PaddleWise by thread

From: Tord S. Eriksson <tord_at_mindless.com>
subject: Re: [Paddlewise] "Close to DSLR quality"
Date: Sun, 25 Dec 2011 13:53:31 -0500
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/
***************************************************************************
From: Mark Sanders <marksanders_at_sandmarks.net>
subject: Re: [Paddlewise] "Close to DSLR quality"
Date: Mon, 26 Dec 2011 07:54:07 -0800
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