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.

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.

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

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).

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!

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

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

Can one mount a filter on the lens?

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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. ;-)

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

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.

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. ;-(

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

"...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!

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.

No SWIVEL LCD = LAME!

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.

Wake me when they finally make a real digital XA.

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.

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

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

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...

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

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!

not 1"? no thanks.