Olympus XZ-1 vs. Canon S95/S100

Someone else must have pondered over the decision between these two cameras. Were you happy or unhappy with your decisions? I don't take my DSLR with me as often as I "should", and therefore constantly miss good photographic opportunities. I was first drawn to the Canon, for it is much smaller of the two, but then I noticed that the lens is ridiculously slow. I was instantly reminded of my old Fuji F11, known for its good ISO capabilities, which you needed often! However, has anyone of you bought an XZ-1 only to find that it is too big and wished that you had bought the Canon?

--
Mikko

I have both a S95 and a XZ-1.

The S95 is much more pocket friendly so if size is your main concern then that's probably the way to go.

On the other hand XZ-1 has a lot more options because of the lens, so it really comes down to what you're looking for.

They're both good cameras, but the S95 is more or less reduced to a wide angle camera in anything but bright daylight because the lens is so slow at the tele end.

I think S95 is the better companion for a larger camera, because if you want the extras that the XZ-1 brings (flash hot shoe, fast lens, many AF points etc etc) you'd probably want to bring your large camera anyway.

On the other hand if you want to have almost all the options you would get from a DSLR in a compact package the XZ-1 is a great option.
--
Sigma DP1X + DP2S. Olympus XZ-1.

no. realy like the xz1 size. the pic quality easy matches my dslr in any light because of the fast lens. also love the dof control perfect out of focus backgrounds.

cheers don

I bought the S95, disliked its indoor performance, returned it and bought an XZ-1. All in all, I am very glad that I swapped the S95 for the XZ-1, which I very much prefer.

Here is one older description of the XZ-1 (compared with the S95) I made: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1002&message=39053017

Some thoughts not present in that post:

• I like using "art-filters". The S95 has them mixed with "Scenes", and the list gets too long. In practice I found it a pain to go select art-filters in the S95. Apparently other people thought so too, as the S100 has the 2 groups split.

• I love the indoor performance of the XZ-1.

• I have no inclination to spend time dealing with RAW processing, and appreciate that Olympus gives me great out-of-the-camera JPEGs which are all I need in 98% of the time.

• battery life in the S95 was poor enough that it annoyed me in practice; the XZ-1 charges through the USB port. For me that is a big advantage, it fits my work flow and the camera is always charged.

• My impression was that I had to manually turn the flash off in the S95 all the time. The work-flow of "press button to release the flash" in the XZ-1 suits me a lot better.

• the XZ-1 has a lens cap that falls off when you turn on the camera. I appreciate that, some people dislike it ( perhaps they don't get it that it is intentional? I don't know). The full-auto lens cap in the S95/S100 would obviously be even better.

• the S95 has a proper user manual. The XZ-1's manual is a joke compared to it.

• IIRC the super-macro mode in the XZ-1 can focus closer than the one in the S95.

I have the S95 and the XZ-1. I'll reserve judgment on the S100 until it's reviewed; the 24-120mm zoom and possible faster shooting with Digic 5 may be worthwhile.

I've shot Canon SLR/D-SLRs' for 25+ years, but I prefer the Oly. colors and faster lens on the XZ-1. I agree with almost everything Pyramides has written below and added a few comments. I don't care for the Olympus Viewer 2 Software. It's slooooooowww in image editing on my Win 7 4GB PC. I use PSP X3 or Helicon Filter for JPGs and the few RAW images I shoot.

Pyramides said:

I bought the S95, disliked its indoor performance, returned it and bought an XZ-1. All in all, I am very glad that I swapped the S95 for the XZ-1, which I very much prefer.

Here is one older description of the XZ-1 (compared with the S95) I made: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1002&message=39053017

Some thoughts not present in that post:

• I like using "art-filters". The S95 has them mixed with "Scenes", and the list gets too long. In practice I found it a pain to go select art-filters in the S95. Apparently other people thought so too, as the S100 has the 2 groups split.

• I love the indoor performance of the XZ-1.

Click to expand...

Yes. Me, too. I do think the S95 resolves a bit more detail but also introduces more noise.

Pyramides said:

• I have no inclination to spend time dealing with RAW processing, and appreciate that Olympus gives me great out-of-the-camera JPEGs which are all I need in 98% of the time.

Click to expand...

The JPG's on the Oly are great. I feel no need for RAW in most situations on either camera.

Pyramides said:

• battery life in the S95 was poor enough that it annoyed me in practice; the XZ-1 charges through the USB port. For me that is a big advantage, it fits my work flow and the camera is always charged.

Click to expand...

I use the Oly. wall charger and transfer images with my card reader.

Pyramides said:

• My impression was that I had to manually turn the flash off in the S95 all the time. The work-flow of "press button to release the flash" in the XZ-1 suits me a lot better.

• the XZ-1 has a lens cap that falls off when you turn on the camera. I appreciate that, some people dislike it ( perhaps they don't get it that it is intentional? I don't know). The full-auto lens cap in the S95/S100 would obviously be even better.

• the S95 has a proper user manual. The XZ-1's manual is a joke compared to it.

Click to expand...

If I were Olympus I would be embarrassed by the poor quality of the XZ-1 manual.

Pyramides said:

• IIRC the super-macro mode in the XZ-1 can focus closer than the one in the S95.

Click to expand...

I think this is true. Using F/1.8 on the XZ-1 in Super Macro is a joy.

I have the XZ-1 and an e520.

If you want a really good stills camera, get the XZ-1. We bought it because we were looking back at our pictures recently and my wife comment how very much better the e520 pictures were than her canon sd780 super compact. Of course with a 4yr old we don't carry around the DSLR. But the XZ-1 now gives us pictures that pop in a camera that fits in quite a small case.

Also, I love the control ring on the front. In P mode you can change the ISO faster than you can on most DSLRs! (The canon also has a control ring around the lens, so not a deciding factor, but still very nice!)

Video quality is not as good as it's competitors, but using the center focus or manual focus tricks do take care of many of the issues. And I have been able to take video in situations where other cameras would just be dark due to the awesome f1.8 lens.

Love the XZ-1, but the S95 is very, very good. The $100 price difference means something, too.

--
Roberthd12

Well, this being an Olympus Forum, you're hearing from VERY happy XZ-1 owners (like me). On the other hand, i have an online friend who's holding out for a Fuji X-10, which has a real viewfinder. Cameras!

For me, the XZ-1 comes in very close to perfect. Quiet, small, perfect for travel photography. Fits in a shirt pocket, startup 28mm lens is just right (not too wide) for street photography, perfect for low-light work, adjustable flash down to 1/64 power, built-in Neutral Density filter for bright days ... it just goes on and on. Tremendous value for the money!

Also, on my architectural-photography side, the XZ-1 sensor works for infrared pictures... an unexpected bonus! All you need is a 720nm filter.

Hope this helps!

I have a Nikon D700, Fuji X100, Olympus E-PL3, and Panasonic LX3. I just got rid of a Panasonic LX5 because even in RAW, I could not get pleasing color. I shoot all my cameras RAW except the Fuji, which renders fabulous jpegs including very pleasing skin tones. The LX3 has salt water damage but somehow still works.

I too am waiting on the S100, the Fuji X10, and considering the XZ-1. I have played with the S95 a few times. It's certainly small and I have always like Canon's design aesthetics, but I wonder if it's too small for "real" photography - it's not so easy to handle. Another thing about it that bothers me is that you can't choose an off-center focus point and instead have to choose between center or AiAF. It's lens is going to be very slow after 35-50mm. I can't stand slow glass - I don't own a single removable lens that is slower than f/2.8 other than my new E-PL3's kit lens which came with the camera, and the Lumix 7-14mm f/4, which is a landscape lens for me.

On the other hand, the XZ-1 is quite large for a pocketable camera as is the upcoming Fuji X10, compared to the Canon, and the Panasonic LX3 and 5, which to me, are the best handling small "enthusiast" cameras.

The fast lens of the XZ-1 is certainly a draw though the lack of 24mm is regrettable - I love shooting wide and having this ability in a pocketable camera is valuable to me. Olympus jpegs are also overly noise-reduced so I would be shooting the XZ-1 RAW, which isn't a big deal to me.

If the S100 DPReview review is less than stellar, I'll get either the XZ-1 or the Fuji X10, most likely, though I'll really miss the 24mm wide end.

I have an xz-1 and an s95.

I find the xz-1 too big for shirt/trouser pocket but fine for jacket pocket. S95 is small enough for shirt\pants pocket so is truly an 'always with you' camera.

I prefer the size of the s95 and the image quality of the x-z1. The slow autofocus speed on the s95 is a killer for me, the xz-1 autofocus is super fast, great for street snapping. I have found the s95 annoyingly slow even for family snaps.

I'm hoping the s100 is much faster autofocus-wise, there's something about the size of the little canon that inspires me to use it.

That's another point I forgot to mention. The XZ-1 reacts FAST. I don't notice a difference between that and my e520. It focuses and takes the picture quickly.

My wife was trying to shoot our son and his favorite cat last night. It was just going to be a quick picture to show the grandparents which cat is his favorite. The Canon SD780 was sitting on the table and she grabbed it tried to get a shot. But the shutter lag was horrible and she kept missing the good ones. I went and fetched the XZ-1 and she was easily able to get the good shots.

mrdc76 said:

Someone else must have pondered over the decision between these two cameras. Were you happy or unhappy with your decisions?

Click to expand...

I chose the XZ-1 because I shoot entirely in RAW, and according to the DPR review, the S95's Raw write speeds were slow. IMO shooting Raw and a decent package like LR are the only way to really squeeze the best out of these cams, so speed was important.

The other factor was the availability of a good quality external EVF.

ISO didn't enter into it really, as with a large max aperture and accurate AF it's practical to leave the ISO fixed at 100. People really do obsess unnecessarily over high ISO.

Did I make the right decision? Well bearing in mind the requirements above, the XZ-1 was the only choice.

Overall, I'm pleased. The IQ is good, and the Raw write speed is good too. But elsewhere there's room for improvement. The lens cap keeps slipping off, and menu navigation is only so-so. Plus the EVF sucks the life out of the battery pretty quickly.
--
Mike
http://flickr.com/rc-soar

Model Mike said:

ISO didn't enter into it really, as with a large max aperture and accurate AF it's practical to leave the ISO fixed at 100. People really do obsess unnecessarily over high ISO.

Click to expand...

That said, I was able to get good iso 1000 pictures in the "Small World" ride at Disneyland. Look for my XZ-1 and Disney thread for details.

Love the XZ-1!

like you, i was also in dilemma of deciding which one to go for,,, XZ-1 or S95 ?...and i firstly bought XZ-1...before XZ-1 i used to have sony nex-3 however i was really dissappointed by it's lack of sharpness and focus speed/accuracy..for these reason i sold sony and bought XZ-1. i've been using XZ-1 for 6 months and i couldnt imagine how i could be happy with XZ-1...much sharper photos, much faster AF, almost never missed AF, extremely bright lens doesn require flash or higher iso in most cases....

yes i'm extremely happy with XZ-1, however, a stupid feeling never felt me since i bought my xz-1, which is how S95 would be?

last week, i bought s95 and was shooting with both cams.I've not done studio comparison like testings...i just took both cams with me and in daylight i tried to shoot with same settings like iso/aperture/focal lenght...
1.) In day light,

a) If what you're shooting is very well lightened, i mean if there's no shadow on the object, both cams reveals same details.Very minor differences you can observe.In some shots, XZ-1 shows more detail, in other shots S95 but difference can be seen if you're pixel peeping with great attention.Generally S95 reveals more detail in expense of showing more noise .(noise can be seen easily with s95 base iso shots)

b) for some reason ( i think, because of lens coating) when you use same iso/aperture/focal lenght, eV comp. XZ-1 chooses much faster shutter speeds in some shots.For example XZ-1 shots at 1/1600 while canon choses 1/1250 .

2.) If what you are shooting has some shadows and bright areas, XZ-1 photos have much less shadows and more details in shadowed areas while s95 photos show remarkably more shadows.Difference is obvious that it's seems like you're shooting different photos/scenes.

3.) Bokeh....bokeh of XZ-1 is clearly better and it really gives you DSLR taste. In s95 shots, background is less isolated from focus point.With S95 ,none of my full telephoto portrait shots gave me feeling/joy of any of my other same type photos taken with xz-1 .This was a BIG DEAL BREAKER for s95.

4.) In door shots. You have no chance to use zoom in s95...aperture falls down hugely comparing to XZ-1 which results with much slower shutter speeds.

LONG STORY SHORT,
YOU CAN NOT TAKE THESE SHOTS WITH S95 . BELIVE ME.

now i love my XZ-1 more than EVER!

































this was shot through a thick store glass !

I compared the XZ-1 and the S95 and chose the XZ-1 - and I REALLY like it. I started years ago with the Oly S2040 (great colors, but it was slow), went to a Canon S-45 (nice camera), then to a Pentax *istDS2 DSLR (too big), and then a Panasonic ZS7 (too inconsistent...) The XZ-1 has brought back the fun in taking pictures.

• The out-of-the-camera JPEGs are wonderful (too snappy for some, but everybody I've shown them to comments on how nice they look)
• I like the F1.8 aperture. I can shoot more in low light without a flash, and I can also get some nice background blur.
• Auto modes are great, but I can go manual and shoot RAW.
• Speed is good. Not a DSLR, but much better than what I've been experiencing.

Yes, the manual is a bit of a joke, but the camera is a keeper!

--
Jeff

How does the LX5 compare with the XZ-1 and S95/S100?

Of these three cameras, do any of them fare better in Auto mode with JPEG?

snapshot09 said:

How does the LX5 compare with the XZ-1 and S95/S100?

Of these three cameras, do any of them fare better in Auto mode with JPEG?

Click to expand...

IMHO, the relevant differences of the LX5 are:

1) It has a greenish/yellowish color cast
2) It has a wider angle lens (24 mm equiv. vs. 28 mm equiv).

So it's nice for landscapes and interiors (because of the wider angle), but not so nice for people (hard to get the skin tones right).

ijustloveshooting said:

2.) If what you are shooting has some shadows and bright areas, XZ-1 photos have much less shadows and more details in shadowed areas while s95 photos show remarkably more shadows.Difference is obvious that it's seems like you're shooting different photos/scenes.

Click to expand...

i have noticed this to i just love the xz1 for this reason.

cheers don

Seems like the 24mm would be more useful than the 28mm lens on XZ-1?

Dwip said:

snapshot09 said:

How does the LX5 compare with the XZ-1 and S95/S100?

Of these three cameras, do any of them fare better in Auto mode with JPEG?

Click to expand...

IMHO, the relevant differences of the LX5 are:

1) It has a greenish/yellowish color cast
2) It has a wider angle lens (24 mm equiv. vs. 28 mm equiv).

So it's nice for landscapes and interiors (because of the wider angle), but not so nice for people (hard to get the skin tones right).

Click to expand...

mrdc76 said:

Someone else must have pondered over the decision between these two cameras. Were you happy or unhappy with your decisions? I don't take my DSLR with me as often as I "should", and therefore constantly miss good photographic opportunities. I was first drawn to the Canon, for it is much smaller of the two, but then I noticed that the lens is ridiculously slow. I was instantly reminded of my old Fuji F11, known for its good ISO capabilities, which you needed often! However, has anyone of you bought an XZ-1 only to find that it is too big and wished that you had bought the Canon?

--
Mikko

Click to expand...

When looking for a replacement for my 6mp Canon SD700IS I skipped the S90/95 due to the slow lens at full zoom and I skipped the LX3/LX5 because of the lack of proper telephoto and got the XZ-1 as soon as it got out in January because it ticked all the boxes for me. At the moment I still see nothing that could replace it ( nor the S100, or the Fuji X10 ). Only an dSLR with a good f2.8 18-55 zoom can be a serious improvement in IQ and handling in my opinion, but of course not nearly as pocketable.