TCON-17 setting on the XZ-1

When the XZ-1 was released, Olympus also offered a lens tube for it (the CLA-12) and a version of their 1.7X conversion lens (the TCON-17). There is also a menu setting which you enable when the accessory lens is fitted. This rolls out the lens to full zoom and alters the IS parameters to account for the longer FL.

I recently bought a used XZ-1 and a 3rd party lens tube. There are lots of TCON-17s around, but they come in several versions and mostly seem to cost more than my XZ-1 did. The 52mm threaded version is the one for the XZ-1.

As it happens, I have a Ricoh TC-200M, which is similar to the TCON, but somewhat smaller and lighter, and has the required 52mm thread.

As I guessed, if you fit this, the camera has no way of knowing it isn't the TCON-17. It works fine with the menu option enabled. Image quality looks OK.

XZ-1 plus Ricoh TC-200M

I won't be using this a lot, because the extra bulk of tube plus conversion lens makes it quite a lot bigger than the "bare bones" XZ-1, but it's an interesting extra option, and obviously one is not constrained by having to use Olympus accessory lenses.

Hi,

I share your enthusiasm for finding clever solutions that 'beat' the system.

a few comments.

I had an XZ-1, one of the brightest and sharpest lenses I had the pleasure to own and use. Your example, using non-oem 1.5x is not XZ-1 sharp. It makes me wonder how sharp Oly's proper 1.7x tele lens would be comparitively.

I have Oly Stylus 1 (at f2.8 not as sharp as XZ-1 (few are). Stylus 1 is a speck sharper when used at f3.0, but not enough to keep me from using f2.8.

I have and frequently use the OEM Oly TCON 1.7x which is very sharp and maintains the constant f2.8 brightness out to 510mm optical (using 2X yields 1,020mm still f2.8, incredible).

I use Kiwi tube, not OEM, but it's length is specific to the 1.7x lens.

It may be the combination of tube length and 1.5x rather than 1.7x (at that distance in front of the base lens) is not as sharp as using OEM tube LENGTH and OEM 1.7x.

Also, exif: Stylus 1, when you tell the menu which lens is on (1.7x or 0.8x wide), the camera automatically does the 1.7x or 0.8x math, the exif '35mm equivalent' is correct.

Using 1.5x, (any variation) it might be better not to tell the camera's menu, zoom manually to avoid vignette, and later do the 1.5x 'equivalent' math yourself if needed.

Elliott,

Thank you for your comments. I would agree that the Zuiko lens on the XZ-1 is very good, particularly in the way it retains a wide aperture all the way to the tele extreme.

As regards the Ricoh converter, the jury is still out on the performance. My test shots were merely to show that it would focus on the XZ-1 and did not vignette. I will try some more tests of resolution at a later date. It's not so much ultimate detail resolution that I want as consistency across the frame.

Using the menu option (and there is only one option – the XZ-1 does not support wide converters) zooms out the lens and alters the exif data – it gives the FL as 40.8mm, though the combined lens in my case is probably about 36mm. More useful to me is that it beefs up the onboard IS to allow for the longer FL (though it's not quite as long as the camera thinks it is).

This is a fun project on the side, but the appeal of the XZ-1 for me lies very much in the superb lens and very small size.

Thank you for your thoughts on IS. I'm not an expert on the sensor-shift technology in the XZ-1, but my understanding is that the mechanism senses camera movement and makes a compensating movement to the necessary extent. Increasing the focal length parameter means that the mechanism is allowed more latitude to move, but not that it has to move to its maximum latitude on every exposure.

In my set-up, the difference between the camera's calculated focal length and the actual one is around 10%, so It's not going to matter much one way or the other.

Stephen,

I feel I should respond to you, since you have clearly spent a lot of time setting out your thoughts on IS, and I would not like you to think I am indifferent to your efforts.

The thing is though, in cases like the camera hack referred to in my original post, my approach is that of an empiricist. I will try the Ricoh TC out in various ways, and if I deem it good enough, it will go on my list of approved add-ons for the XZ-1: if not, it will go back in the parts drawer to await a future call-up.

I will not get fixated on the intricacies of exif or sensor shift amplitude because the TC is a non-OEM item, it's not guaranteed to work, and any successful outcome is a bonus. Also, as you know, the Achilles heel of add-on TCs is that they have to do better than a simple crop of the primary lens image, or they're just dead weight.