Previous page Next page

Olympus Stylus 1 First Impressions Review

October 2013 | By Andy Westlake, Richard Butler


First impressions review based on a pre-production Stylus 1 with Firmware 0.9

Note - the images used in this article are of a pre-production Stylus 1 that Olympus describes as 'not cosmetically final'. This means that they may not be entirely representative of the final production camera.

The rapid collapse of the compact camera market has pushed all the major manufacturers to look for new markets - to create reasons for people to still need a 'real' camera as well as a smartphone. At one end of the spectrum, this has meant attempts at 'social' cameras, such as Canon's PowerShot N but, more interesting to us, it's meant much more capable, higher-end cameras, such as Sony's Cyber-shot RX100. The latest example is Olympus's range-topping Stylus 1.

It's probably the most capable compact the company has made - a feature-packed, flexible camera with a lot of direct control and the longest zoom range we can remember seeing on a camera with a 1/1.7"-type sensor. In terms of styling, it's been modeled on the company's excellent OM-D E-M5, but in concept it's perhaps closer to being a super XZ-2 - the company's erstwhile top-end enthusiast model.

The Stylus 1 utilizes a 12MP BSI CMOS sensor similar to that used in the XZ-2 (and many other cameras in the enthusiast sector), set behind a 28-300mm equivalent lens. That in itself would be interesting enough, but the lens's constant F2.8 maximum aperture makes the whole package very impressive. It also has a built-in electronic viewfinder that's borrowed from the E-M5, and which with its 1.44M dot resolution and 0.58x magnification, is larger and sharper than almost any other 'superzoom' camera.

The obvious other reference point is Sony's recently announced Cyber-shot RX10 - a camera offering a 24-200mm equivalent, constant F2.8 lens, and an even larger viewfinder. The important difference is sensor size - the Stylus 1 uses a smaller sensor, providing a different balance of size, price and (in theory) image quality. Overall, then, the Stylus 1 offers another balance of size, price and capability in a sector that had, for a long time, settled into offering just one or two body styles - instead sitting somewhere between an enthusiast compact and a conventional superzoom.

Olympus Stylus 1 key features

  • 12MP 1/1.7"-type BSI CMOS sensor
  • 28-300mm equivalent optically-stabilized F2.8 lens
  • Two-mode (click/free turning) control dial
  • Built-in 3 EV Neutral Density filter
  • 1.44M dot LCD electronic viewfinder
  • 1.04M dot 3" tilting touchscreen rear LCD
  • ISO 100 - 12800
  • Built-in Wi-Fi with smartphone control

Many of the features that appear in the Stylus 1 are ones that we've seen before in the company's PEN series of cameras - its Wi-Fi works in much the same way as its recent, flagship E-M1 model. This means it has one of the easier-to-setup Wi-Fi systems - you can either install the Olympus app on an iOS or Android device, then use the QR code on the back of the camera to establish a connection, or type them in yourself. This second option makes it fairly easy to connect other people's devices to your camera, so that you can share selected images with them, without them needing to download the app.

The Stylus 1's OM-D-esque design risks being a little misleading - not just by potentially diluting the public perception of the Micro Four Thirds cameras, but also because the Stylus's control method owes more to the XZ-2 than the E-M5. The click/free dial around the lens is the primary control, but there is also a second dial on top of the camera. This does the same things as the small, fiddly and imprecise rear dial on the XZ-2, but is very much more usable, giving the camera a true twin-dial interface. However, what you don't get is the ability to directly access AF point selection - something we kept expecting from a body that looks and feels so much like an OM-D.

It's a RX10 competitor, then?

When Sony announced its RX10, we felt it necessary to point out that knowing a camera's F number and equivalent focal length isn't enough, if you're going to understand the consequences of its sensor size. The same is true with the Stylus 1 - it gives a good idea of what you gain and lose compared to cameras such as Panasonic's DMC FZ200, but also what you're giving up in compared to the bigger, more expensive RX10.

A quick recap, then. Although in terms of exposure (and by definition), F2.8 = F2.8 = F2.8, that doesn't tell the whole story. In terms of depth-of-field and total light on the sensor (which is a major determinant of image quality), you also need to consider sensor size.

  Equivalent focal length Maximum aperture range Sensor size Equivalent aperture range
Panasonic DMC-FZ200 25-600mm F2.8 1/2.3"-type F15.5
Nikon Coolpix P7800 28-200mm F2.0 - 4.0 1/1.7"-type F9.5-19
Olympus Stylus 1 28-300mm F2.8 1/1.7"-type F13
Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX10 24-200mm F2.8 1"-type F7.6

So, while the Panasonic DMC-FZ200 at first glance looks most impressive, the equivalent aperture figures tell a very different story. Equivalent apertures tell you how the lens compares to a full frame lens with similar characteristics - much as the more familiar 'equivalent focal length' does. However, rather than telling you which lens has a comparable field-of-view, it tells you which full frame lens would provide the same control over depth-of-field and the total light hitting the sensor.

So, while the 'equivalent focal length' and 'maximum aperture' columns tell one story, the 'equivalent aperture range' figures paint a rather different picture. In the graph below, the lower the line, the better the camera is likely to be for low-light image quality and blurring backgrounds, at any given equivalent focal length.

As you can see, the Stylus 1 isn't about to compete with DSLRs or other larger-sensor cameras, but offers a competitive balance of lens range and brightness when compared to compact peers such as the Nikon P7800. So, while the lens isn't as bright as the likes of the company's own XZ-2, with all the depth-of-field and low light benefits that brings, it does offer a significant advantage in terms of range.


If you're new to digital photography you may wish to read the Digital Photography Glossary before diving into this article (it may help you understand some of the terms used).

Conclusion / Recommendation / Ratings are based on the opinion of the reviewer, you should read the ENTIRE review before coming to your own conclusions.

Images which can be viewed at a larger size have a small magnifying glass icon in the bottom right corner of the image, clicking on the image will display a larger (typically VGA) image in a new window.

To navigate the review simply use the next / previous page buttons, to jump to a particular section either pick the section from the drop down or select it from the navigation bar at the top.

DPReview calibrate their monitors using Color Vision OptiCal at the (fairly well accepted) PC normal gamma 2.2, this means that on our monitors we can make out the difference between all of the (computer generated) grayscale blocks below. We recommend to make the most of this review you should be able to see the difference (at least) between X,Y and Z and ideally A,B and C.

This article is Copyright 2013 and may NOT in part or in whole be reproduced in any electronic or printed medium without prior permission from the author.

Previous page Next page

Comments

Total comments: 324
123
flyingnone
By flyingnone (3 months ago)

Just got the Stylus 1 and at 1st look, seems to be just about perfect for a walk-around + camera. Biggest disappointment BY FAR is the lack of AUTO- ISO in the manual mode!! I always shoot raw and have used auto ISO for the past several years.

1 upvote
G1Houston
By G1Houston (3 months ago)

Still no direct access to ISO, despite the fact you can customize the fn buttons?

0 upvotes
BobC00000
By BobC00000 (4 months ago)

Error in the Introduction?

The Introduction page states the viewfinder magnification is 0.58, while the Specifications page says it is 1.15.

Which is correct? Or are the two numbers describing different meanings for "viewfinder magnification"?

A more general number would be this: When using the camera with both eyes open and one eye on the eyecup, at what zoom value does object size through the viewfinder match that of the naked eye? (That is, a 1:1 size relationship.) Since a 1.0x viewfinder has this behavior at 50mm zoom (assuming 100% viewfinder coverage), the fiddly magnification factor can be replaced by a more understandable (and more useful) zoom value.

So, if I'm a two-eye photographer who most often shoots at 100mm, what viewfinder magnification level would work best for me?

Who cares? Why should I have to do any math to figure that out? I'd much prefer to pick the camera that offers "1:1 EVF @ 100mm", which comes closest to describing how I'd use the camera.

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
KariIceland
By KariIceland (4 months ago)

So it is impossible to have a regular cap and a UV filter infront of th lens?
And impossible to have that unique lens cap and a UV filter behind it?
If the answer is yes to both then my interest is gone.

1 upvote
AdamLeszko
By AdamLeszko (4 months ago)

It's a strange product for me, considering having XZ-2 as an option. The only advantage of new Stylus 1 is of course the range of zoom - that is out of question. But, XZ-2 has much faster lens wide open and even faster at it's long end (eq 112mm). This means it's simply much better from wide open until 112mm than new Stylus 1. So the price difference ($400+) is only for the range and actually light drop. Now, second thing is of course the VF, but this can be attached to XZ-2 as extra accessory (VF-2 with same resolution is about $200) and then the proce difference drops but is still significant. More over, IMO, removable VF is a pro, since when I dont need it, the camera becomes significantly smaller and still pockatable, while Stylus 1 is far from pockatable one. Simply no reason for me to buy it over XZ-2

1 upvote
dougjgreen1
By dougjgreen1 (4 months ago)

IMHO, you underestimate the usefulness of the viewfinder. That being said, I'd prefer an camera with the EVF the XZ-2s shorter, but faster lens, for a price point smack in between the Stylus 1 and the XZ-2

3 upvotes
Timmbits
By Timmbits (5 months ago)

There's no way I'm paying $700 for a small sensor camera. These things are way over-priced. If they can't make them for less, they should put in a 1" sensor (which is no longer expensive, while optics and casing/controls prices follow inflation).

2 upvotes
BarnET
By BarnET (4 months ago)

so that's why the sony RX10 is double the money of this one
#sarcasm off

4 upvotes
papa natas
By papa natas (4 months ago)

Solution:
In case of doubt buy both.

0 upvotes
noldus45
By noldus45 (4 months ago)

with a 1" sensor, it will all go back to the DSLR-sizes

For me this Stylus 1 concept makes just sense: better IQ than all the rediculous 40x+ superzooms
I seldomly go beyond 300mm only with a prime I might go 400mm on a DSLR (=50-200mm on an Olympus)
for me, I like the xz-2, but the reach is just to short, and I started using the LF1 more and more.
I like the VF allways on the cam like the Stylus 1 (not the VF of the LF1).
In the beginning the XZ-2 was very expensive too, but than the XZ-1 was for allmost half the price, so wait a bit until under $ 500
don't forget the constant F2.8 and...never forget... it is allways about compromises

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 3 minutes after posting
5 upvotes
BobC00000
By BobC00000 (4 months ago)

The Stylus 1 seems to define the limit of what a jacket-pocket camera can be.

A larger sensor would need bigger glass to cover it, increasing both size and weight, or else drastically reducing zoom reach.

I want a camera that makes sense to use without a bag or backpack, but gives up as little as possible to make that happen. I want a great EVF (I'm an in-the-action photographer), a tiltable display (for over-the-crowd shots), a 10x zoom for "human" distances (my subjects are always people, and I want them recognizable), and an on-camera flash to provide a touch of daylight-fill. And the biggest sensor that fits.

What am I willing to give up to get it? I can live without using additional filters. The same for 1080-60p video or great microphones. I don't care about a 50x zoom.

Could the Stylus 1 be improved? Sure! But from what I can tell, mainly in the firmware: For example, any camera that can take bracketed shots and can paste a panorama should be able to do in-camera HDR!

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting
1 upvote
Naveed Akhtar
By Naveed Akhtar (3 months ago)

well there are plenty of cheap alternative .. i am happy oly gave a very good prime alternative alongside Sony and Fuji!

0 upvotes
Englishman in France
By Englishman in France (5 months ago)

The quick access C1 and C2 custom positions on the mode dial were incredibly useful on my Panasonic GF1. I never understood why Olympus never put this on their micro four thirds cameras, as they make a big thing about customization. I have to laugh when I see this really useful feature on the Stylus, yet not on their top of the range flagship E-M1. Thankfully, the E-M1 does have the same art filter setting, so it can take photos like my daughters VTECH kiddy zoom!

1 upvote
Andy Westlake
By Andy Westlake (5 months ago)

The E-M1 does this differently. Rather than have marked C1 and C2 positions, the camera can store up to four custom settings memories (called MySets), which can then be assigned to any position on the mode dial.

1 upvote
disraeli demon
By disraeli demon (4 months ago)

I've got both a GF1 and an Olympus E-PL3 (which also lacks custom positions on the mode dial), and what Olympus loses in quick access they gain in the ability to change exposure mode within a custom function setting. I use my MySet functions for different black & white settings, and the ability to switch between Aperture Priority, Shutter Priority and Manual within the same custom function is really useful. What the Olympus lacks is the ability to call up the MySet menu quickly using the function button - also, they really need to sort out the MySet interface - there are a couple of unnecessary steps that not only slow the process down, they make it too easy to cancel the process just as you think you're done. Even worse, if you're trying to change settings in a hurry, it's ridiculously easy to over-write a MySet setting without meaning to.

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 7 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
davethecubist
By davethecubist (5 months ago)

No filter threads in a $700 "enthusiast" camera. I think it's a poser.

2 upvotes
Ross the Fidller
By Ross the Fidller (5 months ago)

So are all the good looking & 'retro' cameras! Who cares?

If you want to use a filter then use the adapter CLA-13 tube (STYLUS 1 dedicated Converter Adapter, CLA-13) which will take 55mm filters (the same as the CLA-12). See this thread.
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3263302

1 upvote
Ken Yull
By Ken Yull (4 months ago)

Well seems the CLA-13 is a bayonet fit, so how will anyone use a screw fit filter?
I have a TCon 1.7C which is screw fit, so can't use it with the S1.
So cancelling my order tomorrow.

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Ross the Fidller
By Ross the Fidller (4 months ago)

Ken Yull. I don't know where you got that idea. This is quoted from Olympus site as being accessories & the above thread shows that filters are used for the adapter tube that takes that TCON-17X lens on the XZ-2.

"STYLUS 1 dedicated Converter Adapter, CLA-13
Tele-converter lens, TCON-17X "

You should check the facts before over-reacting.

Comment edited 43 seconds after posting
4 upvotes
BobT3218
By BobT3218 (5 months ago)

It looks like one of those plastic coffee table toys that is actually a cigarette lighter and tooth pick lolder.

2 upvotes
The Jacal
By The Jacal (5 months ago)

At least the lithium would come in handy.

2 upvotes
jira
By jira (5 months ago)

Can one mount a filter on the lens?

1 upvote
Ross the Fidller
By Ross the Fidller (5 months ago)

If you want to use a filter then use the adapter CLA-13 tube (STYLUS 1 dedicated Converter Adapter, CLA-13) which will take 55mm filters (the same as the CLA-12). See this thread.
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3263302

0 upvotes
papa natas
By papa natas (4 months ago)

Well, yes, you can mount a filter, but not over the lens. It can get messy. Mount the filter some place else.

0 upvotes
gmke
By gmke (5 months ago)

I have been kicking around with an XZ-1 since the camera came out and I am a little embarrassed how much I end up liking this sensibly-sized camera. All of these 1:1.6 and 1:1.7 cameras have the ability to shoot decent pictures at 400 ISO and what saves the day for me is the bright f1.8-f2.5 lens. It is rare for any need to violate the 400 ISO boundary. There are two stops of protection built into the lens. which kind of reminds me of a similar feeling about my DSLR with two stops of headroom on the sensor. Of course, bright sunshine ruins the fun because you really need a viewfinder. While the Stylus 1 lacks the two stop advantage at the wide end, 2.8 is not far from the 2.5 at the far end is 2.5 times narrower. So... Maybe Santa is thinking hard about this camera.

0 upvotes
Ross the Fidller
By Ross the Fidller (5 months ago)

I think Santa is going to be good to me this Christmas. This will be a nice alternative to carrying the E-M5 kit around when all I want is one small bag with sufficient reach in the zoom & compactness.

0 upvotes
mosc
By mosc (5 months ago)

Stop using aperture charts with mm delimited X axises! It should be logarithmic. 24-48 is the same distance as 150-300.

The chart goes 12.5x zoom in range from 24 to 300. If you gave it 10 equally spaced delimiters they'd be:

24
31
40
51
66
85
109
141
181
233
300

Also, it'd be nice is you put on a dotted line extending at the equivalent telephoto aperture from cropping. The fact that the Stylus goes to 300 and the RX-10 only goes to 200 may appear a range where the olympus has an advantage. It of course doesn't as simply cropping the 200mm image from an RX-10 still provides an advantage all the way out to 300mm.

Comment edited 11 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
mosc
By mosc (5 months ago)

Probably better still to establish a more consistent graph X axis for this increasingly nessisary equivalent aperture chart. Starting at 20mm and going to 320mm gives a cleaner 16x zoom range, 9 hashes give more familiar focal hashes:

20
28
40
57
80
113
160
226
320

0 upvotes
Martin Datzinger
By Martin Datzinger (3 months ago)

Make it logarithmic with 16 24 35 50 85 135 200 300 markings. Except for the 85mm position that would mean consistent spacing and familiar FLs. Like a well designed zoom lens.

0 upvotes
Puertochap
By Puertochap (5 months ago)

I reckon this camera will find a big niche; I for one, will buy unless something more appealing comes along soon. I have many digital cameras, even though I am an ex-professional, I want a camera which is small, non-interchangeable lens and with acceptable quality for websites and a max print size of 10x8 inches. My NEX6 with the compact zoom lens is good and allows cropping with its APC sensor. The 24mm wide end is very useful but the tele end is inadequate for a travel camera.
This Oly almost hits the spot.
Good: Quality construction, EVF, tilt screen, longish zoom, tilt screen, small size, control options.
Bad: Only 1/1.7 sensor, 28mm max wide, no trick panorama, no HDR, no multi-exposure low-light etc.

Almost there.

1 upvote
Mattersburger
By Mattersburger (5 months ago)

The specifications page lists the body material as magnesium alloy, and the design page refers to it as plastic. Which is it ?

3 upvotes
davethecubist
By davethecubist (5 months ago)

My understanding is that it is plastic with a alloy cover.

1 upvote
Discontinued
By Discontinued (6 months ago)

Obviously, a lot of advancements have been made since the Fujifilm Finepix S6000fd was released in 2006, but it has a couple of things that for whatever reason, other bridge cameras don't include -- a manual zoom lens with filter threads. (The S6000fd has the same size sensor and zoom range as the Stylus 1.) The manual zoom is much easier to control and also saves on the battery. Being able to use filters, especially a polarizer, is great.

3 upvotes
peevee1
By peevee1 (6 months ago)

DPR, you have an error in the specs:
"Effective pixels 13 megapixels
Sensor photo detectors 12 megapixels"

I guess it is the other way around.

2 upvotes
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (6 months ago)

That's now fixed. Thanks.

0 upvotes
peevee1
By peevee1 (6 months ago)

The comparisons to RX10 are meaningless - the cameras are clearly not in the same class. Of course RX10 gives better quality, but it is also twice as heavy and almost twice as expensive.
Its competitors are similarly-sized and priced cameras with viewfinders - Nikon P7800, Fuji X20, Canon G16 maybe. Even Nikon V2 with 10-100 lens - if it is the only lens you are planning to have. ;-)

2 upvotes
davethecubist
By davethecubist (5 months ago)

I would add the Fuji EX50

0 upvotes
Naveed Akhtar
By Naveed Akhtar (3 months ago)

make sense .. in a way there is no real alternative to Sony rx10!

and yes it competes very well against the cameras you pointed at!

0 upvotes
peevee1
By peevee1 (6 months ago)

Why OM-D does not have built-in flash in the very similar prism?

8 upvotes
Naveed Akhtar
By Naveed Akhtar (3 months ago)

i guess it's difficult to make body as rigid and tough with opening flash at the top. none of the top-end nikon/ canon had them.

just my opinion!!

0 upvotes
harold1968
By harold1968 (6 months ago)

I am struggling with the point of this body with this sensor.
If I want a small sensor super zoom I'll get the excellent panasonic tx40 or the sony hx50. Extra controls for a sensor of this size makes hardly any difference.

The Sony RX10 is a neat compromise. Interested to actually hold one myself.

0 upvotes
peevee1
By peevee1 (6 months ago)

tx40/hx50 will give nowhere near the image quality in low light/indoors - featuring BOTH smaller sensor and much darker lenses.
Also the convenience you have when shooting with zoom with fixed aperture should not be underestimated - unless you are shooting in Auto only. Say, you have set your shooting parameters as you want them (especially in low light - that means wide open). Now you zoom in to follow you subject - and your ISO and/or exposure times start to creep up. And then you zoom out - will they return to the old value or keep aperture etc at the same values as at the long end? What is you touched a control in between?

2 upvotes
Ishatix
By Ishatix (6 months ago)

Been waiting for a camera with a spec like this to come out for a long time. Looks great on paper. But, am I the only one who finds the IQ in the samples rather disappointing? The Nikon P7700/P7800 seems to manage a whole lot better with the same sized sensor.

1 upvote
peevee1
By peevee1 (6 months ago)

It is literally the same sensor.

1 upvote
Wim1964
By Wim1964 (6 months ago)

It's the one thing that's keeping me from being very enthousiastic about it. Lots of great 7700/7800 shots around with loads of detail and vibrant colours....
The specs are quite promising, now a few decent sample-shots to prove the fact that this is a very nice camera IQ-wise!

1 upvote
Ishatix
By Ishatix (6 months ago)

OK, thanks for the replies guys. Hopefully there is nothing in it as you say.
peevee1 - I agree with your other comment about its competitors. The Nikon V2 or V3? if out soon was what I was considering before this. Obviously you get more there for your money but the simplicity of use and price point of the Stylus 1 package is hard to resist.

1 upvote
Ishatix
By Ishatix (6 months ago)

P.S. http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3568773#forum-post-52436856
Maybe something to Greynerd post (#3) in this thread re. lens reach and image image quality? On second review I still think the Stylus 1 shots appear a lot noisier compared to those from the P7700.

0 upvotes
peevee1
By peevee1 (5 months ago)

"The Nikon V2 or V3? if out soon was what I was considering before this. Obviously you get more there for your money"

That is the thing - you don't. 2-4 times darker 10-100 lens (in most FLs it is 3-4 darker) negates all advantages of 3 times bigger sensor, and the V2 sensor is not even BSI-CMOS so is not as efficient per area. And the Nikon V2+10-100 is $1200, so the price is also much higher. There is no V3 yet, and might never be.

2 upvotes
peevee1
By peevee1 (5 months ago)

Noise is JPEG is a matter of noise reduction ("Noise Filter" in Olympus menus).

0 upvotes
Ishatix
By Ishatix (5 months ago)

Interesting comment to think on; thanks.

0 upvotes
yudi4vfx
By yudi4vfx (6 months ago)

Why put a tiny sensor in a Super Body? That is my first impression and question for this camera, after reading the previews. The reasons might be: 1) Cost, 2) Keep old super-zoom system design. I guess Olympus just want to make some difference to compete with iPhone-camera in case DC would be dead. ;-)
If the sensor is larger, even little bit, I would like to buy a Style 1. Otherwise, I will better be staying with my K01 for a lighter complement camera. ;-(

1 upvote
Naveed Akhtar
By Naveed Akhtar (3 months ago)

its bigger than many tiny sensors used in standard tele-zoom!

anyways this obsession of getting a "bigger" sensor will take you no where!!

0 upvotes
tomservo33
By tomservo33 (6 months ago)

Interesting camera, but why are the samples so dull in color cast?
I would expect Panasonic to respond with the successor to the LX7 soon, for Holiday sales, correct?
But why is the image quality of the LX7 (in the studio scene), so soft in comparison to most others, almost like they made a settings error or had its IS on causing blur in a tripod shot? and the XZ-2 shot looks superior to most compacts, and some DSLR shots as well in the comparison tool?!

Comment edited 5 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Dave C 150
By Dave C 150 (6 months ago)

I don't really get these "in betweeny" cameras. To me a superzoom is 30-50x or more if possible. Well I don't know what other people want them for but I would think a lot would be for birders trying to get a presentable record shot of something 100m away. These cameras can beat a cropped DSLR in that respect and can now match digiscoping but much easier. I don't really see what the Stylus 1 can do that can't be done for the same cost and size and better quality with a micro 4/3 system

0 upvotes
ccm
By ccm (6 months ago)

There is no way m43 is competitive with the Stylus 1 in weight, size and cost. The 14-150mm is 280g and 600 dollars. Add a mid 200-300g body on blow out for 250 bucks and that still exceeds the Stylus in cost.

http://camerasize.com/compact/#347.97,494,387.34,ha,t

For image quality, based on my experience comparing a premium compact like the LX7 to a kit lens on the EM5, the edge goes to the EM5 but not by a lot.

0 upvotes
Phil of Cilcain
By Phil of Cilcain (6 months ago)

The only 'real' premium superzoom camera was the Panasonic DMC-FZ200? Did someone forget the Fuji X-S1? With its manual zoom its a classic.

11 upvotes
Optimal Prime
By Optimal Prime (6 months ago)

Why would DPR remind readers of the fact they never bothered to review the X-S1? Best forgotten, of course.

Comment edited 60 seconds after posting
3 upvotes
JonathanCalvert
By JonathanCalvert (6 months ago)

Yep, indeed - if I hadn't of bought the FZ200 the Fuji was next on my list!

0 upvotes
orion1983
By orion1983 (6 months ago)

i had the xs1 for a few days. unfortunately, the IQ was very, VERY unsatisfying to me...no crop possible at all, and 1600x1600 pixel was the maximum of showing a fullsize pic, either. i loved the DSLR-like usage but that´s not all.....

1 upvote
BubbaHotepUK
By BubbaHotepUK (6 months ago)

Same experience here with the X-S1 as orion1983. Great build, ergonomics and EVF but very poor IQ for the price - very, very soft images and lots of blown highlights even in "flat" lighting conditions (not to mention the droopy lens at full extension). A great shame Fuji didn't fix these issues and come up with an X-S2. As it was, I sent it back and settled with the FZ200.

2 upvotes
Salvux
By Salvux (6 months ago)

Fuji xs-1? Nice concept, but worst development. This camera had so many issues, that fuji stop the production and quickly all the remaining cameras dissappeared from japanese shop shelves, despite they proudly show "made in japan" at the debut.

0 upvotes
subbu68
By subbu68 (6 months ago)

Surprising. All my nature photos with X-S1 are keepers. So sharp that many wondered how I managed. http://www.flickr.com/photos/64618899@N04/sets/72157629217920220/

1 upvote
vapentaxuser
By vapentaxuser (6 months ago)

I tried out the XS-1, I thought the image quality was pretty good. But I thought the image stabilization was sub par, and my copy of it...the LCD would start flickering if there was a slight breeze, plus it was too heavy. But if Fuji could cut a little weight off of the camera and release a new one with the x-trans sensor that might be a compelling camera.

0 upvotes
biker7
By biker7 (5 months ago)

I had bought two X-S1 and noticed that one had a worse IQ than the other. Kept the better one...
Sometimes, I have to switch to velvia, giving more pleasing colours. Compared to both FZ-28 and FZ-38 as well as to the P7100, pictures of X-S1 are almost 100% sharp.
Resolution of full zoom is a very little better than a crop of my D90 and the Sigma-Zoom at 250mm.
If Fuji can go up to 600mm on a 2/3' sensor, why can't the others (Nikon P7800, Canon G16 or Stylus 1) with smaller sensors build a longer zoom? At least, longer than Stylus 1?

1 upvote
rpm40
By rpm40 (5 months ago)

They could, but since the XS-1 was pretty much an interesting camera that ended in commercial disapointment, I can understand the competition not wanting to emulate too much of it.

0 upvotes
dpfan32
By dpfan32 (5 months ago)

@subbu68 at 1024 x 768 px (your flickr photo size) every photo from an iPhone will look the same like your pix of the XS-1 ...

1 upvote
miiicho
By miiicho (6 months ago)

Very nice camera. It is possible for it to replace my e-pl1 in most situations. The only think that scares me is the hump for viewfinder. I'd really love to see a new camera without it. But otherwise I see no negatives :)

0 upvotes
Gesture
By Gesture (6 months ago)

Yup. Panasonic gets it with GX7b and LF1 designs. Get that EVF in the gestalt of the camera.

0 upvotes
Vegasus
By Vegasus (6 months ago)

Very smart move from Olympus,... use the previous OMD-E-M5 body and turn it into affordable high power zoom lens camera with f2.8. Sounds Good to me. I am not an Olympus fans and I respect the ideas. I wish Olympus continuing doing amazing things. Thank You.

To some ppl here say lotsa complaints, please... calm down. Why complaining? Complain if the product got faulty, like the buttons or dials. Don't complaint about how it looks, or comparing with sony etc, .. I am glad that dpreview compare it with RX10, .. i am guessing, This is not just cheap ordinary camera,.... Pls. Stop Saying unhappiness complaints, try it, see it, feel it,.. think... and say something about it.

Comment edited 13 minutes after posting
7 upvotes
keeponkeepingon
By keeponkeepingon (6 months ago)

Y'all need to read your own buying guide, this is not a superzoom and you folks are just about the only ones calling it a superzoom:

From the most recent buying guide:
"Super zoom / Bridge'
Very powerful zoom lenses - typically 20X+ zooms"

10X is not a super zoom. All we have here is a big inconvenient camera with (relatively) little zoom with a lens that is (relatively) slow on the not so wide end (where most folks use it the most) and (relatively) fast on the long end.

300m is what I use for kids soccer and it's barely enough, forget about birds etc.

It's hard to rationalize the cost and size when you can get a pocketable 7X LF1 for under $400.

3 upvotes
T3
By T3 (6 months ago)

"It's hard to rationalize the cost and size when you can get a pocketable 7X LF1 for under $400.

You're always going to pay more (in price and size) for constant aperture speed. Variable aperture lenses are cheap and easy to make. Even in DSLR lenses, constant aperture zooms are so much more expensive (and so much larger) than variable aperture zooms. Obviously, one *big* reason why someone would pay more for the Stylus 1 over a Panasonic LF1 is that constant f/2.8 zoom. Plus, with the Stylus 1, you get more to hold onto, with an actual grip. It'll also probably handle better (more DSLR-like), and it also gives you a hotshoe. So, yes, the Stylus 1 is more expensive and bigger than the LF1. But you're also getting more camera! Pay more, get more.

I don't think many people are going to compare the Stylus 1 to the LF1. They are two totally different classes of cameras: pocket point-n-shoot vs bridge camera.

2 upvotes
Andy Crowe
By Andy Crowe (6 months ago)

> Very powerful zoom lenses - typically 20X+ zooms" 10X is not a super zoom.

"Typically 20x+" doesn't mean "Always 20x+". While there's no formal rule, generally lenses over 8x are considered "superzooms" (the term was popularised in 2004 when 10x was the norm).

0 upvotes
bb42
By bb42 (5 months ago)

Considering LF1 and stylus1 - I'd see the LF1 more as high-class take-always pocketable while you still have a decent Dslr in your shelf.
If one wants only one camera the Stylus1 looks like a fair concept.

0 upvotes
Ross the Fidller
By Ross the Fidller (5 months ago)

"10X is not a super zoom. All we have here is a big inconvenient camera with (relatively) little zoom with a lens that is (relatively) slow on the not so wide end (where most folks use it the most) and (relatively) fast on the long end."

It is a typical all purpose zoom though, like the APS-C 18-200mm & M4/34's 14-150mm & that is a useful zoom length.

I for one am very interested in this camera having an E-M5 kit & wishing for something small & light on occasions & this will suit very well (having seen results from the same sensor in the XZ-2). If you're going to soccer then take your kit & 300mm lens & also for birds, but go to a street fair (festival) & this Stylus1 will be just perfect without having that heavier bag hanging off the shoulder.

Comment edited 21 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
jsandjs
By jsandjs (6 months ago)

This reminds me the old Panasonic FZ50, 1/1.8", 35~420mm, f2.8~3.7.
And of course, Stylus 1 should have a much better high iso performance than the FZ50 does.

0 upvotes
jcmarfilph
By jcmarfilph (6 months ago)

I'll buy one if it drops to $4xx, waiting for P7800 to drop its price too...

2 upvotes
B-rad
By B-rad (6 months ago)

Yet another so called super zoom with not enough zoom. What a shame. I use a Canon SX50 SUPER ZOOM and even with that most birds are still out of reach.

4 upvotes
new boyz
By new boyz (6 months ago)

"out of reach" is relative. But 1200mm from your SX50 is pretty long if you ask me, longer than many telephoto lens for DSLR.

4 upvotes
Ross the Fidller
By Ross the Fidller (5 months ago)

But your Canon SX50 SUPER ZOOM is not going to have the lens quality of this i.Zuiko lens in the Stylus 1.

0 upvotes
John McCormack
By John McCormack (6 months ago)

Does the camera have a "silent" mode, i.e., the ability to turn off all sounds and flash, say in a museum or theater.

0 upvotes
Andy Westlake
By Andy Westlake (6 months ago)

It doesn't have a specific 'silent mode' like Fujifilm cameras do, but you can go into the menu and turn off operational sounds (the shutter is essentially silent). If you don't pop the the flash up, it won't fire.

1 upvote
w00t3
By w00t3 (6 months ago)

I'm not sure this has actually been answered --- is this camera pocketable?

0 upvotes
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (6 months ago)

Only in a large coat pocket. In general, I'd say 'no.'

1 upvote
yabokkie
By yabokkie (6 months ago)

the global warming is making the situation worse.

1 upvote
Wim1964
By Wim1964 (6 months ago)

If you're willing to wear those sturdy cargo-pants with huge side-pockets...

0 upvotes
meanwhile
By meanwhile (6 months ago)

Are those samples almost all underexposed by the camera? (pre-production, so kinda forgivable)

0 upvotes
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (6 months ago)

You'll see I did add 0.3EV to most of them, to make up for the camera's rather conservative nature.

As you say, this is firmware 0.9, so there's still a chance for improvement.

Comment edited 18 seconds after posting
1 upvote
MarcusGR
By MarcusGR (6 months ago)

"...The Stylus 1 isn't as ambitious as the RX10 ... but it's also considerably smaller and significantly less expensive" Come on !! A Stylus 1 weighs LESS THAN HALF an RX10, therefore comparing them is ABSURD as comparing an RX10 (810 gr.) to a professional SRL equipped with a professional zoom lens (weighing over 1600 grs.).
For us travellers, PORTABILITY is a prime concern, and all comparisons should be made between comparably portable cameras!

Comment edited 4 times, last edit 14 minutes after posting
7 upvotes
mpix345
By mpix345 (6 months ago)

The size/zoom/IQ for me is a deal-breaker.

My main camera is an E-M5. Very happy with it, a few primes and a few zooms.

I have an RX100, which requires some compromise in IQ (IMO) but is pocketable.

I have a Nikon P510 which zooms to 1000mm. Major IQ compromise, but it gives me reach on the cheap. Very cheap.

The Stylus 1 fits somewhere in the middle of all that. If it was pocketable it could replace the Sony. If it had length it could replace the Nikon. If it had a bigger sensor/better IQ it could replace the E-M5. But it doesn't have any of those things.

I'd consider it for my only camera, if I chose to have just one camera. But I'm just not there yet.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 1 minute after posting
2 upvotes
Naveed Akhtar
By Naveed Akhtar (3 months ago)

this is exactly targeting that different person, other than you!
one cam for everything in a very good way, not the best way, which isn't possible anyways!!

I would keep it next to one m43 pro body and use phone camera for casual shots!!

0 upvotes
pixel_colorado
By pixel_colorado (6 months ago)

No SWIVEL LCD = LAME!

2 upvotes
BobT3218
By BobT3218 (6 months ago)

I was keen till I read Richard Butler's First Impressions where he says, "...once I've made the decision to carry something that isn't pocketable, I want a step up in image quality to make up for that inconvenience."
Nothing truer has ever been said. I didn't bother reading on. Despite being unashamedly an Olympus fan boy, I no longer have any interest in this camera.

11 upvotes
caver3d
By caver3d (6 months ago)

Well, then Richard Butler, I guess you have no interest in a lot of cameras from Sony, Panasonic, Nikon, Canon, Fuji, etc., that have a small sensor and don't fit in a pocket. Correct? It is NOT limited to Olympus, is it?

0 upvotes
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (6 months ago)

@caver3d - nowhere do I suggest this is exclusive to Olympus, and it takes some effort to infer such a suggestion.

When I say I don't really like large cameras with small sensors, I mean it of all brands.

10 upvotes
Bjorn_L
By Bjorn_L (6 months ago)

I also agree with Richard.

I own and use large and small cameras. I use large cameras for quality and small ones for occasional convenience.
But once I go to a larger body I expect (and require) that it include a larger sensor. Otherwise why bother with the larger camera?
I normally like Olympus cameras but I don't really get this one. I'm not knocking those who do like this, just saying I do not get the appeal of it.

1 upvote
Geekapoo
By Geekapoo (6 months ago)

I also agree with Richard. I have owned ther Canon S100 and Oly XZ-1....dropped them like a bad habit. The only compromise I will make is using an RX100....because of the sensor.

1 upvote
dpfan32
By dpfan32 (5 months ago)

After having the RX100 it's very difficult for me to step down to a small-sensor camera ... The RX100 has much darker lens at the tele end but who cares with its excellent high ISO performance, where a ISO1600 looks better than ISO400 on small sensor cameras. + on the RX100 you can crop a lot or reduce pixel count and zoom longer or use the excellent Clear Zoom...
I won't make a compromise with this Olympus, it makes no sense to a RX100 owner..
One bad thing abour RX100: shoting with it is soooo boooring.... I have/had the S95, E-PL1, F200EXR, FZ200 Nokia808 PureView and they all make lots more fun to shoot with.

ANd the samples are not looking very good to me.... My Nokia 808 will beat this Oly hands down on wide angle comparison.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
FujicaST605
By FujicaST605 (6 months ago)

Wake me when they finally make a real digital XA.

3 upvotes
pelicaneng
By pelicaneng (6 months ago)

"In the graph below, the lower the line, the better the camera is likely to be for low-light image quality and blurring backgrounds, at any given equivalent focal length."

Aperture is Aperture. Yes DOF is inversely proportional to sensor size, but light gathering, the number of photons per unit area is a constant. So the blurring background part is correct but the low light part is not, all things being equal with sensor density.

The graph with the "y axis" labelled as equivalent aperture is simply wrong. Equivalent DOF sure, equivalent Aperture - no.

0 upvotes
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (6 months ago)

Number of photons per unit area is indeed the same, but in the larger sensor has a larger area, so will receive more photons per unit time.

The apertures are equivalent in terms of depth-of-field and total light received on the focal plane.

5 upvotes
Chez Wimpy
By Chez Wimpy (6 months ago)

At this point there needs to be a term for "exposure is the same!" brigade. Those who settle on the Panasonic FZ200 as the ultimate low-light solution, unable to perceive the increased image noise.

1 upvote
Karroly
By Karroly (6 months ago)

This is not the total photons per unit time on the whole sensor area that matters actually, but ONLY the total photons per unit time on each photosite. And as the photosite of a small sensor is usually smaller, it catches less photons per unit time so the signal/noise ratio is lower. And the photosite is also more quickly saturated in strong light, thus the dynamic range is also lower. And so the IQ...

0 upvotes
pelicaneng
By pelicaneng (6 months ago)

"Number of photons per unit area is indeed the same, but in the larger sensor has a larger area, so will receive more photons per unit time."

This is certainly valid but I am not sure what this has to do with the graph with a y axis labelled equivalent aperture?

"This is not the total photons per unit time on the whole sensor area that matters actually, but ONLY the total photons per unit time on each photosite. And as the photosite of a small sensor is usually smaller, it catches less photons per unit time so the signal/noise ratio is lower. "

Exactly which is I included the caveat on sensor density, ie photosite size.

The problem I have with this graph is that is reinforces the myth that f2.8 is not equal to f2.8 when it most certainly is. If you had labelled the y axis something like -

Effective DOF/Sensitivity expressed as Aperture

I would have been ok.

Comment edited 7 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (6 months ago)

@pelicaneng - it's also equivalent in terms of absolute size of the aperture (which is why D-O-F is also equivalent) - an F8 aperture on a 100mm lens for full frame would be 12.5mm in diameter - the same as an F4 aperture on a 50mm lens on a 2x crop camera.

The point is that the two are equivalent (not identical to) one another in most of the respects that are relevant to photography.

0 upvotes
pelicaneng
By pelicaneng (6 months ago)

Yes the area at 122mm2 and therefore the diameter at 12.5mm is the same. So the total amount of light available to the sensor is the same. But, the photons per unit area are not the same, in fact there are four times as many photons per unit area for the crop sensor (225 mm2 vs 864mm2), I am still not sure how you are applying this to the graph of aperture expressed as f number. This is why lens aperture is so useful. f4=f4=f4 at equivalent FOV. My 100mm lens at F4 on FF delivers the same amount of light/area as the 50mm F4 lens on my 2xCrop. ie 490mm2 vs 122 mm2 which is equivalent to the ratio of the sensor ares. Given similar sensor pixel pitch/sensor generation/fab the low light performance should be identical

My issue is the labeling of the y axis and the reference to low light sensitivity. Aperture as expressed as f number which is what you used on the y axis is independent of this.

I go back to this -

Effective DOF/Sensitivity expressed as Aperture

0 upvotes
Karroly
By Karroly (6 months ago)

@pelicaneng,
Sorry, I forgot to mention that my comment was addressed to Richard, not to you.
We agree on this.

0 upvotes
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (6 months ago)

@pelicaneng. That's the point - these two systems (FF with 100mm F8 and 2x crop with F4) would receive different light intensities over different areas, but the two cancel each other out.

So, if they're both the same pixel count - the small sensor will have a higher intensity of light but its pixels are smaller, so the total number of photons-per-pixel will be the same.

If they were the same pixel size, then the large sensor will receive less light per pixel, but will have more pixels. These can either be scaled down to the same pixel count as the smaller sensor (with the expectation of noise averaging to around the same level), because the overall light going to make up the image is the same (despite lower intensity).

0 upvotes
Digital Suicide
By Digital Suicide (6 months ago)

Everyone likes samples, because they are oversaturated. It's psychology. Marketing works the same way.

0 upvotes
Wim1964
By Wim1964 (6 months ago)

Well, I don't like these sample, and they're the opposite of oversaturated, i.m.o.

0 upvotes
Camp Freddy
By Camp Freddy (6 months ago)

A pretty ugly concoction, but somehow Olympus ( and Sony therefore as major share holder) are committed to a superzoom and retro PEN / OM styling.
|
Better off doing an mFT 16mpx chip with a non interchangeable 24-120 collapsing zoom for around the 700 USD mark IMHO. Let Fuji amd Panny fight it out with Nikon following soon after in the superzoom sector.

3 upvotes
Wim1964
By Wim1964 (6 months ago)

I'm sorry, I'm a bit of a newbie here; what's a "mFT16mpx chip" ?

0 upvotes
Gesture
By Gesture (6 months ago)

Exactly. XZ-1 is now $245. Reasonable acquisition. When it was $500-NO. This camera is overpriced.

0 upvotes
6x9
By 6x9 (6 months ago)

The Sony RX10 is a more interesting camera compared to Stylus, considering the sensor size and overall look. The styllus looks now as one of those "me too" products, shaded by the Sony f/2.8 megazoom camera. It is more than a compact... I wanted to buy it immediately after I saw announcement. The Stylus 1... I believe that this is a step in a wrong direction. I have a Panasonic GF5 4/3 camera with collapsable 14-42 zoom. It is as small (if not smaller) as most of small sensor compact cameras (except for the protruding lens). Well, it does not have the F/2.8 aperture, but this kit did not cost me 700 USD either.

0 upvotes
edu T
By edu T (6 months ago)

@ Wim1964
"mFT16mpx chip" is a 16-megapixel Four Thirds-size sensor on a camera whose lens mount is micro-Four Thirds.

1 upvote
caver3d
By caver3d (6 months ago)

So, you cannot call it a mFT chip, as it does not exist. It is a FT (4/3) sensor. People need to get that straight.

0 upvotes
meanwhile
By meanwhile (6 months ago)

"XZ-1 is now $245. Reasonable acquisition."

Sure, but if you only buy 3 year old cameras at that price, the company goes broke and doesn't make any more.

0 upvotes
meanwhile
By meanwhile (6 months ago)

"When it was $500-NO. This camera is overpriced."

I have an XZ-1. Low light performance is worse, controls are worse, no EVF, almost 3 times less reach, and lens slower on the long end. How is this camera not worth the price of admission when compared to that?

0 upvotes
edu T
By edu T (6 months ago)

@ caver3d
Yeah they do indeed. For the full scoop I suggest this neatly illustrated article, http://www.dpreview.com/news/2008/8/5/microfourthirds

0 upvotes
Camp Freddy
By Camp Freddy (6 months ago)

@caverd - yeah the 16mpx sensor probably the first couple of Olympus (sony built) sensors which are mFT optimised or you could say that they will never see light of day in the four thirds format .....which differs in software due to the distortion mFT lens mount distance creates but then also on chip image acquisition can be improved on chip. FT is dead for better or for worse.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 3 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
alexisgreat
By alexisgreat (6 months ago)

The Fuji HS series are far better options, especially since they have the DR of a large sensor camera

1 upvote
alexisgreat
By alexisgreat (6 months ago)

How about those of us who want to take pictures of birds far away, the moon to fill the frame and planets? 300mm zoom isnt enough, I find myself using a TC even with a 720mm superzoom! and the weight of a large sensor camera plus large lens is simply not an option

2 upvotes
Ross the Fidller
By Ross the Fidller (5 months ago)

No camera is everything to everybody. That is why there is choice throughout the range from P&S to top of the line Pro DSLR's.

So if you want to take photos of birds far away with this camera you could get the add-on teleconverter kit or get an interchangeable lens camera (DSLR or CSC) with the appropriate lens.

1 upvote
Jote
By Jote (5 months ago)

"How about those of us who want to take pictures of birds far away, the moon to fill the frame and planets? 300mm zoom isnt enough"

What exactly is your problem? Is anyone forcing you to buy this camera? Jesus...

2 upvotes
VadymA
By VadymA (6 months ago)

The IQ of the samples is just horrible even by the small sensor standards.

0 upvotes
Markol
By Markol (6 months ago)

DPR's usual special samples don't help much either. As if they were trying to post photos that tell as little as possible about the IQ of the camera but a lot about the photographer's artsiness.

0 upvotes
vapentaxuser
By vapentaxuser (6 months ago)

I think they are better than the ones from the G16, P7800, and S120.

1 upvote
cinemascope
By cinemascope (6 months ago)

Superzooms are like megapixels. Point and shooters are easily impressed by zoom ratios as a metric when buying, when probably 98%* of their photos are taken at base wide angle (think group photos, landscape, selfies). A 20-50mm equivalent would cover most point and shooters' needs while allowing for a bigger sensor within reasonable size constraints. Think Canon G1X but with less range...

* I ran a quick script parsing the EXIF info from my siblings' photo backups, who are P&Srs, and came with about 96% at base wide, 2.5% just off base, 1% normal (30-50mm)... Fair enough this is not a large sampling base but was an interesting exercise nonetheless...

1 upvote
Joseph Mama
By Joseph Mama (6 months ago)

Aaand, those people can go buy an RX100 or similar with a big wide angle aperature and modest zoom. Those that want extra range to take pictures of their kids playing soccer and birds and stuff can continue to buy a superzoom such as this.

1 upvote
108
By 108 (6 months ago)

totally agree with cinemascope

Comment edited 50 seconds after posting
2 upvotes
EinsteinsGhost
By EinsteinsGhost (6 months ago)

I agree, to some extent. But, IMO, 28-300 is a very useful range even if most images would like be using 28-100mm equivalent. Anything beyond, is more marketing speak.

0 upvotes
AbrasiveReducer
By AbrasiveReducer (6 months ago)

I say, let people have their super zooms so long as the quality isn't awful. Unfortunately, it usually is. I remember the first Tamron 28-200 lenses. Compact, light, versatile, and lousy. Sold like hotcakes.

1 upvote
kahren
By kahren (6 months ago)

i would love a 20-60mm f2 in a size of canon s120

0 upvotes
white shadow
By white shadow (6 months ago)

Nothing new. Newbies always want bargains without knowing what they want.

Some just love the longest zoom possible. Some just want more megapixels without knowing the relationship between number of pixels and sensor size. Some are not willing to pay for quality and will only pay for discounted 3 years old "end of life" cameras. Some are overly concern about weight and will not want anything bigger than a P&S camera. Many are not interested to learn the finer art of photography but just want to take random snapshots.

There is no perfect camera which will suit everybody. So, one just have to know who he is and buy what is suitable for himself.

However, professionals would know exactly what they want, are willing to pay for quality and would not go on complaining about everything.

Ultimately, one man's meat is another's poison.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 9 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
jkokich
By jkokich (6 months ago)

I understand about size and all, but $699? You could get a DSLR for that!

1 upvote
Joseph Mama
By Joseph Mama (6 months ago)

Yes and it would be much bigger. Especially once you put the 5 pound 300mm equivalent lens on it! :-)

1 upvote
justmeMN
By justmeMN (6 months ago)

In spite of its capabilities, that price for a 1/1.7” sensor camera is a tough sell.

6 upvotes
Jote
By Jote (5 months ago)

"I understand about size and all, but $699? You could get a DSLR for that!"

Or a used car, for that matter. Your point being...?

1 upvote
Wim1964
By Wim1964 (6 months ago)

As for more contributers here I'm very underwhelmed by the samples I've seen so far, both in normal conditions as in low light...very ''soft'' colours, lots of grain. The Nikon 7700-samples are nice, bright and crispy in comparison!

1 upvote
Elaka Farmor
By Elaka Farmor (6 months ago)

Sadly I agree. I hoped for better....

1 upvote
KariIceland
By KariIceland (6 months ago)

not 1"? no thanks.

1 upvote
ccm
By ccm (6 months ago)

Not m43? No thanks.
Not APS-C? No thanks.
Not Full Frame? etc

They all have their place juggling size, weight, portability, price and other factors.

3 upvotes
cam2013
By cam2013 (6 months ago)

year 2013 and still 1/1/7 .This idiots have not learnt that this cameras are not going to sell by just changing name from abc to xyz each year.Change freaking sensor to 1 inch or to 4/3 or to an aps c.Dpreview please stop publishing first revew of these junk cameras which is already dead on arrival..

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 3 minutes after posting
6 upvotes
Joseph Mama
By Joseph Mama (6 months ago)

Then you are welcome to pay 1400 bucks for a RX10 and lug it around. Or get a huge zoom lens on your DSLR and lug it around.

Its still an improvement over these 60X superzooms with 1/2.3 inch sensors and 6.3 aperatures.

3 upvotes
camcom12
By camcom12 (6 months ago)

@ccm & JM: Indeed. A 500 hp sports car that gets 75mpg ?

1 upvote
Jote
By Jote (5 months ago)

Also, it doesn't have Siri. "no thanks."

1 upvote
Elaka Farmor
By Elaka Farmor (6 months ago)

Some people here are impressed with the image quality. Why?? Look especially at the water of this Stylus 1 photo at base iso:
http://masters.galleries.dpreview.com.s3.amazonaws.com/2736132.jpg?AWSAccessKeyId=14Y3MT0G2J4Y72K3ZXR2&Expires=1383072963&Signature=6v0ym5PsbOk1LPgbwpXhEvoO3i8%3d

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
white shadow
By white shadow (6 months ago)

This is the ideal camera for the "would-be" Canon G16 customers who keep complaining that the G12/16 does not have a decent EVF and a not long enough zoom lens.

Now, they will definitely complain that it is too expensive at $699.00 and the sensor is still too small.

7 upvotes
Total comments: 324
123