Previous page Next page

Olympus Stylus 1 First Impressions Review

October 2013 | By Andy Westlake, Richard Butler
Buy on GearShop$699.00


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
59
I own it
137
I want it
43
I had it
Discuss in the forums

Comments

Total comments: 324
123
John McCormack
By John McCormack (9 months ago)

Are there filter threads on the lens barrel?

0 upvotes
Andy Westlake
By Andy Westlake (9 months ago)

http://www.dpreview.com/previews/olympus-stylus-1/3

0 upvotes
Jeff Keller
By Jeff Keller (9 months ago)

No, you have to use the CLA-13 adapter, which I believe supports 55mm filters.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
Ben O Connor
By Ben O Connor (9 months ago)

CLA-13, CLA-12 fits for XZ-1 / 2, it would be a bit short for this one.

0 upvotes
justmeMN
By justmeMN (9 months ago)

Another non-DSLR with DSLR Envy Styling. :-)

0 upvotes
John McCormack
By John McCormack (9 months ago)

Anyone else having a problem viewing the samples gallery? I've tried a couple of browsers but they seem to be offline. ???

0 upvotes
Richard Shih
By Richard Shih (9 months ago)

And we're back. Sorry for the inconvenience.

0 upvotes
John McCormack
By John McCormack (9 months ago)

edit: Never mind. User error I think.

0 upvotes
6x9
By 6x9 (9 months ago)

Stylus 1 looks ugly, and although $699 is not too high, still it is a compact.
RX10 looks sexy, but the price....

I would still prefer the RX10 though...

3 upvotes
Ulfric M Douglas
By Ulfric M Douglas (9 months ago)

Buy it for the EVF and the awesome lens cap!

3 upvotes
Ross the Fidller
By Ross the Fidller (8 months ago)

Funny man! ;)

0 upvotes
photo perzon
By photo perzon (9 months ago)

vs Nikon P7800 same size, same price

But the Oly has a good EVF

1 upvote
Digitall
By Digitall (9 months ago)

Nice looking camera, very nice specs. but the tiny sensor vs. body size do not make my day. Sure that Olympus could put a sensor M4:3 here with this fixed lens camera. maybe one day...

3 upvotes
xMichaelx
By xMichaelx (9 months ago)

I would have forgiven the small sensor if the lens had a 1.7 (or so) max aperture. The whole problem of the sensor for me is low light; a faster lens would have helped.

1 upvote
technic
By technic (9 months ago)

@Digitall: 'sure Olympus could put m43 sensor in this fixed lens camera', are you joking?

The fixed lens covers a 1/1.7" sensor, covering a much bigger m43 sensor with the same (sized) lens is totally impossible. Just look at the size of RX10 lens, and that's with shorter effective focal length and smaller sensor than m43. Keep dreaming ...

4 upvotes
Optimal Prime
By Optimal Prime (9 months ago)

Or reacquaint yourself with the laws of physics.

0 upvotes
Digitall
By Digitall (9 months ago)

@technic: Yes I'm dreaming. And I keep dreaming...
Size, sensor, no space, defy the laws of physics?

http://camerasize.com/compare/#494,491

Now, put a pankake or just keep the kit zoom.

1 upvote
AbrasiveReducer
By AbrasiveReducer (9 months ago)

Nice. It's too bad current technology does not allow for a larger sensor in a package this size.

0 upvotes
vapentaxuser
By vapentaxuser (9 months ago)

I don't think we're that far off from a camera like that, at the rate things are going. In fact, I wonder if the camera companies already have the technology at their disposal to make such a camera but are worried that it will cannibalize sales of similarly priced ILCs/DSLRs.

1 upvote
technic
By technic (9 months ago)

A much larger sensor with this zoom range and aperture, in a camera with the same (lens) size is impossible, the laws of physics simply don't allow it. Some advances in optics are theoretically possible e.g. with metamaterials (negative refractive index lenses), but that is still at the lab stage and probably 5-10 years away for consumer devices. Such optics would allow a more compact, shorter lens for the same focal length / aperture spec. But it isn't going to change the fact that a much bigger sensor requires a much bigger lens ...

3 upvotes
RoJack725
By RoJack725 (9 months ago)

I will be interested to hear how responsive the Stylus 1 is. Reviews of the XZ2 claim it's rather sluggish, both in focusing and shutter lag. If these problems have been resolved, many shooters may accept the smaller sensor to get a superzoom with nice IQ (in reasonable light), great EVF and robust build quality.

I am considering mirrorless as a second system option, but if this guy turns out nice images, I may consider it instead. Samples so far look quite pleasing, IMO

Does the reviewer note if there are filter threads on the lens?

Comment edited 10 minutes after posting
1 upvote
sarit
By sarit (9 months ago)

Now if some one like Pentax comes up with a weather sealed camera with 1" sensor and 24-300mm equiv. f/2.8-4 lens at $750 then they will sweep the market at that segment.

8 upvotes
Wim1964
By Wim1964 (9 months ago)

Add a good (E)VF, decent video-capabilities and I'm in!

0 upvotes
6x9
By 6x9 (9 months ago)

May be, may be not. I am not sure in this. Firstly, do manufacturers really know what will sell well and if they can make any money on their product? Well, some times they do... But if they knew this for sure, than we would probably never see cameras like Pentax K-01 or EOS M... Which would be a pitty (as they are great cameras at their current greatly reduced price)... There is very tough competition on the market, and to sell something in reasonable quantities the product has to be outstanding. Secondly, even if Pentax had a camera with exactly same specs as Sony, Nikon or Olympus, I am not sure if they can charge the same premium...

1 upvote
Robert Eckerlin
By Robert Eckerlin (9 months ago)

For experts, this is probably a silly question. But for me it is an important question.

If comparing the image quality (including colors, contrast and dynamic range)
- of the Olympus Stylus 1 and
- of of my NIKON D5000 (or of a D5300) with my AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-200 mm 1:3,5-5,6G ED VR II Lense
will there be big differences? I ask the question because the Olympus Stylus 1 is substantially lighter than the combination of my Nikon Camera and my lense ... at my age, this makes a difference.

Notice, that I nearly never print my photos - just displaying them on my PC Monitor and on the TV Monitor.

1 upvote
Cipher
By Cipher (9 months ago)

Depends if you like to shoot a lot of low light photos. For that the Nikon will beat the Stylus 1. If you shoot mostly daylight, the difference would not be that big.

4 upvotes
calking
By calking (9 months ago)

Image Quality is such a subjective issue only you can answer that question for yourself. Rent or borrow the Olympus once it comes out and do some comparison shooting.

1 upvote
CFynn
By CFynn (9 months ago)

@Cipher

It'll be pretty difficult to find a small camera like this with a 1/1.7" sensor for rent.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Beat Traveller
By Beat Traveller (9 months ago)

Based primarily on colour and dynamic range as scored by DXO, it wouldn't be too great a stepdown. The real area you'd notice the difference would be in low light, as Cipher noted.

1 upvote
rpm40
By rpm40 (9 months ago)

If you're only viewing them on your tv or monitor, the difference should be minimal, unless the shot is very low light, or heavily cropped or processed.

1 upvote
Robert Eckerlin
By Robert Eckerlin (9 months ago)

A sincere "Thank You" to All of You for your answers.
Robert

0 upvotes
Kirppu
By Kirppu (9 months ago)

The Equivalent Focal length comparison could have included XZ-2.
But no matter I
ll keep reading forward :)

1 upvote
Ben O Connor
By Ben O Connor (9 months ago)

An amazing blend of enthusiast compact camera.

- The best EVF on the class (which has brought from most popular MFT cam)
- more than 10 times zoom with constant 2.8 apetture.
- Class leading 1/ 1,7 compact sensor (Olympus made three cam with same sensor also Pentax used the same recipy)
- A super macro and Super tele in the same body.
-Its a flat camera when the lens is closed (Many VF superzooms aren´t )
-Has a hot shue, which match for other olympus product, which are affordable.
-Wifi is avaliable.

I simply can´t find enought superlatives. Very well done olympus. Maybe I would put one complain that 28mm is not wide enought compare to 24mm, or could even be 22mm... but as long as there is panorama option, its not the end of the world.

Very well done olympus.

3 upvotes
Lan
By Lan (9 months ago)

I thought that, until I looked at the samples posted; the samples really do not look good at 100%.

I'll wait until I see some converted RAW images before I write it off completely, but based on the JPEGs it's a non-starter IMO.

2 upvotes
Adrian Van
By Adrian Van (9 months ago)

Decent image quality in these samples considering the size of the sensor. Maybe the price is justified due to the long zoom range of lens and F2.8. However, if I am going to spend $699 for a camera, I would end up going for a new Olympus m43 like EPL5 plus adding lenses and I already own m43 zooms like 14-150mm and 12-50mm with my EPL1.
Hats off to Olympus, as this will certainly appeal to many consumers in target audience with bigger than 1/2 inch sensor normally with superzooms.

5 upvotes
Ben O Connor
By Ben O Connor (9 months ago)

This is the only part, where is hard to decide.

- When you grab Stylus 1 , you take all the lenses with you.
- Even with slow lens (75-300mm) its not fitting anywhere. You have to have it on your side, neck or in a bag. And it fills all the area, but this is not.
- 75-300mm costs like 500 $/€ ... When you pay 700 $/€ you got flash, EVF and lens (both wide and tele ) on the same body.
-ITs also wifi,

As a XZ-1 and E-PM1 owner, I just can´t decide between selling my E-PM1 or XZ-1 or just buying this one as well and keep buying only F 1.8 primes for my MFT in the future and keep going snorkeling with my XZ-1....

Olympus made something so good that It makes to decide hard again.

2 upvotes
Adrian Van
By Adrian Van (9 months ago)

1600 iso with the EPM1 will beat the image quality of Stylus 1 at same 1600 iso, however with the stop advantage and constant F2.8 you likely would not need to go to 1600 iso as often with Stylus 1 as light gets low, compared to a EPM1 if it had a non-constant zoom. With F2.8 constant zoom, photos might be fine at 200 or 400 or 800 iso in moderate low light even hand held. All this and a light body camera with long zoom sounds good and will appeal to many.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 4 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
FTMDAVE
By FTMDAVE (9 months ago)

I have been using a Fujifilm X-S1 for over a year. About 18 months ago a major review site called it "well ahead of all other super-zoom compacts". It uses the same sensor as the Fujifilm X10. Since it wasn't included in this group, is it still "well ahead of other super-zoom compacts"?

2 upvotes
calking
By calking (9 months ago)

The more relevant question is whether it's still taking the photos you purchased it for. There'll always be something "better".

0 upvotes
FTMDAVE
By FTMDAVE (9 months ago)

A valuable comment. In purchasing the X-S1 my criteria was a single lens, decent zoom, and high image quality. I am extremely happy with the image quality and everything about the camera. It should be checked out by anyone looking at super-zoom cameras - leaving it out of this super-zoom comparison is a disservice to readers, unless the X-S1 really is in a higher category.

0 upvotes
Jogger
By Jogger (9 months ago)

Sensor is too small to be of any interest.

14 upvotes
Allen Yang
By Allen Yang (9 months ago)

I "liked" your comment, assuming its price will be fixed around 600 bucks. However, I will change my mind when its price drops to 300$ or so.

PS: I got a new Sony nex F3 at 280 bucks one month ago.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
YiannisPP
By YiannisPP (9 months ago)

"crop its (RX10's) 20MP output down to 12MP to match the Stylus 1, and you'll get a 260mm equivalent shot."

I think that's slightly wrong. The reason being the RX10 has a 3:2 aspect ratio sensor as opposed to the Oly's 4:3. So you can't just square root the pixel count.
In the horizontal dimension the Sony has 5472 pixels as opposed to 3968 of the Oly. That is a 5472/3968 = 1.38 magnification advantage due to the pixel count, so the 200mm of the RX10 actually corresponds to 200x1.38 = 276mm tele when you crop down to the Oly's size. Not 260mm.

Comment edited 8 minutes after posting
3 upvotes
Babka08
By Babka08 (9 months ago)

Wow. That's a lot of math.

1 upvote
Joseph Mama
By Joseph Mama (9 months ago)

You are technically correct but his point still basically stands. That said, comparing a 700 dollar camera to a 1300 dollar one seems a bit unfair. Especially considering that the RX10 is quite a bit physically bigger too.

You also cannot have it both ways. If you crop 20MP down to 12, you have also lost about 40% of the sensor area, bringing the effective surface area down from 116 sq mm to 69 sq mm. (compared to the 43 sq mm of the 1/1.7). Thus losing about 1 stop of comparitive quality.

1 upvote
Andy Westlake
By Andy Westlake (9 months ago)

@Yiannis: Your calculation is incorrect, because it only refers to horizontal angle of view, and therefore doesn't take into account the Stylus 1's 4:3 aspect ratio.

To show this let's repeat your calculation, but in the vertical dimension. Now the Sony has 3648 pixels as opposed to 2976 of the Oly. That is a 3648/2976 = 1.23 magnification advantage due to the pixel count, so (by your own logic) the 200mm of the RX10 actually corresponds to 200x1.23 = 245mm tele when you crop down to the Oly's size. Not 260mm.

(Personally, I'm not sure there's a meaningful difference between 260mm and either 245mm or 276mm anyway.)

Comment edited 4 times, last edit 5 minutes after posting
12 upvotes
YiannisPP
By YiannisPP (9 months ago)

Hi Andy. I have good reason to believe that my calculation is more correct than incorrect:) I have to do something right now but I'll be back in about an hour.

0 upvotes
calking
By calking (9 months ago)

and he's off to find a scientist ....
as if any of this makes any difference when it comes to photography.

7 upvotes
YiannisPP
By YiannisPP (9 months ago)

OK, first of all let me say that I am a little dissappointed by some people's reactions. First Babka and now calking, oh well. Of course it doesn't make any difference to the photography my mocking friend, but then again same goes for 90% of the discussions in DPR. It's just some innocent, geeky fun, if you're not interested just look somewhere else, right? FYI though, I do not need to find a "scientist"as this is highschool-level math really. Not that we can't get it wrong of course.

2 upvotes
YiannisPP
By YiannisPP (9 months ago)

Back to the subject now. My premise for my initial calculation was that when manufacturers cite the equivalent focal length of these 4:3 sensor cams, they calculate it based on the horizontal angle of view, not the vertical. We say "wide angle lens", not "tall angle lens", right? To practically check this I just took the same photo from exactly the same position with my Canon SX220 (28mm equivalent at the wide end) and my RX100 (as well 28mm equivalent at the wide end).
Then I check to see if they cover the same width of the scene and they do (very closely, less than 1% difference). Accordingly the RX100 frame misses quite a lot from the top and the bottom of the scene, having a native 3:2 aspect ratio instead of the SX220's 4:3. Downsizing the RX100 shot to measure 4000 pixels in the wide (like the SX220) makes objects in the scene have exactly the same magnification when the two files are at 100%. From here you can go back to my original comment on the Oly which seems correct.

1 upvote
YiannisPP
By YiannisPP (9 months ago)

Now maybe my SX220 is not a representative camera in this respect, of that I am not sure. One could think that maybe the diagonal angle of view could be used when calculating equivalent focal lenghts in these 4:3 sensor cameras, but that doesn't seem to be the case, at least with my Canon it seems to be calculated based on the horizontal angle, (since it matches the 28mm RX100 on the horizontal coverage). If somebody else wants to check this with their cameras if it's different, please let me know. Geeky calculations over:)

0 upvotes
Andy Westlake
By Andy Westlake (9 months ago)

Actually, focal lengths are normally compared across formats with different aspect ratios using diagonal angles of view. If you do this, the answer comes to 260mm.

BTW if you want to compare two lenses on different cameras for yourself, it's *critical* to make sure you're using a subject at infinity, as that's how focal lengths are specified. Almost all lenses change their angle of view when focused closer, in a not-very-predictable fashion. If you're making comparison shots in the comfort of your own home focusing on something a couple of meters away, all bets are off.

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
YiannisPP
By YiannisPP (9 months ago)

Not with my cameras as I wrote above Andy. How come the 4:3 aspect ratio Canon SX220 matches the 3:2 aspect ratio RX100 in the wide both at 28mm? Wouldn't be the case if their 28mm were compared based on the diagonal.
If you do base it on the diagonal though, the answer is actually 265mm:)

EDIT: Just saw your edit. I did not know that, thanks. I was indeed doing it from the comfort of my home looking at the wall:). I will do the same at infinity tomorrow and see how it changes. Will also try a friend's G12 to see how that compares as well, also at 28mm.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 12 minutes after posting
1 upvote
YiannisPP
By YiannisPP (9 months ago)

OK. I did go up a hill and shot at infinity and at maximum tele with my RX100 (100mm) and my SX220HS (392mm). I uploaded the shots in my gallery, only cropped the RX100 shot to match the frame of the (more zoomed in) SX220. You can verify that the SX220's magnification at pixel level is around 2.87. That supports my initial calculation premise, i.e. the RX100's extra pixels on the horizontal give it a magnification factor of 5472/4000=1.368, which would take its 100mm to 136.8mm. Divide the SX220's 392mm by 136.8mm and you get 2.87 indeed.
If we did the simple square root calculation used for that 260mm in the article, then we'd say that the RX100's equivalent focal lenght is 129mm and the objects in the SX220 should appear 392/129 =3.03 times larger, which isn't the case. Not with my cameras anyway. If you do the correct calculation requiring the diagonals to have the same angle of view, then the magnification factor should come out as 2.98. But in reality it is 2.87-8, as per my calc

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
YiannisPP
By YiannisPP (9 months ago)

If it wasn't clear, the RX100 shot in my gallery is not resized in any way, just cropped. Just look at the two shots at their original size, which is the cameras' pixel output. It's also interesting to see the huge gap in pixel level IQ:)

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (9 months ago)

the diagonal ratio is both an approximation (similar to f-number which is more for handy use than accuracy) and an accurate number for it's the image circle diameter.

but it'll look weird when the aspect ratios are very different, like comparing 4:3 and 16:9 (which will be the next dominating one).

we should use: factor = sqrt (area-ratio)
which has sound photographic meaning in a beautiful mathematical expression (and doesn't have to assume rectangular frame).

then factor RX10 : Stylus 1 = sqrt (121 / 41) = 1.72

or using the numbers given by DPReview
factor = sqrt (13.2 * 8.8 / 7.44 / 5.58) = 1.67

Comment edited 5 times, last edit 15 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (9 months ago)

cropping 20MP down to 12MP in whatever aspect ratio or shape (oval and heart are popular ones that I find on people's desks):

factor = sqrt (5472 * 3648 / 3968 / 2976) = 1.3002

this guarantees that each subject (like face of your kid) occupies same portion of the frame (like 10% of the frame) regardless of aspect ratio or irregular shape, solving the problem forever.

Comment edited 4 times, last edit 15 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
peevee1
By peevee1 (9 months ago)

"In the horizontal dimension the Sony has 5472 pixels as opposed to 3968 of the Oly. That is a 5472/3968 = 1.38 magnification advantage due to the pixel count, so the 200mm of the RX10 actually corresponds to 200x1.38 = 276mm tele when you crop down to the Oly's size. Not 260mm."

But if you do the same in vertical dimension, you'll get less. But both numbers don't differ from 260mm in angle of view very much.

0 upvotes
peevee1
By peevee1 (9 months ago)

"My premise for my initial calculation was that when manufacturers cite the equivalent focal length of these 4:3 sensor cams, they calculate it based on the horizontal angle of view, not the vertical."

Everybody calculates it based on the diameter of the image circle - that is neither horizontal nor vertical, it is diagonal.

0 upvotes
YiannisPP
By YiannisPP (9 months ago)

I see your point yabokkie, but I think you're overlooking the fact that the 20MP image is quite a lot larger in both width and height so that so that you can crop less from the height and end up with an image that has the magnification factor I calculate AND match the 4:3 aspect ratio of the 12MP image. The only question here is whether the focal lenghts are compared using the horizontal or the diagonal. My experiment with real cameras points to the horizontal, hence my original comment. If one or both of me cameras are not the norm and it's the diagonal that is used in most cameras, then again it's not strictly correct to do what you (and Andy) did, which is to just square root the areas. That's because of different geometry of 3:2 and 4:3. As per Pythogoras, one can see that if the diagonals of a 3:2 and a 4:3 frame must cover the same angle of view, then the 4:3 frame has an area 1.04 times larger than the 3:2 one. Then 5472/3968/1.04= 1.325, which corresponds to 265mm for the RX10.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
YiannisPP
By YiannisPP (9 months ago)

peevee1, if you read all my comments here you will see that I did an actual measurement of the magnification provided by a 3:2 RX100 at 100mm and a 4:3(aspect ratio) SX220HS at 392mm and then compared the "measured" magnification factor with the one calculated as per my original comment and they matched. Now I can see why maybe basing on the diagonal sounds more correct, but as I said my own experiment does not bear this out. I will agree that's one experiment and it's subject to inaccuracies (of the manufacturers's quoted numbers more than mine) but I'll believe my eyes unless another experiment proves it's not the case.
I also agree of course that 245mm or 260mm or 275mm do not make a big difference in practice, this is just a fun exercise for the brain, that's all.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (9 months ago)

anyone please don't be trapped in linear edges.

the question starts from "what defines a photograph"
it won't be the same framing if aspect ratio is changed,
so no way we can compare "same photograph"
and have to loosen the condition.

keep in mind that focal length is not something that we are really interested, angle of view is, and convertion/comparison of focal length will have larger errors for wide angles.

return to "loosening the condition", we could assume that angle of views at a certain focal length are equally the same for different aspect ratios of the same sensor area. I would like to hear and discuss if anyone has other loosening methods.

actually the solid angle will be same.

then anyone can get the same results as in my previous posts.

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

another way to get the same result maybe
assume the 20.9MPix 1" sensor has a pixel pitch of 2.4um,
at 73.3mm focal length (200mm equiv.),
a pixel will cover a solid angle of about 3.5e-6 deg2,
it's near 74 deg2 for the 20.9MP full frame 1" (10.5 x 7.0 deg)
and 42 deg2 for the cropped 12MP portion (7.5 x 5.6 deg).

Comment edited 14 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
YiannisPP
By YiannisPP (9 months ago)

No man, as I explained, you don't have to change the aspect ratio when you crop down. When talking about tele lenses and comparing their reach, people are not interested in angle of views per se, they're essentially interested in "how close they can get" to their subject, or else what magnification they can achieve. I explained how to accurately compare the magnification, whether you assume that equivalent focal lenghts are calculated based on the diagonal angle of view or else. And you can create a 4:3 aspect ratio when you crop from the file with more pixels, or keep the 3:2.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
YiannisPP
By YiannisPP (9 months ago)

Just did the same with my old 10MP Panasonic TZ7, (dull) max tele of 300mm shot in my gallery. According to the simple square root calculation the TZ7 should have a 300/100/sqrt(20/10) = 2.12 magnification advantage over the 20MP RX100. According to my calculation the RX100 has a 100*5472/3648 = 150mm equivalent focal length at 10MP so a magnification advantage of 2 for the TX7. Looking at the actual shot, it is actually 2.04. Not exactly as I thought, but closer to my calculation than the simple square root one.

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

> you don't have to change the aspect ratio

the cropped image can be of any shape and there is no such thing as aspect ratio for most of them (short and long axes for ovals may be similar).

there are photographic lenses and there are astronomical ones and we have different requirements. I don't know what you mean by "how close they can get". it'll be photographic it's measured against the frame (angle of view) and "pixel angle of view" is more an astronomical concept.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 11 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
YiannisPP
By YiannisPP (9 months ago)

Simply I mean that if you take a photo of the moon and in one camera's file there are 100 pixels across its diameter and in the other 200pixels, then the latter gets closer.

Comment edited 45 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (9 months ago)

I just checked spec of TZ7, 10.1MP, 300mm equiv. tele.
your calculation of 2.12 should be correct.

for your measurement of 2.04, I assume it's also correct. the difference may come from inaccurate numbers in makers' spec. you should accurately test the real angles (and may get say 291mm and 101mm equiv.).

p.s., I understand you are talking astronomical. then the topic is really anglar pixel resolution right?

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 9 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
YiannisPP
By YiannisPP (9 months ago)

As I said though before, also in the case of my Canon SX220HS for which I also did the same experiment(see above comments), the magnification factor I calculated compared to the RX100 agreed exactly with the actual measurement.
But for sure the manufacturers might not be exact. But just using the square root as you did for the 2.12 is not strictly correct even when the two cameras have been given nominal focal lenghts based on the diagonal, for the reason I explained above.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (9 months ago)

if it's angular resolution then let's talk about angular resolution. no need to mess things up with diagonal or whatever.

though sqrt calcution works for both of them.

> 2.12 is not strictly correct

there is only one assumption made for sqrt calculation, that angle of view won't change as long as image area doesn't (replace the angle of view with the solid angle which won't change). everything else are pure maths.

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 8 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
YiannisPP
By YiannisPP (9 months ago)

I am not sure what do you mean by image area. Two different rectangulars of different aspect ratios inside the same circle (with their diagonals being the radius of the circle) have a different area and spread their (given) pixel count differently across the same captured objects. I'm not sure how to explain without a drawing.

0 upvotes
YiannisPP
By YiannisPP (8 months ago)

Suppose we have a 20MP camera (5472x3648, 3:2 aspect) and a 12MP camera (3968x2976, 4:3 aspect) and they have the same max tele 200mm. Say you point them to a far away circular object of Diameter=15m and when they are fully zoomed in their diagonals cover exactly the circular object's diameter. The 3:2 frame is going to capture a rectangular portion of the circle's surface 12.48m x 8.32m = 103.8sqm. The 4:3 frame captures a slightly different (and larger) portion of the circle at 12m x 9m = 108sqm. Thus the first one gives 5472/12.48 = 438.5pixels/m and the second one 3968/12 = 330.7pixels/m. So the first one "gets closer" by a factor of 438.5/330.6= 1.325 and not sq(5472x3648/3968/2976)=1.3.

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (8 months ago)

I get your point. there is an error from the using of diagonal angle of view, which introduces about 2% of error between 4:3 and 3:2.

(1) pixel angle of view (horizontal = vertical)
diagonal AoV = 12.347 deg for both
horizontal (3:2) = 10.273 deg, 0.001877 deg per pixel,
horizontal (4:3) = 9.878 deg, 0.002489 deg per pixel,
2489 / 1877 = 1.326

adding the 2% correction to sqrt result we get:
1.300 * 1.020 = 1.326,

(2) where does 2% come from
at unit diagonal/diameter = 43.27 (24x36 fullframe)
area(3:2) = 864
area(4:3) = 25.96 x 34.61 = 898.56
different area thus different solid angle of view.

sqrt(898.56 / 864) = 1.020

for 43.27mm image circle diameter and 12MP,
pixel pitch (3:2) = sqrt(864 / 12) = 8.49um
pixel pitch (4:3) = sqrt(898.56 / 12) = 8.65um (2% wider)

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 10 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
YiannisPP
By YiannisPP (8 months ago)

I'm glad someone here does get my point and is not dismissive nor sarcastic.

Comment edited 54 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (8 months ago)

I think the solid angle of view is a beautiful solution but for your question simply,

(1) calc angular resolution at a certain focal length,
(2) use angular resolution to build a view and calc,

0 upvotes
YiannisPP
By YiannisPP (8 months ago)

I didn't have a question, just answers:) But I'm glad you arrived at the same 265mm (1.325) number.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 4 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (8 months ago)

anyways,
as the 4:3 sensor is 4% larger in area at unit diagonal
300mm on 4:3 is equivalent to 294.2mm on 3:2

so it's still 260mm equiv. RX10 cropped to 12.0MP,
and the ratio will be 294.2 / 259.5 = 1.134
(not bring 260 up, but 300 down)

and it's still 140mm equiv. RX100 cropped to 10.1MP,
and the ratio 294.2 / 141.4 = 2.08
(TZ7 has twice as much as angular resolution)

a problem is both of us got an answer, but you measured the angle against 4:3 and me 3:2. I don't think the 135 format is anything good but it's the de facto standard.

Comment edited 7 times, last edit 11 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
YiannisPP
By YiannisPP (8 months ago)

No, from the beginning I recognised that you cannot just use the square root of the area (ratiofactor = sqrt (5472 * 3648 / 3968 / 2976) = 1.3002), which you were mistakernly doing until I showed to you that it was a mistake. I helped you see that there is a 1.04 factor (4% as you found out yourself later) difference in the area (see my comment about 20 comments above where I'm saying: "the 4:3 frame has an area 1.04 times larger than the 3:2 one."
So I got an answer based on this observation (which you finally agreed to) and measured it against 4:3 because that's what Andy did in the article (he brought the 200mm up, not the 300mm down). You on the other hand did not know that if you keep the 260mm, you need to bring the 300mm down.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (8 months ago)

> if you keep the 260mm, you need to bring the 300mm down.

we have to adjust at least one side to make them meet.
which side is the question, 3:2 or 4:3.

cropping a 3:2 sensor down has nothing to do with another sensor 4:3 or 5:4 or 1:1.

the error comes from using of diagonal in angle of view calculation. it's a compromise and better than horizontal or vertical edges but is still not perfect, won't make things meet in its own calculation., the "area - solid angle" calc doesn't have the problem.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 8 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
YiannisPP
By YiannisPP (8 months ago)

I am not sure why you keep confusing the matter, when it is really simple. If we assume that manufacturers base their comparison of equivalent focal lenghts across cameras with different aspect ratios on the diagonal, then you cannot use a simple square root calculation as you did and the author of this article did to calculate the magnification factor. I thought you agreed to this some time ago after I explained, so I don't know what we are still arguing about...

Comment edited 10 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (8 months ago)

why should anyone insists using the diagonal when can clearly see it's bankrupt? and the problem will get worse when we go on to 16:9 and maybe home movie of wider screens.

and what's the diagonal of an oval or heart shaped image? it's quite unwise to assume there is a rectangular frame, which doesn't mean anything from astronomical point of view that you required (angular resolution isn't it?).

Comment edited 6 times, last edit 12 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
YiannisPP
By YiannisPP (8 months ago)

I do not insist on the diagonal personally, but the camera industry does, most people here claim that camera companies calculate their focal lenghts based of the diagonal (in theory, my own measurements don't prove that). I agree with you that the solid angle is a more general measure from a mathematical standpoint, but on the other hand I don't see anything that bad with using the diagonal since sensors are rectangular. It's safe to assume they're never going to be heart-shaped.
People know that for the same nominal focal length they're going to get less top and bottom coverage with a 16:9 aspect ratio (and more sides), compared to a 4:3 one. What isn't immediately obvious is how to compare the magnification factor and that's what I was trying to show here.

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
YiannisPP
By YiannisPP (8 months ago)

In terms of photography it's not that important if you think the RX10 has a 260mm equivalent tele if the OLY has a 300m one, or if it's really 265mm or 275mm. I just thought it was fun to show how to calculate it properly, but I don't think anyone understood it in the end except you, although you insist on not accepting that the diagonal is used in the industry. And when you had to agree that the answer was 265mm, you disagreed and said you prefer to change the Oly's 300mm instead:) First of all there was no 260mm to start with, it was just a rough calculation, which you then realised was not strictly correct. The reason why we keep the 300mm, is because Oly says it has a 300mm tele. Sony says it has 200mm. If you want to do it your way, you keep Sony's 200mm and you bring the Oly down close to 200mm. But why do that, only to disagree with me?:) Andy chose to keep the Oly as the reference and so did I.

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (8 months ago)

using of the diagonal does have its meaning for that's usually lens' image circle diameter. things change when we talk about about rectangular frames and cropping.

there is a concept of "equivalent angle of view" which should have the same accuracy as focal length. but we tolerate some error of several percent (Nikon DX says 1.5 while it's really 1.53 for D7100, 2% error). so there is no urgent need to use it at the moment. things may change when 16:9 gets more popular (linear error of 6% against 4:3).

it's a dilemma that you require higher accuracy using less accurate scale (well I don't see real problem as long as we know what each figure means).

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 11 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
YiannisPP
By YiannisPP (8 months ago)

I'm not sure what you are talking about. I think we've discussed what the diagonal is used for in so many comments here already.
You're talking about ILCs and that's different because the camera itself cannot quote an equivalent (35mm)focal length as it depends on the lens attached. It's up to you to decide whether you're going to multiply your lens' focal length with 1.5 or 1.53 and thus how accurate you will be.
Fixed lens cameras do quote their equivalent focal length, as their sensor is matched to the lens forever so we don't have to "tolerate" anything really. By the way, have you thought again about that 260mm? Do you now realise it's wrong or not?

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 9 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (8 months ago)

calculating ...

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 11 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
YiannisPP
By YiannisPP (8 months ago)

No need to, I calculated it for you 3 days ago.

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (8 months ago)

(1)
259mm is the correct number by a universal standard -- solid angle of view. there is no precondition for the calculation, it can be applied to all shapes and aspect ratios.

(2)
20.2MP 3:2 cropped to 12.0MP 3:2, compared to 4:3,
259mm is the correct number using diagonal angle of views. the result happens to be the same as the solid angle method, for the aspect ratio doesn't change when cropping.

at the same diagonal, 3:2 is 7.55% shorter and 4.01% wider than 4:3 and we get
281mm using vertical AoV and
249mm using horizontal AoV.

(3)
20.2MP 3:2 cropped to 12.0MP 4:3, compared to 4:3,
265mm is the number using diagonal AoV, for at the same area the diagonal of 4:3 is 1.94% shorter. since both sides are 4:3 now, we get same result vertically or horizontally.

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (8 months ago)

(discussion)
since the question was given in area (cropping), the area/solid angle of view looks the natural mothod we can use. one will have to make an assumption, aspect ratio of the cropped image which is not explicitly given, before using any of the linear methods.

diagonal is a good compromise between horizontal and vertical calculations, but horizontal or vertical method should be used if required by the application, like shooting a train or a tower in landscape.

(astronomical) angular resolution is not measured against the frame, so nothing to do with the aspect ratio. the noise of aspect ratio is introduced by the maker's spec (diagonal angle of view, that I overlooked) and can be removed before calculation.

we can convert maker spec to 3:2 equiv. diagonal AoV, solid AoV, or pixel resolution which will be needed for comparisons between 4:3 and 16:9 frames.

Comment edited 8 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (8 months ago)

the solid angle is behind the calculation but not directly shown here. it may appear when we use pixel angular resolution method:

e.g., RQ10 at 200mm equiv.,
pixel resolution = 0.00188 deg,
solid angle of cropped 12.0MP (of any shape) = 42.4 deg2,
AoV (3:2) = 1.472 * sqrt(42.4) = 9.58 deg (258 mm)
AoV (4:3) = 1.443 * sqrt(42.4) = 9.40 deg (263 mm)

small differences from trigonometric vs linear calculations (using of the linear focal length should be avoided for wide angles).

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
YiannisPP
By YiannisPP (8 months ago)

About 1) The camera industry does not use the notion of solid angles when they calculate their equivalent focal lenghts, no matter how much you like them. They use diagonal angles of view, apparently.
About 2) There is no point in you making this calculation because if you keep the Oly as the reference (300mm, 4:3 aspect) and you want to see how close the RX10 can get to that, then you will not crop down to 3:2, but to the Oly's 4:3.
Which leaves your 3) solution as the only one which applies, which is what I wrote here 3 days ago: 265mm.

You are showing an inability to focus on the real problem and give a simple answer, which in the end is frustrating. A real-world problem needs one solution which needs to be in accordance to what people would do in reality, not endless discussions. I am closing this here. Cheers.

Comment edited 5 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (8 months ago)

the current camera industry practice allows the error and 260mm and 265mm are considered the same. that's one of the reasons why diagonal angle is used. it won't cause large error before 16:9 gets popular.

the current camera industry practice uses 35mm format as the standard that angle of view should default to 3:2 diagonal. using of an aspect ratio other than 3:2 should be explicitly specified. I used it because I was talking to you and I know you meant 4:3. but DPReview is not a web site a specific person.

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (8 months ago)

> I wrote here 3 days ago: 265mm

you gave a lot of numbers when talking a lot of different things. I also do the same, with my errors. 265 (with some error) is only one of the numbers under one of the conditions, using a non-industrial standard.

I didn't use solid angle of 42.4 deg2 until the last post (though it's behind the calucations). the beauty of solid angle is that it's more primitive and can be converted to any shape and aspect ratio at will as shown in my last post. this avoids confusion, the very thing that brought the discussion right?

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 12 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
YiannisPP
By YiannisPP (8 months ago)

a) I did not give "a lot of numbers", I've only been giving the 265 figure before I started talking to you and since. Because I accepted for the sake of this thread that the diagonal angle of view is used (everybody says it does). You on the other hand have given a lot of different numbers since talking to me.

b) There is no "error" when using the diagonal. If you understand and accept that this is what was used when the manufacturer calculated the 4:3 camera's equivalent focal length, then you can proceed and calculate the magnification factor. That is that if a 3:2 a and a 4:3 camera quote the same eq. focal length, then the objects in the 4:3 camera will have 2% more pixels. A direct consequence of this is that the RX10 gets a 32.5% boost in magnification because it has more pixels, so its 200mm can be thought of as 265mm when comparing to the Oly. This is what people care about when comparing teles and it does not depend on how you decide to crop (but 4:3 will give you the Oly).

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 15 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
YiannisPP
By YiannisPP (8 months ago)

c) You cannot choose the conditions and give different answers for each theoretical case. There is only what is real practice right now (see point b).Likewise you cannot say 4:3 is not an industrial standard. Of course it is, it's in millions of compact cams everywhere! It's not the film days original, but it's a standard nowadays nonetheless.
Try to focus on what is reality: Manufactures base their eq. focal lenghts based on the diagonal angle of view and 4:3 is not some sort of arbitrary standard that I chose. It's the Oly sensor's aspect ratio.

Comment edited 8 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
YiannisPP
By YiannisPP (8 months ago)

It should read "then the objects in the frame of the camera with the 4:3 aspect ratio will have 2% more pixels", insted of "then the objects in the 4:3 camera will have 2% more pixels."

0 upvotes
YiannisPP
By YiannisPP (8 months ago)

"this (solid angle) avoids confusion, the very thing that brought the discussion right?"
Sorry, I missed that. Well from my perspective, the discussion started in order to give a slightly more precise way of comparing the two cameras' reach.
I didn't think there was any significant confusion about this. If there was, it was more about how the manufacturers really go about quoting their 35mm-equivalent focal lengths. After accepting that they use the diagonal angle of view, there was no ambiguity as far as I'm concerned. I am convinced that the real magnification advantage of the RX10 over the Oly due to its greater MP count is going to be greater than sqrt(20/12)=1.3 in reality. It's going to be 1.325 (at least). I think I explained why in length and the experiments I did with my 3 cameras support my calcs and some.

Comment edited 12 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
YiannisPP
By YiannisPP (8 months ago)

You seem to strive for a more elegant, general solution which does not need to apply to a particular shape. And in doing so you stop paying attention to what is happening in practice. I am an engineer and not interested in that. For example I like finite element/volume kind of solutions for my problems, custom-made for a particular shape:) As opposed to elegant analytical solutions which are usually of limited use. I focus on how to get the most accurate solution possible, the one that will get me closer on average to what happens in reality.

Comment edited 5 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (8 months ago)

I always want to see the nature behind.

we have a lot of aspect ratios for film/camera/projection, video, print, and display screens the popular ones 1:1, 5:4, 4:3 and 1.375, 1.41 A/B/C series paper, 3:2, 16:9 and 1.85 wide screen, 2.39 cinema, and some wider formats.

currently we have 3.80 (8192x2160) but even for 2.40 cinema or 2.66 (two 4:3) the diagonal becomes horizontal angle of view and the vertical is very narrow that no linear AoV looks right.

often the more aspects you have, and harder you push the limits, more clearer you can see common nature behind the chaos and be able to cut the Gordian knot.

Comment edited 5 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (8 months ago)

diagonal angle of view doesn't look weired (at least much better than horiz/vert) when the aspect ratio doesn't change much. but it doesn't save you much either, no simpler caculation than solid angle method, and people may easily get their calc wrong. so no benefit to use.

diagonal angle of view may be prefered to reduce error in communication. this is like when people talk with kids, they may give non-accurate or even false answers.

not the case here.

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 3 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Ridethelight
By Ridethelight (9 months ago)

The Nikon P7800 samples look a lot better

5 upvotes
HarryLally
By HarryLally (9 months ago)

So what is it? Andy Westlake or Andrew Westlake?

0 upvotes
Andy Westlake
By Andy Westlake (9 months ago)

My name is not important.

9 upvotes
ryansholl
By ryansholl (9 months ago)

@Andyrew: Everything is of the utmost importance. On the internet.

Comment edited 18 seconds after posting
5 upvotes
AbrasiveReducer
By AbrasiveReducer (9 months ago)

"My name is unimportant and my job you could call mean, but I like the work and I do it well and that's enough for me." -- Tony Banks

1 upvote
abortabort
By abortabort (9 months ago)

Cool, can't wait for Pentax to come out with an MX-1 style version of this with brass plates and MX-1 good looks.

0 upvotes
glaebhoerl
By glaebhoerl (9 months ago)

You guys always bash the "fiddly rear control dial", but on my XZ-1 I much, much prefer it to the one around the lens. The usability of the lens ring is killed by the fact that you have to spin it some indeterminate time or amount before it actually starts to change a setting (contrast to the rear dial, where you press it to engage it). Sometimes I spin it accidentally and then I have to check if it actually changed anything, and when I want to use it intentionally the delay is really annoying. I also find the mostly-free-spinning-but-loudly-clicking-along-the-way operation is more difficult and less precise than the rear dial.

Anyway - has all of this been improved with the XZ-2 and/or Stylus 1? Or do we just have different preferences?

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 1 minute after posting
1 upvote
Andy Westlake
By Andy Westlake (9 months ago)

The front dials of both the XZ-2 and Stylus 1 have really positive click stops (when set to 'clicked' mode), and it's difficult to imagine that you could change a setting accidentally. When set to clickless mode, both have a really good 'feel' for manual focus too.

The Stylus 1's large, well-positioned, positively-clicking top dial is also much easier to use than either XZ's rear dial.

0 upvotes
glaebhoerl
By glaebhoerl (9 months ago)

Alright, thanks. I'll try before buying if it comes to that, either way. :)

0 upvotes
hassannabeel
By hassannabeel (9 months ago)

I think Fuji X-S1 still dominates this territory. Although it doesn't have constant aperture, but its high ISO results, High DR modes, external controls, zoom ring and good IQ all speak for itself. Fuji dealer gave me a brand new in $500.

If this camera has to beat that, it has to produce excellent IQ

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 2 minutes after posting
8 upvotes
biker7
By biker7 (9 months ago)

I agree 100%! X-S1 has not only a bigger Sensor but also a larger Zoom. And the body is bigger, of course. Above all, the handling of X-S1 blows all other superzooms out of the water.

The IQ must be par with P7800/G16 or above, then people will run for it.

2 upvotes
lolopasstrail
By lolopasstrail (9 months ago)

Probably a nice personality, if a little tubby. Price tag is nuts, however. A compact trying to pass for a non-compact in a quickly evaporating market needs aggressive pricing. $500 would be nice introductory, would like to see some Black Friday deals under $400. Otherwise this model will just be a footnote.

0 upvotes
olypan
By olypan (9 months ago)

I ordered an XS1. Lovely camera but enormous, nearly D600 sized! Good EVF but the image was very soft at longer FL and EXR res was disappointing.

0 upvotes
Dave C 150
By Dave C 150 (9 months ago)

I don't fully get these "in betweeny" cameras. Surely micro 2/3 can do all this for a similar size, similar price, and better quality. To me superzoom cameras are the ones with silly 30-50X zooms. The more the better. For me they are to get a good record shot of a bird that will still be better than my cropped DSLR telephoto can do from a 100m and comparable but easier than the same digiscoped.
Dave

0 upvotes
vroger1
By vroger1 (9 months ago)

By the way- all I ever wanted- was a superzoom style lens- what ever the zoom range- with a constant aperture for my m4/3s.

0 upvotes
vroger1
By vroger1 (9 months ago)

to me- the image quality and extraordinary zoom range of the FZ 200 could not be better.

1 upvote
Pierre Couture
By Pierre Couture (9 months ago)

If you can fit in a 1/1.7" sensor, and maintain an equivalent lens 25-600 f2.8, that might be even better...

2 upvotes
JEROME NOLAS
By JEROME NOLAS (9 months ago)

Great camera for superzoom lovers, I am sure there will many takers...

1 upvote
svuori
By svuori (9 months ago)

What's with the 'superzoom' complainers? Standard zooms have been and probably will be in the 2.5x - 5x range. DSLR superzooms are at 10-15x range. 10x has been a 'superzoom' for years and will be no matter how many 50x 'ridiculous ultra-zooms' manufacturers release.

3 upvotes
Julio Sánchez
By Julio Sánchez (9 months ago)

Other good camera but without a ring zoom, always the motorized one

0 upvotes
spitfire31
By spitfire31 (9 months ago)

Very sparse information about the video features here. External mic input? Manual audio input level? Earphone monitoring while shooting?

If not, it look like RX10 will have the serious photo-cum-video camera market all to itself, never mind the extra dollars.

/Joachim

2 upvotes
Andy Crowe
By Andy Crowe (9 months ago)

The RX10 is twice the price, they're not really in the same market.

3 upvotes
Andy Westlake
By Andy Westlake (9 months ago)

The Stylus 1 has neither a mic input nor a headphone jack. It's typical Olympus really - it concentrates on stills, with video given secondary consideration. If you want high end movie capabilities you need to look at Sony or Panasonic.

4 upvotes
paul spicer
By paul spicer (9 months ago)

Well to those who say the photo's are a bit soft, well look at the aperture, most have been taken at 2.8, I think they are just fine, in fact I think they are excellent, heck its a travel camera for goodness sake, just the job for a holiday, small & light and at last a decent quality viewfinder....which is just great in my opinion, also it looks fantastic, well done Olympus.

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
16 upvotes
108
By 108 (9 months ago)

This is a very interesting camera. XZ2 with an EVF. Size a bit big but still something you can carry on a ( large ) belt bag, if not as comfortable as a rx100 or a S95.
The OMD-5 should have looked like this , a more rounded hump on top, a more pronounced grip, not so sharp angles. A lttle bigger would not have hurt also...oh well.
The samples are very nice , and do a good job of conveying what this camera is for : something you take out whenever something interesting to your eyes shows up, while you're on a walk or even going to your office. Nothing pretentious, more about pleasure.
Looking at these dpr samples really get to me : next time I make it to the US of A, I get a direct ticket to Seattle : what an amazing and beautiful area.

5 upvotes
davids8560
By davids8560 (9 months ago)

I think we have the emergence of a "new" camera class: the "prosumer zoom compact" or something like that.

Actually I'd say this is more of a re-emergence. The Canon PowerShot Pro1 and the Konica Minolta A1/A2/A200 had 28-200 lenses. And they came out in the last millennium, albeit with much more primitive image sensors, by comparison.

And here we have the same choice that had to be made between, say, the RX100 versus the XZ-1. Basically, it's image quality vs. ergonomics.

Let's face it. The choices have become too numerous. There's no clear winner. And people have grown weary of doing side-by-side comparisons, debating pros and cons, and seeing their cameras become obsolete in a matter of months after all the fisticuffs, bickering, and debate. I say it's time for the marines or the air force or some kind of special black ops unit to step in, seize the camera companies, and force them to produce one single awesome generic camera. A Canikolympusentaxonyasonic, or something.

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
technic
By technic (9 months ago)

Agree, technology from about ten years ago revisited. Include Sony DSC-F717, DSC-F828 and a few others for a complete picture; those cameras were basically a big lens with a small electronics package attached to it ...

These cameras were relatively big because of the lens and the sensor size (2/3 inch in the Pro1 and Sony F series). And they were expensive and relatively slow to AF/shoot, so they disappeared from the market when DSLR cameras became affordable.

Sony RX100 and RX10 are in a way the modern version of these prosumer superzooms; Olympus Stylus 2 is more a modern incarnation of the Olympus UZ series with its smaller sensor.

1 upvote
photofan1986
By photofan1986 (9 months ago)

If IQ was on par with XZ-2, it would be nice, but from the samples here it does not come close. I wonder why the images are so soft.

2 upvotes
wootpile
By wootpile (9 months ago)

I agree. It has to be the same sensor as in the xz-2 and the P7800. Samples are not worthy of posting imho

0 upvotes
Couscousdelight
By Couscousdelight (9 months ago)

It's maybe not a sensor but a lens problem.

2 upvotes
technic
By technic (9 months ago)

it is the price to pay for having a 10x zoom lens in a small package (small for the sensor size and aperture).

0 upvotes
AdamT
By AdamT (9 months ago)

""" the only 'real' premium superzoom camera was the Panasonic DMC-FZ200. """

The FZ200 is no more premium than the SX50, P510 or Sony HX200/300, it`s still a plastic consumer megazoom with a pinhead sensor despite how fast the lens is ....... the only premium superzoom was and still is (until the RX10 lands) the Fuji XS1 . it wouldn`t be my personal choice due to being as big as a D7100 but regardless, unless the oly delivers, it`s still the next thing to the new sony in this area

Comment edited 45 seconds after posting
5 upvotes
Greynerd
By Greynerd (9 months ago)

Pin head sensor? Really? This sort of exaggerated hyperbole is more a symptom of a pin head brain.
I suppose you are one of these people who want a 28-300 affordable compact the same size and made of titanium but with an aps-c sensor. The RX10 is twice the price and will have very limited appeal regardless of its merits.

2 upvotes
AdamT
By AdamT (9 months ago)

Wow such anger in our aged nerd here, you want to take a chill pill before you have a breakdown ! ..

1:2.3" is as small as sensors get thesedays and definately not hi-end . "Premium" superzooms always had 1:1.7" or larger sensors . think Fuji S9500 / S100FS, Panasonic FZ30/50, Nikon CP8800VR etc . the new oly fits in nicely - the FZ200 does not, it`s basically an FZ150 with inferior image quality and a faster lens.

4 upvotes
vermaden
By vermaden (9 months ago)

"The FZ200 is no more premium than the SX50, P510 or Sony HX200/300"

Have You used them all?

I personally owned FZ200 and have chance to actually use Sony HX200 and Nikon P520 for longer time, co I will not speak here about Canon, as I did not used it.

FZ200 is great camera, all the options, manual controls, RAW images, 1080@60p (not i) 720p@120p, three definable FN buttons, ISO button, fast and accurate autofocus system, the FOCUS button (with semi manual focus), WHITE BALANCE button and on and on.

I have also had Nikon D5200 for short period of time and using D5200 was a disaster comparing to the FZ200, its just probably at D7100 level (haven't used that one). I also own Sony Alpha a57 as I got rid of Nikon D5200 and Sony Alpha a57 is up to the task to be as usable as camera as FZ200 is.

The only downside of FZ200 (as compared to DSLR/DSLT/M43) is lack of shalow depth of field (workaround with higher focal lengths) and a lot of noise at high ISO.

2 upvotes
vermaden
By vermaden (9 months ago)

(...) [CONTINUED]

As for Sony HX200 and Nikon P520, they are very uncomfortable to use, almost none dedicated buttons, very slow refresh for the LCD screen, autofocus is very slow and inaccurate, usability is at very low level.

... and I haven't even started to compare their lenses, which are all killed by FZ200's 25-600 f/2.8 equivalent.

1 upvote
AdamT
By AdamT (9 months ago)

Yes i have used them all, plusses and minuses for each - they`re all in the same class though, I liked the IQ of the HX200 the least, the SX50`s IQ the best , the lens of the SX50 was suprisingly good for a 24-1200 field of view though the panny had the best lens, Canon the best sensor, handling wasn`t great on any of them - the Fuji XS1 stands above them in image quality (albeit less resolution) , build and handling, hopefully the new Oly will too In RAW (the JPGs have too much NR at base ISO by the samples)

1 upvote
iudex
By iudex (9 months ago)

I am very glad to see that manufacturers finally put EVFs to compacts. Tunnel-type OVF is a dead thing (only Fuji has tried to improve it by putting some info in it) and (a decent, i.e. min. 1,4M dots) EVF is the future and a must for compacts to distinguish from (more and more decent) smartphone cameras.
So now Canon bring a G2x with an EVF (and letar also G17 with EVF) insterad od useless OVF.

8 upvotes
Wim1964
By Wim1964 (9 months ago)

Logically the next Canon should be with EVF and a (at least) 200mm-zoom capability...making it still harder for me to choose! :)

1 upvote
DerekWillmott
By DerekWillmott (9 months ago)

Hear Hear! Small camera, large sensor, good EVF, good lens (don't worry about super tele end of range). What more could you want in your pocket? All the components are out there now, just waiting for someone to put them together!

0 upvotes
technic
By technic (9 months ago)

... but these aren't really compacts (small cameras), Panasonic LF1 is one of the few current compacts with an EVF.

If you meant 'compact' in more general terms, there is nothing new here: ten years ago many prosumer cameras had long zoom range and EVF ... But I agree that an EVF is one of the features that is needed to distinguish cameras from cameraphones.

0 upvotes
Lukino
By Lukino (9 months ago)

Lately I'm thinking a lot about ditching my kit for a compact zoom, and this might just be the perfect one to do it. Only my usual doubt remain: will it be fast enought to catch my kids in action?

0 upvotes
Northgrove
By Northgrove (9 months ago)

^-- 2013 - By which only social network photography exists :p

0 upvotes
carabas
By carabas (9 months ago)

Then again, is the purpose of every photography to be shared with the whole world ?

3 upvotes
Wim1964
By Wim1964 (9 months ago)

Seeing the specifications this could be the perfect camera for me; very decent EVF, wifi capabilities built-in, best zoom in its class. I'll have to hold and handle the camera if it's going to work with my large hands, though....

1 upvote
wootpile
By wootpile (9 months ago)

Should be the same sensor as in Nikon p7700 but these samples suck. Not a single crisp image.. Let's hope it is just another a case of Dpreview manhandling. (why post pre-samples taken without sample-value content?)

I like the styling Oly is using - angluar and tight.

If the IQ is better than the sucky samples seen, I can see this one being a very good macro machine for bugs

1 upvote
Spunjji
By Spunjji (9 months ago)

I genuinely don't understand, a lot of these images are pin sharp, especially the portraits.

I have noticed that my system sometimes shows images as blurred when I expand them (after waiting for them to load) but they then load properly after being closed and re-opened. Maybe people are seeing this? Because this is not a blurry camera.

1 upvote
wootpile
By wootpile (9 months ago)

well, there's your answer - you're experiencing them as sharp because you are looking at them in reduced format and not their real format. Expand them to 100%

0 upvotes
calterg
By calterg (9 months ago)

I just sold my xz2 in anticipation of this, however with this price tag and the drop in price of yhe omd, plus no increase in sensor size, I dont feel tempted at all.

Omd em5 with 12-50 zoom is just us1000 in asia now.

0 upvotes
Henry Falkner
By Henry Falkner (9 months ago)

F 2.8 throughout will be a relief to some. I see the Stylus 1 as a logical step up from and update for my SP-570UZ. It can take the FL-36R flash I already have. XZ-1 owners that are bypassing the XZ-2 may embrace the Stylus 1.

3 upvotes
Deleted78792
By Deleted78792 (9 months ago)

Once again, the Equivalent Aperture chart shines and informs. The constant aperture F2.8 seems to be the new race after the interest in megapixels has waned- and it's good to see a return of focus (intended!) to optics.

The Stylus 1 does look interesting at almost half the price of the Sony RX10. The colours and contrast look great in the samples, and one does expect that from Olympus jpegs. It would have been interesting to see the size comparison against the RX10.

I also really enjoyed the photography in the samples, much nicer than the cold clinical approach to samples that DPR sometimes prefers. The good lighting and the beautiful season help of course.

7 upvotes
Mike99999
By Mike99999 (9 months ago)

I don't understand why review sites keep sticking to the archaic focal length / relative aperture / ISO ratings. These specifications are meaningless on digital and are used as a smoke screen to confuse customers.

The most important spec of a lens should be it's angle of view, in degrees. Focal length is an empty metric without the sensor size.

Aperture should be shown in absolute aperture, because this and only this will determine what the capture image will look like. Lens/camera systems with the same angle of view and the same absolute aperture will produce the same image.

And finally, something needs to be done about the ISO myth. Right now, the ISO scale is scaled to the sensor size, to match the equally scaled focal length and aperture. This is why we get the illusion that ISO 800 looks cleaner on full frame than on smaller sensors, regardless of the pixel pitch. This is nonsense, and does not give a clear picture of sensor efficiency.

1 upvote
edu T
By edu T (9 months ago)

AnuragP is right about the equivalent aperture chart.

About the measures, ISO 800 looking cleaner on a (35mm) full frame sensor than on smaller ones is not "an illusion" at all; not only it looks cleaner indeed, but also noise is numerically measurable. That's because, for the same shutterspeed and same f-number, a larger sensor is hit by a larger amount of light -- simple as that.

So, something must be done about spreading misconceptions... ;-)

0 upvotes
keeponkeepingon
By keeponkeepingon (9 months ago)

10X "super" zoom?

Y'all need to work on your nomenclature?

10X these days is hardly a superzoom. That's more like a pocket point and shoot.

2 upvotes
T3
By T3 (9 months ago)

I'm not a superzoom guy, but this one is very tempting. Quality looks really good, and it's a good looking retro-style camera, too. EVF, built-in flash, hotshoe, constant f/2.8, nice controls. There is definitely a lot to like with this camera.

4 upvotes
Elaka Farmor
By Elaka Farmor (9 months ago)

This is interesting....!

1 upvote
Vinc T
By Vinc T (9 months ago)

Really tempting! Should I need a superzoom, this will be the one.

1 upvote
Beat Traveller
By Beat Traveller (9 months ago)

Let me be the first to say those are really great samples.

13 upvotes
Paulo Goulart
By Paulo Goulart (9 months ago)

No, they are not.

5 upvotes
Beat Traveller
By Beat Traveller (9 months ago)

Well that's just, like, your opinion man.

1 upvote
photo nuts
By photo nuts (9 months ago)

I compared the weight/size, focal length range, equivalent aperture and sensor sizes for Canon G1X, G16, Olympus XZ-10, Stylus 1, Sony RX100 and RX10.

I have to admit it's hard to beat the RX100. Still my first choice unless I really want longer reach. In which case, the Olympus Stylus 1 is probably the best bet.

5 upvotes
beavertown
By beavertown (9 months ago)

This is what the Nikon 1 should have been done.

Nikon is stupid and will die soon.

4 upvotes
Paulo Goulart
By Paulo Goulart (9 months ago)

Olympus (compact) is already dead.
As far as I know, Nikon 1 is a "best seller"...(not like Olympus/other compacts)

2 upvotes
Kay Fisher
By Kay Fisher (9 months ago)

I'd probably buy a Nikon 1 V2 tomorrow if it had ANY bracketing!

0 upvotes
KonstantinosK
By KonstantinosK (9 months ago)

Only the DMC-FZ200? There is also the Fujifilm X-S1, which so far has been ignored by the DPREVIEW.

2 upvotes
ageha
By ageha (9 months ago)

The X-S1 doesn't even have a constant aperture to begin with.

0 upvotes
KonstantinosK
By KonstantinosK (9 months ago)

It was the first super zoom (at least in recent years) with a sensor bigger than 1/2.3", bigger even than 1/1.7" of this camera. And it was packed with features. It should have been reviewed.

4 upvotes
cgarrard
By cgarrard (9 months ago)

I actually liked reviewing the XS1, very decent camera.

2 upvotes
Joriarty
By Joriarty (9 months ago)

Damn, that is a seriously pin-sharp lens with some great Olympus JPEG colours. The design is a bit ugly, but it packs a lot of functionality into a good sized package.

Sony, Fuji, and Olympus have all been kicking ass recently, and it's great to see!

5 upvotes
thejohnnerparty
By thejohnnerparty (9 months ago)

Hum. "Bit". I don't think that is the way to spell it. ;-)

2 upvotes
Total comments: 324
123