15mm M67 wet lens, available from Blue Water Photo. It's slightly wider too. I'd feel more comfortable with that.
Dyron 15mm wide-angle lens for canon s90, canon s95 | Bluewater Photo & Video

Just for fun, take a look at some of the pics shot by Wisnu using a standard inexpensive dry mount wide angle conversion lens. It's not intended for underwater use but it somehow worked quite well. With a little silicone glue, you might even be able to seal this.
http://www.scubaboard.com/forums/underwater-photography/338416-non-wet-wide-angle-lens-underwater-yes-work.html
In the thumbnails below, left is without WAL, right with WAL. I do realize this is unorthodox, but for the $20 price what's to lose? He had some fun and got great shots. So don't be a Nattering Nabob of Negativity, try it out for kicks.

 

[MMM]

About the wide angle converter though -- it is really heavy. I have one of those too. I don't know if a plastic housing can handle the stress of that weight. I think the weight of the lens would rip the port off. I might suggest using a bracket that supports it and attaches to your camera tray to prevent the lens from stressing the housing. kicks.

Thanks Fyi, i have used it on my plastic housing for my ply 5050 and so far it has remained intact.

 

[Nemrod]

Hi


I have the Lx3/Lx5 and i don't find the result at 24mm through the flat port to be poor! At f2-2,8 one can see some chromatic aberration and softness on the corners, but this can be corrected when stopping down to f4.
The majority of divers don't have wet lenses and a 24mm lens is a good choice for them.



Are the Panasonic 7-14mm and the 8mm fisheye not enough wide?
Which WA lens do you advise for the Sony Nex?

I realize this was supposed to be a dump on the S95 and praise the Lord for the new XZ-1 type thread but unfortunately, there is this little thing called reality and the currently known and not known factors regarding said XZ-1 camera before we go and proclaim the XZ-1 the best thing since sliced bread. This thread is titled S95 vs the ZX-1 (XZ-1). If you want to discuss the S95 v the ELP-1 or some other camera, maybe start another thread.

So far we have a camera, the Oly XZ-1, which:

1. Has only one known housing for which none or few have been held in public hands and actually taken an underwater photo. The Canon S series have at least three widely available housings.

2. The XZ-1 housing is plastic with a single plastic tray mount where as the housings available for the canon include OEM plastic housings and aluminum alloy housings of high quality with two mount points.

3. The effective use of accessory lenses for the XZ-1 is unknown, may be great, may not be and the mount is 67mm threaded, not bayonet for those who might want to swap underwater. The Canon S series can utilize a variety of accessory lenses depending upon the housing selected including threaded, bayonet, macro, wide angle and fisheye.

4. The rear dial is not available forcing the use of multiple button pushes to accomplish the same thing as rotating said ring. The Canon S series shares a similar handicap in the OEM housing but in the FIX and Recsea housings has full control of all functions including the rear ring control and it is a easy to use rotary dial gland.

5. Depth capability for the XZ-1 housing is only 120 feet. The Canon S series has housings available that are rated to 200 feet.

6. IQ is reported to be good, similar to the S90/S95 with some improvement in lens speed, one stop faster than the f2.0 Canon lens for the S series.

7. Video, me, I don't care. :mooner: But, for those who care, maybe it is better than the S series, beats me.

While some might not care about the use of wide angle lenses and likely many have no idea why one might want to use a wide angle lens or macro lens for that matter, it does not change or remove the real advantages such accessory lenses give to the photographer who does. Maybe people who teach underwater photography should instruct these beginners in their use rather than ignoring the real advantages offered by these lenses. It is not just about WIDE, it is really about CLOSE which greatly helps in dirty water and particularly is helpful keeping the camera within strobe range and still getting a useful perspective. No camera system that cannot use a variety of lenses can be proclaimed a best or best value in class over one that can especially when the price difference is relatively small. This question remains unanswered at this time in regards the Olympus XZ-1. I certainly hope the answer is a definite affirmative.

As to the ELP and Panasonic, I did not bring those up, others did. I only responded in kind and will again. Whatever can be said in regards the S series Canons and the Panasonic or Oly ELP can be said for the Oly XZ-1 vs those very same cameras and is really beyond the scope of this thread.

N, unrepentant

 

[cardog]

#5 The PT-050 is rated to 40 meters. 40 meters is equal to appx 131 feet.

 

[slowhands]

Thanks Fyi, i have used it on my plastic housing for my Oly 5050 and so far it has remained intact.

That's good to hear. I really hope it works for you, it's a fantastic hunk of glass.

I put one on the port of a PT-027 housing for the C7070 and the port fell off! But that was due to a notorious design defect in the latches that hold the port on. There were many many posts about it back in the day.

I never had a problem with it without the heavy lens on it, but I always checked the latches before each dive. I decided instead to use a dry mount lens inside the housing with the better Athena dome port for the the PT-027. I still use it to this day.