Donnie G: I was convinced that I wasn't among the consumers that Canon's G7 X was made for because I have never been interested in owning any compact camera. Boy was I wrong. Although I have no interest in owning compact cameras, my teens are very interested in the category, and I am their "deep pockets". So I wound up buying 2 G7 X cameras, one for him and one for her. Between the 2 of them, they were able to setup the cameras without any input from "the broke old guy". After about 10 days, my gorgeous gal pal, Brandi, and I were able to decipher enough teen slang to learn that the camera features they worship the most are the programable click wheel around the lens collar, the articulated touch screen, and the ability to upload images to social media via Canon's Image Gateway service. I don't think that these kids are even aware of the other features, such as sensor size, lens speed, focal length, or even IQ. It takes better photos than their smartphones and their friends think its cool. :)
Carta, this is the problem with teenagers: they are not smart enough for sensible buying decisions and yet you have to fund them as parents. :-)
mcolvin1: For $598, I could buy the Sony a5100, which from reviews I have read at other sites, is probably a better camera (APS-C sensor, 24 mp, touch screen, very fast auto focus, etc.) It is only slightly larger than the Canon G7 X (with the kit lens). Better lenses can be added later. DPR has yet to do its review. I am hoping that it will get a high rating. If so, that will be the one I will buy. Its image quality is supposed to be as good as the Sony a6000, which has excellent IQ. But it is small enough to fit in a fanny pack and carry all the time. After reading DPR's review of the G7 X, it is no longer on my list. Why pay more for it when it is probably not as good as the a5100?
Mcolvin1, both cameras have nothing in common. If size is not your priority, why look at the Canon at all?
Michael_13: Canon probably should have also bought the image processor from Sony. It really is a shame that they were unable to give it proper performance.
My post is not about IQ, dude.
Canon probably should have also bought the image processor from Sony. It really is a shame that they were unable to give it proper performance.
Sirandar: If Pana and Oly want to make "Pro" lenses they need to know what kind of pros they are targetting and realize they are competing against their own 40-150mm lenses which usually can do the job. I love my OMD-E5 to death but if I was really making my living with it I probably would be forced to used FF, if only because my customers would expect it. Thankfully I am free of the bondage of actually trying to sell photography.
Take home message .... there is not much point making 1000$ plus pro lenses for M4/3. The rich want more prestige cameras and the middle that loves and supports M4/3 cant justify the price when the 40-150 is only 149$
If the Oly primes I wanted dipped below the 400$ mark I would buy them tomorrow (12mm and 75mm). That is the price these primes should be.
Sirandar, the opposite is the case. More and more professionals switch to m43 because of the now available pro lenses.SLRs will soon become the dinosaurs and FF will lose importance.
SeeRoy: There are a lot of exceptionally foolish (even for DPR) comments here about what constitutes "pro" hardware - often dismissing M43 out of hand. I'd suggest that those people who feel this way (who are themselves most unlikely to qualify as "pros" I suspect) take a look at the following site: http://www.russellrutherford.com/. James Russell shoots M43, professionally, extensively. His observations about this format (for both still and video applications) can be found on the LL website (where he posts as bcooter). Here's one thread, comparing the A7 with M43: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=85282.0Personally I like to use M43 with the nice, affordable, excellent, little primes rather than hulking zooms. If I want to use the latter for some reason, I lug the FF Nikon gear: but not very often these days.
HFLM, what backup do you expect? A forum is not a courtroom.He went to buy the A7 but found too many points he didn't like. The blurring was only one of them.He also gives many reasons why he ended up buying an E-M1. I learned a lot from it.
SeeRoy, thanks for posting this very interesting link!E-M1 must be a hell of a camera for professionals.
Pixelpeeping dummies in forums just don't understand this.
Peiasdf: Olympus makes beautiful lenses but why not making it f/2.0? The new Samsung 16-50 f2.0-2.8 looks ugly but is more intriguing as it is faster and covers a bigger sensor.
It wouldn't be useful for most situations. Just read the preview of this lens on imaging resource: dof is often too thin in portraits.
Why carry this monster when you often have to stop down?
kevin_r: How can this be a PRO lens if the largest aperture is only f/2.8?Given the small size of the sensor, from the photos I've seen taken at that f-stop, the DOF is so large it really makes the photos look as if it's been taken with a cheap point and shoot.There's really no distinguishing blur to separate the subject from the distracting background, especially at wider angles of say 50mm or less.
Olympus really should have made these "PRO" lenses start at at least f/2 if not f/1.8. Anything else is just duhhhhh...
You don't sound like a pro, so why do you care about these lenses?
@abort: The FE24-70 surely is a nice lens, but is easily matched by m.Zuiko12-40. The Olympus lens is smaller, lighter and even cheaper.
So dream on, and buy what ever system fits your needs but stop talking badly about other systems you don't understand.
Tripeiro: Why are people trashing this camera based on its sensor size? This camera is very good compromise, a good long zoom lens with a bright constant aperture in a small compact size. If you want a bright constant aperture lens with a long zoom and a 1" sensor you can look at the Sony RX10. The thing is the Sony is double the size, weight and price (and with a shorter zoom). Photographic cameras are a compromise, and the Stylus 1 is a very good one for many people. For me it is a perfect travel camera. These modern small sensors have a very respectable performance if you don`t go past ISO800, which with a bright lens you really don`t have to most of the time.
Exactly. With one inch you gain a little resolution and one stop noise performance but lose portability. Most people here are simply not smart enough to understand this.
Abort, you don't care much about lens quality, do you?Most aps-c lenses are hardly usable at open aperture. Most Sony lenses are mediocre at best. So just forget about your stupid aperture comparisons.
Everlast66: I think it is laughable to call anything associated with the M4/3 system "PRO"!!
Surely there would be one or two enthusiasts, but no normal professional will rely on a M4/3 sensor for their professional work.
Says who, a forum member who has no idea about professional photography?There are already plenty of professionals who switched to mirrorless system. But this would require you to look outside of this forum. Seems to be too big a task for you.
snapa: Olympus is really great at producing extremely expensive lenses. To bad their sensors can not do justice to them. Hopefully the next generation m4/3 sensors will be able to keep up with there lenses. If that ever happens, the m4/3 format will be a formidable one. That is of course, if the prices come down to reasonable prices, which they are not at this time.
The iq difference between m43 and 35mm is already irrelevant for professional use.At the same time, mirrorless systems aremuch more efficient than SLRs, esp. for studio work.Just look up a few videos of professionals who switched to a mirrorless system.
Pixel peepers in forums are simply not able to judge a system from a professional point of view.
Mike FL: For Zoom = F2.8 all the way with small sensor/body, you can get Panasonic FZ200 @$379 as today's price (10-31-2014) while Stylus 1 is about $600 from respectable sellers.
Other than huge price difference, there are PROs and CONs, but FZ200 has much wide (24mm vs 28mm) and longer (600mm vs 300mm) zoom, and SHARPER lens.
Link for FZ200 @$379:http://www.abesofmaine.com/item.do?item=PSDMCFZ200K&id=PSDMCFZ200K&l=PLA&gclid=Cj0KEQjw5syiBRCwxPbE6o_MsK4BEiQAUowjppy6E61JOlFAx2gUAglH5L2E7U00PHEkDHpkHabxgUYaAlGC8P8HAQ
Why FZ200 is better choice:http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Olympus_STYLUS_1/verdict.shtml
FZ200 is an excellent cam, but quite different from Stylus1.It all depends on what you need.Btw, your judgement seems to be a little too egocentric.
ThatCamFan: *facepalm* olympus not understanding the market apparently, its 1" MINIMUM now.
No, surely not.
Hubertus Bigend: Interesting camera. For one who uses not-too-huge DSLRs and mirrorless cameras for his usual photography and who wants something versatile with significantly less size and weight as a compact camera while expecting some, but not too much compromise in image quality, I come to find 1/1.7" hitting just the sweet spot in sensor size. Actually, that's why I'm still using an Olympus C-70Z the design of which is ten years old: it offers a decent zoom range in a pocketable body, a viewfinder and a RAW option. The only wish I had for the Stylus 1 is to be even smaller. As it is, I find the Panasonic DMC-LF1 (which has probably the same 1/1.7" 12 MP sensor) even more attractive, although its lens only goes up to 200mm equiv. focal length and isn't quite as fast.
The lens on LF1 is not very useful imo. Too dark and too soft for my taste.Once you've tried a constant aperture lens like Stylus1 you don't want anything else. Just zoom without worrying about exposure. Big fun.
tom1234567: As we are in the 21st centaury why do camera manufacturersstill bring out cameras,
" WITH THESE CRAPPY PROCESSORS "
Time the all upped there game!!Tom G
'The', 'there', what?
Although a good idea, I find it rather expensive.
Glen Barrington: I've never used the Stylus, that sort of camera doesn't appeal to me. I'm an E-M10 sort of person. But I can't understand the hateful comments.
1) It's a camera, not the cure for cancer.2) Olympus must see a market for such a camera. It seems to me, they should have a right to pursue any market they choose.3) Its appearance is unlikely to throw anyone out of work or cause economic chaos.4) Don't like it? Then don't buy it.
I can understand statements like "I wish it had. . . ." or "I wouldn't use that camera because . . . " But the anger and hate is odd.
You should try it once. It may feel quite familiar to your E-M10: