schaki: Nice test, but really, why is not Ricoh GR Digital IV included? fixed focal length or not, it belongs to this group of capable compact cameras.Hoping to get a good explanation from Dpreview staff and not some 'it is too old' or similar answer, as it still is an actual camera model from Ricoh in the waiting of the GRDV which should be announced in the first half of 2013.
schaki, I understand that you are a loyal user of Ricoh, which is fine.But for what reason should the GX200 be included? I do not see a specific advantage this model offers over the others in the group.
Ben O Connor: "The Review of Olympus XZ-2 " soon gonna be the most well keept secret of the world !
Do you really need the review anymore? I think their summary already says it all: It is one of the best compacts due to its great lens, iq and handling.All you need to decide is: Should you exchange your XZ-1 for it?Unfortunately, even an in-depth-review will not answer this...
JavierDiaz: The Canon G15 is no match for the Canon G1X, but the G1X did not make it to this list. The G15 may have a faster lens, but it still is a regular "G" series camera with a puny sensor. Worse, it reintroduced the fixed LCD.
All the while, the G1X features a near APS-C sensor, with more resolution than the G15 to boot. And most reviews including DP's own, point out the quality of its photos can rival any Canon DSRL.
I'm surprised at DPReview's choice of the G15 over the G1X. The G15 is an elaborate, luminous "point&shoot" device. The G1X is a serious Compact Camera. Surely there is a mistake somewhere. Let me clarify I own a G1X and formerly I had a G11, so I am personally aware of the differences.
Javier,G1X is simply not compact anymore. It also suffers from a slow AF and a limited lens, so I doubt that it easily beats G15 in i.q.: It has less sharpness and clarity and often needs much higher ISOs because of its slower lens and lower d.o.f.In my opinion it is a rather useless design, because anyone who accepts its size should better take a mirrorless camera.
Jefftan: Hi, reviewerI wish dpreview will answer the age old question of whether one should buy an Enthusiast Compact or mirrorless with kit lens (NEX-F3,E-PL5...etc)
They are about the same price and what will give you better IQ?
There is no clear winner regarding IQ between compact and mirrorless.I currently compare a Nikon V1 and an XZ-1 and the former really struggles... Indoors - where you need lots of DOF - bright compacts can be excellent. But then there are those superb mFT lenses...One of my priorities is size and weight and an XZ-1/2 offers excellent versatility in a small and light package.
brelip: 24mm wide angle should be emphasized more. 28mm is just... well, boring. That's why Sony, Oly, Canon, Nikon is losing with nature/landscape enthusiasts. Fuji, samsung, and panasonic get it.
Cannot agree. If I want landscape I use panorama.I also find indoor and architecture more balanced with 28mm - distortion is less pronounced.
SeeRoy: "... I was known to be a micro manager.'"So, noticing frauds on the scale of hundreds of millions of dollars now amounts to "micro-management".
Yes it does, or do you think they simply booked some cheques with the text "bribes to yacuza"?
urbanplanner: For anyone who is using this list as a guide, I would strongly urge them to compare some of the images from these cameras to images from mirrorless DSLRS. With the exception of the Sony above, you will not get the same image quality (or video quality) from these cameras as you would from one with an APC-C sensor. Plus, you lose the flexibility of adding on lenses down the road. If a long zoom range and (coat) pocketability are must-haves, then go for it. But if you are like the majority of snapshot shooters and typically try to get wide shots, consider a camera like the Sony NEX-5N with a 16mm kit lens. Either way, just make sure you look at plenty of photo examples on line and see which camera produces the kind of look you like: bigger sensor = better looking photos with soft backgrounds.
Urbanplanner, the definition is given in the article.
Compare the FZ200 to a system camera with the same zoom range and you'll know which one can be called "compact" ;-)
tarnumf: And LX7 that is currently sells for $299 didn't make to "recommended" ???
$299?! This is crazy...
Here in Europe it costs $600... what a mean spread.
Jim: Why wasn'tt the G1X included?
My guess: Because it is not well balanced in its pros/cons.
javidog: X10 blows away any camera listed here. Please consider it if you are shopping for an incredible little camera with fantastic abilities.
X10 doesn't blow away anything.It is a great camera, but just a little too big, esp. regarding thickness.
This list is about compact cameras. System cameras are simply not small enough and offer only marginally better image quality. Besides, for most shooters little dof is NOT what they want.
OldDigiman: Isn't the G series sort of old tech by now?
Why? The G15 is the first serious G-model in a long time.
For those who can't for the full review:http://www.photographyblog.com/reviews/olympus_xz2_review/
I hope you guys from DPR don't mind me posting this link. :-)
Elaka Farmor: XZ-2, LX7, S110, P7700. All very similar image quality. Choosing between these is more about personal preference, thats it.
If you want another compact with better IQ and higher resolution than these above, there is camera for that too.....
@MichaelKJ: You confused "low light capability" with "shallow depth of field capability". Only for the latter it makes sense to compute F-stops that are equivalent to FF.
jonikon: I'm not impressed at all with the image quality of the Oly XZ-2. I see a lot of smearing of details, very poor IQ at high ISOs, a de-centered lens causing OOF areas, poor color rendition, poor micro-contrast, lots of distortion, etc.
Why in the world would anyone buy this camera when the excellent Sony RX-100 can be had for about the same price and blows the XZ-2's image quality away! This camera would not be desirable even if it was priced at the current XZ1 price of $200, IMO.
@jonikon: Distortion and de-centering? Where?
Combatmedic870: If you dont need video or a articulated screen...The XZ-1 is still what i would go for. ESPECIALLY since its going for $199 right now!!
@mjdundee:This is not the real performance:PA210094/95 use the "auto gradation" setting, a kind of HDR filter that can lead to increased noise.
Nice pic, but such a waste of a once beautiful belly imo...I just loathe tattoos and piercings.
Tord S Eriksson: I like my XZ-1, but this one seems far better. Still best if you keep the ISO low, though!
Interesting is the last shot, as it looks like a pixel is dead (above the tower slightly to the right)! Shouldn't happen on a new camera, should it?!
Oh, my error: downloaded the picture and found a Robinson 22, not quite a dead pixel!
The Olympus detachable electronic viewfinder is superb, only bested by the one in the OM-D! Works also on many of the PEN cameras, if not all! The VF-2 is said to be the best, if a bit pricey! VF-3 is a simpler model, not quite as good!The VF-2 fits the Leica X1, too, and, according to Steve Huff, just as good!
The one you can buy for the NEX cameras is closely related as well!
XZ-2 definitely shows a bit more noise at base ISO than XZ-1, but it is very even looking. At higher ISOs it looks better than on XZ-1 and reminds me of X10.
Bluetrain048: Interesting, especially given the size and nice handling. I was almost going to upgrade my LX3 to an LX7 but the olympus looks to have far nicer colours and a much better lens.
maboule123: What makes you think so? XZ can deliver razor sharp pics - just use the right settings.
E.g. take a look here:http://robinwong.blogspot.de/2012/10/olympus-stylus-xz-2-review-street.html
chj: Nice pics, but doesn't look like an RX100 killer. Of course there's a big price difference as well.
@chj: None of the two is a "killer".
It totally depends on one's personal requirements.