I'm not a big compact camera guy (when not carrying my m4/3 gear, I just use my iPhone, which has decent quality for quick snaps.) However, this looks really good. Robin Wong did his review over the weekend. Even with the smaller sensor, image quality is surprisingly high end.
I'm inclined to agree with FPF, but I'm not quite so exuberant about it.
I recently picked up a Sony RX100 for $700 (CA), and it's a great little camera. The RX100 is actually smaller and lighter than the XZ-1 (which was my P&S prior to getting the RX100), and even more so compared to the new XZ-2 (see comparison table below). Despite the fact that the RX100 is smaller, its sensor has more than twice the area of the XZ-2 (116mm2 vs 45mm2), and it's a 20MPx camera - they're good pixels, too. The only downside for the RX100 is the lens is slower at the long end (28-100/1.8-4.0) than the XZ-2 (28-110/1.8-2.5).
I think the Sony RX100 has set the new standard for compact 'performance' P&S cameras. Anything 'similar' within a few hundred bucks of the RX100 has to be in jeopardy.
FlyPenFly wrote:
$600... They LOST their freaking minds. Get an RX-100.
I don't think the XZ-2 is really all that much better than the XZ-1.
The XZ-1 is hovering around $200 used and $250 new on ebay. No Way the XZ-2 is worth it over the XZ-1.
I'm not so convinced. Robin's images in that review look fantastic to my eyes and I much prefer the controls on the XZ1/2 over the RX-100, plus I'm more of a fan of Oly's colors than Sony's. Still, I do agree that $600 is a bit much for this camera.
The desire for a PS is a bit more subjective than price and IQ IMO. For me the XZ series is interesting for the amazing Olympus colors IOC. I find my Sonys require PP work to get the look I want and if the XZ2 saves me time with great as is photos my time off the computer will be worth the price.
YMMV.
I'd like to see a comparison between the two when shooting at the long end. The RX100 does have a larger sensor, but the crop factor between the two is only 1.44x...about a one stop difference, and doesn't make up for the two full stops slower aperture at the long end. Sure, there will be an advantage at the wide end, but it should equalize pretty quickly given the aperture change. At the long end, given similar sensor performance (which we don't know), the XZ-2 should outperform the RX100 when light limited.
Also, the XZ-2 should be capable of shallower DOF as well (I was surprised at the amount of subject separation on Robin Wong's photos.) The Sony lens will have similar DOF to a 100mm f/13 lens, while the XZ-2 is equivalent to a 112mm f/10 on full frame.
At the end of the day, I'm not going to buy either camera, as I'd rather shove my GX1 with Oly 12 and Oly 45 in my belt bag if I need high image quality. Otherwise, my iPhone works just fine. If I were in the market for a high end compact, though, I'd try out both the XZ-2 and the RX100 (or pickup a discounted XZ-1).
I think people are way too easily swayed in their opinions of a camera by the skill set of the reviewer.
Robin is a pretty talented street shooter and presented some excellent images, but he'd do the same thing with a RX100, or a LX7 or really darn near anything else.
I see on other forums people all amazed at the "shallow" DoF its producing and acting like no other camera can do this.
I mean come on, stick a 112mm equiv lens 2 feet from someones face and of course your going to get some shallower type of DoF effect, but in reality its only equiv to F11 on a full frame sensor. See anyone raving about a f11 lens and its "amazing bokeh" ? Not hardly
Its just not that fast of lens because we are still talking about a tiny little 1/1.7" sensor, not even a 2/3rd of Fuji, or a 1" of Sony.
Its got some nice features like the flip out screen, but its a pretty bulky camera and its $600, and there are so many larger sensor options out there
FYI as well, even the RX100, with its "slow" f4.9 long end is giving you about f13 equiv due to its larger sensor size.
Anyone think f11 vs f13 a big deal ??
Its like arguing over the 8th vs 9th place finisher in a race. Who cares frankly as both are not going to be on the podium.
Interesting as well regrading speed, is at the 28mm equiv wide end, the XZ2 is giving you equiv to about f7 at f1.8 while the RX100 with its larger sensor is again giving you about f4.9. Again, hardly anything too amazing, but does show a bit of what a larger sensor can do.
Now this isn't to suggest the XZ2 is a bad camera, it can take nice shots as Robin showed, but if your really looking for shallow DoF and portraits, for the same money you could pick up something like the EPL3 and a used 45mm f1.8 and have much better performance, and hardly much size penalty.
I do like the RX100 myself for a compact, eve though its pricey, because its both true pocket sized, and also features a 1" sensor. Not amazing, but better than anything else out there right now. Pretty decent performance at the wide end where I usually shoot it too.
$600 though for a 1/1.7" camera just doesn't cut it these days IMHO
2-3 years ago the XZ2 would of be pretty cool, these days its just outdated tech before it even hit the shelves.
XZ1 by the way, which would take quite nice images as well, is on Amazon for $199 right now.
millsart wrote:
I think people are way too easily swayed in their opinions of a camera by the skill set of the reviewer.
Robin is a pretty talented street shooter and presented some excellent images, but he'd do the same thing with a RX100, or a LX7 or really darn near anything else.
I see on other forums people all amazed at the "shallow" DoF its producing and acting like no other camera can do this.
I mean come on, stick a 112mm equiv lens 2 feet from someones face and of course your going to get some shallower type of DoF effect, but in reality its only equiv to F11 on a full frame sensor. See anyone raving about a f11 lens and its "amazing bokeh" ? Not hardly
Its just not that fast of lens because we are still talking about a tiny little 1/1.7" sensor, not even a 2/3rd of Fuji, or a 1" of Sony.
Its got some nice features like the flip out screen, but its a pretty bulky camera and its $600, and there are so many larger sensor options out there
FYI as well, even the RX100, with its "slow" f4.9 long end is giving you about f13 equiv due to its larger sensor size.
Anyone think f11 vs f13 a big deal ??
Its like arguing over the 8th vs 9th place finisher in a race. Who cares frankly as both are not going to be on the podium.
Interesting as well regrading speed, is at the 28mm equiv wide end, the XZ2 is giving you equiv to about f7 at f1.8 while the RX100 with its larger sensor is again giving you about f4.9. Again, hardly anything too amazing, but does show a bit of what a larger sensor can do.
Now this isn't to suggest the XZ2 is a bad camera, it can take nice shots as Robin showed, but if your really looking for shallow DoF and portraits, for the same money you could pick up something like the EPL3 and a used 45mm f1.8 and have much better performance, and hardly much size penalty.
I do like the RX100 myself for a compact, eve though its pricey, because its both true pocket sized, and also features a 1" sensor. Not amazing, but better than anything else out there right now. Pretty decent performance at the wide end where I usually shoot it too.
$600 though for a 1/1.7" camera just doesn't cut it these days IMHO
2-3 years ago the XZ2 would of be pretty cool, these days its just outdated tech before it even hit the shelves.
XZ1 by the way, which would take quite nice images as well, is on Amazon for $199 right now....Show more →
I have just acquired an RX100 and like it so far. As you said XZ2 doesn't have a big advantage over RX100 at the long end. However the argument goes the other way as well. Sure RX100 has a larger sensor, but as a complete sensor + lens package, RX100 is only slightly better at wide end and slightly worse at long end. So arguably if RX100 deserves the $650 price tag then XZ2 deserves the $600 tag as well.
I was quite underwhelmed by the quality of the lens in the XZ-1 vs. the Panasonic LX3 I also have; it's fairly soft towards the edges/corners. Build quality also isn't quite as good as the LX3, IMO. Considering the XZ-2 uses the same lens as the XZ-1... I'd sooner consider the LX7... but for the price, would buy the Sony.
I just received my XZ-2 last night and will post my thoughts (hopefully samples) once I've had time to play with it. Too bad I have a real job and must work instead of play. Oh well, Saturday's coming.
michael49 wrote:
I doubt that either of those factors would matter in most images that I would take using a point and shoot.
Now, the controls/handling of the camera and the colors - that does matter to me.
Boris/bobu has shown in this thread that the RX100 is very capable of delivering shots where resolution and DR do matter. I would personally value that very much, even if everyday snapshots don't make full use of it.
jcolwell wrote:
I'm inclined to agree with FPF, but I'm not quite so exuberant about it.
I recently picked up a Sony RX100 for $700 (CA), and it's a great little camera. The RX100 is actually smaller and lighter than the XZ-1 (which was my P&S prior to getting the RX100), and even more so compared to the new XZ-2 (see comparison table below). Despite the fact that the RX100 is smaller, its sensor has more than twice the area of the XZ-2 (116mm2 vs 45mm2), and it's a 20MPx camera - they're good pixels, too. The only downside for the RX100 is the lens is slower at the long end (28-100/1.8-4.0) than the XZ-2 (28-110/1.8-2.5).
I think the Sony RX100 has set the new standard for compact 'performance' P&S cameras. Anything 'similar' within a few hundred bucks of the RX100 has to be in jeopardy....Show more →
Quite so, but isnt the RX100 more a competitor to the Oly E-PM2 which kills it for price whilst pumping out equally great pics? Just didnt get on the front page of Time
.