UPDATE with preorder list:
Olympus Stylus SH-1 Digital Camera (Black) at Amazon (Click here), BHphoto (Click here).
Olympus Stylus SH-1 Digital Camera (Silver) at Amazon (Click here), BHphoto (Click here).
Olympus CSCH-120 Body Jacket for SH-1 Digital Camera (Brown) at BHphoto (Click here).
Olympus CSCH-120 Body Jacket for SH-1 Digital Camera (Black) at BHphoto (Click here).
Olympus TG-3 camera in all colors at Amazon (Click here), BHphoto (Click here).
The new compact cameras:
Olympus just announced two new compact cameras. The image on top shows you the very PEN-alike SH-1 fixed lens compact camera. It has a 16MP BSI-CMOS sensor with 25-600mm f/3.0-6.9 lens, 3″ touchscreen LCD, some manual control. It will ship in May for little bit less than $400 (Full press release here). There is also a new Shockproof Tough TG-3 (Full press release here).
The SH-1 looks particularly interesting as it has quite some nice features and a very “traveller friendly” zoom range! These are the Feature highlights:
1. A sophisticated design inherited from the OLYMPUS PEN
2. Equipped with a high-performance 24x optical zoom lens (48xSuper Resolution Zoom) that covers from a 25mm wide angle to 600mm telephoto
3. The world’s first optical*5 axis image stabilisation compatible with both still images and movies
4. Built-in Wi-Fi* for easy image sharing and wireless shooting with a smart phone
5. The enhanced Advanced Movie mode allows in camera selection of four different types of movies
62 Responses
Aperture is a little dissapointing however this might be the one to replace my (sold) Ricoh GX200.
What a failure in perspective . who buys compacts anymore… I guess its one of those Olympus project from two years ago that finally gets in prod. It won’t sell and Olympus will hurt
The aperture could be good if you are taking photos on the surface of the sun.
Are you out in daytime?
Well, actually, no…I am a vampire.
Or maybe photos *of* the surface of the sun at 600mm.
5-axis ISS in a compact, 3-axis in an OM-D. What’s the strategy here?
In any case, still no 25/50p. Olympus doesn’t listen to their customers.
People in the rest of the world *NEED* 25p!! All their cameras ought to be NTSC/PAL switchable.
I’d say that all cameras should have switchable FPS
Vincent read the spec again. It use a optical*5 axis image stabilisation system. The OM-D’s use sensor image stabilisation.
From the press release: “*2 Optical image stabilization is defined by the Camera & Imaging Products Association (CIPA) guidelines and includes sensor-shift image stabilization.”
With a slowish 600mm (equiv.) zoom lens but no viewfinder, not even optional, no option for an external flash, a tiny 1/2.3″ sensor and no RAW image format, this camera is clearly designed to attract buyers by the looks and the most superficial technical figures, not by performance and quality. Does anyone remember the C-8080WZ? What an excellent camera it would still be, fitted with a current sensor and processor and monitor and EVF…
All style, no substance.
So, while nearly every other camera maker is getting OUT of the compact camera market, Olympus just gives theirs a facelift.
I wonder what’s happening with the XZ-series?
You know that friend of yours that used to decide on what camera to buy based on how much megapixels the camera has? Well, now he was upgraded ask how much zoom there is on the camera.
HE is the one this camera was designed to attract.
The only thing it is clearly designed to do is attract morons.
Still no S and M modes on the TG-3. Ring LED light is a nice touch, though.
+1 on the shooting mode omission.
The $499 price tag makes the Nikon AW1 much more interesting and attractive.
f/3 – f/6.9 and no viewfinder. I don’t need to read anything else. Next camera please.
+1
f/6.9 (???) P&S……. how quaint…… Next.
Plus the screen is low resolution and doesn’t tilt…
Unless you need the long zoom, the XZ-10 is a far superior compact 1/2.3″ sensor camera. Which you can buy for half the price.
Wisely, and just like DPR, you didn’t mention the sensor size in your news.
I don’t think these desperate attempts to save snapshot cameras have a realistic chance to succeed. To a casual buyer they look just like the toy camera he or she discarded 2 years ago (but much more expensive). If you think about it, the situation is very similar to watches. Smartphones eroded watch sales too but no amount of features could increase the sales. Only brands that are perceived as status symbols or luxury survive.
Repeat after me: No matter how small it is, a huge zoom camera needs a viewfinder. It is difficult to describe the stupidity inherent in an attempt shoot at 600mm while holding a screen in front of you. Instead of stabiliziong by pressing against your forehead, you are multiplying the inherent instability of holding your arms out while trying to shoot. It is to laugh.
All “cameras” need a VF…without one…you are just a monkey. 🙂
1/2.3″ sensor.. wow. My cell phone produces better pictures.
Your cell phone also has a faster lens. f/3? Unacceptable, even for the P&S crowd.
My cellphone not only has a bigger sensor, but it also has a faster lens and shoots raw! Of course, I don’t have a 600mm equivalent zoom…
doesn’t sound very “micro-4/3rds-y”
The TG-3 they also announced is a far more interesting camera. The SH-1 is a waste of a nice aesthetic. It would have been much better if they had saved the look for the XZ-3.
This kind of seems like an inferior copy of the Sony HX50.
I think Olympus should have spent their time doing a compact m4/3rds sensor camera (fixed lens).
Perhaps you guys could start providing the full-frame equivalent apertures if you provide the full-frame equivalent focal lengths? This video explains why. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5zN6NVx-hY
The SH-1 has about a 5.5x crop factor. The lens is physically 4.5-108mm f/3.0-6.9, so the 35mm equivalent is 25-600mm f/16-38 in terms of total light gathered by the sensor, light gathered by each pixel, and depth-of-field… all the factors that impact final image quality.
Except … it doesn’t. The lens is a 3.0-6.9, that is the light that it actually gathers. The DOF is a 16-38 EQUIVALENT, that’s it. The DOF is still 3.0-6.9, but because the sensor is small, the DOF has the same view as a 16-38. The aperture is exactly the same and light gathering is exactly the same, therefore you would get the exposition of a 3.0-6.9.
And by exposition, I meant Exposure. Sorry, english is not my native language,
If the light gathering is exactly the same, why do photos from small sensors look like shit at ISO 800?
I do explain this in the video, but only the light per square inch is the same. Because the sensor has fewer square inches, it’s gathering less light. Because the pixel density is higher, each pixel is getting far less light.
If you apply the crop factor to the aperture, the total light gathered and the light gathered per pixel compares quite perfectly. If you forget to apply the crop factor to the aperture, the total light gathered is substantially less, reducing your signal to noise ratio, and leading to the misconception that smaller sensors are noisier.
As I explain in the video, it doesn’t change your camera settings. But if you’re comparing the actual photos a camera and lens will take to their full-frame equivalents, it’s much more useful to see the multiplied aperture.
” f/16-38 in terms of total light gathered by the sensor”
False.
True! I explain it in the video, and in a comment farther down.
What’s the aperture of an iPhone lens then?
Congratulations Tony Northrup, you’ve lost all rights to call yourself a photographer by failing to understand the central concept of exposure and what aperture actually is.
Here goes the typical funny angry noob: “Eosphoros”. Abusive and know-it-allish, like most internet “experts”. Keep it up kid, you give M43 a bad name, this is fun.
Learn photography, it didn’t start with digital you know, you clueless twat.
Wow wow that is some seriously angry geek. Chicken in offline life, ignorant and abusive online. This is good fun.
Please demonstrate how Tony’s “equivalency theory” is deeply rooted in physics and the optics of photography, I’m eager to read that one. 🙂
Do you even understand how that works ?
Enough now, go back to your salt mine.
No, no, please share with us your intimate understanding of optics and how equivalencies are not bogus at all but actually represent a physical reality, come on, you’re not JUST a troll are you ?
This stuff is widely available, any halfwit can find it online. Google for “circle of confusion”. Do you know how to do that?
I’d also suggest to work on your manners, it might make you a little less of a loser.
This has zero, zilch, nada to do with what Aperture and Focal Length are…
Neither has it anything to do with the equivalency theory nor is it actually the argument advanced by Tony “Sexiest Geek Alive 2000” Northrup.
Try again.
Sorry, you are too stupid. That’s the end of it. Throw yourself into a well.
What, you really believe that all these concepts and values were conceived and designed for digital photography or even for 35mm format ?
Ah, the ignorance of youth…
People like to see what they like to see. When it’s all said and done though, multiplying into “equivalent” is a quick and easy way to compare camera systems. It would be more accurate instead to scale the ISO instead, since that’s the real issue. ISO 400 IS NOT the same on a full frame camera as on a crop sensor. We all know this, yet those of us shooting m43 choose to put our hands over our ears and pretend that we get the same low light ability out of f/2 as a full framer has.
When comparing camera systems, I always multipy both the focal length and aperture. Why? Becuase it’s easy, and for practical purposes, it’s accurate. And you know what, I still ended up buying a GX7 at the end of the day.
Why? Because it works both ways. Unlike seemingly everyone on the internet, I don’t want minimum DOF for most of my photos. I’m usually struggling to get more DOF. I realized that when a full framer might shoot at ISO 3200 and f/16 to get enough DOF on his macro, I would be shooting at ISO 800 f/8, and get an identical exposure and DOF.
Then you take into account the fact that my camera/lens combination is tiny compared to the FF, the fact that you’d have to go 2:1 on a FF to get the same field of view as my 1:1 macro shot, and the fact that IBIS allows me to have stabilization when using a reverse lens or extension tubes, and it’s clear that m43 is a much better choice for macro.
You could do a similar exercise for a variety of situations.
The point(s) of this diatribe:
1. Multiplying aperture to get an equivalent is not technically accurate
2. I still do it, because it is “practically” accurate, and that’s what matters.
3. Doing so illuminates some of the disadvantages of M43.
4. This is OK! It also shows situations where M43 is the same or even better than FF, in a much smaller package.
It’s not accurate, it’s not practical, the reason why is simple, equivalence puts the blame on the format and/or optical design of the lens, when the actual “problem” resides with the sensitive surface itself, which to attain the same “quality” in a smaller format needs to be cleaner (not more sensitive in the strictest of sense as it would change exposure).
That in turn has consequences in that manufacturers would rather work on expensive fast lenses to compensate for what the buyers perceive as the weakness when in fact the money should instead get into getting better sensors and image processors.
Worse, admitting it encourages the young generations to think that 35mm is some sort of magical bullet, the be all, end all of photography, when it’s just one format among many, many others, which in turn favors some manufacturers over others and stiffles innovation.
So called crop-formats are called that for a very good reason. Because that is THE analogy that is both accurate and physically/optically valid.
It’s the ONLY understanding of equivalency one should bear in mind.
You should also note that there are distinct problems at hand when talking equivalencies :
A. Exposure : Here equivalencies fail entirely. Crop factor works.
B. Field of view : It is true that to people used to think in 35mm Focal Length, having an equivalency is both valid AND meaningful.
C. Depth of field : The equivalency is not exactly accurate, but it is a useful shorthand, it is however not really meaningful, why, because anyone actually working with DoF and knowing what he’s doing is not tied to 35mm and secondly because it installs the idea that the equivalence goes beyond DoF.
E : Noise : Here it makes absolutely no sense. If one accepts that m4/3 lenses should be f/5.6 instead of f/2.8 because for the same exposure parameters the m4/3 shows as much noise as a 35mm f/5.6 it’s utterly insane, by that standard should all 35mm lenses have ever diminishing apertures because sensor quality makes the pictures less noisy over the years ?
A picture taken with 2005 35mm f/2.8 lens may show as much noise as the same picture now taken with a f/5.6 lens (all other parameters being equal), should we conclude that the first should was in fact a f/5.6 lens or that the sensor/film was simply worse ?
D. Image Quality : That’s a very complex, qualitative topic, there are hard limits to each formats due to physics constraints indeed and for the same degree of technology smaller formats will ALWAYS be at a disadvantage over larger formats, however, THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH FUCKING LENSES, NOR WITH THE AMOUNT OF LIGHT COLLECTED (collect more light and all you do is change the exposure parameters, which might improve the image, but you are not taking the picture under the same conditions anymore).
Final note, I remark that most equivalency and total light proponents seem to base their logic on a somewhat classical and simplistic understanding of light as particle, which is indeed a useful way to deal with it but has serious limitations.
Eh, you’re still not getting it.
The point is to find a simple and easy way to get an idea of how a camera + lens will perform in the real world. It isn’t something to use in the field, and I wouldn’t teach it in a photography class, but its easy, and it works.
Given similar sensor technology, multiplying the ISO by the crop factor gives you a good estimate of what the image quality would be on a FF camera. You would need to adjust from there if the sensor is old, or if it is made by Canon. If that changes in the future, then I’ll change my approach.
You make it sound like this is stifling innovation, and misleading people. But what about all the people out there who bought an RX10 because of the 2.8 aperture, not realizing that it’s going to perform about as well as an NEX camera with a kit lens.
If we all want to get together and come up with a new set of terminology that make more logical sense, then great. Until then, your choices are to come up with a shorthand (like multiplying the aperture by the crop factor!), or not compare camera systems at all. At some point, you need to make some assumptions and find a way to put the systems on the same plane, or you are going to make a bad decision.
Thank you Tony, a bit of physics is always welcome in a marketing-riddled forum.
The dumbest kids will bash you, but this is part of the fun.
That’s the whole point you moron, what he is doing is denying physics by ascribing to Aperture and Focal Length values and meaning they ARE NOT MEANT TO REPRESENT.
While he IS technically right when it comes to the relation to these values to image quality depending on the format, he IS technically wrong in using equivalencies.
Don’t confuse yourself too much eospenis, you seem challenged already.
Good video! Unfortunately one still has to be above average intelligent, interested to learn more and open minded to understand everything you wanted to convey.
Thank you. I hope at lest some people take the time and try understand all this.
This is the most puzzling camera release in years. I get why this might have been released around 2009, but now? WTF?
I thought Olympus was getting out of the P&S camera business?
Still no Tough camera with RAW support. 🙁
420 screen, no raw? A real shame. Pretty camera. Was looking forward to at least last years technology. Going for the Sony HX60V.