Olympus so whats wrong with the oly xz-2?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Another camera to consider when thinking about the Oly XZ-10 (which I do like, actually) is the Fuji XF1. It's genuinely pocketable - about the same size as an XZ-10 (just a tick longer but a tick thinner) and features a sensor that's larger than even the XZ-1 and XZ-2. Brand-new examples can be still found on Amazon for $199. The 25-100mm zoom works manually. Aperture range is f/1.8-4.9, the same as the Sony RX100.

I agree that, were I forced to pay the $199 price for the XZ-10, I'd likely give the nod to the Fuji XF-1, a camera that I looked at earlier when Amazon was clearing them out for $179 + tax, over the Olympus XZ-10. But the Olympus refurb sale price of $128+ tax made it a no brainer to me, especially given that I am well versed in Olympus' menu structure from my use of Olympus DSLRs, then the E-PL2, then the E-PL5. This is especially important to me as I am going to be using the XZ-10 as my change of pace small pocketable camera, as opposed to the 80% of the time I'll be shooting with my interchangeable lens cameras, mostly Olympus.
 
But it's NOT smaller than the E-PL5 with the lenses I actually use on it especially the Panasonic 14mm and the Sigma 60mm - which are enhanced by a noticeably larger sensor, and give me a slightly wider FOV spread and more low-light capability than an XZ-2, which has at least 2 stops less High ISO capability than an E-PL5. Interchangeable lenses means I don't need to buy a single zoom to cover that range.


i can do caps too:: IT IS smaller. what YOU use personally is not relevant to OT. factually, the 14 is NOT a 24-100 zoom is it? thus its NOT COMPARABLE. and carrying multiple lenses is by definition NOT POCKETABLE, and thus NOT COMPARABLE.

back on topic, in fact there is NO other 24-100 zoom is there? and theres NO other zoom of this range that tops at 2.5, is there? and theres NO other camera, NONE NADA ZERO, that combine this zoom range at these fast apertures, with an articulating screen that touch focuses/fires the shutter, that accomodates an optional evf, that has this sized sensor that fits in your pocket, is there? stomping your feet does not negate facts, so 'cap' away!
 
i can do caps too:: IT IS smaller. what YOU use personally is not relevant to OT. factually, the 14 is NOT a 24-100 zoom is it? thus its NOT COMPARABLE. and carrying multiple lenses is by definition NOT POCKETABLE, and thus NOT COMPARABLE.

back on topic, in fact there is NO other 24-100 zoom is there? and theres NO other zoom of this range that tops at 2.5, is there? and theres NO other camera, NONE NADA ZERO, that combine this zoom range at these fast apertures, with an articulating screen that touch focuses/fires the shutter, that accomodates an optional evf, that has this sized sensor that fits in your pocket, is there? stomping your feet does not negate facts, so 'cap' away!



Yes, you are correct, those lenses are primes - which I prefer to zoom lenses. I have no interest in a bulky, heavy 24-100mm equivalent fast zoom, when there are better lighter, smaller prime lenses available. And you are correct, there is no fast 24-100mm zoom available for the E-PL5 (although there is a fast 24-80mm equivalent - which, admittedly, is quite bulky - but effectively, f2.8 in Micro 4/3 is faster than f2 on the XZ-2 sensor, in terms of both low light capability and depth of field control). Which makes the concept irrelevant to the real world comparison of lenses that actually exist for these two cameras - just as there is no fast 24-100mm equivalent zoom for the E-PL5, there are no superb prime lenses available for the XZ-2. So you pays your money and you makes your choice. I personally find the lens options for the E-PL5 to be superior and there is no controversy over the fact that the sensitivity of its sensor is superior to the XZ-2. BTW, my E-PL5, with it's (IMHO) superior lens options also takes the same external EVF as the XZ-2, and has the same articulating screen. And big deal so I capitalized a few words. Perhaps you need to chill out.
 
I agree that, were I forced to pay the $199 price for the XZ-10, I'd likely give the nod to the Fuji XF-1, a camera that I looked at earlier when Amazon was clearing them out for $179 + tax, over the Olympus XZ-10. But the Olympus refurb sale price of $128+ tax made it a no brainer to me, especially given that I am well versed in Olympus' menu structure from my use of Olympus DSLRs, then the E-PL2, then the E-PL5. This is especially important to me as I am going to be using the XZ-10 as my change of pace small pocketable camera, as opposed to the 80% of the time I'll be shooting with my interchangeable lens cameras, mostly Olympus.

There is no doubt in my mind that you'll be happy with the XZ-10 as a second camera. I think they're pretty cool for what they are. Enjoy! :)
 
I pulled the trigger on the XZ2 for 200 refurbished which arrived today it's steal even though I primary shoot with A7/FE35 there's just something magical about Olympus colors that makes me keep coming back to her.
 
Doug... I I believe the E-PL5 + 12-35mm + 35-100mm f2.8 lenses costs $3,000 (or more) right?
The XZ-2 with it's much faster 14-112mm lens cost $300 (or less) and it's much smaller/lighter with that focal range, right?
How can you compare (or try to) a fixed lens camera and a system camera with that price, size and weight difference? They are in two completely difference classifications. Now that I have had my XZ-2 for the past two weeks, I can tell you that in real world shooting, I doubt you could tell the difference in IQ unless viewing at 100% and using a magnifying glass. It's also so small and light, I can hardly feel it in my small belt pouch. If you have money to burn, don't mind carrying and changing lenses, missing shots because the wrong lens is on, more power to you.
 
Doug... I I believe the E-PL5 + 12-35mm + 35-100mm f2.8 lenses costs $3,000 (or more) right?
The XZ-2 with it's much faster 14-112mm lens cost $300 (or less) and it's much smaller/lighter with that focal range, right?
How can you compare (or try to) a fixed lens camera and a system camera with that price, size and weight difference? They are in two completely difference classifications. Now that I have had my XZ-2 for the past two weeks, I can tell you that in real world shooting, I doubt you could tell the difference in IQ unless viewing at 100% and using a magnifying glass. It's also so small and light, I can hardly feel it in my small belt pouch. If you have money to burn, don't mind carrying and changing lenses, missing shots because the wrong lens is on, more power to you.

Closer to $2500 (subbing the newer and better Olympus 12-40 for the older Panasonic 12-35). And besides, I wouldn't buy that combo with the E-PL5, so it's irrelevant. I would, and in fact did, buy the E-PL5 with prime lenses, including the 14mm, the 25mm, and the Sigma 60mm, and a much longer zoom (45-175mm) than is available on the XZ-2. And in actual fact, I could tell the difference in the IQ between the E-PL5 and the XZ-2 quite easily at any ISO above 800 just using standard size images on a computer monitor. And in actual fact, I've lost MANY more pictures due to shutter or focus lag from a point and shoot than I ever have from changing lenses. At ISOs below 800, the XZ-2 does hold it's own, I will grant you that. And I certainly don't mind changing lenses - why on earth would I? they are meant to be changed as needed.

Also, in actual fact, the Panasonc 35-100mm lens has nearly double the reach at the long net of the lens on the XZ-2, so I don't know why you mentioned it - it is not in any way comparable to the lens on the XZ-2. The XZ-2 lens is not 112mm, it's 112mm equivalent, and the Panasonic 35-100mm lens is 70-200mm equivalent - nearly twice as long. My Sigma 60mm lens is in fact slightly longer than the XZ-2 at it's longest telephoto setting, being a 120mm equivalent.

That being said, there is nothing wrong with the XZ-2 as a fixed lens camera, except that it is not pocketable, and it's sensor is small, which limits it at high ISOs. If I am going to put up with the second limitation, I at least want a genuinely pocketable camera, since it would never be my MAIN camera - and that's why I got the XZ-10 during the last Olympus sale, rather than the XZ-2. Because true pocket-ability was my over-riding concern for that particular purchase. When I don't need pocket-ability, my E-PL5 and multi-lens outfit is far less limited. Again, if it WAS going to be my ONLY camera and lens, then the XZ-2 is better suited to that task. But it was not suited to MY personal task.
 
youre wrong. it is pocketable. i had one. it fit in my pockets. what the heck else does pocketable mean? and while the z-10 is good for you its just not comparable on a spec level to the xz-2. in fact, the point of this entire thread, was that no other 'pocketable' cam is comparable to the z-2 on spec. all youve managed to do is muddy the waters with a bunch of gobbledegook thats either not true or not relevant. congrats.
 
youre wrong. it is pocketable. i had one. it fit in my pockets. what the heck else does pocketable mean? and while the z-10 is good for you its just not comparable on a spec level to the xz-2. in fact, the point of this entire thread, was that no other 'pocketable' cam is comparable to the z-2 on spec. all youve managed to do is muddy the waters with a bunch of gobbledegook thats either not true or not relevant. congrats.

Ok. it fits in your pockets, but it doesn't fit in mine. I needed a camera that fit in MY pockets. The XZ-10 does. The XZ-2 doesn't. So I bought the one I bought, rather than buying an entirely new wardrobe. Nobody is stopping you from buying the XZ-2 and being perfectly happy with it. It may not have occurred to you that not everyone has the identical requirements for a camera, which is why there are several companies making cameras, and each one makes dozens of different ones, that serve different sets of needs. And what, exactly are you talking about "muddying the waters"? It's a simple fact that the XZ-2 is noticeably larger than the XZ-10. I considered size to be absolutely paramount for THIS particular purchase - much more important TO ME for this specific purchase, than a slight advantage in sensor size or image quality as a result of that sensor size, or the additional features that the XZ-2 has that the XZ-10 doesn't. How can YOU determine what is or isn't relevant for MY purchase needs? If everyone's needs were the same, then Olympus would only make 1 model of camera.
 
Closer to $2500 (subbing the newer and better Olympus 12-40 for the older Panasonic 12-35). And besides, I wouldn't buy that combo with the E-PL5, so it's irrelevant. I would, and in fact did, buy the E-PL5 with prime lenses, including the 14mm, the 25mm, and the Sigma 60mm, and a much longer zoom (45-175mm) than is available on the XZ-2.
Doug, you still not understanding the main issue with your posts. You keep trying to compare a $300 fixed lens camera with a system camera with 3-5 expensive lenses that cost about $3-3,500!!! Why are you doing that, it DOES NOT MAKE ANY SENSE! What point are you trying to make?

That being said, there is nothing wrong with the XZ-2 as a fixed lens camera, except that it is not pocketable, and it's sensor is small, which limits it at high ISOs.

Your E-PL5 and 3-5 lenses are also not pocketable either, is it? At least the XZ-2 can be carried in a very small/light belt pouch which your large bag full of lenses cant. The XZ-2 is much more convenient with with almost the same IQ and does NOT require lens changing and does not cost that much.

Again, if it WAS going to be my ONLY camera and lens, then the XZ-2 is better suited to that task.


I guess I'm speaking for those who's ONLY camera is an all in one, great IQ compact that you can carry on you without even knowing it is with you. This forum is called "seriouscompacts.com, the E-PL5 and 3-5 lens system camera is NOT a compact camera. Are you getting my point yet? You are comparing apples to water melons. Does that make it easy to understand now? :/
 
[

Doug, you still not understanding the main issue with your posts. You car trying to compare a $300 fixed lens camera with a system camera with 3-5 lenses that cost about $4,000!!! Why are you doing that, it DOES NOT MAKE ANY SENSE!

That being said, there is nothing wrong with the XZ-2 as a fixed lens camera, except that it is not pocketable, and it's sensor is small, which limits it at high ISOs.

Your E-PL5 and 3-5 lenses are also not pocketable wither, is it, but at least the XZ-2 can be carried in a very small/light belt pouch which your large bag full of lenses cant. The XZ-1 is much more convenient with with almost the same IQ and does NOT require lens changing.

Again, if it WAS going to be my ONLY camera and lens, then the XZ-2 is better suited to that task.


I guess I'm speaking for those who's ONLY camera is an all in one, great IQ compact that you can carry on you without even knowing it is with you. This forum is called "serousecompacts.com, the E-PL5 and 3-5 lens system camera and is NOT a compact camera. Are you getting my point yet? You are comparing apples to water melons. Does that make it easy to understand now? :/

I agree, my E-PL5 with several lenses is even less portable than an XZ-2. Which is why I bought an XZ-10 for those occasions that I need truly portable. An XZ-10 DOES happen to be a similar type of camera - but significantly smaller and slightly less capable camera than the XZ-2. THAT comparison is not apples to watermelons. What I'm not understanding is why you have an issue with that comment, and have moved to a straw man argument that I never posited.

And BTW, irrespective of the name of this forum, there certainly IS a section on Micro 4/3 cameras with interchangeable lenses, such as my E-PL5, within this very forum. The forum is NOT named "SeriousFixedLensCompacts", and in fact it does include compact interchangeable lens system cameras such as the E-PL5 within it's purview.

You seem like the guy in the Monty Python sketch who came here to have an argument. Well, argue away - I'm done.
 
Ok, no more arguing, just the facts. You are correct; there is a Micro 4/3 section on the site. The issues is that you are currently posting in a forum called: Fixed-Lens Cameras - Sensor Size < 1" - Olympus (Wrong Forum)
1st issue: you were comparing XZ-2 with E-PL5 and 4 separate lenses. (Apples to Water Melons)
2nd issue: if you were comparing the XZ-2 with the XZ-10, no problem. (Apples to Apples comparison, almost)
3rd issue: People in this forum do not like other people coming in to it and telling them how great their ILC and prime lenses are and how much better they are. That is why we chose this section of the forum, to get away from all that.
Conclusion, this is the "Fixed-Lens" section of this web site. I cannot communicate it any more clearly than that.
There, no arguing, just pointing out simple facts. Now, I'm done.
 
Ok, no more arguing, just the facts. You are correct; there is a Micro 4/3 section on the site. The issues is that you are currently posting in a forum called: Fixed-Lens Cameras - Sensor Size < 1" - Olympus (Wrong Forum)
1st issue: you were comparing XZ-2 with E-PL5 and 4 separate lenses. (Apples to Water Melons)
2nd issue: if you were comparing the XZ-2 with the XZ-10, no problem. (Apples to Apples comparison, almost)
3rd issue: People in this forum do not like other people coming in to it and telling them how great their ILC and prime lenses are and how much better they are. That is why we chose this section of the forum, to get away from all that.
Conclusion, this is the "Fixed-Lens" section of this web site. I cannot communicate it any more clearly than that.
There, no arguing, just pointing out simple facts. Now, I'm done.

All cameras get compared to other types of cameras all of the time. Deal with it. If you can't handle any cross category discussions, I suggest you stop playing on the internet.
As for your 3rd issue - you completely miss the point about my specific premise, which was, that the XZ-2 was wrong FOR ME SPECIFICALLY, and the reason it was wrong for me was that I had other cameras that had it surrounded. I had one camera that was more versatile and powerful (E-PL5 with multiple lenses) even if it was less portable. And I had another camera, the XZ-10, that, while it was less powerful and versatile than the XZ-2, was more pocketable. Thus, the XZ-2 didn't meet MY needs - but I never suggested it might not perfectly well meet YOUR needs.

Given your interpretation of this venue's dividing lines, might I ask where YOU think the appropriate place to compare multiple fixed lens cameras within the context of an interchangeable lens camera that I already owned, might be within this forum? Logic would dictate that this is the proper place, since I specifically came to this forum to discuss why I, as a user of interchangeable lens cameras, including an E-PL5, would have chosen an XZ-10 rather than an XZ-2 as my take-anywhere camera. The rationale for that choice really only makes complete sense within the context of my already having and predominantly using an E-PL5 as my main camera. That's why I brought it up - not to suggest it was "better" than an XZ-2, but to suggest why an XZ-10 made a better compliment to it as just one amongst the cameras I own, than an XZ-2 did within that same personal context.

But I do thank you for explaining that the reason you got so upset is that you came to this forum so that you could escape from discussions about interchangeable lens cameras. I hadn't realized your sensitivity to that fearful and intimidating topic for you. I shall let you go and stay in your protective cocoon from now on, and will stop scaring you with comments about the big bad interchangeable lens camera and how it relates to my use of the compact XZ-10 that I bought to compliment it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top