Re: [Paddlewise] "Close to DSLR quality"

Whichever point & shoot you choose (I have the Canon S95, which can now be had
for well under 300 at reputable online dealers),
one of the problems with shooting "screen viewfinders" is that glare and other
brightness issues impair your ability to frame and compose a shot
you're shooting blind much of the time and trusting to the camera's built-in
abilities to pre-set "scenes" on auto, or your experience with manual
overrides.

For those of us who grew up shooting through rangefinders or SLR cameras, the
transition to framing a picture by holding your camera away from the face is,
well, counter intuitive at a near muscle memory level.

You may wish to look at viewfinder cameras as well. Canon, Nikon, Fuji etc.
all have pro-sumer models that all allow either LCD composition or viewfinder.
They are smaller than Leica rangefinders, weigh less,
and are only marginally bigger and heftier than the best of the point and
shoots.  The do come with a price tag, though, and some have limitations. For
example, right now the Fuji X100 is a very hot productbut
it's lens is essentially geared toward street photography, has no zoom to
speak of, but takes incredible pictures and uses a rangefinder-ish viewfinder
(in addition to the familiar back panel).  They are hard to get
because supply can;t meet demand.  But one would imagine the next iteration
will include either interchangeable lenses or a version with a lends with
better range.

I'm not sure why you are concerned with the difference between 1.8 and 2.0.
Unless you plan on shooting available light or the 1.8 will allow you the sort
of bokeh that makes portraits pop, that just seems a non-issue.
Lenses do not tend to be at their sharpest at either extreme end of their
f/stop range.   If low-light is an issue for you, better to get a 2.0 that
shoots more successfully at higher ISO ranges w/less noise.

I also think manual override and ability to shoot in RAW are critical.  RAW
will enable you to save shots otherwise lost, correct white balance and other
small glitches in post-processing (easily).  SDHC cards are cheap now,
so getting 8GB or 16GB cards is not prohibitive.   Just get the pelican/otter
type card cases that effectively seal and protect your cards from the
elements.

The last item I'd suggest you look at, if you are going to shoot a lot of
outdoor shots in glare or lighting conditions that make a screen viewfinder
problematic, is a Hoodman:

http://www.hoodmanusa.com/products.asp?dept=1017


For those of us aging boomers who also need diopter adjustment, the Hoodman
allows a +3 to -3 adjustment and can be mounted to cover the rear screen so
that you have, in effect, a very large viewfinder and you can shoot from your
eye
instead of blindly aiming.   Hoodman also comes with a neck leash so that you
can use it as needed, stash it when not.  I use mine in the field all of the
time on my DSLR's to check shots without having to switch eyeglassesI dial in
the diopter on my camera to that of the Hoodman and I can forget about having
to use my reading glasses at all.


Also, get a grip. Literally.  These add ons make either of your choices more
easy to handle and carry one handed with security:
http://www.kleptography.com/rf/

And this guy sells filter adapters and filters that you will find
exceptionally helpful:

http://www.lensmateonline.com/store/s90.html


I use these products but have zero financial or personal connection to their
sale or manufacture.  Standard disclaimer.

Will


On Nov 27, 2011, at 9:16 AM, Mark Sanders wrote:

> My interest in the Canon S95 originally came from its f2.0 lens, but I see
the XZ-1 beats that with a 1.8! Also it has a bigger sensor. I've read some
head to head comparisons that put the S95 ahead or neck and neck. For me,
price will be a factor. Did I read that the XZ-1 has a built in ND filter?
That would be nice!
> Although the S95 is in a small body that I'd rather not use on land with my
big hands, I figure it may make the WP case a little easier to deal with on
the water.
> Your photos look great and close enough to DSLR for me!
>
> http://snapsort.com/compare/Canon_PowerShot_S95-vs-Olympus-XZ-1
>
> Mark
>
> On 11/27/2011 3:26 AM, Tord S. Eriksson wrote:
>> Yeah, I do think the Olympus XZ-1 is close to a DSLR in picture quality
>> if not in absolute resolution!
***************************************************************************
PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - Any opinions or suggestions expressed
here are solely those of the writer(s). You must assume the entire
responsibility for reliance upon them. All postings copyright the author.
Submissions:     PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net
Subscriptions:   PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net
Website:         http://www.paddlewise.net/
***************************************************************************