Why would Panasonic only make this camera in a kit with the non-power zoom lens, while the GF5 comes in a kit with the power zoom? This is a higher camera, with the zoom control built into the camera, but they don't make it available with the power lens? I'd be interested in this camera with the power lens, but it is too expensive if you have to buy them separately.
Francis Carver: Bloody hell and back.....
A really small, 1/1.7-inch sensor camera....
With only an amusingly small 4x range zoom lens....
Without a viewfinder of any type..... and without a 3.5mm jack for an external microphone.
That records video clips in only a single frame rate.
And despite of all these shortcomings, the Olympus STYLUS XZ-2 iHS is going to be listed for US$599.99.
I guess I am not getting this one at all, either. Quickly, somebody from the Oly camp pls explain what it is that we must just love with this cutie-pie new baby?
I gues image quality doesn't matter to you?
You can tell by the comments on this camera there are lots of people who don't have a clue what they're talking about.. So many complaints about the sensor size and comparisons to the RX100. If this camera had a larger sensor, they could not have this lens. Sure the RX100 has a big sensor, but at what cost? F/4.9 at 100mm? I'd take the LX7's or XZ-2's sensor and lens combination any day over the RX100. Unless your pixel peeping or printing poster size pics, you're not gonna notice a difference from that big sensor.For those who get hard over big sensors, why wouldn't something like the GF5? The sensor's twice as big as the RX100 and the cam isn't much bigger with the power zoom lens...Bottom line is, it just doesn't make that much sense to put a huge sensor in a camera this small. They will definitely sell lots of them, because so many fools think all that matters is a bigger sensor, but I wouldn't want one until they figure out how to build a better lens for it.
InTheMist: That's an impressive lens on the XZ-2. I just wish it had a viewfinder.
And no, I don't mean a 'stacker' viewfinder.
Why is the lens overkill for the sensor? They could not use this lens on a bigger sensor. It is the same lens as on the XZ-1, which had the same sensor size. If they put in a bigger sensor they would need an entirely new lens. F/2.5 at 112mm? No way they could do that with a bigger sensor. If all I wanted was a bigger sensor, I still wouldn't get the RX100, I'd get a bigger camera that could take a bigger lens, or a fixed lens. I don't see a point in a larger sensor if the tradeoff is f/4.9.
mosc: Soo many comments about f2.5 being better than f4.9 comparing this to an RX100 at tele. Wow, do the math!
This camera is f11.8 equivalent at 112. The Sony is f13.4 at 100. Complain all you want about it but at least do the math correctly people.
or realize the real difference here is that one has a hot shoe, an option for an externa viewfinder, and is intended as a general purpose camera where the other is a carry anywhere compact designed for indoor shooting without an external flash at wide. The user who picks the Olympus and uses it without anything in the hot shoe probably made the wrong purchasing decision. Similarly, the user who never brings the sony with him because it doesn't have a viewfinder or external flash probably should have gotten the olympus.
Mosc, I think you're a little mistaken in your comparisons to the rx100. The aperture equivalent numbers you are using only are only useful when comparing depth of field. If you're comparing low light performancethose numbers are pretty meaningless. So at 90 mm the f/2.3 of the lx7 or xz2 is big advantage over the approx f/4.5 of the rx100.