Print 18 comment(s) - last by Vytautas.. on Jan 30 at 4:29 PM

SP-100 can record up to 240fps video at lower resolutions

Olympus has unveiled its latest super zoom point-and-shoot digital camera, the Stylus SP-100. The camera is the first in the world to have a built-in “Eagle-Eye” dot sight that makes it easy to tack moving subjects. The sight also promises to make it easier to record smooth video by helping you keep track of the subject.
The special dot sight is mounted above the 920k LED electronic viewfinder. The sight stores when it's not needed and pops up automatically.

As for the SP-100’s other features, the 50x optical zoom lens has a range of 24-1200mm, and it uses a 16MP BSI CMOs sensor with a TruePic VII processor to get the most out of shots. Given its super-long zoom range, the camera obviously has built-in optical image stabilization that helps support macro photography as close as 1cm.
The camera has a full range of automatic shooting modes and manual controls for settings like ISO, shutter speed, and aperture. The camera can record video at 60 fps in full HD resolution and in high-speed 120fps at 640 x 480. A 240fps mode is supported in 320 x 240 resolution.

The Stylus SP-100 will launch in March for $399.99.

Source: olympus

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Useless feature
By Dorkyman on 1/29/14, Rating: 0
RE: Useless feature
By bug77 on 1/29/2014 11:04:24 AM , Rating: 1
Yeah, past 15x or so, you'd need a tripod of hand shake will get in the way, optical stabilization or not.
While I don't know the included sight works, the sensor still looks like it could be _the_ feature to watch on this camera.

RE: Useless feature
By Vytautas on 1/29/2014 11:17:26 AM , Rating: 2
It's obvious you have never handled such a camera. 50x is VERY useful in countless situations. I myself, got a canon SX50-HS and couldn't be happier with my choice. Either taking a picture of a bird or animal a long distance away (they usually fly or run away if you get just a bit closer), or better images when doing panorama shots (you can certainy create a better image when you have more zoom range than otherwise [simply because you have more choice and possible objects to make pictures from]), even the moons of Jupiter, Saturn rings or close up of the Moon (craters and all) if you wish so. Your kid is playing outside and you want a beautiful close up image without him/her noticing (a natural non posed image so to speak), you can do any shot you wish with this camera. Not so much with one with only 10x zoom.
Of course it must be done right and I'm not saying the SX50 is perfect, but it's certainly much better than anything I have handled before. Obviously dSLRs may have a better image in some situations, or be more configurable, but they have their own disadvantage. An 50x zoom teleobjective on a dSLR will weight ~20-30 kg and cost ~150.000 dollars besides being really impractical for most cases.
So, I'm sorry but you really don't have any idea what a 50x zoom brings to the table (when done right, of course).

RE: Useless feature
By Vytautas on 1/29/2014 11:19:44 AM , Rating: 2
BTW, the optical stabilization on the canon allows taking pictures with 50x zoom without a tripod if the image is rather static or slow moving and with reasonable light. Although if you have a steady hand you can even take night pictures (like Jupiter and it's moons) without a tripod. I'm serious, I have done it myself, although in such situations I do prefer to have the tripod anyway.

RE: Useless feature
By ritualm on 1/30/2014 12:10:10 AM , Rating: 2
the optical stabilization on the canon allows taking pictures with 50x zoom without a tripod if the image is rather static or slow moving and with reasonable light

That is exactly why I'm not into super long zooms. The large majority of folks who buy these cameras also don't carry tripods, and that doubly hurts at maximum zoom.

RE: Useless feature
By Vytautas on 1/30/2014 4:38:11 AM , Rating: 2
Again, you seem to misunderstand, because of never trying out such a camera. As I said it's quite usable even without a tripod, unless the lighting conditions are VERY poor, your hands are VERY shaky and/or there is rather fast movement in the image you want to take. Keep in mind that at maximum zoom it's shutter speed is "only" 1/1000 (at lower zooms it's up to 1/2000). This is quite good even for capturing individual raindrops in the air, but not enough if the object moves at a very significant angular speed. It all depends on what you use your camera for.
Just take a look at what you can do with the SX50HS (without a tripod) and judge by yourself:
Such cameras may have their defects, but the zoom is a VERY useful feature. At least for me. If you only make portrait shots and have no real interest in photography whatsoever, then of course a more advanced camera is not for you. Of course dSLR are better for a lot of situations, but there is no dSLR that may do pictures such as these within a reasonable budget (1200 mm lenses are so expensive, that less than a hundred have been made by canon. Meaning ~20 lenses.).

RE: Useless feature
By ritualm on 1/30/2014 9:30:43 AM , Rating: 2
Again, you seem to misunderstand, because of never trying out such a camera.

I have tried these before, and I'm not using these ever again. These high-zoom P&S have just too many compromises.

If all you want are good pictures at such focal lengths, does price even matter? Those sub-$500 super zoom cameras are worthless.

RE: Useless feature
By Vytautas on 1/30/2014 4:29:49 PM , Rating: 1
Each machine has it's merits and its' limitations. Have you really tried them all? I'm sure you haven't. It's difficult do design a good superzoom camera, so I guess you could have tried a shitty one. Besides technology improves all the time. I can only testify about the SX50. I already have provided you with a couple of links with photos taken with this camera. If you still try to tell such devices are worthless, then I guess you either ignored those links, or are just arguing for the sake of arguing with no argument to back you up.
Each tool has its' use. And superzoom cameras (the good ones obviously) provide more or less the best image quality of point and shoot cameras (of course dSLRs do have a better image, specially in low light conditions), and have a zoom capability that dSLRs simply cannot touch at an affordable price and manageability (If you are able and willing to spend >120 thousand US dollars for something you won't even be able to hold by yourself, requiring a tripod for just the lens, compared with a handheld camera).
Regardless, I guess I won't be able to convince you, because you set your mind in a certain way and are blind and deaf to any argument or fact that may show you to be mistaken. You ignore even direct proof (in the form of excellent photos taken with the SX50) and commentary from a professional photographer. Well, you ARE entitled to have whatever opinion you may wish. Good luck in your endeavors, Ritualm.

RE: Useless feature
By bug77 on 1/30/2014 6:20:34 AM , Rating: 2
All I know is my SLR at 300mm (450mm equivalent) can get blurry pictures when hand held, even in daylight. I doubt tripling the focal range and using a smaller sensor improves things.

RE: Useless feature
By Vytautas on 1/30/2014 7:42:13 AM , Rating: 2
Of course you CAN get blurry images with the SX50. As I said if you have fast moving objects, if you move strongly the camera while taking the picture and so on. But at least the SX50 has a pretty amazing image stabilization system.
I did offer a link to some pictures I've made myself on a previous post. Look it up. And I'm just photography inclined (if you excuse my expression). Meaning not even a serious hobbyist, but I do like photography.
Or here is another link from a more experienced photographer (it was one of the sources of information I based myself when searching for a new camera):

So don't judge a camera before trying it out yourself or at least doing some serious research on the subject.

RE: Useless feature
By Vytautas on 1/30/2014 7:56:04 AM , Rating: 2
Of course this doesn't mean that this olympus camera is any good. The lens may suck, then all the images would be blurry. I'm talking about superzoom (1200 mm equivalent) cameras in general, and the SX50 specifically. BTW on my first link don't you think that eagle (which actually was about 1km away from myself) was a rather fast moving object? Or the DC3 picture at max zoom? Of course they were, but the optical stabilization system, plus good lighting and somewhat steady hands (no parkinson, or a baby in another hand trying to play with the camera) got pretty good images.
Again, obviously the images don´t reach the same quality as a good dSLR (for example the SX50 has 20.3 bits color depth vs 23.5 on the Nikon d7000), but pretty amazing for a point&shoot. BTW none of my images have been edited (no sharpening or anything like that, still learning on that front). And at least the SX50 has the ability to shoot RAW, so if you are so inclined you may improve your photos quite a bit in the lightroom.

RE: Useless feature
By sorry dog on 1/29/2014 12:30:38 PM , Rating: 2
You must be kidding...

This camera will be quite handy for voyeur perverts the world over.

SP-100 Tactical
By dezl337 on 1/29/2014 10:22:10 AM , Rating: 2
SP-100 TACTICAL ! I like the addition of a holographic sight. But, WHEN WILL WE GET OUR SHUTTER SUPPRESSOR AND FORE-GRIP? It's rough out there for photographers. I need faster target acquisition and flash suppression for bird watching. I really thought you were going to nail it with this one Olympus... Looks like I'll be switching to Nikon next time.

RE: SP-100 Tactical
By sorry dog on 1/29/2014 12:31:52 PM , Rating: 2
Are we talking about a camera or an AR-15??

RE: SP-100 Tactical
By Schrag4 on 1/29/2014 1:15:51 PM , Rating: 2
Not legal in CA or NY though. Oh, and you can't have "the shoulder thing that goes up" on your camera either, think of the children!

RE: SP-100 Tactical
By espaghetti on 1/29/2014 7:40:26 PM , Rating: 2
Don't forget to pick up some high capacity batteries and file storage.

By transamdude95 on 1/29/2014 3:40:08 PM , Rating: 2
Great job on the article image!

Image quality?
By Bedsitdriver on 1/29/2014 4:49:13 PM , Rating: 2
1200mm down to 10mm macro sounds like the perfect all round telephoto lense. But what about image quality? 16mp may be great but my 10mp E-410s with their standard Olympus lenses cannot get the same sharp image quality as other cameras. If you post your images on certain sites like where only the best aircraft shots are accepted, you have to resize your image. This turns a very acceptable shot into a poorer quality image which Olympus lenses seem incapable of coping with. And mp size of the camera will then be irrelevant.
I will await the reviews and user blogs before spending any more money, but I have my fingers crossed and hope it will be as good as we hope.

"When an individual makes a copy of a song for himself, I suppose we can say he stole a song." -- Sony BMG attorney Jennifer Pariser
Latest Headlines
Inspiron Laptops & 2-in-1 PCs
September 25, 2016, 9:00 AM
The Samsung Galaxy S7
September 14, 2016, 6:00 AM
Apple Watch 2 – Coming September 7th
September 3, 2016, 6:30 AM
Apple says “See you on the 7th.”
September 1, 2016, 6:30 AM

Most Popular Articles5 Cases for iPhone 7 and 7 iPhone Plus
September 18, 2016, 10:08 AM
Laptop or Tablet - Which Do You Prefer?
September 20, 2016, 6:32 AM
Update: Samsung Exchange Program Now in Progress
September 20, 2016, 5:30 AM
Smartphone Screen Protectors – What To Look For
September 21, 2016, 9:33 AM
Walmart may get "Robot Shopping Carts?"
September 17, 2016, 6:01 AM

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki