Olympus announces Stylus XZ-10 enthusiast compact

You gain the ability to blur the background more - but you also get one more factor that can go wrong in your photos and ruin them.

Hand a full frame camera to a an experienced user who's fiddling with all the settings, and you get beautifully blurred backgrounds.

Hand the same camera to someone just trying to take pics of their kids, or an experienced user who just wants to take pics without getting in their head about where exactly the depth of field and focus point is for each and every shot, and you end up with a lot of truly awful images where some people are in focus and others are not, or bizarre looking focus problems where edges of tables go from being in focus to looking unnaturally out of focus and blurry.

Having both wide apertures and a large sensor is like driving a car with a manual trasmission - if you're willing to pay attention to it *all the time*, it gives you more control, but if you don't want to constantly pay attention to it it will seriously screw things up.

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.

I'm guessing that each and every poster here interested in this camera don't need to be schooled on the minutiae of DOF equivalency. They just want a pocket camera with good IQ.

@Timm:
Have you still not learned anything from this comment page?

Your fixation on shallow DOF is very narrow minded. The most important factor of compacts - next to size - is light!
So the F1.8 does not "fool" anyone here, but is the biggest feature of this camera!

You guys don't get it do you?
FIRST, if you were even able to understand the link I sent, you would see that it allows you to also compare with a 1/17"!
SECOND (@PaulRivers) pretty much ALL the current enthusiast compacts have a better lens than this (because with a 1/1.7" the lenses are larger, thus their f2 or f1.8 opening is larger), so there really is no currently produced compact enthusiast with a worse lens.
THIRD:@all It's not just about DOF! Also relative brightness! ie: light gathering area of the sensor, coupled with the opening (this smaller lens divided by 1.8 in this case).
FOURTH: @some of you (you know who you are), you are making EXACTLY the same mistake you made when you bought your Q10: drooling over something smaller and cheaper thinking it's better.
...AND FINALLY it was just an FYI so that neophytes who are reading your myopic comments can get some TRUE FACTS and and get a better understanding of the compromises versus, say, an LX7 for example.

@Timmbits:

f1/8 (together with ISO) *determines* the shutter speed irrespective of sensor size.

That means, that if the scene reaquires 1/100s @ISO400 f/1.8 for APS-C sensor to be well exposed, then the same scene will be exposed just right by shooting 1/100s @ISO400 f/1.8 with 1/2.33" sensor.

Feel free to take APS-C camera and 1/2.33" camera and experiment. You'll see this fact (shutter speed not changing with sensor size for given ISO&aperture) yourself.

Don't let that fool you! For all you guys who think that f1.8 is a big deal on a lens this size, it is equivalent to f6.4 on an aps-c sensor camera.

1:1.8-2.7 is all about low light capabilities of the camera and not the DOF

Why anyone wants to put a huge flash on a pocket camera is beyond me. Save it for your DSLR.

Lol.. A hotshoe for compact pocketable camera...camera on the right hand pocket and the exteral flash on the left handside pocket of your pants. I wonder how do you look like when you walk or sit.

Oly 1/2.3" , canon 1/1.7" , if something is silly then it's to compare f numbers of lenses without taking notice sensor sizes. As now you are trying to say is that this tiny tiny Oly lens are brighter than for example canons 70-200 mm f/2.8 L

It's not just price. The larger the sensor the larger the front lens, all else being equal. A faster lens on the RX100 will require a larger lens.

If this camera has a list price of $350, then that means within three months you should be able to buy it for well under $300.

As far as cannibalizing your other products... if you don't do it, then someone else will. You can't avoid this unless you have a monopoly in the market.

The RX100 is $579 in the states....it is getting cheaper...and even at $650...it blows away the other small P+S.

@Geekapoo

The RX100 is $648 in the US. It hasn't dropped a single dollar in price since release day (not at any reputable dealer).

But at $650 does it blow away a similarly price camera like EPL-5 or D3200? I'm thinking no. But it is smaller...

Hey, they added raw support this time :)
And yes you're right, it seems like people were waiting something special from Olympus like the SONY RX10 and 100 were.

Why all the disappointment? It's just the little brother of the XZ-2. If they had pitched this as an RX100 competitor, moaning would have made sense, but that's not what it is. If it really does come in at $350 it will be a nice value.

the thing is, 1/2.3" sensor cameras go for $150 these days. it's gotten old a long time ago. and we are disappointed that manufacturers take us for fools when they try to put a marketing spin on something obsolete that just doesn't cut it anymore.

when labeling something "enthusiast compact" with RAW capabilities, it sort of sets the bar in terms of expectations.

The expectations I get from the label "enthusiast compact" are: RAW, PASM modes, more manual controls than a regular P&S, a (relatively) fast and sharp lens, and excellent build quality. I would add a hotshoe and a viewfinder, if pocketability weren't a concern, i.e. if we were talking about a larger camera.

Really, if a 1/1.7" sensor camera with the aforementioned features is an enthusiast compact, then surely a 1/2.3" sensor camera with the same features is also an enthusiast compact. The size difference between those sensors isn't that large, after all. Not so large, anyway, that it makes a significant difference in DoF control or IQ in real world use.

I could understand the disappointment, when Nikon marketed the P310 as an enthusiast compact, since it lacks RAW capabilities, but in the case of the XZ-10, I don't get it. If Canon S110 belongs to that category, then IMO so does this camera.

Hi, XZ-2 is not in the same size category. I would think most out here are comparing it to the S series and RX100 because of the size.

I really don't know if a faster lens can equal the bigger (better) sensor.

"This announcement is a big letdown. For once I wish even the biggest Olympus fanboys could admit that asking for a sensor to match the S90-95-100 etc. was not asking for much. 1/1.7 would have been nice."

OK, let's compare the sensors:
http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/en%C3%83%C2%A2%C3%A2%E2%80%9A%C2%AC%C3%82%C2%9D%C3%83%C2%A2%C3%A2%E2%80%9A%C2%AC%C3%8B%C5%93%C3%83%C2%A2%C3%A2%E2%80%9A%C2%AC%C3%82%C2%B0%C3%83%C2%A2%C3%A2%E2%80%9A%C2%AC%C3%82%C2%9D%C3%83%C2%A2%C3%A2%E2%80%9A%C2%AC%C3%8B%C5%93%C3%83%C2%A9%C3%82%C2%A9%C3%82%C2%B4%C3%83%C2%A2%C3%A2%E2%80%9A%C2%AC%C3%82%C2%9D%C3%83%C2%A2%C3%A2%E2%80%9A%C2%AC%C3%8B%C5%93/Cameras/Compare-Camera-Sensors/Compare-cameras-side-by-side/%28appareil1%29/743|0/%28brand%29/Canon/%28appareil2%29/722|0/%28brand2%29/Pentax

As you can see, the 1/2.3" sensor is better than 1/1.7" sensor in Canon S100, ISO 189 vs ISO 153. Technology matters more than such insignificant size difference. Now, if we are talking about 1" and higher, it is a different story.

@peevee1

Comparing one 1/2.3" sensor to the older S100 1/1.7" sensor and drawing conclusions for ALL 1/1.7" sensors may not be a best idea. DxOMark hasn't tested the newer Sony 1/1.7" BSI CMOS sensors found in the XZ-2, P7700 and G15.

The 1/2.3" BSI Sony sensor in the Q providing a bit better high ISO performance than the Canon S100 sensor doesn't mean sensor size in compacts is insignificant. Besides better DOF control, the larger 1/1.7" should give better colors, DR, and more detailed images.

Compare any Nikon P310 vs P7700 images or Pentax Q with MX-1 images, and you'll see the 1/1.7" sensor cameras with better per-pixel sharpness and detail.

And you don't even need to jump to a 1" sensor to get significant performance gains, as the 2/3" sensor from the Fuji X10 gives better high ISO performance than any compact except the RX100. You also get better DOF control than a 1/2.3" compact with a similar lens.

So sensor size is significant in more ways than one.

ok, so get an RX100 then. nobody's stopping you. also it sounds like you need to read up on equivalence.

I think you meant "couldn't care less". If you could "care less", it wouldn't be so bad. Your message is unclear due to your failure in provide a clear statement. I can only guess what you meant.

with WHAT camera can you NOT get close enough to get a semblant of DoF? this is no special capability!
and of course it is for the ignorant! when they have an XZ2, why else would they come out with this?

What camera? One that has a small sensor AND a slow lens.

The XZ-10 significantly smaller and cheaper than an XZ-2, a $600 camera.
It's not a question of "ignorant" or "in the know". For some, a small camera with a fast lens, and good enough IQ may make sense. It doesn't for me, but I wouldn't knock it based on sensor size, just as I wouldn't knock an X20 because it doesn't have a 1" or APS-C sensor. That's just silly. The average person isn't buying a P&S for beautiful bokeh shots or handheld night photography. They want pics of the kids, events, etc. For that, this camera looks more than adequate.

It's really amusing to see again the same attitude that small sensor=automatically useless.

http://raist3d.typepad.com/files/imgp4981.jpg
http://raist3d.typepad.com/files/imgp3457.jpg

http://raist3d.typepad.com/files/imgp3484.jpg

Yes because so many people these days use P&Ss to make poster sized prints and need D800 resolution and high ISO abilities from a their backup compacts. Is that it?

The fact is 1/1.7" sensor cameras like the XZ-1, G15, LX7, GRD IV, et al provide excellent IQ in extremely small packages.

Do we need our compacts to match our DSLRs? I don't. It's the images that matter most not some competition for high ISO ability or shallow DOF. Sensor size experts and measurebators don't seem to get that more opportunities for good images with good IQ beat high quality bad images or non at all.

You wake up. For me, 1/1.7" is fine. My GRD III is one of the best cameras I've ever owned, just as 2/3" is fine, just as 1" is fine. Making good images has absolutely nothing to do sensor size. Zero. Most modern digital cameras have more than enough resolution, DR, with good colors for excellent quality prints and flickr galleries. Quoting sensor sizes and relative DOF is just something that camera geeks do to show how smart they are. To a certain point, it has NOTHING to do with actual photography.

@Timmbits:
You don't see the point, because you don't get the point that even small sensors can produce great images with the right lens.

give me the max aperture of RX100 at telephoto and it's telephoto reach

who cares about cylinders if car is powerful and goes fast ?

Einstein was right... there are no limits to human stupidity.
We have the capacity to think, yet we do not!

Funny you quote Einstein and not realizing the quote may very well apply to your attitude because its in the end up to the photographers needs. It's the photographer who creates the photograph and cameras like these can provide a discreetness and price points that allow to acquire such tool that in the hands of those that need it and know photography can get good results of.

The whole small sensor=automatically useless meme has gotten quite old as professional photography done on an iPhone can attest to. Hint: that's even smaller than this sensor.

@Timm - I sure understand the concept of control over DOF. In fact, you can certainly do it with the 1/2.7'' sensored Q, with a Q lens.
http://raist3d.typepad.com/files/imgp3782.jpg

I take photographs at night *all the time*. It's one of the things I do the most actually:

ISO 5000
http://raist3d.typepad.com/files/imgp4768-1.jpg
ISO 3200
http://raist3d.typepad.com/files/imgp3887_c.jpg
ISO 1600
http://raist3d.typepad.com/files/imgp7624.jpg
ISO 6400
http://raist3d.typepad.com/files/q_6400_f1_9.jpg
ISO 4000
http://raist3d.typepad.com/files/imgp6993.jpg

Here's what you need to understand:
- DOF control is not just being able to do shallow DOF. Maybe you want a lot of depth. There are photographers that want this. This means these cameras can be a match for them- even if they are not for you!
Here is a good photography article on that:
http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2012/06/in-defense-of-depth.html

What you need to understand is that there are pros and cons in everything. Just because something does not meet your needs does not mean it may not work for someone else. As a point of example: the Q allows me to be very discreet for street life and literally wear the camera. I have a K-5 which is amazing/outstanding in low light and tonality but I don't carry it or wear it with me.

Oh and you bet if I pull out a K-5 (even though that's small for a DSLR) I will bring more attention to myself as a street photographer than a Q. A Nikon D3/D4 can be great, but it's not a tank I want to carry around. It all depends what you are trying to do as a photographer. Do not write these cameras as useless blindly based on a sensor size or just because they do not work for you.

If you can't fathom a use for them at least for someone else, you have to ask yourself if your focus is too much on gear and not photography. Just imho of course.

With current sensor technology, there is negligeable difference between 1/1.7 and 1/2.3 sensors until ISO400. Upwards the former takes the lead clearly. So with this fast lens, Olympus is giving another compromise: smaller sensor but fast all the way and yet pocketable. it does have a market.

don't pay any attention to them Liz... they are noobs who don't know what DoF is, and have no idea about the laws of physics!

Timm - I wouldn't be calling people noobs if the gallery you have on your gallery on dpreview is representative of your work

Raist, do you have dual profiles on here? otherwise, why take offense to someone else's ignorance? if not having felt the comment applied to yourself as well?

Indeed, that is definitely a discussion under a different product. the reason why the RX100 gets a smaller aperture at full zoom, is because otherwise, you would have too much chromatic aberration... a design compromise they had to make, in order to cram a sensor and lens that size, into such a small package. with MFT, the compromises would be even more severe, so it wouldn't make any sense to even attempt it.
However, what WOULD be nice, is to see an MFT competitor to the Nikon-1 system's space, with a fixed lens (sort of like a slightly larger RX100, from Panasonic or Olympus), would make lots of sense. But you know WHY they won't do it? Because no one would buy their interchangeable lens MFT cameras anymore, their revenues would plummet, and they will have engineered themselves out of business (especially Olympus, with their already precarious position).

Timmbits, MFT is head and shoulders above Nikon 1 system. Olympus and Panasonic need not compete with a stillborn system that is inferior in every respect.
You seem to have failed to grasp micro 4/3's purpose, which is to offer near DSLR-like image quality in a small package.

@MANUEL: either you misunderstood me, or I am a poor communicator... regardless, I was only expanding on what you were saying. I was trying to explain WHY the rx100 has certain design limitations (which come from a 1" sensor in such a small package) - like f4.9 at tele, and these design decisions would have to be even stricter if we thought of putting an even larger sensor into such a small package, hence why they couldn't hope to put an mft into the rx100's size.
AND... I was also trying to say, that it WOULD be nice if there WAS a fixed lens MFT camera, to oust the impertinent Nikon-1 out of it's space... An aps-c would be a bit too large for us to wish for that... but an MFT might be a feasible possibility.
But again, this is beyond the scope of the discussion under the xz10. ;)

I found it here: http://www.compudeals2u.com

The price on the LX7 varies widely. I bought several from Panasonic Direct and Amazon for $299 at Christmas.

There were some additional Christmas discounts that made it $279 at some of the smaller stores.

The difference between $279 and $299 should be irrelevant. It is an outstanding deal anywhere south of $350.

I'll just mention...the Compudeals folks pointed out to me the $279 unit is manufactured in Turkey. That has cooled my ardor...

@Camp Freddy: no need to catch black cats; try to take a picture inside poorly lit room and you are at ISO3200 even with f1,8 (had an f1,8 compact, so I know).

Exactly iudex. Next reply you'll get is "then use a flash", then you and I can have a good laugh.

C

I can't believe anybody with a brain would compare a lens covering a 1/2.33" sensor to one covering a 1" sensor based solely on f-stop. In equivalent aperture, the RX100 is faster at tele and twice as fast at wide (it's a compact, wide is all that matters).

And I didn't just compare it to an RX100. I also compared it to the plethora of 1/1.7" cameras on the market at that pricepoint which deliver better light gathering.