Previous news story    Next news story

Just Posted: Olympus Stylus XZ-2 real-world sample images

By dpreview staff on Oct 31, 2012 at 17:10 GMT
Buy on GearShop$299.99

Just Posted: Our real-world sample images from the Olympus Stylus XZ-2. The XZ-2 builds on the features of one of our favorite compact cameras - the Olympus XZ-1 - adding an improved 12MP CMOS sensor, flip-out touch-screen and innovative dual-mode lens control ring. We've been shooting a range of subjects in a variety of lighting conditions, using various apertures and processing settings on the XZ-2.

Around 1/3 of the shots have high ISO noise reduction (Noise Filter in Olympus terms), turned off - each of which is marked.

Olympus Stylus XZ-2 preview samples - Posted 31st October 2012

There are 33 images in the samples gallery. Please do not reproduce any of these images on a website or any newsletter / magazine without prior permission (see our copyright page). We make the originals available for private users to download to their own machines for personal examination or printing (in conjunction with this review), we do so in good faith, please don't abuse it.

Unless otherwise noted images taken with no particular settings at full resolution. Because our review images are now hosted on the 'galleries' section of dpreview.com, you can enjoy all of the new galleries functionality when browsing these samples.

74
I own it
37
I want it
10
I had it
Discuss in the forums
Our favorite products. Free 2 day shipping.
Support this site, buy from dpreview GearShop.
Olympus XZ-2 iHS

Comments

Total comments: 93
Michael_13
By Michael_13 (Nov 2, 2012)

For those who can't for the full review:
http://www.photographyblog.com/reviews/olympus_xz2_review/

I hope you guys from DPR don't mind me posting this link. :-)

1 upvote
Rachotilko
By Rachotilko (Nov 2, 2012)

XZ2 vs RX100 =
= f2.4 vs f4.9 =
= ISO400 vs ISO1600
= massive XZ-2 IQ win at tele-end !!!

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/studio-compare#baseDir=%2Freviews_data&cameraDataSubdir=boxshot&indexFileName=boxshotindex.xml&presetsFileName=boxshotpresets.xml&showDescriptions=false&headerTitle=Studio%20scene&headerSubTitle=Standard%20studio%20scene%20comparison&masterCamera=nikon_cpp7700&masterSample=dscn0870&slotsCount=4&slot0Camera=nikon_cpp7700&slot0Sample=dscn0870&slot0DisableCameraSelection=true&slot0DisableSampleSelection=true&slot0LinkWithMaster=true&slot1Camera=sony_dscrx100&slot1Sample=dsc00489&x=0.47726748211400877&y=-0.5724888381763877

2 upvotes
Shara90
By Shara90 (Nov 1, 2012)

but raw file the compact olympus, usually is work fine with camera raw?
tank s

0 upvotes
echelon2004
By echelon2004 (Nov 2, 2012)

After a short while, yes, Olympus raw is generally working fine in any of the popular raw converters on the market.

0 upvotes
tomservo33
By tomservo33 (Nov 1, 2012)

You must be looking at the wrong photos, or your monitor is defective; since most of the comments here, and Robin Wong's blog shots, seem to give strong evidence of the exact opposite! Seriously, examine http://robinwong.blogspot.com/

1 upvote
jonikon
By jonikon (Nov 1, 2012)

I'm not impressed at all with the image quality of the Oly XZ-2. I see a lot of smearing of details, very poor IQ at high ISOs, a de-centered lens causing OOF areas, poor color rendition, poor micro-contrast, lots of distortion, etc.

Why in the world would anyone buy this camera when the excellent Sony RX-100 can be had for about the same price and blows the XZ-2's image quality away! This camera would not be desirable even if it was priced at the current XZ1 price of $200, IMO.

-Jon

5 upvotes
photophile
By photophile (Nov 1, 2012)

Why ? Because:

1. Articulating screen
2. Touch screen
3. Click ring
4. Olympus colours
5. Olympus lens, wider aperture at long end
6. Its not a Sony!

12 upvotes
jonikon
By jonikon (Nov 1, 2012)

Years ago Fujifilm had the best straight out of camera JPEG colors, and still does. I used to like Olympus JPEG colors as well, but not anymore as they have changed for the worse, IMO.
I also don't understand the "It's not a Sony" remark. Smart buyers don't reject a better product for the same price because of the name on the outside. That would be just shooting yourself in the foot foolish!

1 upvote
echelon2004
By echelon2004 (Nov 1, 2012)

The xz-2 have a sensor which is even a little bit worse than the sensor on the Sony RX100 (which still packs a huge amount of pixels on a much too small area). But the lens is really quite good on the xz-2 and the handling is bound to be a lot better than the strange unengaging handling of the sony rx100. I think most people will enjoy themselves more taking slightly inferior images than they would using the sony.

3 upvotes
tomservo33
By tomservo33 (Nov 1, 2012)

You must be looking at the wrong photos, or your monitor is defective; since most of the comments here, and Robin Wong's blog shots, seem to give strong evidence of the exact opposite! Seriously, examine http://robinwong.blogspot.com/

2 upvotes
Michael_13
By Michael_13 (Nov 1, 2012)

@jonikon:
Distortion and de-centering? Where?

5 upvotes
zodiacfml
By zodiacfml (Nov 2, 2012)

Same. The sensor is so backward versus the excellent, huge lens. It's just an XZ1.
I'm quite confident that Panny and Oly will release better sensors next year.

0 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (Nov 2, 2012)

The slow f4.9 at full telephoto is a deal-breaker for many. The XZ-2, or any camera with a fast max aperture at the long end (LX7, X10, XZ1) will be a better choice for photographing people.

@Michael_13 Distortion and de-centering? Where?

Nowhere. He made it up.

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting
1 upvote
qwertyasdf
By qwertyasdf (Nov 1, 2012)

Does the stylus come with a touch screen?

1 upvote
logbi77
By logbi77 (Nov 1, 2012)

Yes

2 upvotes
dpryenn
By dpryenn (Nov 2, 2012)

And does the touch screen come with a stylus?

0 upvotes
logbi77
By logbi77 (Nov 2, 2012)

No

0 upvotes
Oddrain
By Oddrain (Nov 1, 2012)

Barney, thanks for the early look at these real world samples, though I have to say I preferred the slightly more "zany" style of your LX7 preview ;-)

Looking forward the full review. Any news on when it will be ready?

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
1 upvote
Barney Britton
By Barney Britton (Nov 1, 2012)

I didn't take these so don't worry, my wacky, off-the-wall stylings will be back soon enough.

2 upvotes
Elaka Farmor
By Elaka Farmor (Nov 1, 2012)

XZ-2, LX7, S110, P7700. All very similar image quality. Choosing between these is more about personal preference, thats it.

If you want another compact with better IQ and higher resolution than these above, there is camera for that too.....

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
3 upvotes
Rachotilko
By Rachotilko (Nov 1, 2012)

This feels a bit lite "odd one out" type quiz. S110 does not belong to this category, G15 and Fuji X10 does, as this is a group of fast-lensed enthusiast compacts. Even at portrait focal lengths (60-100 mm eq), fast lens (combined with image stabilization) allow for low-light usage.

The other category - slow-lensed enthusiast compacts - is populated by S110, Fuji XF1, Sony RX100, Canon G1X. This group is oviously subdivided into two sugdivisions (S110, XF1) vs (RX100 G1X). Former subdivision is characterized by limited low-light capability at tele end. The latter has advantage of bigger sensor, offsetting the small-aperture deficiencies.

1 upvote
sadwitch
By sadwitch (Nov 1, 2012)

What about samsung? didn't they release a EX2 with a F1.4 lens too?

4 upvotes
MichaelKJ
By MichaelKJ (Nov 1, 2012)

@Rachotilko
Low light ability is affected by both a camera's widest aperture (fast lens) and its sensor size.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
1 upvote
Rachotilko
By Rachotilko (Nov 1, 2012)

@MichaelKJ: I do not see a contradiction to my post. What I said was that S110's low light capability @tele is hampered by having both narrow aperture & small sensor.
While P7700, G15, X10, LX7 achieve low-light @tele by virtue of fast lens, RX100@G1X by their sensor size.
S110 and XF1 have advante of being small, but their low-light capability list limited to the widest angle.

0 upvotes
MichaelKJ
By MichaelKJ (Nov 1, 2012)

@Rachotilko: While your point is well taken, I think it makes more sense to compare the low light capabilities of these cameras based on their FF equivalent aperture ranges. For example, the RX100 has a FF equiv. range of F4.9-F13.4 versus the ZX-1's F8.5-F11.8. IMO the RX100's advantage at 28mm of 4.9 vs 8.5 is more significant than the ZX-1's tele advantage of 11.8 to 13.4.

1 upvote
logbi77
By logbi77 (Nov 2, 2012)

@MichaelKJ

Based on your formula, if I put the XZ-2 and RX100 @ 28mm f/1.8, the RX100 photo will be 1 1/3 stop brighter with same shutter speed and ISO than the XZ-2?

If I put the XZ-2 @ 112mm f/2.5 and RX100 @ 100mm f/4.9, the XZ-2 photo will only be 1/3 stop brighter than the RX100 with same shutter speed and ISO?

And I've never heard of an Olympus ZX-1 camera before, although I've heard that Olympus created an Olympus XZ-1 before.

0 upvotes
Rachotilko
By Rachotilko (Nov 2, 2012)

@MichaelKJ

The apperture equivalence calculation you used is valid *ONLY* with respect to the DOF.

When determinig the shutter speed, f/1.8 is f/1.8 regardless of the sensors size.

It means, if your full frame sensor & scene requires 1/100s @ ISO800 with aperture f/1.8, then the same scene requires 1/100s @ ISO800 even with sensor sized 1/2.33" with aperture f/1.8.

Comment edited 19 seconds after posting
1 upvote
Michael_13
By Michael_13 (Nov 2, 2012)

@MichaelKJ:
You confused "low light capability" with "shallow depth of field capability". Only for the latter it makes sense to compute F-stops that are equivalent to FF.

0 upvotes
aris14
By aris14 (Nov 1, 2012)

It's funny and nice...
A 200$ compact cam can nowadays produce images of similar IQ with 10 years ago DSLRs...
And it's not in the top of the range...

1 upvote
kapanak
By kapanak (Nov 1, 2012)

XZ-2 is a $200 compact camera? It is $600 ...

6 upvotes
fuego6
By fuego6 (Nov 1, 2012)

LOL.. I was thinking the same thing... guess I can now buy 3 of them!! COOOL!! FAIL..

1 upvote
misha
By misha (Nov 1, 2012)

The original XZ-1 is now $200 though, with the image quality not that different.

2 upvotes
chj
By chj (Nov 1, 2012)

Nice pics, but doesn't look like an RX100 killer. Of course there's a big price difference as well.

Comment edited 20 seconds after posting
1 upvote
kapanak
By kapanak (Nov 1, 2012)

There is? RX100 is $650. XZ-2 is $600 ...

9 upvotes
chafouin
By chafouin (Nov 1, 2012)

RX100: 650 euros, XZ-2: 550 euros. The price difference is bigger here in Europe.

0 upvotes
ogl
By ogl (Nov 1, 2012)

Have a look at the portrait of woman. It's cool. RX100 is not better.

1 upvote
Michael_13
By Michael_13 (Nov 1, 2012)

@chj: None of the two is a "killer".

It totally depends on one's personal requirements.

1 upvote
chj
By chj (Nov 1, 2012)

didn't realize the XZ-2's price, didn't expect it to be so high after seeing current XZ-1 prices

0 upvotes
Combatmedic870
By Combatmedic870 (Oct 31, 2012)

If you dont need video or a articulated screen...The XZ-1 is still what i would go for. ESPECIALLY since its going for $199 right now!!

4 upvotes
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (Oct 31, 2012)

The extra manual control and significantly improved high ISO performance would keep me interested in the XZ-2, personally.

5 upvotes
Michael_13
By Michael_13 (Oct 31, 2012)

... not to forget about the tiltable screen with touch function. I find some of the settings a bit fiddly to reach on the XZ-1.

But $199 is about the best bargain on the planet right now. At least for people in the USA.

2 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (Oct 31, 2012)

Or the proper 1080p video. 720p of the XZ-1, and the mediocre high ISO performance in raw, are a few weaknesses of an otherwise superb P&S.

0 upvotes
Combatmedic870
By Combatmedic870 (Nov 1, 2012)

There is no significantly improved high iso. Take a look at the nikon p7700 samples and that's what your going to get. Iso800 is still the max.( but R butler, you are the tester of the camera.) Im basing what i seen from the p7700 which i believe the xz-2 has the same sensor.

Like I said. If you don't need a tilt screen or video. The xz1 would be a good deal.

Comment edited 6 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
Edgar Matias
By Edgar Matias (Nov 1, 2012)

If you need video, the Canon S100 is the one to get. It does 1080/24p @ 38 mbps and 720/30p @ 24 mbps.

None of the latest round of compacts have bitrates that high -- not even the new S110 is as good.

1 upvote
h2k
By h2k (Nov 1, 2012)

A tiltable touch-screen is a great compositional tool giving u many perspectives that are harder to get with viewfinder or fixed screen. Only that a *side*-hinging screen is considerably more useful than a vertically hinging on; Olympus did know that once upon a time.

1 upvote
ipribadi
By ipribadi (Nov 1, 2012)

For compact cam video, IMHO the LX7 takes the crown.
The S100 video is just not as sharp as 1080p should be and has more noise in low light shooting.

LX7 has an internal ND filter allowing proper shutter speed in bright scenes and it's fast lens allows low ISO in low light scences.
LX7 shoots 1080/60p @28mbps using AVCHD format which is more effecient than H.264, but even so the bitrate is not the bottle neck here for IQ.

2 upvotes
zodiacfml
By zodiacfml (Nov 1, 2012)

agreed. the lx7 and this one doesn't give much value. it's as though panny and oly are pulling their punches, probably not to get too close to their m4/3 products.
or, they just haven't anticipated an RX100.
or, they had it all planned so that consumers fall to this trap then release a bigger sensor next year.

0 upvotes
Edgar Matias
By Edgar Matias (Nov 1, 2012)

It's pretty clear that Panasonic crippled the video abilities of the LX7. It's been shown to be resolve significantly less detail than a Samsung Galaxy Note smartphone...

http://www.personal-view.com/talks/discussion/3943/panasonic-lx7-topic/p2

Pretty embarrassing.

0 upvotes
mjdundee
By mjdundee (Nov 1, 2012)

Improved 'High'Iso performance?
I can still see chroma and luminus noise in the ISO 100 samples like PA210095. For many years now Olypus PnS cameras deliver great sharp details AND noise even at base Iso. So nothing has changed much here.

0 upvotes
Michael_13
By Michael_13 (Nov 1, 2012)

@mjdundee:
This is not the real performance:
PA210094/95 use the "auto gradation" setting, a kind of HDR filter that can lead to increased noise.

2 upvotes
Bluetrain048
By Bluetrain048 (Oct 31, 2012)

Interesting, especially given the size and nice handling. I was almost going to upgrade my LX3 to an LX7 but the olympus looks to have far nicer colours and a much better lens.

1 upvote
Michael_13
By Michael_13 (Oct 31, 2012)

I agree on the colors, but think that the lenses are of quite similar quality. Both are very sharp across the frame and with very even performance throughout the focal range.
XZ might be ahead a little regarding contrast.

What makes you think different?

0 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (Oct 31, 2012)

Plus the LX7 lens goes to 24mm on the wide end and f1.4. And for video people, the 1080p60, plus high speed 120 fps are two great reasons to stick with the LX7.

0 upvotes
maboule123
By maboule123 (Nov 1, 2012)

But Olympus, being the revolutionary camera that it is, and I love the improvements, still can't get sharp images as the LX and Cyber shot do.

0 upvotes
Michael_13
By Michael_13 (Nov 1, 2012)

maboule123:
What makes you think so?
XZ can deliver razor sharp pics - just use the right settings.

E.g. take a look here:
http://robinwong.blogspot.de/2012/10/olympus-stylus-xz-2-review-street.html

0 upvotes
zodiacfml
By zodiacfml (Nov 1, 2012)

@maboule
the XZ has the best lens but the LX7 is now at the same level. cybershot IQ is a joke to these two but you do get a small, truly pocketable camera.

0 upvotes
Tord S Eriksson
By Tord S Eriksson (Oct 31, 2012)

I like my XZ-1, but this one seems far better. Still best if you keep the ISO low, though!

Interesting is the last shot, as it looks like a pixel is dead (above the tower slightly to the right)! Shouldn't happen on a new camera, should it?!

Oh, my error: downloaded the picture and found a Robinson 22, not quite a dead pixel!

The Olympus detachable electronic viewfinder is superb, only bested by the one in the OM-D! Works also on many of the PEN cameras, if not all! The VF-2 is said to be the best, if a bit pricey! VF-3 is a simpler model, not quite as good!
The VF-2 fits the Leica X1, too, and, according to Steve Huff, just as good!

The one you can buy for the NEX cameras is closely related as well!

Comment edited 8 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Combatmedic870
By Combatmedic870 (Oct 31, 2012)

Actually the XZ-1 is going to be better at ISO100 vs the XZ-2. CCD's are cleaner and more detailed at the base iso vs a CMOS. The only reason they went with a cmos is for video. But the CCD in the XZ-1 is going to be cleaner at ISO100 and 200.
I do expect the XZ-2 to have less color noise at higher ISO's though (400-1600) , might even make ISO1600 usable....thats a big might though! Who know's...

0 upvotes
MarkInSF
By MarkInSF (Oct 31, 2012)

It is possible, but I don't expect to see any noticeable difference. CMOS sensors have improved greatly versus those of a generation or two back. A current CMOS sensor may well have as little noise as an older CCD. At base ISO, most sensors are very clean.

1 upvote
Combatmedic870
By Combatmedic870 (Nov 1, 2012)

Take a look at the p7700 in raw at iso100

0 upvotes
Michael_13
By Michael_13 (Nov 1, 2012)

XZ-2 definitely shows a bit more noise at base ISO than XZ-1, but it is very even looking.
At higher ISOs it looks better than on XZ-1 and reminds me of X10.

0 upvotes
Ulfric M Douglas
By Ulfric M Douglas (Oct 31, 2012)

Takitso : the XZ-2 takes Olympus' excellent VF-2 electronic viewfinder.
Expensive but good.

0 upvotes
MrTaikitso
By MrTaikitso (Oct 31, 2012)

Thanks!

0 upvotes
dbateman
By dbateman (Oct 31, 2012)

Robin Wong has done an excellent "User" review of this camera. Any one interested should check it out:
http://robinwong.blogspot.com/
The High ISO on the is camera has me considering it.

5 upvotes
attomole
By attomole (Oct 31, 2012)

Thanks, there is no better advocacy than just looking at some really great pictures, still the quality starts to fall over above 1600 ASA, but wow, so did film,

0 upvotes
MrTaikitso
By MrTaikitso (Oct 31, 2012)

Really like these shots! May well have sold me on the camera before I have even finished evaluating the competition (of which a front viewable flip out display and 1080P video is vital), namely, the Panasonic G5, Samsung EX2F, Nikon 7700 or Canon G1X (although I hear the auto focus on the latter is pants, to use contemporary lexicon.) Only thing missing from the XZ-2 that I hanker for is a viewfinder. Really like putting a camera up to my face, as I am sure most of you concur. Having never owned a detachable VF, can anyone tell me how good they are? Does the one for the XZ display a live image or is it optical with an approximated view?

0 upvotes
Jim
By Jim (Oct 31, 2012)

As an XZ-1 owner, I just don't see a significant difference in image quality between the XZ-2 and the XZ-1...both are very good. Am I missing something?

Jim

3 upvotes
Tord S Eriksson
By Tord S Eriksson (Oct 31, 2012)

Better at higher ISO, and a few other details, but not revolutionary changes, just evolutionary!

1 upvote
Albino_BlacMan
By Albino_BlacMan (Nov 1, 2012)

I think most of the changes are not IQ changes. Touch screen, swivel screen, better video, and a little bit of high ISO.

0 upvotes
Jim
By Jim (Nov 2, 2012)

That was my take too...I don't really see a compelling reason to upgrade from the XZ-1 to the XZ-2. As an aside, if it's not a fully articulated LCD (ala Canon G12/G1X), don't bother.

...just my take.

Jim

0 upvotes
Henry Falkner
By Henry Falkner (Oct 31, 2012)

This is the camera that should have been around when Sandra was posing for me 11 years ago. It looks ideal for indoors with bounce flash and outdoors with a strong fill-in flash (should work with FL-36R). There is continuous exposure variation (the C-2500L had two aperture settings - one for overexposure, one for underexposure), clean shadows, and useable resolution for large prints. And now you also get HD video that makes keeping a budget camcorder unnecessary (the BSI-CMOS sensor sensitivity and speed should avoid focus hunting).

0 upvotes
photoguy622
By photoguy622 (Oct 31, 2012)

I had the XZ-1 for about a year, and while I loved the lens' sharpness and wide aperture I was never pleased with photo quality above ISO 400, it looked more like a watercolor painting than a photo at 100%. Unfortunately, it looks like XZ-2 suffers the same fate.

1 upvote
Combatmedic870
By Combatmedic870 (Oct 31, 2012)

how big to you plan on printing? Looking at the image at 100% is a pretty large print. Also shooting in raw yields slightly different results. Ive printed a very nice A3+ at ISO400.

3 upvotes
Tord S Eriksson
By Tord S Eriksson (Oct 31, 2012)

Agree!

0 upvotes
photoguy622
By photoguy622 (Nov 1, 2012)

@Combatmedic: You're right, and I don't print very large, but I'm a pixel peeper, for better or worse.

0 upvotes
maboule123
By maboule123 (Nov 1, 2012)

That's exactly my point: water color painting results. It seems that Olympus has that legendary portrait set locked on their sensors. Great camera, great set of accessories, but the images look great only on the screen. Mind you, I do not print my images.

0 upvotes
chafouin
By chafouin (Nov 1, 2012)

Please consider that these images must be JPG out of camera... I don't see the point of judging these pictures, this is definitely an enthusiast camera, and enthusiast photographer use RAW (if you don't, then buy a cheap compact camera). I'm sure you can get better details and less watercolor painting artifacts shooting in RAW and post processing your files on your PC. That's what Robin Wong has been doing in his review and that's why he gets pretty decent quality up to 1600 iso (and he only uses Olympus Viewer, not even Lightroom or Aftershot which might have better noise reduction tools).

Comment edited 7 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
photoguy622
By photoguy622 (Nov 1, 2012)

@chafouin: I admit, I don't shoot RAW, but please don't take my enthusiast card away. I love photography, I just need to get more comfortable shooting RAW.

0 upvotes
chafouin
By chafouin (Nov 1, 2012)

I won't take your enthusiast card away, I promise ;) I didn't mean to be bossy in my comment, I just think that when you buy a 600$ compact, you're not a P&S photography amateur. You're more someone who wants to get DSLR image quality everyday in his bag. And DSLR quality comes with the RAW format, JPG samples are a bit useless.

0 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (Oct 31, 2012)

I'm glad they didn't change the best part about the XZ-1, the lens. With competitors starting their zooms at 24mm many wil question this choice, but I say such a great lens should be retained.

The samples look very good, but I'm wondering about the raw from the new sensor, as the XZ-1 sensor was a bit noisy, which is why Olympus used such heavy NR. Perhaps the new 12 mp BSI CMOS sensor will be an improvement.

Anyway, there's a lot to like about this camera. The price is a on the high side, way too close to ILC prices, IMHO.

Great job, thanks DPR.

2 upvotes
george4908
By george4908 (Oct 31, 2012)

The XZ-2 pics by Robin Wong make a much more compelling case for this camera.

http://robinwong.blogspot.com/2012/10/olympus-stylus-xz-2-review-street.html

1 upvote
skiphunt13
By skiphunt13 (Oct 31, 2012)

Only... that video he shot does not look promising at all. I know he says he doesn't know much about video, but the very soft quality of the sample video has me looking at the RX100 again.

Looking forward to decent video samples by someone.

0 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (Oct 31, 2012)

If video is a priority, the RX100 or LX7, with the much nicer AVCHD codec, and terrific stabilization, all the way.

For a great all around shooter, the XZ-2 look quite nice. I do dislike dangling, tethered lens caps on a P&S, but the XZ-1, and LX7 are such a nice cameras to use, this can be overlooked.

0 upvotes
Couscousdelight
By Couscousdelight (Oct 31, 2012)

Smoothing is very strong, even at 100 iso : http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/reviewsamples/photos/2293688/pa210094?inalbum=olympus-xz-2-preview-samples
Check the boat at full res.

1 upvote
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (Oct 31, 2012)

I agree.

For context, that image has Noise Filter set to Standard (I prefer Low, personally), with Gradation on Auto, so the darker tones have been pulled quite a lot.

Comment edited 5 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
Camp Freddy
By Camp Freddy (Oct 31, 2012)

there is a strange texture in some backgrounds, while there is detail in the subjects suggesting some jpeg compression issue ( last portrait of the woman downloaded is an example of this) , and noise at higher ISO: but how does it compare with G15, X10 and other premium priced cameras? Nice colours OOC, good bokeh, good features....needs a shoot out vs Canon, LX7, XF1 etc!

2 upvotes
zodiacfml
By zodiacfml (Nov 1, 2012)

To me, the shadows have been lifted by the camera. I estimate that on this scene, the shadows would have been close to pitch black on RAW mode.

0 upvotes
KonstantinosK
By KonstantinosK (Oct 31, 2012)

hey, these are very beautiful pictures. And the XZ-2 looks quite capable.

0 upvotes
fdfgdfgdgf
By fdfgdfgdgf (Oct 31, 2012)

I thought after the Pentax K-30, DPreview will post full reviews only.

0 upvotes
Barney Britton
By Barney Britton (Oct 31, 2012)

Taking pictures with a camera is part of the reviewing process. By publishing galleries, and additional p/review content we're just showing you as much as possible, as soon as possible. A review will follow ;)

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
14 upvotes
zakaria
By zakaria (Oct 31, 2012)

It may be better to hire a sufficient number of specialists to reduce the period of delay revisions.
I f you agree Iam ready!
hahah

3 upvotes
fdfgdfgdgf
By fdfgdfgdgf (Oct 31, 2012)

Thanks, The is a lot of room for high-end pocket. I like your definition for DSLR video to be used for creative and artistic purpose only.

I found myself using my Lumix LX7 on a daily basis, while using my DSLR for both photo/video only for creativity purpose.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Michael_13
By Michael_13 (Oct 31, 2012)

Just be patient.
On the one hand, people here demand artistic sample shots and on the other the full review is expected in no time.

You cannot have both.

0 upvotes
Total comments: 93