GH4 with 14-42mm lens or LX100?

Looks like a housing for LX100 is really coming.

http://www.fisheye-jp.com/products/compact/na_lx100.html

I cancelled my NA-GH4 housing order. It's strange that Nauticam already decide to make housing for LX100 two weeks after it's launch to the market. I'm going to wait and see, may be a housing for LX100 will be available by Xmas, and that will give time to really compare LX100 vs GH4. So far I heard that the lens on LX100 is sharper. Decision decision decision......

I know that a housing is coming since August. The question is more about wet lenses compatibility. I believe nauticAm will show the housing at dema

I'm not too worry about the wide angle on the housing since I had a decent solution for the LX-7.

I was ready to commit to the GH4 housing, which I have no problem to spend $2200 for, but truth be told, I don't get why a lens gear would cost US$200. There is no electrical machanism involve but just accurate CAD drawing with precision cutting, and any 3D printer and print a gear for less than $20. I just can't bring myself to spending thousand of dollar for gear down the road for either the 12-35mm lens, 7-14mm or the 8mm, which if I get on interchangable lens system, it would be very hard to avoid.

If they implement a vacuum pump check on the LX-100 housing, it would be sweet.

Well, what a surprise, the LX100 lens barrel doesn't extend much, so creating a housing probably is not as difficult, it's the hot shoe Flash that's tricky/annoying I guess. You can see the lens barrel extend from widest to furthest, skip to 12:50 part of the video:

That's actually not little difference between wide and tele. Could give severe fringing with a wide wet lens. Anyway we have to see when the housing comes what nauticam recommends

I have heard that the LX100 suffers somewhat from rolling shutter, but does anyone know if or how much the GH4 has that same problem?

From what I understand this effect may be due to scanning pixels within the sensor not all being updated (turned on?) at the same time, and if so don't both those cameras have basically the same sensor and processor, and therefore exhibit the same problem to the same extent?

This may be a deciding factor in my choice between the two offerings.

Thanks!

Rolling shutter applies to any CMOS camera so wouldn't be too bothered if you pan slow its solved. Underwater who pans anyway?

Agreed, and I'm pretty good with the slow panning when required, but there are always those scenarios where a shark or codfish will dart across the frame.

If the difference between the two isn't significant then no big deal, but if it's pronounced then it will tip the scales.

Agreed, and I'm pretty good with the slow panning when required, but there are always those scenarios where a shark or codfish will dart across the frame.

 

If the difference between the two isn't significant then no big deal, but if it's pronounced then it will tip the scales.

I think that you are worrying about an immaterial thing. Rolling shutter is only obvious when panning across straight, distinct verticals. Underwater, about the only place you'll find straight, distinct verticals are on ship-wrecks. And then only obvious with a fast pan - which is likely to make your audience so dizzy that they won't notice the "rolling shutter" anyway.

Any shark darting across the scene might look slightly distorted if compared to a still photo but the audience will be oblivious.

Regards

Peter

 

And then only obvious with a fast pan - which is likely to make your audience so dizzy that they won't notice the "rolling shutter" anyway.

 

Any shark darting across the scene might look slightly distorted if compared to a still photo but the audience will be oblivious.

 

Regards

Peter

That's the best advice in fact. Following something moving quickly in the scene will make you and your audience sick