Shunda77: Fuji must have one of the most confusing superzoom lineups out there.
A superzoom for each day of the week!
This one though is apparently amazing. Amazing images, amazing optics, amazing performance and amazing optical image stabilisation. Possibly the other ones are not so amazing.
People are confusing the meaning of smaller with small. It is still a big lump but not as big as the other big lumps.
It does have an about to disintegrate toy look about it. Are these designed to self destruct after so many uses?
mpgxsvcd: I don't need 1200mm in my telescope. Why would I need it for terrestrial work?
The camera has not got a 1200mm focal length lens, it is 215mm focal length..I have a 20 to 60x zoom on my Kowa telescope which cost more than the scope and is invaluable for bird spotting on the local reservoir. I presume you are talking about an astronomical telescope which I believe need aperture more than magnification, for stars at least.Also as these cameras start from a wide angle so a 50x zoom probably is only 25x magnification if you take 50mm as eyesight. Happy to to be corrected on this. I did find with a SX40 that I had the magnification at full zoom did seem to be half that of the telescope.
How does pixel binning work with x-trans? Can you reduce resolution without bringing in colour artefacts? Is it better than, worst or the same as a Bayer sensor? I must say I have never noticed any problems when I drop the pixel count on normal cameras.
Combatmedic870: Costing more then the LX7 is a non starter(LX7 is $299). I dont see the point.
I would take the LX7 over this anyday, unless it really is that significantly smaller.The sensor on the LX7 is a 1/2.0 vs 1/2.3, so not much a difference. but the lens is much faster.
The list price of the LX7 is $499 but the market price has dropped over time, but only in the USA, it is currently £350 in the UK. The list price of the XZ-10 is $400. Why is it that people just never get that you cannot compare hot off the press new product prices with mature product prices. In the UK the XZ-10 starting list price matches the current LX7 price. There seems to a bit of a fire sale going on with the LX7 so whilst it is good for the US customer I wonder how healthy it is for Panasonic. Possibly they may be making money and the competition is well over priced. I must say I am looking forward to a price war between all these similar cameras but I suspect in Britain we will have to wait until they dump them for the the next model. The only affordable UK top end camera is the Samsung EX2f at £250 in established dealers which I may go for as the competition is just too expensive.
neroangelo: Not one in Scotland?! The quicker Scotland gets independence and gets out of this 'UK' that never includes us the better!
The thing is in Scotland they would have to be given away free like everything else or there would be no interest. The idea of having to give them back would not be a concept understood in Scotland.
mpgxsvcd: With the Panasonic LX7 selling for $279 I am not sure who would pick this camera over the LX7?
The current UK price of the LX7 in the non grey market is pretty much the same if not more than the XZ-10 list price at £350. So in the Uk the xz-10 will be likely be cheaper than the LX7. Do not forget you only get these offers in the states. I would certainly consider an LX7 if I could buy one at $279 but there seems little chance.
Rachotilko: I want this ! This device utilizes the advantages of small sensor digicam in the best possible way.
It makes one wonder why devices like this one have been so rare ? Why the myriads of f/3.1-f/6 point&shoots and none of f/1.8-f/2.7 ?
@tkbslcActually not cheaper as the EX2f is going for £260 on Amazon in UK so probably is the best buy at the moment in the UK anyway. Brian has the EX1 and posts some very nice pictures with it and I believe he likes the wider 24mm which you can get only with the EX's and LX's.
HowaboutRAW: The problem is the elephant in the room, albeit a pricy, very small and very powerful elephant: The Sony RX100.
That's an amazing camera, and with fewer pixels v2 could probably produce useable raws at ISO 10,000.
The lens of the RX100 is so slow though unless it is fully wide open and looking at the DPR comparison vs the XZ-2 there does not seem to be any great ISO performance to offset this. Of course with Sony they are more interested in the Megapixels showing on the box than IQ.
It is interesting that they have left so much of the functionality of its big brother intact. Quite an interesting change from the usual marketing trick of keeping a large differential between the models. I think Olympus should be commended for that. It looks a very capable little machine and I hope the IQ turns out well. Probably most prospective buyers are probably well aware of the DOF or relative FF aperture or whatever, though I presume we will have to batten down the hatches against interminable detailed lectures on this as noted already.
How do you know someone has an expensive watch?They have to ask someone with a Casio what the time is.
dpfan32: Funny no one is discussing the XZ-10 :)IMHO they took a too small sensor.To provide better quality than an iPhone 5 they need something like 1/1.7" or bigger. 1/2.3" can't shoot significant better photos than a good smartphone camera (not to mention the 808 PureView)
With the XZ-10 they have put the tiny 1/2.3" sensor instead of the massive 1/1.7" sensor. The 1/2.3" sensor is like a micro dot you know and in the spying days you could put 30 of them on top of the end of a pin. The XZ-10 is half the size of the XZ-2 but you could easily fit a 1/1.7" sensor in it.Like the bridge cameras which easily have aps-c sensor and that would be awesome man, they only do not use them like because they want to keep their DSLR sales up you know.To have the same aperture on a 1/2.3 sensor as a aps-c would need a lens half a mile wide you know.
This is not like a Samsung NX roadmap is it? I presume there is a chance these lenses will actually exist one day unlike the NX 16-80, 55mm and anything hinted at over 200mm.
Timmbits: Don't let the f1.8 number fool you! For all you guys who think that f1.8 is a big deal with a 1/2.3" sensor, it is equivalent to only f6.4 on an aps-c sensor camera.
According to the link below, you would need a f0.5 on a 1/2,3" sensor like this one in order to compete with an f1.8 on an aps-c sensor.
And we're not even comparing to FF (which is the more common reference).
Here is a very useful link for everyone in this forum: http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/digital-camera-sensor-size.htm
Anyways, I realize that this is a high-end in the low-end cameras, and these comparisons aren't really relevant to it't target consumer market.
Just putting things into proper perspective here, so we can all understand what we are looking at.
I do love Timmbits completely pointless comparisons between entirely different types of cameras. Keep them coming Timmbits. We all need to be constantly reminded that enormous cameras perform better than tiny cameras.
D1N0: Put this right next to the polaroids. It's just businessmen trying to make a buck (or a yuan). No interest in real photography whatsoever. (just my prejudice, educated guess, enlightened vision, take your pick).
Presumably all the other manufacturers make cameras just for the love of it. All the directors of the existing camera companies are just a band of dedicated photographers without any interest in making money and just wanting to give us all cameras because they care. That is nice to know.
chopsteeks: So with the wi-fi, could I surf the internet with this ?
Not if it is a mock up.
jimoyer: I see it still has that ridiculous bundled flash that Oly insists on using. God I hate that flash on my E-Pl5 and prefer the pop up of my E-PL2.
+1 . All the inconvenience of a separate flash coupled with the low power and inflexiblity of a built in flash. The EPL-2 flash is great and will make me reluctant to upgrade.
munro harrap: It is about the same body size as a Nikon D series APS-C SLR- only the lens stops them being pocketable, but the IQ will be garbage in comparison. Do we hate our wives and children this much that we buy them these baubles, this bling, these trinkets??!!They now ALL only last 10 years max as to cheat the rich guys with their full-frame machines and lenses these products are being made with lead-free solder that degrades growing whiskers that short-circuit everything. Irrepairable too.Your CHOICE??
Egad , these commom cameras sound absolutely ghastly and not even good enough for the memsahib and children. Fare makes you swoon. Pass me the smelling salts. These rich chaps have probably made their money in trade and are not true gentlemen. Degrades your growing whiskers as well, sounds utterly appalling if a chap cannot grow his moustaches to a point.
Cane: Wha, wha, wha! OMG! I have never seen such a set of cry babies in my life. Could you all whine any more about every little thing? It's comical if not sad. Get a life people. It's just a camera, not your heart valve replacement. Why do old men complain about everything? If it doesn't look retro they complain, if it does they complain, if there a tilt screen they complain, if their isn't they complain, if there a hot shoe they complain, if there isn't they complain. Did your cats not find their liter box this morning?
Does whining on a forum about other people whining on the forum constitute a meaningful life then?