LX100 underwater

[SpiralTower]

Dear all,

following my post from several months back I would like to post a small update with color-corrected images (partly similar) taken with the LX100 and the Meikon housing (all shot in Greece around the southern Peloponnese and Kythira Island). I am still satisfied with this setup, the only drawback still bugging me is the reduced macro-capability vs. the XZ-2 or even more so the TG-1 to 5 series.

The other thing bothering me (slightly) is that the setup really represents the uppermost size limit tolerable for snorkelling. This summer I might go back to the XZ-2 combined with the TG-5. So far the LX100 is best IQ-wise for larger scenes and largish biota.

I am still unhappy that there is no large-sensor tough camera out there except the saline model, and that is fixed-lens. Losing the housing would bring back more fun to underwater shooting while snorkelling. Something à la TG-5, but the size of the Nikon AW1 series.

Well, until then I will continue to have fun with what I currently employ.

Cheers

Spondylus shell with Chondrilla nucola sponge

A colony of Bryozoa using some algae as attachment, behind some Hydrozoa colonising the same algae

A cuttlefish in hiding

Some medium-sized hermit crab, partly illuminated with dive light

The sea around Kythira Island, what more to say (shot without the housing of course)

Diverse algae "meadow"

The starfish Echinaster sepositus

Partly exposed boring sponge (Clionidae) in yellow, with Phorbas fictitious in red

Chromis chromis and Oblada melanura

A school of mainly Chromis chromis

Octopus, with suspicious / curious Serranus scriba in background

Hydroid Pennaria disticha

A species of genus Scorpaena

Multiple tunicates of the genus Microcosmus

A small blenny

Anemone colony

A cerianthid anemone

A common stingray with a male flounder Bothus podas. I think the ray was watching for eggs since it seemed to be spawning season, hence the aggressive behaviour. This was shot in a depth where the color-correction became an issue (dominance of the blue channel), since I did not use external lighting.

--
"Blue for the shattered sky"

 

[Sonyshine]

Impressive and enjoyable.

 

[Filipe Pinheiro]

Very nice!

Thank you for sharing this other aspect of the LX100! great shots, btw!

 

[nafik]

To be honest I am not sure what was the purpose of this post. While I give a lot of credit to somebody able to produce a great photo while snorkeling (scuba is much easier), no matter how a picture was taken and what equipment was used it still must remain a great photo.

Equipment used makes absolutely no difference. Terrific pictures were taken with very primitive equipment, just like horrible pictures are taken by millions every day with fantastic equipment. IMHO if somebody cannot produce a great shot these days using smartphone and up, that is not equipment problem.

I have no idea what camera and/or the housing were used for images presented in this post, but if it was my pictures, sorry to say, I would have deleted them right in the camera.

photography is still about results, not about equipment used.

 

[SpiralTower]

Thanks for taking time to comment.

To be honest I am not sure what was the purpose of this post.

Well, I thought that was plain and easy. To show that the LX100 shoots underwater, and how the third-party housing is doing.

While I give a lot of credit to somebody able to produce a great photo while snorkeling (scuba is much easier)

That was the second purpose, since I am limited to snorkelling it is still possible to get sharp shots.

no matter how a picture was taken and what equipment was used it still must remain a great photo.

That is another issue with shooting underwater. Getting great (may I say artistic) shots as you put it is difficult, especially with the time limit imposed by snorkelling. But for me it's mainly about documenting what I see and what lives in the area where I am in the water. There are still interesting things around that may not be terribly photogenic or artistic (like fish parasites, bioerosive sponges and fish behaviour). Not everything gets shot in the overly colourful tropics ...

Equipment used makes absolutely no difference.

Yes, it does. The first tough cameras were nearly unusable (while snorkelling). With the LX100 autofocus (amongst the things) is nearly up to scratch. Another problem is lighting in crevices and deeper down, so when correcting colours they do get washed out (as does contrast).

Terrific pictures were taken with very primitive equipment, just like horrible pictures are taken by millions every day with fantastic equipment.

Of course.

IMHO if somebody cannot produce a great shot these days using smartphone and up, that is not equipment problem.

Still depends on the situation (especially underwater), but basically true.

I have no idea what camera and/or the housing were used for images presented in this post,

Just check the exifs and the text, should be easy.

but if it was my pictures, sorry to say, I would have deleted them right in the camera.

You might, I didn't. There are still tons that did indeed get deleted, since often it remains a hit and miss when free-diving.

photography is still about results, not about equipment used.

For me the results are acceptable to good, though rarely great. A lot of things would be easier if I indeed could do scuba. Your taste and opinion differ, that's fine. I have enough other positive comments (not just DPReview posts) that I keep shooting ...

By the way, the shot of the white seahorse in the other post you commented positively on I find personally ok, but not great either.

Cheers

 

[nafik]

Thanks for taking time to comment.

To be honest I am not sure what was the purpose of this post.

Well, I thought that was plain and easy. To show that the LX100 shoots underwater, and how the third-party housing is doing.

While I give a lot of credit to somebody able to produce a great photo while snorkeling (scuba is much easier)

That was the second purpose, since I am limited to snorkelling it is still possible to get sharp shots.

no matter how a picture was taken and what equipment was used it still must remain a great photo.

That is another issue with shooting underwater. Getting great (may I say artistic) shots as you put it is difficult, especially with the time limit imposed by snorkelling. But for me it's mainly about documenting what I see and what lives in the area where I am in the water. There are still interesting things around that may not be terribly photogenic or artistic (like fish parasites, bioerosive sponges and fish behaviour). Not everything gets shot in the overly colourful tropics ...

Equipment used makes absolutely no difference.

Yes, it does. The first tough cameras were nearly unusable (while snorkelling). With the LX100 autofocus (amongst the things) is nearly up to scratch. Another problem is lighting in crevices and deeper down, so when correcting colours they do get washed out (as does contrast).

Terrific pictures were taken with very primitive equipment, just like horrible pictures are taken by millions every day with fantastic equipment.

Of course.

IMHO if somebody cannot produce a great shot these days using smartphone and up, that is not equipment problem.

Still depends on the situation (especially underwater), but basically true.

I have no idea what camera and/or the housing were used for images presented in this post,

Just check the exifs and the text, should be easy.

but if it was my pictures, sorry to say, I would have deleted them right in the camera.

You might, I didn't. There are still tons that did indeed get deleted, since often it remains a hit and miss when free-diving.

photography is still about results, not about equipment used.

For me the results are acceptable to good, though rarely great. A lot of things would be easier if I indeed could do scuba. Your taste and opinion differ, that's fine. I have enough other positive comments (not just DPReview posts) that I keep shooting ...

By the way, the shot of the white seahorse in the other post you commented positively on I find personally ok, but not great either.

Cheers

 

[kelpdiver]

I particularly liked the the cuttlefish get. Tough enough to get them to be good models on scuba.

I looked hard at the LX100 last year when I was shopping a diving rig for my wife, but ended up settling with the 1" GX7. She's more a macro shooter anyway, and UW drag was a major consideration in the selection. I moved to the 4/3rds GH4 a couple years earlier after starting with a APC canon. I find the smaller sensor/lenses a good sweet spot for dive travel.

I think there's a basic problem around market demand for compact 4/3rds, as well as the physics limitations, in your wish for smaller models. If you want a big sensor and still any sort of zoom, it has to be bigger. Using a 1/2.3" makes it easy and cheap to build/sell. The TG type cameras are expected to have a higher mortality rate, so people are reluctant to pay the higher price point that would be required.

I think you can ignore the critic - he likes to dish it out, but when challenged on the artificial colors of his flashless compact sensor photography, suddenly it's "we're not shooting for national geographic." Recall similar disdain for 'artistic shooting.'

 

[nafik]

I particularly liked the the cuttlefish get. Tough enough to get them to be good models on scuba.

I looked hard at the LX100 last year when I was shopping a diving rig for my wife, but ended up settling with the 1" GX7. She's more a macro shooter anyway, and UW drag was a major consideration in the selection. I moved to the 4/3rds GH4 a couple years earlier after starting with a APC canon. I find the smaller sensor/lenses a good sweet spot for dive travel.

I think there's a basic problem around market demand for compact 4/3rds, as well as the physics limitations, in your wish for smaller models. If you want a big sensor and still any sort of zoom, it has to be bigger. Using a 1/2.3" makes it easy and cheap to build/sell. The TG type cameras are expected to have a higher mortality rate, so people are reluctant to pay the higher price point that would be required.

I think you can ignore the critic - he likes to dish it out, but when challenged on the artificial colors of his flashless compact sensor photography, suddenly it's "we're not shooting for national geographic." Recall similar disdain for 'artistic shooting.'

"we're not shooting for national geographic."...are we?

Mostly just for our hard drives and websites that are viewed on smartphones...if we are lucky.

so much for 4/3rds, AP-C and FF with (or without) strobes. They look good on smartphones, don't they.

 

[kelpdiver]

"we're not shooting for national geographic."...are we?

Mostly just for our hard drives and websites that are viewed on smartphones...if we are lucky.

so much for 4/3rds, AP-C and FF with (or without) strobes. They look good on smartphones, don't they.

Some of us, including the OP, have higher ambitions. As opposed to you:

" An average shooter has no chance of producing anything half decent unless he dives constantly. I am a diver with inexpensive compact camera, and not an underwater photographer. I dive seldom and have no chance to practice as much as necessary to produce something to brag about. It took many years to learn how to get around the deficiencies of inexpensive compact cameras to get a passable shot. I mean passable for average viewer who does not look elsewhere to find the work of real masters."

So why are you throwing shade in this thread?

As for display, some rather nice products have been emerging in the past couple years. Aren't you too old to be looking at images on a 5" smartphone? I know I am, and I'm considerably younger.

I got one of these recently: https://www.amazon.com/Memento-25-In-Smart-Frame/dp/B01EGF4H8K?th=1 - it is pretty impressive, with the right material. Many have mistaken it for print until the image changes.

 

[nafik]

"we're not shooting for national geographic."...are we?

Mostly just for our hard drives and websites that are viewed on smartphones...if we are lucky.

so much for 4/3rds, AP-C and FF with (or without) strobes. They look good on smartphones, don't they.

Some of us, including the OP, have higher ambitions. As opposed to you:

" An average shooter has no chance of producing anything half decent unless he dives constantly. I am a diver with inexpensive compact camera, and not an underwater photographer. I dive seldom and have no chance to practice as much as necessary to produce something to brag about. It took many years to learn how to get around the deficiencies of inexpensive compact cameras to get a passable shot. I mean passable for average viewer who does not look elsewhere to find the work of real masters."

So why are you throwing shade in this thread?

As for display, some rather nice products have been emerging in the past couple years. Aren't you too old to be looking at images on a 5" smartphone? I know I am, and I'm considerably younger.

I got one of these recently: https://www.amazon.com/Memento-25-In-Smart-Frame/dp/B01EGF4H8K?th=1 - it is pretty impressive, with the right material. Many have mistaken it for print until the image changes.

some of us, including the OP, have higher ambitions...

very good. Should I renew my NG subscription?

My ambition is pretty modest. It is to sell as many images as possible because all profits in the last six-seven years are going to a charity that helps children with serious life threatening illnesses in places where they otherwise just die. So I have ambition, probably not as high as yours, but it is something.

As for UW shooting, that is a good quote. Where is it from?

And lastly my vision does not matter, I never look at my pictures on smart phone. Until recently I did not even have one.

Our viewers no matter what vision will never see the difference between FF and 1/2.3 on a smart phone. Screen is too small. And they do not care about sensor size or whether you had strobes. They just want to see a nice shot without analyzing it and go to the next. If we lucky they may buy it.

Thanks for reading.

--

M.
Nice camera...now show me the pictures.

 

[kelpdiver]

My ambition is pretty modest. It is to sell as many images as possible because all profits in the last six-seven years are going to a charity that helps children with serious life threatening illnesses in places where they otherwise just die. So I have ambition, probably not as high as yours, but it is something.

Snicker. won't someone please think of the children?

But if this were the purpose, you would have done more good donating the money spent to fly to Fiji and sail on the Nai'a than any 'profits' coming from the sale of pics from that trip.

Our viewers no matter what vision will never see the difference between FF and 1/2.3 on a smart phone. Screen is too small. And they do not care about sensor size or whether you had strobes. They just want to see a nice shot without analyzing it and go to the next. If we lucky they may buy it.

You have as much ambition for "them" as you do for yourself. Or is it a lack of respect?

 

[nafik]

I am sorry man (or lady), you just don't get it.

 

[SpiralTower]

To show that the LX100 shoots underwater, and how the third-party housing is doing.

May I suggest it showed how you shoot underwater with LX100. If you had some other camera in exactly same conditions result could have been the same, we would never know.

I have hundreds of shots under similar conditions with the TG-1 and the XZ-2. There is a net increase in sharp, less washed out shots with the LX100, so yes, the LX100 is better (especially autofocus-wise). But of course I did not do a side by side.

Third party housing or any other housing makes no difference if you know what you doing. Those are just conveniences. I doubt Canon makes their housings themselves.

The Olympus-branded housing for the XZ-2 works better than the Meikon housing for the LX100, but both do the job. Problem with both is that at wide-angle the flat glass plate tends to distort the edges of the image. Both Canon and Olympus outsource the housings as far as I know, but they still fit the camera better than the admittedly cheap and still well-working Meikon housing.

And I may add that shooting fast / nervous /erratic fish with poor autofocus capabilities is nearly impossible.

The reason I said Equipment used makes absolutely no difference is because great pictures were taken underwater long before digital arrived. And I have seen nice snorkeling shots made underwater with iPhone. They just probably need a bit more PP.

Here I tend to disagree. Ignoring the content, I own and read several books shot with underwater film cameras where the grain is horrible and the framing is not the best. They are still interesting images worth a look, but due to the technical shortcomings I would not put them on my wall of course. If you look at underwater guides I have to say that many of my shots are equal or even better.

...still possible to get sharp shots. Sharpness is only one element of picture quality. There are many others, composition IMHO is where a great picture begins.

For my kind of shooting sharpness (and colour, hence using a RAW capable underwater shooting) is the most important aspect, since I an trying to determine the species and document the biodiversity of the region where I am snorkelling (published three short scientific papers on that).

Composition and lighting (especially around 14:00 with rippled water surface) while snorkelling is often very difficult. Sometimes I go down more then ten times to get a reasonable shot of let's say a weever. I am trying to get good angles and backgrounds, but for determination this is not always necessary, and the Mediterranean beasts are quite skittish and try to hide. Back in 2006 when I was visiting the Red Sea I could have shot tons of stuff easily if I've had a tough camera back then, since fish and turtles were not afraid.

...remains a hit and miss when free-diving...and remains in any other kind of photography. Knowing what to keep is what makes a good photographer.

You should have seen my shots from let's say 2008. Those were truly horrible. Since then I have gotten miles better, learning how to get down and handle the camera appropriately. But that does not mean I am finished with learning.

I have enough other positive comments...from whom? Isn't this important? Compliments are cheap. And who exactly is going to tell us that our pictures stink? God forbid we get offended and complain to a moderator.

I would never complain if somebody criticises my stuff, since tastes differ and as I've already pointed out many of my shots are not what you would call artistically pleasing (but I've also pointed out that is mostly not my goal). Yes, compliments are cheap, and I had people pointing out not-so good or downright bad shots (that I personally liked, at least in the beginning).

Since I tend to be quite harsh when it comes down to music you are of course entitled to point out your displeasure with my or anybody elses shots.

To get a serious critique you have to pay to a seriously knowledgeable instructor who is not going to waste his money-making time for nothing.

No matter what we use it for, photography is art (painting-with-light in greek, I believe), unless we are taking pictures of documents or forensic.

And that is exactly what I am doing, documenting my life and the world as I see it. I am rarely going for the artistic shots. So again it boils down to taste, not what a camera is able to do technically (and what this post was mainly about). For this I have my paintings ...

Since I am a scientist I am looking for interesting, but of course often not picturesque stuff. I am even working on a (probably redundant) snorkelling guide for the area, showing what people may expect to see in the first 5-7 m of the water column. This includes the main point that from afar often the Mediterranean looks boring, so you need to look closely for interesting stuff and take your time. Big schools of fish (only once had around 150 barracudas circling around me) are very rare. Colourful things are mostly only visible when going deeper than 10-15 m or in caves.

Art is very personal and of course white sea horse picture somebody may like and otherwise. But that shot impressed me from artistic standpoint, technical standpoint and how lucky the shooter was to see it. I scuba dive for 30 years and shoot underwater for 20 and probably saw a seahorse 5 times. Only once I had a clear shot.

Yes, same problem here. Since snorkelling in Greece for now about 15 years I only once saw a seahorse in a Posidonia meadow, and I did not have my camera with me. For me catching turtles or that above-mentioned school of barracudas were the most exciting situations so far.

That art is a very personal thing is undeniable. From an artistic point of view I would prefer to look/get at other shots, too. But for me there is also the scientific aspect, hence several of my shots are indeed hanging on my walls, since they tell story which I have experienced personally.

Regards

 

[SpiralTower]

Our viewers no matter what vision will never see the difference between FF and 1/2.3 on a smart phone.

That's the reason why I print some of them.

Screen is too small. And they do not care about sensor size or whether you had strobes. They just want to see a nice shot without analyzing it and go to the next. If we lucky they may buy it.

So far I just sold one shot, but that is not what I am really after. My "ambition" you might say is to be able to provide a book or a brochure what the people might see locally where I snorkel every year. People often are curious and surprised what was around them in the water but they did not notice. So this is to help them to get a better underwater "vision" so to speak (which took me several years to learn, too).

Cheers

 

[nafik]

I an trying to determine the species and document the biodiversity of the region...

If this was an opening statement in your original post, we would not have this discussion. Nevertheless while being impressed with your ability to shoot while snorkeling, I still suggest that this camera or that camera has nothing to do with it. It is all you.

 

[SpiralTower]

I particularly liked the the cuttlefish get. Tough enough to get them to be good models on scuba.

Yep, they are sneaky, too. You need to know where and when to look. My lucky day was two years back when I managed to shoot one eating it's prey (a scorpionfish).

I looked hard at the LX100 last year when I was shopping a diving rig for my wife, but ended up settling with the 1" GX7. She's more a macro shooter anyway, and UW drag was a major consideration in the selection. I moved to the 4/3rds GH4 a couple years earlier after starting with a APC canon. I find the smaller sensor/lenses a good sweet spot for dive travel.

Drag with the LX100 and the Meikon housing is indeed annoying, though manageable. The XZ-2 is better in this respect. If you only do snorkelling like me, this is even more important.

I think there's a basic problem around market demand for compact 4/3rds, as well as the physics limitations, in your wish for smaller models. If you want a big sensor and still any sort of zoom, it has to be bigger. Using a 1/2.3" makes it easy and cheap to build/sell. The TG type cameras are expected to have a higher mortality rate, so people are reluctant to pay the higher price point that would be required.

If you look at the size of housings even for compacts you could do a well-specced tough camera with largish lens etc. Put in a huge internal memory and a big battery, eliminate the doors (either gold-plated connector or wireless charging) and water ingress via doors would be a thing of the past. Though I use the TG-1 since 2012 without problems.

I think you can ignore the critic - he likes to dish it out, but when challenged on the artificial colors of his flashless compact sensor photography, suddenly it's "we're not shooting for national geographic." Recall similar disdain for 'artistic shooting.'

Well, I think the poster is entitled to the own opinion, and on artistic merits I partially tend to agree (for this you do not need a 100% sharp shot with correct colours), but as I've pointed out that's mostly not what I am after (documentation). This is however difficult to convey while posting online. I may have bee a bit too lax to point this out in my initial post.

And my opinion stands, that with the tough cameras around 2006-2009 it was quite difficult to get good shots (while snorkelling), it got better with the FT-4, still better with the TG-1 and good with what I am now (LX100 and XZ-2).

Cheers

--
"Blue for the shattered sky"

 

[SpiralTower]

I an trying to determine the species and document the biodiversity of the region...

If this was an opening statement in your original post, we would not have this discussion.

Yes, pointed out in the other post that I was too lax in not pointing that out firsthand.

Nevertheless while being impressed with your ability to shoot while snorkeling, I still suggest that this camera or that camera has nothing to do with it. It is all you.

That's true for my first few years trying to shoot underwater (especially to not spook critters due to flailing around). After I learned what I know now, I still think there are still two or three important technical aspects for an underwater compact: fast autofocus, manual operation choices, reasonable zoom range brightness of lens and macro-capabilities. The TG-5 still falls down in a few of these things.

BUT at least they included RAW, something I miss dearly in my TG-1.

Cheers

 

[kelpdiver]

I am sorry man (or lady), you just don't get it.

Quite so - I'm astounded by your gross hypocrisy.

And have no idea what the point of you humping his leg on this thread is. Do you have a useful contribution to make?