1. Reminder: Please use our affiliate links for holiday shopping!

XZ-1... anybody got one yet?

Discussion in 'Other Systems' started by JoeFriday, Feb 3, 2011.

  1. JoeFriday

    JoeFriday Mu-43 Regular

    88
    Jun 28, 2010
    Milwaukee, WI
    I WILL be getting an XZ-1 as soon as my bank account recovers from some other recent purchases. The reviews are consistently good, plus it will work with my VF-2!

    I also realized tonight that the body (minus the bulk of the lens) is almost exactly the same size as two iPhones stacked together. Granted, the lens/control ring adds some noticeable bulk, but I think it looks nearly pocketable, which is the point of having it in addition to my E-P2.

    So... anybody get one yet? And does anyone have a guestimate of what the $499 suggested retail price will settle down to once they are widely available?

    I'd also love to get a waterproof case but those will sell for nearly the same price as the camera!
     
    • Like Like x 1
  2. penfan2010

    penfan2010 Mu-43 All-Pro

    Nov 12, 2010
    NJ, USA
    Looking Forward to It

    Brett- agree it looks like a great camera. Have just added a second hand E-PL1 body to my :43: system so won't be buying any new cameras for a while, though. Look forward to your eventual review (as well as to any ones that pop up in the meantime).
     
    • Like Like x 1
  3. dixeyk

    dixeyk Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Aug 9, 2010
    I would get one if I had the $500. In fact, I could see it being used more than my EPL1 (and I like my EPL1). This would be a lot simpler to always have with you. It's fast, has manual control and I expect it will have great image quality.
     
  4. ~tc~

    ~tc~ Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Oct 22, 2010
    Houston, TX
    Honestly, I haven't been too impressed by the pictures I have seen so far.

    I do like the size and control layout though
     
  5. jmacpix

    jmacpix Mu-43 Regular

  6. ~tc~

    ~tc~ Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Oct 22, 2010
    Houston, TX
    Do not click above link if you are on iPad. Requires flash, and instead of just dropping it, hangs up the browser

    (note: above link changed, the 43runors one works, the old DXO one doesn't)
     
  7. Don't click link on iphone also!!!!! :)

    Same result as ipad!
     
  8. jmacpix

    jmacpix Mu-43 Regular

    Sorry guys. Works fine on my windows machine. Here's a screen shot of the page FYI

    DXO_screencap.JPG
     
    • Like Like x 1
  9. ~tc~

    ~tc~ Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Oct 22, 2010
    Houston, TX
  10. dixeyk

    dixeyk Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Aug 9, 2010
    Good thing I can't afford to foolishly buy one...:eek:
     
  11. DHart

    DHart Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Jan 7, 2010
    Scottsdale, Arizona
    Don
    It would appear that the RAW output of the XZ-1 at least rivals that of the GF1 m4/3 with the stellar Lumix 20mm f/1.7. Can this be?

    Olympus XZ-1 Review: 11. Compared to (Raw): Digital Photography Review

    Studying this image in many areas, with the RAW output from the XZ1 and the GF1, at 100 and 400 ISO, can it be that this new camera rivals m4/3? Or am I missing something? I'm only comparing RAW image files because I prefer to shoot only RAW and process images myself.
     
  12. deckitout

    deckitout Mu-43 Veteran

    236
    Jan 28, 2010
    Essex UK
    Cheers Don
    Those visual results kind of make the DXO results look like nonsense
     
  13. DHart

    DHart Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Jan 7, 2010
    Scottsdale, Arizona
    Don
    Hey Phil... seeing is believing. It's just one comparison, but it's a significant one at that. This camera may actually be practically at the m4/3 door step. I don't know what the deal is with DXO. I've never paid any attention to DXO, but that doesn't mean anything, either. I don't think DXO takes into account lenses and processing, or does it? In any event, when the results are clear for the eye to see, numbers don't mean much.

    I've been looking at a lot of XZ-1 images n Flickr. It's interesting to see, but again, doesn't say much because you have no idea of the shooting conditions, how carefully the photographer controlled camera movement, processing, whether the images are JPGs from the camera or carefully processed RAWs, etc. I'd say the vast majority are JPGs straight from the camera, which, to me, doesn't tell me a lot. Many of them probably have some sort of digital art filter applied as well, mucking things up further. My frame of reference is well processed RAWs as that is where any camera can really show it's best potential. By comparison, JPGs generally don't compare. The RAW image of the controlled studio set on DPR speaks loud and clear.
     
  14. ~tc~

    ~tc~ Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Oct 22, 2010
    Houston, TX
    There are quite a few compact cams that will rival m43 in those conditions.

    Turn up the ISO a stop or two, or try printing at large sizes and I bet you'll see more of a difference.
     
  15. dixeyk

    dixeyk Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Aug 9, 2010
    The XZ-1 is an appealing camera to me because I can my VF2. That makes a big difference to me when considering a compact point and shoot. In looking at the DPreviews samples it looks as though the image quality is quite good. I'm not sure what DXO was seeing. I need to go back and look at their tests again.

    I have always like point and shoot cameras. They offer a stealthiness and convenience that you simply cannot match with another camera (even m43). Also, the lens on the XZ-1 looks to be a good quality, fast lens.
     
  16. DHart

    DHart Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Jan 7, 2010
    Scottsdale, Arizona
    Don
    I've been studying all I can find out about this camera for a couple of days.

    From what I've learned about the camera so far, with regard to image quality, this camera gives significantly different IQ depending on ISO and whether the capture is JPG or RAW.

    It is best capturing in RAW. Not a surprise as RAW is better quality all around than JPG, but, of course, that necessitates some work in post to bring the image to it's potential. With RAW captures, it seems to be able to achieve top of compact-class crisp sharpness, but with that, it is a bit noisier than its competition. If you shoot in RAW and clean up the noise with a good "noise detergent" (borrowing that phrase from Jorgen), it seems you can get some very sharp images, even at 400 and beyond.

    On the other hand, if you shoot JPG, and you go beyond ISO 400, prepare for some image smear as a result of what seems to be heavy-handed in-camera noise reduction on the JPGs.

    It's a little early yet; time and more owner reports, specifically comparing JPG to RAW captures will flesh this all out much better.
     
  17. chylld

    chylld Mu-43 Regular

    160
    Jan 13, 2010
    An amazing fact about the XZ-1 that I think most people don't know is that it performs as well as a M43 camera with 14-42 f/3.5-5.6 kit lens on it.

    At 28mm (i.e. the wide end) an M43 has a 4mm aperture (14mm f/3.5) and the XZ-1 has a 3.3mm aperture (6mm f/1.8).

    However, at 84mm (M43 tele limit) the M43 has a 7.5mm aperture (42mm f/5.6) which is SMALLER than the XZ-1's 7.8mm aperture (18mm f/2.3 estimated).

    This means that for the same field of view, the XZ-1 will have the same DOF capability as an M43 kit lens, and also a similar amount of noise since it gathers the same amount of light onto the sensor as an M43 kit lens (within about half a stop).

    Is my thinking right here?
     
  18. OPSSam

    OPSSam Mu-43 Regular

    134
    Dec 18, 2010
    NC
    I wouldn't disagree completely with that statement. In effect you are getting comparable image quality to the Pen series with the drawback being you can't change lenses (which will probably appeal more to the point and shooters that want to step up their image quality and /or learn how to manually control a camera).

    On the other hand, no Olympus Pen kit lens gets F1.8. That is nice, period.

    If history is any indicator we're probably still a couple weeks away from wide availability. BH is taking pre-orders though, so it must be close.
     
  19. Ray Sachs

    Ray Sachs Super Moderator

    Apr 17, 2010
    Near Philadephila
    That question comes up a lot in some other places, generally regarding the LX5 in comparison to the gf1, just because the LX5 has been around a while. And I'll pretty much always counsel people that if all they want to do is shoot with the kit lens, they're better off with the LX5. Smaller, cheaper, more zoom range on both ends, better in low light, no appreciable difference in good light, what else do you want? The point of interchangeable lens cameras is to CHANGE LENSES from time to time. There are things you can do with a gf1 that you could not approach with the LX5, but not if you never change from the kit lens.

    Same now with the Olympus and one of the Pens.

    -Ray
     
  20. chylld

    chylld Mu-43 Regular

    160
    Jan 13, 2010
    Well f/1.8 on an XZ-1 sensor is equivalent to f/4.2 on a M43 sensor, so DOF and noise wise the M43 kit lens does actually better this. But it doesn't beat it by much!

    I hope f-stop numbers don't become the next megapixel race. F-stop numbers are relative to the focal length, so they will naturally be smaller for smaller-sensored cameras. You can only compare them when you convert them to the same crop factor (or to full-frame, which is easier)

    Very well said Ray, my sentiments exactly. On my last holiday though, almost every M43 camera I saw (and I went to a LOT of tourist hotspots) just had the kit zoom lens on it. Granted the XZ-1 wasn't announced back then, but you can't help but think that there will be more M43 kit-lens-only users coming up who really would be better off (pocketability-wise) with the XZ-1...

    Me, I can't remember where I put my kit lens :rofl: