Olympus have been keen at creating increasingly better lenses in terms of IQ. This one, if it lives up to the challenge, could prove a wonderful all-around lens to be complemented by a couple of primes like the 60 mm 2.8 for macros and portraits...
I love the French word for selfie: "Égoportrait" ;-)
Beckler8: I find the ZS50 interesting. The lowered pixel count and the hi-res viewfinder are nice. Before the flood of "small sensor" comments starts, get back to me when your LX/RX 100 has 30x zoom. This type of camera is just as legitimate.
thomasw333, so do many photographers (wildlife comes to mind) when pocketability is a key factor...
An FZ-1000 is definitely leaps and bounds ahead in terms of IQ, but it definitely lacks the "pocketable", and therefore, much more accessible format of the ZS50. One may carry or own tens of cameras, but in the end, we all have only two arms, and the best camera is the one I will have with me, regardless of IQ... ;-)
Agreed. This looks like a nice carry-around camera. It's about the same size as my old TZ5, but with way more zoom, and a resolution that makes it probably much better IQ-wise, than an 18 or 20 MP sensor of the same size. Let's wait and see, but there is definitely a niche for this type of camera out there.
BarnET: This is just a very competitive market. hard to pick one over the other.The recommended Sony A6000 probably has the best value/features of the bunch. But it's kit-lens doesn't live up to the same standards.
The Fujifilm has the best image quality with it's amazing kit-lens. But the video that comes out of it is garbage.
The em10 and gx7 are great camera's with great lens systems but lag behind in the high ISO department.
All of these will deliver in their own way.
Worse high ISO performance? Look up Imaging Resource for the Print Quality criterion, at default JPEG. Printing a good 8x10 at 3200 ISO is quite a feat given the low pixel count and the smaller sensor, yet Olympus comes across better than some APS-C cameras... Now imaging shooting in RAW ;)
Pierre Couture: Certainly allows for awesome photos, but the reach is too short for me.
Let me put it this way... Sitting in a tree stand with lots of stuff when hunting requires something smaller than a bridge, but with sufficient zoom to reach to far away game. The TZ5 has proven its worth for this on many occasions, as in this example http://i150.photobucket.com/albums/s111/pierrecouture/Souvenirs%20de%20chasse/P1040211.jpg
Or this one... http://i150.photobucket.com/albums/s111/pierrecouture/Souvenirs%20de%20chasse/P1100448.jpg
As many are fond of saying "the good camera is the one you have with you" ;-)
A camera dedicated to this, but with more versatility than a P&S would probably be a m43, like the EM-10, as it's still light enough to carry and offers much better IQ than my P&S.
No need for those astronomic price lenses to shoot wildlife ;-), unless you are a professional.
I can get great results with m4/3 too... ;-)
HowaboutRAW, I agree that a fast lens is good, but my first film camera, a Ricoh P&S I bought in 1990, had the same reach, and I was always frustrated when it came to one of my favorite topics: wildlife. For that reason, I chose to go with a TZ5 six years ago. When I'm ready to upgrade, I'll probably keep a similar P&S camera, and add something like the Oly EM-10 for more serious purposes.
Certainly allows for awesome photos, but the reach is too short for me.
Daniel Lauring: I'd rather see Tamron, or Sigma go after a truly empty space. For example focal lengths over 300mm. How about a 100-400mm F3.5-5.6. Or how about a mini-Bigma...150-500mm?
Mini-Bigma? Me likey!! :D
Very impressed to see the dynamic range using gradation auto in the samples. Very nice indeed.
mrdancer: I see a great use for this camera. On a tripod, on my back deck, overlooking the lake in the valley (no, I would never "show it off" to friends, that would be somewhat embarrassing). But it would capture lots of great wildlife/bird shots, sailboat shots, etc. Will they be award-winning 18"+ prints? Absolutely not!!! But they will be great for the standard 4"x6" prints and websharing, etc. Don't need a bigger sensor for that stuff.
I'm rather impressed by the F numbers on a zoom of this magnitude. Curious as to how quickly it falls off in the zoom range - i.e., how does it compare to the FZ200's 2.8 at 600mm? Also curious if Samsung has improved their image quality in their P&S cameras. If it is on par with the FZ200, this could be a contender.
Yes, this is a camera primarily for shooting distance in daylight. I use a GX7 for all of my 'normal' stuff and have gotten used to the NFC - bump it to my Nexus and do remote shooting, etc. - would like NFC on all of my cams.
They have chosen to maintain a rather low ISO range, good for them. Would it be my choice of camera? Not sure, but kudos for trying to think outside the box.
That would be interesting for M4/3 cameras...
petebryan: I wonder why Olympus have put such a limited movement articulated screen on the back. I have a Pana G3 whose screen flexes in any direction - so for example I can use the camera at waist height in portrait mode which can't be done with the Olympus. By comparison the Olympus screen is a very poor design.
Incidentally, this is not a moan about the brand, as Panasonic have done the same with their new GX7. I just don't get why you would make an artic screen that is very restrictive and must cost more to manufacture compared to the simple two way hinge on the Pana G3,G5 or G6.
I believe that there's a matter of patent involved here, but I could be wrong...
Would that it were made for M4/3... imagine a 240-600 F2.8 equivalent....
vroger1: to me- the image quality and extraordinary zoom range of the FZ 200 could not be better.
If you can fit in a 1/1.7" sensor, and maintain an equivalent lens 25-600 f2.8, that might be even better...
As if we didn't already have enough problems with a quasi-police state... imagine all the possibilities for spying on others or for being spied upon. No thanks
Robert Gallery: Not sure that the change in section of the center column is that good an idea as it will substantially reduce the torsional stiffness.
Actually, it might make it more rigid, as Y-shaped beams are very strong, but testing would be required in order to find out.