Hi Mark, Yeah, I do think the Olympus XZ-1 is close to a DSLR in picture quality if not in absolute resolution! Some random samples: http://www.flickr.com/photos/tord55/sets/72157628171632179/with/6410630711/ <font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Tord S Eriksson, MA in Journalism; ex Editor-in-Chief; Avid Photographer; Pentax Fan, Articulated Bus Driver; Hon. Member of East Horsley Aerospace; Hon. Member of PAN, the World's Oldest Photo Club; On FlickR: Tord55; </font> *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
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/ ***************************************************************************
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/ ***************************************************************************
Yes, there's not much difference between the 1.8 and 2.0, but I'd like to have a fast lens for those too often foggy days on the water when I still want to catch the action. I've given up on the idea of a viewfinder on my on-water camera, as they seem almost impossible to use in the churning water where I want to shoot. The camera I use now is usually mounted on my paddle when I'm taking stills and since I usually shoot with a wider angle, it's not so hard to compose a shot. As you say, I'm shooting blind and relying on the camera for a good focus. My first camera was a range finder, but what are you gonna do? I was shooting Tri-X then! Although I could with my DSLR, I've never shot in raw, but as you say, memory is cheap now and I'd like to switch over. Not sure the S95 will shoot RAW+JPEG which would be nice. Mark www.sandmarks.net On 11/27/2011 2:38 PM, William Jennings wrote: > Whichever point & shoot you choose (I have the Canon S95, which can > now be had for well under 300 at reputable online dealers), *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
Here's a nice review for your XZ-1 waterproof case! *http://tinyurl.com/7b27fqc* 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/ ***************************************************************************
The XZ-1 certainly takes JPEG, RAW, and RAW+JPEG. Steven Huff, that famous guy in the world of cameras, has recommended using it, taking RAW! There is one omission on its UW housing: you can't set +/- exposure with it on, as the thumb-wheel rotation has been forgotten - all other controls are there, so there are workarounds, but irritating, all the same! > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Mark Sanders > Sent: 11/28/11 02:59 AM > To: William Jennings > Subject: Re: [Paddlewise] "Close to DSLR quality" > > Yes, there's not much difference between the 1.8 and 2.0, but I'd like > to have a fast lens for those too often foggy days on the water when I > still want to catch the action. > I've given up on the idea of a viewfinder on my on-water camera, as they > seem almost impossible to use in the churning water where I want to > shoot. The camera I use now is usually mounted on my paddle when I'm > taking stills and since I usually shoot with a wider angle, it's not so > hard to compose a shot. As you say, I'm shooting blind and relying on > the camera for a good focus. My first camera was a range finder, but > what are you gonna do? I was shooting Tri-X then! > Although I could with my DSLR, I've never shot in raw, but as you say, > memory is cheap now and I'd like to switch over. Not sure the S95 will > shoot RAW+JPEG which would be nice. > > Mark > www.sandmarks.net > > > On 11/27/2011 2:38 PM, William Jennings wrote: > > Whichever point & shoot you choose (I have the Canon S95, which can > > now be had for well under 300 at reputable online dealers), <font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Tord S Eriksson, MA in Journalism; ex Editor-in-Chief; Avid Photographer; Pentax Fan, Articulated Bus Driver; Hon. Member of East Horsley Aerospace; Hon. Member of PAN, the World's Oldest Photo Club; On FlickR: Tord55; </font> *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
Some comments: The X100 has no zoom at all and a fiddly menu system, according to Steve Huff and other reviewers, but its smaller brother X10 does! Going through B&H's huge list of UW housings I even found one for my Sony DSC-HX9V, that several tests have shown to be the best compact video camera just now - and it has a long zoom to boot! It has a fairly small sensor, so not very useful in low light (better than past generations, but that's about it). The PT-050 housing for the Olympus XZ-1 gives you an excellent grip, and soundless camera operation. If one is a bit younger you can hold your camera close to your face and still see how your framing of the shot will be - at my age it is pretty hopeless, of course! Not been that comfortable using my Hoodman Loupe, attached to a compact while doing photography, but for checks afterward, in the field, it is brilliant! Will wrote: > > 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 shotb& > 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 productb&but > 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 eyeglassesb&I 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. *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
This mail seems to have got misdirected, sorry if it is a repeat (Merry Xmas & a HNY!): Yep, it has a ND filter, and as you wrote, it is pretty close to a DSLR! In normal setup, the ring around the lens, which looks like an aperature ring, controls ISO, which I think is OK, but better would +/- EV settings be (alas, my wish is not Sony's command)! This ring is easy to operate with the UW house on, as are all the controls, and the little rubber shade that 'sits' around the display does work very well, too! I think the XZ-1 now is cheaper than before, but the S95 is now quite a bit cheaper, as it has already been superseeded! For $710 (from B&H mail order) you'll get both the PT-050 UW house and the XZ-1. http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?Ntt=olympus+xz-1&N=0&InitialSearch=yes S95 + UW housing = $530 (rounded up, but with instant $50 rebate) S100 + UW housing = $650 (rounded up). The S100 is brand new and seems to been designed in respons to the XZ-1 - definitely better than the S95, noise issues probably worse than with the XZ-1, as the sensor is smaller, and has more pixels! The XZ-1 takes videos in MotionJPEG (an easy-to-handle format, but produces fairly large files, the Canon uses AVCHD, that are more difficult to edit! Your choice! > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Mark Sanders > Sent: 11/27/11 04:16 PM > To: Tord S. Eriksson > Subject: Re: "Close to DSLR quality" > > 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 *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
Santa brought the Canon S95 with a waterproof case. I shan't question his decision! Mark On 12/25/2011 10:53 AM, Tord S. Eriksson wrote: > This mail seems to have got misdirected, sorry if it is a repeat > (Merry Xmas& a HNY!): > > Yep, it has a ND filter, and as you wrote, it is pretty close to > a DSLR! In normal setup, the ring around the lens, which looks like > an aperature ring, controls ISO, which I think is OK, but better would > +/- EV settings be (alas, my wish is not Sony's command)! > > This ring is easy to operate with the UW house on, as are all the controls, > and the little rubber shade that 'sits' around the display does work very well, too! > > I think the XZ-1 now is cheaper than before, but the S95 is now quite a bit > cheaper, as it has already been superseeded! For $710 (from B&H mail order) > you'll get both the PT-050 UW house and the XZ-1. > > http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?Ntt=olympus+xz-1&N=0&InitialSearch=yes > > S95 + UW housing = $530 (rounded up, but with instant $50 rebate) > > S100 + UW housing = $650 (rounded up). The S100 is brand new and seems to > been designed in respons to the XZ-1 - definitely better than the S95, noise > issues probably worse than with the XZ-1, as the sensor is smaller, > and has more pixels! > > The XZ-1 takes videos in MotionJPEG (an easy-to-handle format, but > produces fairly large files, the Canon uses AVCHD, that are more difficult > to edit! Your choice! > > > >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: Mark Sanders >> Sent: 11/27/11 04:16 PM >> To: Tord S. Eriksson >> Subject: Re: "Close to DSLR quality" >> >> 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 *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thu Aug 21 2025 - 16:33:55 PDT