Previous news story    Next news story

Olympus announces Stylus XZ-10 enthusiast compact

By dpreview staff on Jan 30, 2013 at 11:07 GMT
Buy on GearShop$399.00

Olympus has announced the Stylus XZ-10 enthusiast compact - a smaller, cheaper addition to the range alongside the well-regarded XZ-2. It's built around a 26-130mm equivalent F1.8-2.7 lens, coupled with a 12MP 1/2.3" type backlit CMOS sensor that offers ISOs up to 6400 and sensor-shift image stabilization. It can record 1080p Full HD movies with stereo sound, with Multi-motion Movie IS to reduce blur while walking. The 3" 920k dot LCD is touch-sensitive, but unlike the XZ-2's doesn't tilt, which helps make the camera slimmer. The package is rounded off by a full set of manual controls including a customizable round-lens control ring, but there's no hot shoe or support for an external EVF. It'll be available from March 2013 for £349.99 in black, brown or white.

We'll have a chance to use a pre-production XZ-10 in the next few hours at the CP+ shot in Yokohama. We won't be able to post images, but we will be able to post first impressions.

Jump to:


Press Release:

Ultra-portable, ultra-usable and still ultra-bright. New XZ-10 cements STYLUS’ high-end compact crown

Olympus adds super-lightweight XZ to class-leading compact range

London, 30 January 2013 – For photography enthusiasts looking for a high-end compact that delivers outstanding images even in low light, the game-changing STYLUS XZ range stands out from the rest. And now Olympus has made the range even stronger, with the addition of the slender STYLUS XZ-10. Even by XZ standards, the XZ-10 is extremely compact and light, but it is also extremely well equipped and boasts many of the features that make the flagship STYLUS XZ-2 such a remarkable camera. It has a super-bright 1:1.8-stop zoom lens, pro-style manual settings, ISO 6400, a 12-Megapixel backlit CMOS sensor and the powerful TruePic VI image processor used in the Olympus OM-D. The lens gives you 26mm* wide-angle flexibility, a 5x optical zoom and excellent 1:2.7-aperture brightness even at maximum zoom. The XZ-10 also boasts a host of clever feature upgrades such as 120fps high-speed HD movie recording and Photo Story, which lets you shoot a group of still photos with Art Filters straight into attractive, pre-prepared layouts that are ready for sharing without the need for more work on a computer. The XZ-10 offers an ideal combination of optical brilliance, pocket-sized design and the usability required to shoot and share every day on the fly. It will be available from late March 2013 for just £349.99, in black, brown or white.

A perfect 10

For people who like to carry their camera with them all the time, the STYLUS XZ-10 is the perfect high-end compact. It’s about 40% smaller by volume** than the classic STYLUS XZ-2, but still offers all the advantages of a super-bright, large-aperture i.ZUIKO DIGITAL 1:1.8-2.7 wide zoom lens that retains its brightness right across the zoom range. The XZ-10 delivers light-rich, 1.8 f-stop performance at a 26mm* wide angle and 1:2.7 at maximum 5x zoom. Together with ISO 6400 plus Olympus’ advanced iHS image processing and CMOS sensor technologies, this superb lens gives you new creative potential by expanding the range of shots you can take. From 1-cm macros to expansive landscapes and expressive portraits to inspirational mixed-light scenes, you can be confident of getting just the effect you have in mind. You can defocus the background to generate professional-looking bokeh. Or shoot blur-free images in difficult light without a tripod – by selecting a short exposure time and Handheld Starlight Mode with Flash. Even at high ISO settings, iHS technologies deliver low noise and radiant colours with crisp details and rich gradation in both dark and light parts of your shot.

Convenient customisation

Unlike most compacts, the XZ-10 lets you work your settings like a pro. Just like the STYLUS flagship XZ-2, it has a customisable control ring around the lens for adjusting key parameters manually, without taking your eye off your subject. Aperture, exposure time and program shift are some of the settings available via the control ring. Alternatively, for fast access to ISO or metering, you can assign these to the Fn button on the back of the camera to ensure quick, easy handling on the go.

Intuitive intelligence

On top of the manual settings, an array of practical features makes the XZ-10 one of the most intuitive high-end all-rounders to use. If you prefer to let electronics do more of the work, you might start with the 3-inch, quickresponse touch-sensitive LCD. With one tap of your finger, it can focus on fast-moving subjects and trigger your shot. Alternatively, simply switch on Live Guide or enhanced i-Auto. Transferring stills and 1080p Full HD movies is just as intuitive. The XZ-10 is FlashAir™ compatible so you can connect to your cloud or a social network website using your familiar smartphone interface and an optional FlashAir™ memory card.

Colour No.2 for the XZ-2

From February 2013, the award-winning STYLUS flagship XZ-2 will be available for the first time in white (as well as black), for £479.99. Professionals and ambitious hobby photographers appreciate the XZ-2 for its outstanding image quality that stems in part from its large 1/1.7” backlit CMOS sensor. It’s also popular for its full range of customisable manual controls and accessories, which are reminiscent of a system camera. The LCD on the XZ-2 is tiltable to help with shooting low down or above head height and it goes one better than the new XZ-10 with a digital/analogue customisable hybrid control ring. Like a system camera, the XZ-2 has an accessory port and is compatible with a wide range of dedicated add-ons that includes an external flash, electronic viewfinder, automatic lens cap, body jacket and a dedicated underwater housing.

XZ-10 outstanding features:

Imaging Quality

  • 1:1.8-2.7 super-bright, large aperture 5x wide i.ZUIKO DIGITAL zoom lens (26-130mm*) for superb image resolution
  • iHS technologies for capturing exactly the shots you want with rich colour and low noise, irrespective of shooting conditions
  • 12 Megapixel backlit 1/2.3” CMOS sensor for high-resolution, superb quality full-size movies, stills and prints
  • Powerful TruePic VI image engine for faster recovery time and shutter release plus excellent image quality
  • Low Light Mode for sharper, more atmospheric shots in low light
  • 1080p Full HD Movie with stereo sound for capturing movies in the best image quality currently available in compact cameras
  • Multi-motion Movie IS for recording Full HD movies with reduced blur while walking
  • HDR Backlight Adjustment for ideal exposure when shooting against the light
  • Handheld Starlight Mode with Flash for shooting perfectly lit, blur-free photos at night without a tripod and despite contrasting light
  • 10x with Super-resolution Zoom for digitally extending the range of the optical zoom with virtually no loss of image quality

Usability

  • 3.0” touch-sensitive LCD (920,000 dots) with fast response
  • Touch AF for focussing automatically on the subject you touch
  • Manual controls for fast and easy professional adjustments
  • Customisable control ring for fast, intuitive control of key program parameters Live Guide and i-Auto for easy operation – even by beginners

Creativity & Flexibility

  • 11 Art Filters and their variations for adding creative effects to HD movies and stills: Cross Process, Diorama, Dramatic Tone, Gentle Sepia, Grainy Film, Key Line, Light Tone, Pale & Light Colour, Pin Hole, Pop Art and Soft Focus
  • Photo Story for automatically capturing, storing and sharing photos in a stylish, ready-made, collage-style layout
  • Storage & Sharing SDHC™ and SDXC™ memory card compatible, including UHS-I support FlashAir™ card compatible for transferring password-protected images to selected smartphones and social networks
  • Free iOS and Android software downloads for editing and sharing images in social networks via smartphone or tablet PC
  • Eye-Fi Card compatibility for automatic wireless uploading of images to a website or PC

Other

  • High ISO up to 6400 for excellent imaging despite poor light
  • Multi-Aspect ratios for the ideal format (16:9, 3:2, 4:3 or 1:1)

* 35mm equivalent
** based on external dimensions

Olympus Stylus XZ-10 specifications

Body type
Body typeCompact
Sensor
Max resolution3968 x 2976
Image ratio w:h1:1, 4:3, 3:2, 16:9
Effective pixels12 megapixels
Sensor photo detectors13 megapixels
Sensor size1/2.3" (6.17 x 4.55 mm)
Sensor typeBSI-CMOS
Color spacesRGB
Image
ISOAuto, 100 - 6400
White balance presets7
Custom white balanceYes (2)
Image stabilizationSensor-shift
Uncompressed formatRAW
File format
  • RAW (12-bit lossless compression)
  • JPEG
  • RAW+JPEG
Optics & Focus
Focal length (equiv.)26–130 mm
Optical zoom5×
Maximum apertureF1.8 - F2.7
Autofocus
  • Contrast Detect (sensor)
  • Tracking
  • Single
  • Face Detection
Manual focusYes
Normal focus range10 cm (3.94)
Macro focus range1 cm (0.39)
Number of focus points35
Screen / viewfinder
Articulated LCDFixed
Screen size3
Screen dots920,000
Touch screenYes
Live viewYes
Viewfinder typeNone
Photography features
Minimum shutter speed30 sec
Maximum shutter speed1/2000 sec
Exposure modes
  • iAuto
  • Programme
  • Aperture priority
  • Shutter priority
  • Manual
  • Scene select AE
  • Art Filter
Built-in flashYes (Pop-up)
External flashYes (Via wireless control only (no hot shoe))
Flash modesAuto, On, Off, Red-Eye, Fill-in, Wireless
Drive modes
  • Single-frame shooting, Sequential shooting, High-speed shooting, BKT, Self-timer
Continuous drive5 fps
Self-timerYes (2 or 12 sec)
Metering modes
  • Multi
  • Center-weighted
  • Spot
Exposure compensation±3 (at 1/3 EV steps)
AE Bracketing (3 frames at 1/3 EV, 2/3 EV, 1 EV steps)
Videography features
Resolutions1920 x 1080 (30 fps, 18Mbps), 1280 x 720 (30 fps, 9Mbps)
FormatMPEG-4, H.264
MicrophoneStereo
SpeakerMono
Storage
Storage typesSD/SDHC/SDXC
Connectivity
USB USB 2.0 (480 Mbit/sec)
HDMIYes (Mini HDMI type-D)
WirelessEye-Fi Connected
Physical
Environmentally sealedNo
BatteryBattery Pack
Battery descriptionLithium-Ion Li-50B rechargeable battery & charger
Battery Life (CIPA)240
Weight (inc. batteries)221 g (0.49 lb / 7.80 oz)
Dimensions102 x 61 x 34 mm (4.03 x 2.41 x 1.35)
Other features
GPSNone

Additional images

28
I own it
8
I want it
1
I had it
Discuss in the forums
Our favorite products. Free 2 day shipping.
Support this site, buy from dpreview GearShop.
Olympus Stylus XZ-10

Comments

Total comments: 198
12
wlsinwi
By wlsinwi (Feb 8, 2013)

Hi new member here. I really like this camera it hit's the features I want -
low light lens, compact size, FlashAir compatible, etc. But no answer on whether it has a real USB port either mini or micro. I feel the time for proprietary AV/USB cables is over. If it has mini HDMI what more do you need? I want my USB chargers to work without having to carry a special cable just for the camera.
anybody know yet?

0 upvotes
David Bourke
By David Bourke (Feb 1, 2013)

I would really like an XZ-2 for myself, but I need to buy my wife a new camera. The price point, size, video capability and Oly jpgs will be great for her. RAW and manual controls will be great for me when I need to use it. It certainly will not replace my DSLR.

I will probably buy this camera this summer.

0 upvotes
jimr
By jimr (Feb 1, 2013)

After all our speculation about the IQ, the only way we will know for sure is when we can see samples and tests.
Until then, we are all using educated assumptions.

0 upvotes
Revenant
By Revenant (Feb 1, 2013)

"Until then, we are all using educated assumptions."

That's quite an assumption.

2 upvotes
mjdundee
By mjdundee (Jan 31, 2013)

Extremely nice looking camera.
Almost as nice as my S 95 - and I am afraid not half as nice when it comes to peeping the pixels. Thanks Oly for the design robbery and shame on you that you are stepping backwards - away from the enthusiast photographers.

3 upvotes
mjdundee
By mjdundee (Feb 2, 2013)

p.s.
cmon Canon - steal it back and make it a S120 with a 1/1.7 CCD sensor. This would make the camera a must have for everyone who wants to upgrade from a compact and the ones who are looking for a backup for their DSLR.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 53 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
robmanueb
By robmanueb (Feb 3, 2013)

Luckily cameras are so generic that we still get a bit of copying and stealing without constant lawsuits a la Apple/Samsung. Without this we would be stuck in the dark ages paying a fortune for a simple camera.

1 upvote
wymjym
By wymjym (Jan 31, 2013)

I will seriously consider this camera if---IF---it has a built in nd filter and it doesn't have some big 'gottchas'.

wj

0 upvotes
Piet Maartens
By Piet Maartens (Feb 1, 2013)

Me too. According to the Olympus UK website the XZ-10 has a ND filter, see ‘Extra exposure control’ at the bottom of the following page:
http://www.olympus.co.uk/site/en/c/cameras/digital_cameras/creator/xz_10/xz_10_features_l.html

0 upvotes
PaulRivers
By PaulRivers (Jan 31, 2013)

Unfortunately, I sounds like this still isn't s100 sized though. The biggest factor in a "jeans pocketable" camera is it's depth.

If the specs are right -
s100 - 26.7 mm
xz-10 - 34 mm
rx100 - 36 mm
lx7 - 46 mm

I'm not saying "omg it's useless" - it still has a niche in that it's *much* cheaper than the rx100, and it's low light performance *after* you start zooming will probably be about the same because of it's better apertures when you zoom. And it costs half as much.

It's just (unfortunately) not as jeans-pocketable as an s100, and doesn't have the f1.4 performance of the lens on the lx7.

1 upvote
Timmbits
By Timmbits (Jan 31, 2013)

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.

1 upvote
PaulRivers
By PaulRivers (Jan 31, 2013)

It seems to me like you're just using deliberately confusing language to be sensationalistic.

Depth of field is not the primary reason why people buy a compact with better aperture values. Better low light performance is. It is true that because of the sensor size differences, a dslr or larger sensored camera with an f1.8 lens will absolutely perform better than a compact with a an f1.8 lens. s100 vs "crop" dslr comparisons are usually around a 2 stop advantage to the dslr.

But this still does not change that you are getting better low light performance out of a compact with a better lens than you are out of a compact with a worse lens.

The secondary characteristic of aperture and sensor size is depth of field. However, "more depth of field" is a double edged sword in that it brings in as many problems as it provides advantages.

(continued)

6 upvotes
PaulRivers
By PaulRivers (Jan 31, 2013)

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.

3 upvotes
Greynerd
By Greynerd (Jan 31, 2013)

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.

5 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (Jan 31, 2013)

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.

3 upvotes
Michael_13
By Michael_13 (Jan 31, 2013)

@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!

3 upvotes
T_O_M_E_K
By T_O_M_E_K (Jan 31, 2013)

Let me try a different way to explain why f/1.8 is a HUGE deal with any size sensor.

Example:

You are shooting ISO 400 test in same conditions and time. You have XZ-10 and D7000 with kit lens (ex. only, use any camera with kit lens, they usually start at 28mm and f/3.5)
XZ-10 set @ 26mm at lowest f/1.8 had shutter speed of 1/30s.
D7000 set @ 28mm at lowest f/3.5 had to use 1/8s.

I don’t know about you but at 1/30s I will get a sharp picture.
On APS-C or even FF sensor shot at 1/8s not only I would have nicely blurred background (remember DoF) but also main subject.

You could use lower shutter speed on camera like XZ-10 to get sharp results because distance from the front of the lens to sensor will be shorter then the same distance on DSLR. When I used 35mm film SLR I learned that for every lens with X (mm) focal length I should use 1/Xs shutter speed to get sharp pictures. Why? 28mm lens was around 28mm in length (1/30s). 300mm lens around 300mm in length (1/250s or 1/500s).

0 upvotes
Timmbits
By Timmbits (Feb 1, 2013)

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.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 10 minutes after posting
1 upvote
Timmbits
By Timmbits (Feb 1, 2013)

@TOMEK: you are way out of your depth!
on a APSC, you could have f6 as an equivalent to the f1.8 on a 1/2.3" sensor! And you could use a much much faster shutter speed on the APSC at f3.5 than on this one at f1.8.

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Rachotilko
By Rachotilko (Feb 1, 2013)

@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.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 2 minutes after posting
3 upvotes
ANAYV
By ANAYV (Feb 1, 2013)

We are looking at a lens that gathers as much light as on a FF sensor.
It's just the DOF will be very different. Huge DOF with this small sensor...and Narrow DOF if this lens is in front of a FF sensor.

So light gathering principles are the same, regardless of sensor size. For these small sensored camera's, we would want faster glass, as that would keep the iso low, where the IQ is good....not so good once leaving base iso.

1 upvote
dpLarry
By dpLarry (Jan 31, 2013)

1/2.3" sensor...
I'd rather have 8mp on that thank you.

2 upvotes
chile7236
By chile7236 (Jan 31, 2013)

why couldn't they make the XZ2 this compact?

1 upvote
ageha
By ageha (Jan 31, 2013)

With a 1/2.3" sensor? Why should they use a smaller sensor?

1 upvote
zodiacfml
By zodiacfml (Jan 31, 2013)

it has a hotshoe and bigger lens.

0 upvotes
BruceB609
By BruceB609 (Jan 31, 2013)

Any real focal length control?

I'm a huge admirer and former user of Olympus FT but then Olympus should wonder why I now use a Nikon D7000 and Canon S100 to shoot street scenes instead of using mFT or an XZ. I need these photos for painting as a pro artist. These photos go to imaging and it's a giant task level less when perspectives match.

Regarding the XZ, I asked Olympus about selective zoom. It was "unavailable." Without it, images vary in perspectives and are less useful for composing. On the S and G series, Canon seems to have a grasp with selective lengths settings. And for the larger mFT camera, Olympus again seems too zoom oriented over primes. If they can't produce more normal length primes for mFT then I wish Olympus would, at least, be more sensitive to selective zoom control on XZ. Such a small compact can save the day without the larger camera with me but zoom fill bars and guessing isn't enough to meet the objective.

0 upvotes
idnab
By idnab (Jan 31, 2013)

It is a regrettable omission in my view as well if there is really no step zooming function. As I have experienced with a Ricoh GX100 - and there are a few other well known models - this is of great value when practicing composition and perspective control.

0 upvotes
rpm40
By rpm40 (Feb 1, 2013)

You can choose from the following m4/3 primes: 12 2.0, 14 2.5, 17 2.8, 17 1.8, 19 2.8, 20 1.7, 25 1.4, 30 1.8, 45 1.8, 45 1.8, all native m4/3 lenses. That isn't enough standard primes for you yet?

0 upvotes
BruceB609
By BruceB609 (Feb 3, 2013)

I have a FT lens system and Nikon AIs and AF... and they'll all work, to an extent, with mFT along with the lenses you mention but this isn't relative to why Olympus omits XZ zoom control that Canon has on the S and G series. Too bad they haven't gone the extra inch but for me and my perspective control, zoom needs presets on XZ. If I appear to be overly expectant on such a small compact it's because I may not have the preferred camera with me at the moment of great opportunity... or desperation. Kind of like lifeboats when the ship is missing.

0 upvotes
zodiacfml
By zodiacfml (Jan 31, 2013)

Same concern with sensor size. It's not that it is going to be bad in low light but in high contrast situations where highlights easily get blown and at a quality level similar to smartphones. Olympus should start installing larger sensors and I'm willing to accept vignetting, soft corners, CA at wide apertures.

2 upvotes
tkbslc
By tkbslc (Jan 31, 2013)

How can so many of the commenters forget that the XZ-1 and XZ-2 exist?

3 upvotes
zodiacfml
By zodiacfml (Jan 31, 2013)

I'm a big fan of the XZ-1 but to me there's imbalance using a compact camera sensor to a great, huge lens with manual controls. We know that there's a camera out there with a one inch sensor that is even more compact.

0 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (Jan 31, 2013)

Since the XZ-2 uses a Sony sensor, I'm guessing the XZ-10 uses the same 12 mp BSI CMOS Sony sensor that the Pentax Q uses. I've owned the Q, and IQ in RAW is very good. Maybe not the same level of detail, or per-pixel sharpness of larger sensor compacts, but good IQ nonetheless.

But the XZ-10 looks like a capable camera with a well-done small case and hopefully good IQ. For this price, I'd prefer an MX-1 which is only slightly larger with a similar lens, but I have a fondness for retro cameras like the MX-1 and X20. Others may have different needs. That's why we have so many choices.

1 upvote
zxaar
By zxaar (Jan 31, 2013)

i think this is 1 up on Q because if i exclude fisheye the widest lens for Q is 28mm while this gives you 26mm. Still both of them not there where i want them to be. Want 24mm.

0 upvotes
Richard Murdey
By Richard Murdey (Jan 31, 2013)

1:1.8-2.7

Wow. That's all you need to know, right there.

3 upvotes
zxaar
By zxaar (Jan 31, 2013)

it is actually pretty good considering it has 26mm lens.

2 upvotes
Timmbits
By Timmbits (Jan 31, 2013)

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.

Comment edited 30 seconds after posting
1 upvote
ARTASHES
By ARTASHES (Jan 31, 2013)

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

3 upvotes
Timmbits
By Timmbits (Feb 1, 2013)

@artashes: don't forget that a "26mm equivalent" lens of a 1/2.3" camera is smaller than a 26mm equivalent lens of a 1/1.7" camera. thus the f1.8 opening is smaller too. do the math. it is not as bright as the current f1.8 - 1/1.7" lot - it's closer to the brightness of a f2.4 on a 1/1.7"

0 upvotes
rpm40
By rpm40 (Feb 1, 2013)

Timm,
You do know this equivalence stuff has no effect on shutter speed right? 1.8 is 1.8 when you're exposing your shot. You will be using much lower ISOs. If you use the long end of the zoom at all, this will be on par with the rx100, and beat the s100.

I'm really not sure why you're obsessing about dof with point and shoots. It's a big deal with big sensors, but on these cameras it's really about keeping the ISO down in low light. You're not going to be getting many dreamy backgrounds in your portraits with these things, no- but that's not what they're intended for. Right tool for the right job..

3 upvotes
jon404
By jon404 (Jan 31, 2013)

Sounds like an upgraded SZ-series camera. Smaller sensor than the real XZs, and no hotshoe.

I need that hotshoe. Looking at the XZ-2. We'll see.

1 upvote
zodiacfml
By zodiacfml (Jan 31, 2013)

Same. I just need that hotshoe for an external flash.

1 upvote
The A-Team
By The A-Team (Jan 31, 2013)

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

3 upvotes
mauijohn
By mauijohn (Jan 31, 2013)

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.

2 upvotes
Michael_13
By Michael_13 (Feb 3, 2013)

A-Team:
I am just working on my pics of a recent indoor-celebration. They came out quite nicely. And guess what: I used a compact with a flash!
Only because you cannot imagine it, doesn't mean that it won't make sense!

1 upvote
JackM
By JackM (Jan 31, 2013)

The comparisons to the Canon S100 are really silly. This camera solves the biggest glaring problem of the S100, the slow lens. The XZ-10 is 2 1/3 stops faster at the long end (and 10mm longer). The S100 is already f/4 at only 50mm, more than a full stop slower than the XZ-10's slowest aperture. The lens more than makes up for the tiny difference in sensor size.

Don't talk about DOF. Both the S100's and XZ-10's tiny sensors have practically infinite DOF. If you are worried about DOF you are in the wrong market segment.

Nice job Olympus. By the way I have an S100, in addition to my dslr.

Comment edited 37 seconds after posting
6 upvotes
rallyfan
By rallyfan (Jan 31, 2013)

Still there are some similarities; both Canon and Olympus use a ring for settings. I think it's a good idea, I find it practical. Honestly I like Oly jpg files a bit better but I bet those will vary quite a bit from model to model.

You're right though, the S100 isn't in the same category. I don't think that is what Olympus were after with this offering.

I think many are rushing to judge without even waiting for a test. It's a bit surprising how a small cam can be polarizing when in effect it barely just came into existence.

0 upvotes
reinish
By reinish (Jan 31, 2013)

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

1 upvote
dpLarry
By dpLarry (Jan 31, 2013)

You are right about the lens being brighter.

However 1/2.3" sensor and 1/1.7 sensor is Not a "Tiny difference in sensor size".

1 upvote
2eyesee
By 2eyesee (Jan 31, 2013)

A 1/2.3" sensor and dpreview call this an 'enthusiast' compact? I'm sure any 'enthusiast' would be willing to sacrifice some range for a bigger sensor.

I can't take a camera with anything less than a 1/1.7" sensor seriously these days.

4 upvotes
The A-Team
By The A-Team (Jan 31, 2013)

I'm all for larger sensors too, but really? The rest of the feature set is there. Did you note that aperture/zoom range? I'll take f2.7 at the long end over the f5.9 of my S100 any day...

The real enthusiasts make great pictures instead of whining about specs.

4 upvotes
rallyfan
By rallyfan (Jan 30, 2013)

Argh, the "blurry background" lot are at it again.

If you don't have astigmatism yet desperately feel your backgrounds simply must look as if you do, what can I say other than go buy another camera.

A blurry background won't save your images. I doubt anything can.

Then there's the "wider lens, nobody uses 100mm+" crowd. My only hope is that you stay out of the photographers' way as you try to get oh-so-closer with your wide angle lenses...

11 upvotes
Timmbits
By Timmbits (Jan 31, 2013)

TROLL

1 upvote
AngryCorgi
By AngryCorgi (Jan 30, 2013)

I'm proud of Olympus for NOT going with a 16MP sensor. From what I've seen, the 12MP files from BSICMOS sensors are considerably better than the output from the 16MP BSICMOS sensors. It appears that in the bump from 12 to 16, the makers of the sensors have not made the improvements necessary to make the most of the added information, and the glass usually isn't up to snuff on compacts either.

4 upvotes
intensity studios
By intensity studios (Jan 30, 2013)

cool story, bro

2 upvotes
tompabes2
By tompabes2 (Jan 30, 2013)

YES!!! That's what I was waiting for!

0 upvotes
g7star
By g7star (Jan 30, 2013)

Everyone's basically saying Olympus needs Sony sensor(or tight body), and Sony needs Olympus lens. Hopefully they come out with one sometime soon.

3 upvotes
tkbslc
By tkbslc (Jan 30, 2013)

If RX100 with f4.9 lens is $650, then RX100 with f2.7 lens is probably $999.

0 upvotes
SkiHound
By SkiHound (Jan 30, 2013)

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.

3 upvotes
Timmbits
By Timmbits (Jan 31, 2013)

Just to dispell any misconceptions, the RX100 is an f1.8 on the wide end, and f4.9 on tele.

0 upvotes
tkbslc
By tkbslc (Jan 31, 2013)

That's pretty obvious, Timmbits. But nobody is aksing for the wide end to be faster.

4 upvotes
Henry Falkner
By Henry Falkner (Jan 30, 2013)

It looks like quite a reasonable pocket P&S. Full manual settings and a customisable ring I have not had since the SP-570UZ 20x zoom bridge camera from 2008 (I still own it). The 12MP BSI CMOS sensor should be low on noise and artifacts. I hope the flash is an LED type. The one in my SZ-30MR is surprisingly powerful, and it does not annoy our cat.

3 upvotes
tkbslc
By tkbslc (Jan 30, 2013)

The f2.7 130mm equiv telephoto (~9mm aperture) more than makes up for the smaller sensor when comparing to many premium compacts.

It should have more bg blur at full zoom than an LX5, LX7, EX2f, S110, and RX100 to name a few.

f9.9-14.9 "effective" aperture (since dpreview likes to use that with these kinds of cameras), but at a longer effective focal length than many premium compacts.

0 upvotes
Simon97
By Simon97 (Jan 30, 2013)

I'm going to wait foe the reviews. The 12mp BSI in the Pentax Q was a match with the G12, so it has potential.

2 upvotes
photo perzon
By photo perzon (Jan 30, 2013)

XZ-10 is wider and taller than Sony RX100. And just a tiny bit thinner. So it is not as small as the Canon S100.

I'm sure it will be a great camera. But the Sony will still loom over it.

1 upvote
nosnoop
By nosnoop (Jan 30, 2013)

Why no 5-axis stabilization?

If they can put the 5-axis stabilization in lower priced SH-50, why would they not put it in their "premium" XZ compact? This would go a long way to justify its price.

1 upvote
Timmbits
By Timmbits (Jan 30, 2013)

don't forget the little robotic arm that will press the shutter button for you too! ;-p

6 upvotes
zxaar
By zxaar (Jan 30, 2013)

@ Timmbits , it will still be overpriced for what it is. Do you want to add few more things so that oly can justify the price.

0 upvotes
TrojMacReady
By TrojMacReady (Jan 30, 2013)

Where did you see the $350 price? I've only seen GBP 350 and €450. That's 20 to 22% less than current RX100 prices.

0 upvotes
Cy Cheze
By Cy Cheze (Jan 30, 2013)

A back-lit 1/2.3" sensor, in conjunction with a F1.8 - F2.7 aperture range, truly will offer better image and low-light results than the usual P&S camera. A $350 price is also a lot below the $650 wants for the RX100, or the circa $450 prices of various 1/1.7" sensor alternatives, which are also heavier or larger cameras.

Thus, the XZ-10 really does fill a particular niche in between other competitors, in terms of performance or price. The real question is whether people happy with phone cameras will bother to buy a P&S that performs a little better, though not enough for the usual Facebook viewer to notice. People who shop for a camera that does what a phone does not might not think in terms of aperture at all, but seek something with longer zoom or water resistance.

Question #2 is whether sales of the XZ-10 will improve Oly's overall sales volume, or simply cannibalize a share that would otherwise consist of XZ-2, Tough, or PEN cameras.

3 upvotes
Timmbits
By Timmbits (Jan 30, 2013)

the rx100 is only at that price point, because they can get away with it... and because other manufacturers are not competing. if other manufacturers would offer more, the rx100 would be a lot cheaper.

7 upvotes
Marty4650
By Marty4650 (Jan 30, 2013)

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.

3 upvotes
Geekapoo
By Geekapoo (Jan 30, 2013)

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

1 upvote
marike6
By marike6 (Jan 31, 2013)

@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...

2 upvotes
Kodachrome200
By Kodachrome200 (Jan 31, 2013)

I got an e-pl5 instead. cheaper and still very manageble sized. much better camera in every possible way too

0 upvotes
Kirppu
By Kirppu (Jan 30, 2013)

Crew of photo enthusiast grouping together to pitch about P&S camera for not having big enough sensor. :D
This just a little brother of XZ-2 which is also an P&S camera. You know they sell these for the masses in the markets and online shops. By next quarter this will probably be 100 pucks cheaper. People who are looking for IQ and shallow DOF should not even bother comment this camera...
And who here all ready know how good P&S IQ this cam has?

1 upvote
Timmbits
By Timmbits (Jan 30, 2013)

I guess we are just all expressing our disappointment at this field not evolving, but rather taking a step back.

The mere existence of all these comments, lays testimony to the fact that many are watching closely developments and product introductions, because some needs are obviously not being met.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
3 upvotes
Kirppu
By Kirppu (Jan 30, 2013)

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.

2 upvotes
MarkInSF
By MarkInSF (Jan 30, 2013)

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.

1 upvote
Timmbits
By Timmbits (Jan 31, 2013)

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.

Comment edited 39 seconds after posting
2 upvotes
Revenant
By Revenant (Jan 31, 2013)

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.

1 upvote
Revenant
By Revenant (Jan 31, 2013)

I just wanted to add that what I meant by no significant difference in my previous post, was that if DoF and ultimate IQ is your main concern, then you really shouldn't be looking at any of these small sensor cameras. You don't cross some magical line between 1/2.3" and 1/1.7", separating the ignorant masses from the real enthusiasts.

Anyway, I think that lens quality is a more important differentiator than sensor size, when comparing 1/1.7" and 1/2.3" sensor cameras.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
mcshan
By mcshan (Jan 30, 2013)

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.

Makes me appreciate the RX100 even more.

3 upvotes
JackM
By JackM (Jan 30, 2013)

Umm, XZ-2?

It's probably a wash between the XZ-10 and the S100 - the much faster lens in the XZ-10 probably more than makes up for the smaller sensor.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
3 upvotes
mcshan
By mcshan (Jan 30, 2013)

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.

Comment edited 5 minutes after posting
3 upvotes
peevee1
By peevee1 (Jan 30, 2013)

"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.

1 upvote
marike6
By marike6 (Jan 30, 2013)

@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.

3 upvotes
PicOne
By PicOne (Jan 31, 2013)

What is with people saying that fast apertures make up for small sensors? If I shoot at 1/60 f/5.6 (because those are the settings I want to shoot at) at ISO 800, a larger sensor should be better, right? Actually to match DOF, I will need a smaller aperture on a larger sensored camera.. so I guess I need to up the ISO... then what?

0 upvotes
JackM
By JackM (Jan 31, 2013)

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

1 upvote
JackRoch
By JackRoch (Jan 31, 2013)

even better: get a url shortener

0 upvotes
GeraldW
By GeraldW (Jan 30, 2013)

Hey Timm, lighten up. There are a few 1/2.3" sensor cameras around that do quite well up to ISO 800, and with the fast lens, that will seldom be needed. What cameras? Panasonic FZ150, FZ200, and ZS15, Canon SX230HS, SD4000IS, Pentax Q.

The Sony RX100 as a competitor isn't valid, as the street price in the USA will be 2:1. It won't sell unless it's under $300. The Canon S110 is valid as a competitor, and Olympus would seem to have chosen a faster lens to offset the larger sensor; but slower lens, of the S110. At full zoom, the XZ10 has a 2 stop advantage.

As far as DOF control, I think it's funny that what was considered a drawback 50 years ago is now touted as a feature. I started as a serious hobbyist in 1955, and somewhere along the way, "selective focus" became a new way to compose. For many situations, a large DOF is an advantage.

This camera is obviously not for you, and maybe not for me (I have an S90 and a G15); but I can see a number of valid uses for it.

Jerry

9 upvotes
mosc
By mosc (Jan 30, 2013)

I seriously cannot understand talking about a camera's telephoto capabilities when it's that damn small. Who shoots 100mm equivalent with a pocket camera? I don't understand this use case. I shoot my pocket camera of choice a lot, and it's almost always at it's widest setting. All these "faster than X" comments all talk about the tele end, which is completely useless. I wish the RX100 had a 28mm equiv prime on it sometimes just to stop these comments. I really could care less about tele on a compact.

And I've never seen a 1/2.33" sensor's output at ISO800 I didn't hate

Comment edited 6 minutes after posting
5 upvotes
areichow
By areichow (Jan 30, 2013)

Like mosc, I almost never use telephoto on a P&S- though this is mostly because the lenses on most P&S cameras really punish you for trying. :P At f/2.7 on the narrow end I might actually use it some.

0 upvotes
lost_in_utah
By lost_in_utah (Jan 30, 2013)

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.

2 upvotes
Michael_13
By Michael_13 (Jan 30, 2013)

@mosc:
With a good P&S you can easily use full tele. I do this very often with mine and am pleased with its results.

0 upvotes
MarkInSF
By MarkInSF (Jan 30, 2013)

As a tourist I've often wanted a pocketable camera with a longer zoom. I couldn't make details of buildings come closer (for one example.) Something like this would be very nice for travel, though many would find the zoom inadequate and buy a humongous superzoom instead.

0 upvotes
Timmbits
By Timmbits (Jan 31, 2013)

read marike6's comment in the thread just above this one.

0 upvotes
SunnyFlorida
By SunnyFlorida (Jan 30, 2013)

1/2.3" sensor??? .....Pass GO do not collect $200

2 upvotes
jimr
By jimr (Jan 30, 2013)

IF the price was lower....$250, then it might be viable.

As it is, it is too expensive for the point and shoot crowd.

The enthusiast crowd already has available excellent options with larger sensors at competitive prices (including RAW if that concerns you).

This camera would have been very desirable two years ago.
Too little. Too late.

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
areichow
By areichow (Jan 30, 2013)

It's funny how eager people are to crap on a camera like this, yet give the dozens of other lower-end cameras a pass. Don't get me wrong, this may be overpriced for what it is, but I don't think cameras like this are without their use. The Nikon P300 is what has gotten me interested in photography after years of seeing it as something out of my reach. For a long time, I wanted something more than a regular P&S, but didn't want to spend the money on a larger fixed lens or DSLR. If I couldn't keep it in my back pocket, I knew I'd end up not using it.

After a year with the P300, I'm looking for an upgrade- something with a larger sensor, something with RAW support, something with higher IQ, maybe something with bulb mode or at least longer exposures but still small enough to go with me on every hike in my back pocket. This has me seriously looking at the XZ-2 and RX100. There's absolutely zero chance I would have considered spending that kind of money without first having the P300.

3 upvotes
JNDD
By JNDD (Jan 30, 2013)

True words. Cameras like this are really not without their use, especially not, when they have a bright, sharp zuiko lens.

this is a competitor for the canon s110, an it might be as good as well, especially on the long end it will beat the f5.9 on the 110.

Im also an owner of the nikon p300. I like the handling, feeling, controls, display and the the 1.8 lens.
but the smearing and the lack of details (especially visible on skintones) really drives me crazy, if you just could control sharpening and noise reduction, it would be a very nice camera, but you can't..
(my old Canon A590 makes better images as lower iso than the p300)

1 upvote
vodanh1982
By vodanh1982 (Jan 30, 2013)

At least it can shoot in good light or B&W.

2 upvotes
Timmbits
By Timmbits (Jan 30, 2013)

Maybe it's just for the ignorant mass-market... they can see f1.8 stamped on it, but they can't see "too small a sensor" written anywhere. It will sell because of this.
To people who don't know about control over depth of field in photography, who have never attempted to take night shots, to name a couple of things.

I was just talking to someone yesterday who was thinking about upgrading her old 3MP camera, and when I mentioned sensor size, she asked me "what is a sensor"? To that person, I would say, get one of these... but then again, if you target that market, who cares about RAW?

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 4 minutes after posting
3 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (Jan 30, 2013)

This camera has 12-bit lossless RAW, and like any compact with a fast lens, you can get fairly shallow DOF if you get close enough to your subject like in this Q image:

http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/5543808958/photos/2203500/imgp0028

Just like the Pentax Q or Sony HX9V, the XZ-10 is not necessarily "for the ignorant mass-market" just because it has a 1/2.3" sensor. Price is one thing, but getting hung-up on sensor size BEFORE you've seen any images
may not make much sense.

9 upvotes
Timmbits
By Timmbits (Jan 30, 2013)

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?

2 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (Jan 30, 2013)

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.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 9 minutes after posting
4 upvotes
Michael_13
By Michael_13 (Jan 30, 2013)

@Timmbits:
Leave me alone with your "control of DOF". 99% of compact users are happy that their camera has a lot of DOF, because in most pictures this is welcome.

6 upvotes
AllOtherNamesTaken
By AllOtherNamesTaken (Jan 30, 2013)

1/2.3", no thanks. Not when things like the RX100 around, and it costs more than a Nikon V1.

3 upvotes
Timmbits
By Timmbits (Jan 30, 2013)

with a tiny 1/2.3"sensor, this might be good for my 7 y.o. child, to introduce her to photography...
but surely anyone in their right mind wouldn't consider this over ANY of the already small 1/1.7" sensor cameras.
I really don't see the point of the existence of this camera, if not for kids.

6 upvotes
ARTASHES
By ARTASHES (Jan 30, 2013)

Don't waste your precious time by commenting on it

12 upvotes
Raist3d
By Raist3d (Jan 30, 2013)

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

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 5 minutes after posting
5 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (Jan 30, 2013)

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.

5 upvotes
Timmbits
By Timmbits (Jan 30, 2013)

@marike, in case you haven't yet noticed, 1/1.7" is already too small! it isn't exactly a reference or a standard to aspire to! comon, WAKE UP!

0 upvotes
ARTASHES
By ARTASHES (Jan 30, 2013)

@Timm
Give us a wish list of compact camera with it's sensor size (that isn't "small") and lenses please

0 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (Jan 30, 2013)

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.

6 upvotes
Michael_13
By Michael_13 (Jan 30, 2013)

@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.

2 upvotes
tkbslc
By tkbslc (Jan 30, 2013)

I am not sure you are in your right mind if you are completely ignoring the aperture advantage of f2.7 over f5.9.

2 upvotes
TK179
By TK179 (Jan 30, 2013)

I am not expecting better IQ than P310 (may be a little when it comes to low light @ tele). I am not sure, it's fair to compare with large sensor compact...

0 upvotes
dpLarry
By dpLarry (Jan 30, 2013)

1/2.3" sensor compacts should not be called enthusiasts compacts.

It's a small sensor compact with a bright lens and a few more dials.

Enthusiasts compacts should have 2/3" or at least 1/1.7" sensors.
LX7, G12 G15, X10, P7100 etc.

4 upvotes
ARTASHES
By ARTASHES (Jan 30, 2013)

Before everybody starts to complain about sensor size just check this sensor performance on the other compacts (Canon HS50, SX240)
If it had 1/1.7 sensor it would have been bigger with same speed lenses (XZ-2 is that camera actually) or it would have the same size with slower lenses and you would lose all your IQ gain in low light !!!

5 upvotes
mosc
By mosc (Jan 30, 2013)

why would it have been bigger? Because the RX100 is so much bigger with >4x the sensor area?

1 upvote
ARTASHES
By ARTASHES (Jan 30, 2013)

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

8 upvotes
dpLarry
By dpLarry (Jan 30, 2013)

G15 1.8 lens LX7 1.4 lens. Both use 1/1.7 sensor. That 50% larger surface area makes a significant difference. It costs more to manufacture not just the sensor but the lens.
You start calling 1/2.3" sensored cameras enthusiast cameras... it's like trying to sell a 4 cylinder car as a 6 cylinder car.

0 upvotes
ARTASHES
By ARTASHES (Jan 30, 2013)

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

7 upvotes
Timmbits
By Timmbits (Jan 30, 2013)

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

2 upvotes
ARTASHES
By ARTASHES (Jan 30, 2013)

Very constructive

0 upvotes
Raist3d
By Raist3d (Jan 30, 2013)

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.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
Timmbits
By Timmbits (Jan 30, 2013)

Raist, you have nice images, that you posted links to.
Surely someone like you understands the concept of control over depth of field? Surely you have tried to take photographs at night? I don't see you doing either of those with your 1/2.3" to any level of satisfaction. With the existence of an XZ1, XZ2, and the other manufacturers' ones for the same price, what is the point of this camera anyways? Laws of physics is you will have nowhere the control over depth of field as in the others that have a 1/1.7", 2/3", with f1.8 or f1.4 lens, nowhere the night mode results of a Nikon p7700... SURELY someone of your caliber understands all that!

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 8 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
peevee1
By peevee1 (Jan 30, 2013)

"G15 1.8 lens LX7 1.4 lens. Both use 1/1.7 sensor."

LX7 has 1/1.7" sensor, but does not USE it all.

" That 50% larger surface area makes a significant difference."

Not really, just 1/2EV of total light. Sensor tech actually makes more difference.

0 upvotes
dpLarry
By dpLarry (Jan 30, 2013)

ARTASHES, Unless you add turbos or superchargers or nytros, the 4 cylinder car is not going to be powerful. Besides power, 6 cylinder balances itself better and the car is smoother.

But the point is brighter lens is becoming the norm on enthusiast compacts in 2012, 2013.

So in 2013 you put a brighter lens on a tiny sensor and call it an enthusiast camera when you compare it with cameras from 2010-2011, that is bs.

0 upvotes
dpLarry
By dpLarry (Jan 30, 2013)

peevee1, the LX7 has a wide 3:2 sensor instead of a 4:3 sensor. When you shoot 16:9 stills and HD video you lose less sensor area.

0 upvotes
Raist3d
By Raist3d (Jan 30, 2013)

@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

2 upvotes
Raist3d
By Raist3d (Jan 30, 2013)

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.

1 upvote
ARTASHES
By ARTASHES (Jan 30, 2013)

@dpLarry
Honda S2000, Caterham R500 ...

0 upvotes
dpLarry
By dpLarry (Jan 31, 2013)

ARTASHES
s2000 low torque, uses vtec, needs high rev.
caterham superlightweight, also how much $$ is a caterham?
even an nsx doesnt have that much torque, i've driven them. And its a v6.

0 upvotes
dpLarry
By dpLarry (Jan 31, 2013)

peevee1, have you actually shot and compared between 1/2.3" sensored cameras and 1/1.7" sensored cameras?

I think you don't understand. You think 50% larger sensor area equal 1/2 EV.

It doesn't work that way, a 1/2.3" sensor has pixel density pushed to the max, pixel size reduced to the smallest.

If you make a 16 million pixel 1/2.3" sensor 50% smaller it doesn't mean you lose 1/2 EV, it means there's a lot of mush and grain.

0 upvotes
xue24
By xue24 (Jan 31, 2013)

@Raist3d
i registered to say your pictures are very nice especially the high ISO ones and wonder if all those are by the pentax Q. i have done some research on the Q and didn't find much. i may search the wrong place, anyway, nice pictures!

0 upvotes
Raist3d
By Raist3d (Jan 31, 2013)

@Xue24 - thanks. Yes, all of those are 100% with a Pentax Q. They are also 100% by me :-) I converted from RAW, LR 4.xx.
You may want to check the Pentax forum here (non DSLR).
You can download the jpegs and check the Exif too. Show the lens used, etc.

0 upvotes
xue24
By xue24 (Feb 26, 2013)

@Raist3d - thanks for the lead as i just manage to check on yours and others work on that forum. learn a great deal about Q and small size sensor. will stay close with the forum for all the great works, thanks!

0 upvotes
Mike604
By Mike604 (Jan 30, 2013)

so is this the XZ 1.5? that everyone was waiting for? ;-}

1 upvote
Timmbits
By Timmbits (Jan 30, 2013)

more like XZ-1/2 ! LOL

1 upvote
Ben Herrmann
By Ben Herrmann (Jan 30, 2013)

When I first saw that Olympus was going to release the X-10 I had wrongly disparaged the fact that it would be a very small sensor with no RAW capabilities. So it is with much delight to observe that they've elected to add a RAW mode which really contributes to better IQ capabilities.

If they had released this cam without RAW, it would have been a different story.

So short of going the 1/1.7" sensor route, this XZ-10 could be Olympus's foray into the market that the Canon S folks once ruled (and I have an S100). Let's see how the IQ pans out. The lens and zoom factor are a step above, that's for sure.

So despite my initial misgivings about the XZ-10 (especially with Oly's previous history of P&S cams that had a massive amount of JPG compression), releasing this new enthusiast model with RAW capabilities is a step in the right direction. I'm so glad to see Olympus back in the enthusiasts market with a vengeance.

9 upvotes
Timmbits
By Timmbits (Jan 30, 2013)

Let's see how you think you will get any control over DoF with such a small sensor.
And since when does S110 "rule" ANY space? It is the worse of all the 1/1.7"! Just look at the graphs!

1 upvote
Karroly
By Karroly (Jan 31, 2013)

@Timmbits,
If you shoot portraits I understand your quest of DoF control.
But do people mainly shoot portraits ? At least, not me... I shoot landscapes and macros and I need deep DoF. Moreover deep DoF compensates for focusing inaccuracies.
I have just bought an XZ-1 with, as you know, a bigger sensor than the XZ-10 one. I was happy to see that shoots at 28mm equiv. / F:1.8 still have big DoF ! Why ? Because I can shoot landscapes in low light without the need to stop down and increase ISO or use a tripod. You cannot do this with an APS-C or bigger sensor without at least OIS.
I was also happy (and disappointed too...) to see that the XZ-1 lens is sharper on image borders than my Canon EF-S 18-55mm IS and Pentax DA 18-55mm AL WR lenses at widest angle / full aperture and low ISO on bodies with more megapixels than the XZ-1 !

1 upvote
Liz Z.
By Liz Z. (Jan 30, 2013)

I thought "Wow, this looks like a worthy alternative to the RX100-- wider angle, more zoom, brighter lens at tele," until I got to the sensor size. What was Olympus thinking in not doing at least a 1/1.7' sensor? I suspect that the users this camera is aimed at (digitally informed, not invested in the megapixel race, interested in RAW formats and manual options) will notice that "feature," and be unimpressed. It seems short sighted on Olympus' part.

3 upvotes
ARTASHES
By ARTASHES (Jan 30, 2013)

Go and check Canon SX50 HS sensor scores at DXO which has probably the same 1/2.3 sensor, compare the charts to Canon S110 sensor ones and then I think you will better understand why they put this sensor : you can have brighter lenses with same size of S110

PS why complain about sensor size if sensor doing a great job being small ?

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 11 minutes after posting
7 upvotes
Altruisto
By Altruisto (Jan 30, 2013)

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.

5 upvotes
Timmbits
By Timmbits (Jan 30, 2013)

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!

1 upvote
Raist3d
By Raist3d (Jan 30, 2013)

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

6 upvotes
Timmbits
By Timmbits (Jan 30, 2013)

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?

2 upvotes
Raist3d
By Raist3d (Jan 30, 2013)

I don't have dual profiles here. No, I don't believe the comment applies to me but that's irrelevant to the point. The point is you are the one who is making the call, and you would think you would be clearly not in the category you are describing.

1 upvote
Camp Freddy
By Camp Freddy (Jan 30, 2013)

Hmm, after a quick look at this and the price suggested, I think Olympus would have been better on doing an "epm" version of the larger XZ's to this type of price, or better yet, putting a fixed retracting lens onto the 16mpx mFT sensor, perhaps at a crop to a smaller mpx ( as some panasonic mFT's actually do)

1 upvote
ManuelVilardeMacedo
By ManuelVilardeMacedo (Jan 30, 2013)

It looks like you may not have an accurate notion of the 4/3 sensor area. Even Sony RX100's sensor is smaller than 4/3. It would be impossible to mount it in such small body - not to mention it would be more expensive. And what would be the point of offering a point-and-shoot-sized mirrorless camera when there's already the E-PM2? This XZ10 is strictly a point-and-shoot, intended for a vastly different consumer target.
Of course, you may argue there are the Sigmas, but they're much bulkier and each one is confined to a single focal length.

2 upvotes
Timmbits
By Timmbits (Jan 30, 2013)

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).

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
1 upvote
ManuelVilardeMacedo
By ManuelVilardeMacedo (Jan 30, 2013)

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.

2 upvotes
Timmbits
By Timmbits (Jan 30, 2013)

@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. ;)

Comment edited 4 times, last edit 7 minutes after posting
1 upvote
ManuelVilardeMacedo
By ManuelVilardeMacedo (Jan 31, 2013)

Right. Put a 4/3 sensor in a compact camera and you'll end up with... oh, wait, there's one already. That's the Canon G1X. (Not an actual 4/3 sensor, but roughly the same area.)

0 upvotes
mpgxsvcd
By mpgxsvcd (Jan 30, 2013)

This camera would be interesting if Panasonic hadn't been dumping their LX7s for $279 lately. It is just like when your neighbor dumps his house for half of what it is worth and now no one else can sell theirs.

10 upvotes
dpLarry
By dpLarry (Jan 30, 2013)

I checked Amazon and Adorama... where's the LX-7 at $279? That's a good deal. Thanks.

Comment edited 18 seconds after posting
1 upvote
Timmbits
By Timmbits (Jan 30, 2013)

indeed... we have been reading about the LX7 at that price, but no one seems to be able to tell us where!

0 upvotes
Bienbien
By Bienbien (Jan 30, 2013)

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

1 upvote
mpgxsvcd
By mpgxsvcd (Jan 30, 2013)

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.

3 upvotes
Bienbien
By Bienbien (Jan 30, 2013)

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

1 upvote
Timmbits
By Timmbits (Jan 30, 2013)

I have seen websites that promise an item at a price but then do not deliver... or they have sales reps that are supposed to upsell you, or tell you there is no more stock if you don't order high margin add-ons. there are even phishing websites out there that come up in searches, promising a certain price, but have no inventory.... and you only find out after you created an account with them and left information...
So that is why I was asking... is there a legitimate site selling these at this price point? btw, I doubt they can make it for less in turkey than in china (which isn't a reference either btw).

Comment edited 47 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
iudex
By iudex (Jan 30, 2013)

If I look at this camera in context of other p&s compacts with 1/2,3" sensors, I have to praise Olympus for releasing such camera: super-bright lens, RAW, PASM modes, this is something most competitors miss.
However when I look at enthusiast comapcts with 1/1,7" sensors, most of them offer the same, with bigger sensor and for similar price (no need to go further than to Oly XZ-1). So in this contet the camera seems pointless.

3 upvotes
mpgxsvcd
By mpgxsvcd (Jan 30, 2013)

The LX7 at $300 is a much better deal than anything from Olympus.

3 upvotes
Timmbits
By Timmbits (Jan 30, 2013)

Maybe it's just for the ignorant mass-market... they get the illusion of a real camera at a price point they like, because they don't understand/appreciate what extra dollars would get them.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 6 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Marty4650
By Marty4650 (Jan 30, 2013)

Could this be Olympus' fixed zoom lens version of the Pentax Q10?

At least it seems like something that would compete for the same customers.

2 upvotes
cgarrard
By cgarrard (Jan 30, 2013)

No.

2 upvotes
arqomx
By arqomx (Jan 30, 2013)

would like to see the noise performance for both XZ-2 and XZ-10. My XZ-1 doesn't fare well from ISO 800 and above >. < (though with f2.7 lens you'll find it seldom to crank the ISO more than 400)

0 upvotes
Camp Freddy
By Camp Freddy (Jan 30, 2013)

Definetly looks a lot better on the newer XZ2 samples, , but remember it is f1.8 with IBIS so you do not need to crank up beyond 1200. Unless you are taking black cats on moonless nights of course.

0 upvotes
iudex
By iudex (Jan 30, 2013)

@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).

Comment edited 5 minutes after posting
1 upvote
cgarrard
By cgarrard (Jan 30, 2013)

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

C

1 upvote
sadwitch
By sadwitch (Jan 30, 2013)

Do you think you'll shoot a masterpiece in that kind of lighting situations?

0 upvotes
mosc
By mosc (Jan 30, 2013)

Yeah, the flash doesn't cover more than a few feet from the camera and even with moderate indoor light and f1.8, this camera will be sky high in ISO.

0 upvotes
cgarrard
By cgarrard (Jan 30, 2013)

@Sadwitch- Are masterpieces a prerequisite for a photograph by law? If so, is every photograph you take a masterpiece?

How about "good enough" comes to mind, without aid of a flash. Indoors, 3200 is almost the bare minimum even for a fast aperture in most households if you want to make an image of anything moving without blur and no flash.

0 upvotes
arqomx
By arqomx (Jan 31, 2013)

Anyway, wish that XZ-2 and XZ-10 noise suppression algorithm now can be tweaked to flavor (none, low, medium, strong). On XZ-1 I couldn't find how to achive this feat :(

0 upvotes
mosc
By mosc (Jan 30, 2013)

Sensor size 1/2.3" (6.17 x 4.55 mm), in a package the same size as an RX100. Wow Olympus, revolutionary camera here. I mean it's not like there's a shortage of $350 1/1.7" cameras around. This lens is barely brighter than the S110 at tele, and considerably darker at wide.

4 upvotes
Jake
By Jake (Jan 30, 2013)

Wow, and like the RX100 is about the same price. Apples and oranges. And we won't even mention that speedy lens on the Sony.

3 upvotes
mosc
By mosc (Jan 30, 2013)

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.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
1 upvote
Jake
By Jake (Jan 30, 2013)

And so you made the comparison why???

1 upvote
cgarrard
By cgarrard (Jan 30, 2013)

Ah this is Oly's Canon S100 but with a smaller sensor and less zoom range, but with a much brighter lens to compensate for the smaller sensor (at least on the long end).

I think I see now. Or am I more confused. Hmmm.

0 upvotes
peevee1
By peevee1 (Jan 30, 2013)

Yes, it is a competitor for Canon S110 and Fuji XF1.

0 upvotes
cgarrard
By cgarrard (Jan 30, 2013)

I was being sarcastic. :) I'm really not confused.

0 upvotes
shademaster
By shademaster (Jan 30, 2013)

need a side-by-side pic with XZ-2 (or 1) to see how MUCH smaller/thinner it is. Is the extra pocketability worth the hit in sensor size / IQ. (I think hotshoe doesn't matter, since there's wireless TTL... just get a FL-300r)

0 upvotes
Total comments: 198
12