Ecaton Posted January 21, 2016 Share #41 Posted January 21, 2016 Advertisement (gone after registration) It is 50 mm equivalent. It has a 23mm lens, 35mm equivalent. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted January 21, 2016 Posted January 21, 2016 Hi Ecaton, Take a look here Leica X-U: Outdoor And Underwater Camera. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Rick Posted January 21, 2016 Share #42 Posted January 21, 2016 Jaapv - It is a 35mm. I'm not an experienced underwater photographer but, I do SCUBA and I do own an underwater camera and housing and add-on wide lens. The Nikor 10.5 fish eye is a common lens for diving as are lenses from 15-35mm. But, ultra wide and fisheye lenses produce fantastic photos when diving of fish and ship rocks and coral reefs and other cool stuff! Off camera flash is the norm. Anyway, the 35mm effective lens is an odd choice... maybe a 24 would be better all around and if you want to get the divers to go wild make an 11mm fisheye camera with capability to use an off camera strobe! Rick Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted January 22, 2016 Share #43 Posted January 22, 2016 If the lens is 35 equivalent in air, the conversion factor under water will be 1.33, making it an effective 50 mm under water. https://van.physics.illinois.edu/qa/listing.php?id=7670 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted January 22, 2016 Share #44 Posted January 22, 2016 Well whatever we may think of it, on the German side there is an underwater photographer who is very enthusiastic about the camera : http://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/249321-x-u-typ-113/?p=2972819 We should bear in mind that he is a Leica betatester. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Posted January 22, 2016 Share #45 Posted January 22, 2016 Yeah, but that isn't what the lens is. Nice try, though. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dunhoy Posted January 22, 2016 Share #46 Posted January 22, 2016 Is it April 1st? What is the point of it? 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ecaton Posted January 22, 2016 Share #47 Posted January 22, 2016 Advertisement (gone after registration) If the lens is 35 equivalent in air, the conversion factor under water will be 1.33, making it an effective 50 mm under water. for https://van.physics.illinois.edu/qa/listing.php?id=7670 I don`t understand the obsession about the underwater usability. This is a rugged go anywhere all weather camera and as such it is quite appealing as it has no competition. For dedicated underwater usage there are better solutions. But I would not want to use these tools when pursuing other outdoor activities. 5 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted January 22, 2016 Share #48 Posted January 22, 2016 I don`t understand the obsession about the underwater usability. This is a rugged go anywhere all weather camera and as such it is quite appealing as it has no competition. For dedicated underwater usage there are better solutions. But I would not want to use these tools when pursuing other outdoor activities. Yes, that is what we are saying. The problem is that it is partly marketed as an underwater camera. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted January 22, 2016 Share #49 Posted January 22, 2016 Yeah, but that isn't what the lens is. Nice try, though. That is what the word equivalent is for. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lee Martin Posted January 22, 2016 Share #50 Posted January 22, 2016 Prices vary wildly. Who's correct? Why the yawning gulf? €3,250 = USD 3,539 at current exchange rates. I also see a mention of £2,400 (€3,127, $US3,405). If it is listed at $2,950 in the States, as cited, European and UK buyers would be better off flying over the pond and picking one up there! There's nothing new about UK buyers being asked to pay through the nose Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lee Martin Posted January 22, 2016 Share #51 Posted January 22, 2016 I still think this kind of camera is a great idea for stills. For us doing all kind of outdoor activities (except diving ) this is one of the very few. Name me another with fixed lens /1,7 (or better), waterproof without housing, APS-C and decent IQ targeting still photo. The ones in the link above are all tiny sensor cameras that needs housing. And to recommend a GoPro for stills? Come on. Lets just face it, underwater houses are cumbersome, bulky and not very sexy. I would bet that 99% of sold underwater houses after 1 week are kept permanent in a tray, in the bottom of a drawer, in the basement, behind a locked door at the abandoned cabin. I wasn't recommending a go pro for stills, just saying that the reason it's been able to sell literally by the million is that it's so portable and offers protection at the same time. Leica can only dream of selling this and achieving 1% of that number. I think rugged weatherproof , shockproof , dust proof might have been a better market to angle it at, but as experienced under water photographers have said, this isn't really suitable. Anyway sales figures will tell, so let's see how quickly this initial price drops and in turn the comments on the forums when these are actually used under water and their water resistant properties tested. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NZDavid Posted January 22, 2016 Share #52 Posted January 22, 2016 (edited) Regardless of the focal length -- and for most shots it will be a 35mm-equivalent -- have the Leica marketing people truly captured what this camera is all about? Or is the emphasis on underwater capability just part of the story? I look forward to seeing more. Edited January 22, 2016 by NZDavid Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdk Posted January 22, 2016 Share #53 Posted January 22, 2016 (edited) I love the idea of this camera, though the price is quite high, whether it's $2,400US or $3,000US. It would make a great camera to take sea kayaking.The flash position is stupid. They should just leave if off altogether and provide a waterproof connection to take external flashes for snorkelers. If I get this camera, I'll probably never use the flash. Edited January 22, 2016 by sdk 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ynp Posted January 22, 2016 Share #54 Posted January 22, 2016 (edited) I downloaded the manual and cannot understand the following: It is not possible to use an external flash, or only with a remote flash unit that allow wireless triggering. We recommend using the integrated flash unit underwater only for depths up to 5m/16ft due to the limited flash range. In greater depths, the use of an external, underwater-capable flash unit with a wireless connection to the camera is recommended that can be triggered by the in-built camera flash (available from other manufacturers at specialist retailers). I can't find any pictures of the hot shoe to better understand how the U113 works with the external flash. How the internal flash triggers the external one in the water? Does anyone knows any information to clarify that? Edited January 22, 2016 by ynp Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted January 23, 2016 Share #55 Posted January 23, 2016 Maybe they simply mean a slave system? Not that I am aware of any underwater slave flashes. A Video light would probably work better. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck Albertson Posted January 23, 2016 Share #56 Posted January 23, 2016 Regardless of the focal length -- and for most shots it will be a 35mm-equivalent -- have the Leica marketing people truly captured what this camera is all about? Or is the emphasis on underwater capability just part of the story? I look forward to seeing more. Well, there's this: http://blog.leica-camera.com/2016/01/22/mauritania-railway-catching-the-most-dangerous-train-in-the-world/#jp-carousel-50895 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lee Martin Posted January 24, 2016 Share #57 Posted January 24, 2016 (edited) I think the link from Mr Chuck Albertson is a very good example of the uses this camera can be put to, and pretty much what I listed earlier. I note than some are shots taken from what appears to be whilst stood IN water, although I don't think any are actually under water . So rugged with good protection to the elements . Still too expensive Edited January 24, 2016 by Lee Martin Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
EdwardM Posted January 25, 2016 Share #58 Posted January 25, 2016 That's happened when marketing department controls engineering department and run too fast too far 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted January 26, 2016 Share #59 Posted January 26, 2016 I can't find any pictures of the hot shoe to better understand how the U113 works with the external flash. How the internal flash triggers the external one in the water? Does anyone knows any information to clarify that? There are a number of what could be described as 'mimc' underwater flashes which use fibre optic cables connected/fitted to the camera's own flash (they fit over it and cap the light from it whilst transmitting it to the external flax's sensor). These effectively switch their light output on and off in sync with camera's own flash and to do so use the fibre optic connecting cable as their input source of flash light to sync with. So they can emit pre-flashes and main flash all 'controlled' by the camera's own flash. Whilst they work in that they allow for an off camera external flash to be used they require a baseplate and articulated arm to mount the flash on so add considerable bulk and out of water weight. IMO its a possibility but not a likelihood with this camera. If you already had one fine, but there are better, cheaper solutions for underwater photography. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ynp Posted January 26, 2016 Share #60 Posted January 26, 2016 Thank you for the detailed answer. There are a number of what could be described as 'mimc' underwater flashes which use fibre optic cables connected/fitted to the camera's own flash (they fit over it and cap the light from it whilst transmitting it to the external flax's sensor). These effectively switch their light output on and off in sync with camera's own flash and to do so use the fibre optic connecting cable as their input source of flash light to sync with. So they can emit pre-flashes and main flash all 'controlled' by the camera's own flash. Whilst they work in that they allow for an off camera external flash to be used they require a baseplate and articulated arm to mount the flash on so add considerable bulk and out of water weight. IMO its a possibility but not a likelihood with this camera. If you already had one fine, but there are better, cheaper solutions for underwater photography. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.