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:
mpgxsvcd: This camera doesn't look so great now with the FZ100 and the LX100 for wide angle stuff. I hope Olympus makes a fixed lens 4/3s camera.
You missed the meaning of my sentence.
ogl: All weather APS-C fixed wide-angle lens compact camera will be the hit.
No. Nikon A is no big hit... and surely not because it lacks weather sealimg.
AdamT: What this cam needs is a better quality lens (poor edges at the wide end) , I`d have thought a Stylus-2 would have been launched by now
So that people can complain about even higher prices?Developing a new model every year does not make sense these days.
I don't think so. The cams you mention have almost nothing in common with Stylus1. The Oly has a unique, well rounded combination of features.
Franz Weber: I like the idea of the Stylus 1 concept, but IMHO it has three week spots that can and should be impoved:- wideangle should be extended to 24mm or at least 25mm- IS is rather poor in comparisson to the competition- CA are visible in JPGs due to the use of the outdated Trupic 6 chip
IS works great for me, too.
Hibiscusbloom: I believe this young lady might have (most likely unintentionally) offended many people with her words particularly with her remarks about the 7D. This is a very sensitive area and cameras to many are very personal.
A more balanced approach like presenting not just one working photographer's views but several might have been a better choice.
True, this lady has taken some good shots so have thousands of other sport photographers worldwide. So one has to be careful not to give an entire platform to one person especially on a very hot, "emotionally charged" camera.
So, because of a bunch of irrational weirdos here in the forum a professional photographer should not be allowed to speak his mind openly?I don't think so.
Mirrorless Crusader: Nothing special; anybody could have taken those pictures if they were rich and insane enough to spend their time biking to every third world country they can find.
Are you trying to be funny, or are you simply dumb?
fmian: Good to have such a perspective on the camera, but.
Pro:Cropped sensor is a pro when you need a little more reach on lenses, like a 70-200 in the end zone
Con:The cropped sensor is a negative point for me, for the most part
Makes it sound like she doesn't shoot tele sports action much.
It's quite simple imo:1. She prefers her FF zooms to stay the same. This means she also needs the wide-angle part of them.2. She prefers IQ of FF to that of crop sensors.
So for her, the cons "win".
For someone - not her - who mainly(!) wants more reach, a crop sensor can be a pro.
Steve Balcombe: It's really good to read the actual thoughts of an actual working pro. But I'm afraid her reaction mostly comes across as "Ew, a crop camera".
The first big giveaway was "I like knowing that my lenses are true to their focal length", which is just ridiculous and betrays a complete lack of understanding. I wonder what she did before the 1Dx (i.e. only 3 years ago), when sports professionals routinely used the 1.3x crop 1D MkIV?
Then there is this emphasis on the voice memo feature which is apparently a deal-breaker for her. I can understand how useful it is. Yet she speaks highly of the 5D3 *which has no voice memo feature".
And she lists "no built-in wifi" in her Cons, but no 1-series or 5D has that either.
Fine, these are the observations of a working professional photographer and valuable as such. But I think she decided she didn't like it because it's not a "professional" body in the traditional sense, then she looked for reasons to justify that.
@Steve: "How can lacking something which her favoured cameras also lack make it unsuitable?"
Because she wants to give a complete list of pros/cons, not only a list of "additional cons". If she followed your logic, she'd have to remove most of the pro points, too, as these also apply to a 5d/1dx.
Besides, what most fanatics of 7dII here in the forum seem to overlook: She does not say that the camera is unsuitable. Instead she calls it a "very good contender for the price."
That she still prefers the higher specs of the much pricier models is no contradiction at all.
'And she lists "no built-in wifi" in her Cons, but no 1-series or 5D has that either.'
And this is why she should not list it as a 'con'?I cannot follow your 'logic' here...
Read the whole article and you'll understand.Her pro and con list makes perfectly sense.
tampadave: She lost me at "puke."
I read it with a giggle and enjoyed the rest of the article.
Nindy5: Troll city on this forum
... as usual. :-)
sleibson: I was happy to see this review because it has the ring of truth to it. This pro photographer brings her biases to her review, just like any reviewer. She is a full-frame shooter. She has a color preference. She knows what she likes and what she doesn't like. I found her review of the 7DII very credible based on that. She noted the fast AF and the fast burst speed. She noted controls she didn't like. She also noted how she sets the camera up for her work. In all, this is as informative a working review of a camera as you can hope to get and I appreciate the even-handed, easy-to-read tone.
And no, Canon didn't pay me to write this.
Totally credible, because she puts things into perspective by comparing to 7d and 5d/1dx.