Olympus XZ-1 vs XZ-2
The Olympus XZ-1 and the Olympus XZ-2 are two digital cameras that were announced, respectively, in January 2011 and September 2012. Both the XZ-1 and the XZ-2 are fixed lens compact cameras that are equipped with a 1/1.7-inch sensor. The XZ-1 has a resolution of 10.1 megapixels, whereas the XZ-2 provides 11.8 MP.
Below is an overview of the main specs of the two cameras as a starting point for the comparison.
|Olympus XZ-1||Olympus XZ-2|
|Fixed lens compact camera||Fixed lens compact camera|
|28-112mm f/1.8-2.5||28-112mm f/1.8-2.5|
|10.1 MP, 1/1.7" Sensor||11.8 MP, 1/1.7" Sensor|
|720/30p Video||1080/30p Video|
|ISO 100-6400||ISO 100-12800|
|Viewfinder optional||Viewfinder optional|
|3.0" LCD, 614k dots||3.0" LCD, 920k dots|
|Fixed screen (not touch-sensitive)||Tilting touchscreen|
|2 shutter flaps per second||5 shutter flaps per second|
|In-body stabilization||In-body stabilization|
|320 shots per battery charge||340 shots per battery charge|
|111 x 65 x 42 mm, 275 g||113 x 65 x 48 mm, 346 g|
Going beyond this snapshot of core features and characteristics, what are the differences between the Olympus XZ-1 and the Olympus XZ-2? Which one should you buy? Read on to find out how these two cameras compare with respect to their body size, their imaging sensors, their shooting features, their input-output connections, and their reception by expert reviewers.
Body comparison: Olympus XZ-1 vs XZ-2
An illustration of the physical size and weight of the Olympus XZ-1 and the Olympus XZ-2 is provided in the side-by-side display below. The two cameras are presented according to their relative size. Three successive views from the front, the top, and the rear are shown. All width, height and depth dimensions are rounded to the nearest millimeter.
The XZ-1 can be obtained in two different colors (black, white), while the XZ-2 is only available in black.
If the front view area (width x height) of the cameras is taken as an aggregate measure of their size, the Olympus XZ-2 is somewhat larger (2 percent) than the Olympus XZ-1. Moreover, the XZ-2 is markedly heavier (26 percent) than the XZ-1. In this context, it is worth noting that neither the XZ-1 nor the XZ-2 are weather-sealed.
The following table provides a synthesis of the main physical specifications of the two cameras and other similar ones. If you would like to visualize and compare a different camera combination, just use the right or left arrows in the table to switch to the respective camera. Alternatively, you can also navigate to the CAM-parator app and make your selection from the full list of cameras there.
|Olympus XZ-1»||4.4 in||2.6 in||1.7 in||9.7 oz||320||n||Jan 2011||499||-||Olympus XZ-1|
|Olympus XZ-2«||4.4 in||2.6 in||1.9 in||12.2 oz||340||n||Sep 2012||599||-||Olympus XZ-2|
|Canon G16« »||4.3 in||3.0 in||1.6 in||12.6 oz||360||n||Aug 2013||549||Canon G16|
|Olympus TG-5« »||4.4 in||2.6 in||1.3 in||8.8 oz||340||Y||May 2017||449||Olympus TG-5|
|Olympus E-PM2« »||4.3 in||2.5 in||1.3 in||9.5 oz||360||n||Sep 2012||499||-||Olympus E-PM2|
|Olympus E-PL2« »||4.5 in||2.8 in||1.7 in||12.8 oz||280||n||Jan 2011||599||-||Olympus E-PL2|
|Olympus E-PL3« »||4.3 in||2.5 in||1.5 in||11.0 oz||300||n||Jun 2011||599||-||Olympus E-PL3|
|Olympus E-PM1« »||4.3 in||2.5 in||1.3 in||9.3 oz||330||n||Jun 2011||499||-||Olympus E-PM1|
|Olympus E-PL1« »||4.5 in||2.8 in||1.7 in||11.8 oz||290||n||Feb 2010||599||-||Olympus E-PL1|
|Panasonic FZ200« »||4.9 in||3.4 in||4.3 in||20.7 oz||540||n||Jul 2012||599||-||Panasonic FZ200|
|Panasonic LX7« »||4.4 in||2.7 in||1.8 in||10.5 oz||330||n||Jul 2012||499||-||Panasonic LX7|
|Panasonic FZ150« »||4.9 in||3.2 in||3.6 in||18.6 oz||410||n||Aug 2011||499||-||Panasonic FZ150|
|Panasonic LX5« »||4.3 in||2.6 in||1.7 in||9.6 oz||400||n||Jul 2010||499||-||Panasonic LX5|
|Pentax MX-1« »||4.8 in||2.4 in||2.0 in||13.8 oz||290||n||Jan 2013||499||-||Pentax MX-1|
Any camera decision will obviously take relative prices into account. The manufacturer’s suggested retail prices give an idea on the placement of the camera in the maker’s lineup and the broader market. The XZ-1 was launched at a somewhat lower price (by 17 percent) than the XZ-2, which makes it more attractive for photographers on a tight budget. Normally, street prices remain initially close to the MSRP, but after a couple of months, the first discounts appear. Later in the product cycle and, in particular, when the replacement model is about to appear, further discounting and stock clearance sales often push the camera price considerably down.
Sensor comparison: Olympus XZ-1 vs XZ-2
The size of the sensor inside a digital camera is one of the key determinants of image quality. All other things equal, a large sensor will have larger individual pixel-units that offer better low-light sensitivity, wider dynamic range, and richer color-depth than smaller pixels in a sensor of the same technological generation. Furthermore, a large sensor camera will give the photographer more possibilities to use shallow depth-of-field in order to isolate a subject from the background. On the downside, larger sensors are more costly to manufacture and tend to lead to bigger and heavier cameras and lenses.
Both cameras under consideration feature a 1/1.7-inch sensor, but their sensors differ slightly in size. The sensor area in the XZ-2 is 7 percent smaller. They nevertheless have the same format factor of 4.4. Both cameras feature a native aspect ratio (sensor width to sensor height) of 4:3.
Technology-wise, the XZ-2 uses a more advanced image processing engine (TruePic VI) than the XZ-1 (TruePic V), with benefits for noise reduction, color accuracy, and processing speed.
Despite having a smaller sensor, the XZ-2 offers a higher resolution of 11.8 megapixels, compared with 10.1 MP of the XZ-1. This megapixels advantage comes at the cost of a higher pixel density and a smaller size of the individual pixel (with a pixel pitch of 1.91μm versus 2.13μm for the XZ-1). However, it should be noted that the XZ-2 is a somewhat more recent model (by 1 year and 8 months) than the XZ-1, and its sensor might have benefitted from technological advances during this time that partly offset its pixel-size disadvantage.
The resolution advantage of the Olympus XZ-2 implies greater flexibility for cropping images or the possibility to print larger pictures. The maximum print size of the XZ-2 for good quality output (200 dots per inch) amounts to 19.8 x 14.9 inch or 50.4 x 37.8 cm, for very good quality (250 dpi) 15.9 x 11.9 inch or 40.3 x 30.2 cm, and for excellent quality (300 dpi) 13.2 x 9.9 inch or 33.6 x 25.2 cm. The corresponding values for the Olympus XZ-1 are 18.3 x 13.8 inch or 46.5 x 35 cm for good quality, 14.7 x 11 inch or 37.2 x 28 cm for very good quality, and 12.2 x 9.2 inch or 31 x 23.3 cm for excellent quality prints.
The Olympus XZ-1 has a native sensitivity range from ISO 100 to ISO 6400. The corresponding ISO settings for the Olympus XZ-2 are ISO 100 to ISO 12800 (no boost).
Consistent information on actual sensor performance is available from DXO Mark for many cameras. This service assesses and scores the color depth ("DXO Portrait"), dynamic range ("DXO Landscape"), and low-light sensitivity ("DXO Sports") of camera sensors, and also publishes an overall camera score. Of the two cameras under consideration, the XZ-2 offers substantially better image quality than the XZ-1 (overall score 15 points higher). The advantage is based on 1.6 bits higher color depth, 0.9 EV in additional dynamic range, and 0.9 stops in additional low light sensitivity. The table below summarizes the physical sensor characteristics and sensor quality findings and compares them across a set of similar cameras.
|Olympus XZ-1»||1/1.7||10.1||3664||2752||720/30p||18.8||10.4||117||34||Olympus XZ-1|
|Olympus XZ-2«||1/1.7||11.8||3968||2976||1080/30p||20.4||11.3||216||49||Olympus XZ-2|
|Canon G16« »||1/1.7||12.0||4000||3000||1080/60p||21.0||11.7||230||54||Canon G16|
|Olympus TG-5« »||1/2.3||12.0||4000||3000||4K/30p||-||-||-||-||Olympus TG-5|
|Olympus E-PM2« »||Four Thirds||15.9||4608||3456||1080/30p||22.7||12.2||932||72||Olympus E-PM2|
|Olympus E-PL2« »||Four Thirds||12.2||4032||3024||720/30p||21.4||10.2||573||55||Olympus E-PL2|
|Olympus E-PL3« »||Four Thirds||12.2||4032||3024||1080/60i||20.9||10.3||499||52||Olympus E-PL3|
|Olympus E-PM1« »||Four Thirds||12.2||4032||3024||1080/60i||21.0||10.3||499||52||Olympus E-PM1|
|Olympus E-PL1« »||Four Thirds||12.2||4032||3024||720/30p||21.5||10.1||487||54||Olympus E-PL1|
|Panasonic FZ200« »||1/2.3||12.0||4000||3000||1080/60p||19.1||10.8||114||37||Panasonic FZ200|
|Panasonic LX7« »||1/1.7||10.0||3648||2736||1080/60p||20.7||11.7||147||50||Panasonic LX7|
|Panasonic FZ150« »||1/2.3||12.0||4000||3000||1080/60p||19.4||10.9||132||40||Panasonic FZ150|
|Panasonic LX5« »||1/1.7||10.0||3648||2736||720/60p||19.6||10.8||132||41||Panasonic LX5|
|Pentax MX-1« »||1/1.7||12.0||4000||3000||1080/30p||20.4||11.3||208||49||Pentax MX-1|
Many modern cameras are not only capable of taking still images, but can also record movies. The two cameras under consideration both have sensors whose read-out speed is fast enough to capture moving pictures, but the XZ-2 provides a better video resolution than the XZ-1. It can shoot movie footage at 1080/30p, while the XZ-1 is limited to 720/30p.
Feature comparison: Olympus XZ-1 vs XZ-2
Apart from body and sensor, cameras can and do differ across a range of features. The XZ-1 and the XZ-2 are similar in the sense that neither of the two has a viewfinder. The images are, thus, framed using live view on the rear LCD. However, optional viewfinders – the VF-2 for the XZ-1 and the VF-2 for the XZ-2 – are available as accessories. The following table reports on some other key feature differences and similarities of the Olympus XZ-1, the Olympus XZ-2, and comparable cameras.
|Olympus XZ-1»||-||n||3.0||614||fixed||n||1/2000s||2.0||Y||Y||Olympus XZ-1|
|Olympus XZ-2«||-||n||3.0||920||tilting||Y||1/2000s||5.0||Y||Y||Olympus XZ-2|
|Canon G16« »||optical||n||3.0||922||fixed||n||1/4000s||2.2||Y||Y||Canon G16|
|Olympus TG-5« »||-||n||3.0||460||fixed||n||1/2000s||20.0||Y||Y||Olympus TG-5|
|Olympus E-PM2« »||-||n||3.0||460||fixed||Y||1/4000s||8.0||n||Y||Olympus E-PM2|
|Olympus E-PL2« »||-||n||3.0||460||fixed||n||1/4000s||3.0||Y||Y||Olympus E-PL2|
|Olympus E-PL3« »||-||n||3.0||460||tilting||n||1/4000s||5.5||n||Y||Olympus E-PL3|
|Olympus E-PM1« »||-||n||3.0||460||fixed||n||1/4000s||5.5||n||Y||Olympus E-PM1|
|Olympus E-PL1« »||-||n||2.7||230||fixed||n||1/2000s||3.0||Y||Y||Olympus E-PL1|
|Panasonic FZ200« »||1312||n||3.0||460||swivel||n||1/4000s||12.0||Y||Y||Panasonic FZ200|
|Panasonic LX7« »||-||n||3.0||920||fixed||n||1/4000s||11.0||Y||Y||Panasonic LX7|
|Panasonic FZ150« »||202||n||3.0||460||swivel||n||1/2000s||12.0||Y||Y||Panasonic FZ150|
|Panasonic LX5« »||-||n||3.0||460||fixed||n||1/4000s||2.5||Y||Y||Panasonic LX5|
|Pentax MX-1« »||-||n||3.0||920||tilting||n||1/8000s||1.0||Y||Y||Pentax MX-1|
One differentiating feature between the two cameras concerns the touch sensitivity of the rear screen. The XZ-2 has a touchscreen, while the XZ-1 has a conventional panel. Touch control can be particularly helpful, for example, for setting the focus point.
The Olympus XZ-1 and the Olympus XZ-2 both have an intervalometer built-in. This enables the photographer to capture time lapse sequences, such as flower blooming, a sunset or moon rise, without purchasing an external camera trigger and related software.
Both the XZ-1 and the XZ-2 have zoom lenses built in. Both optics have identical focal length range and aperture specifications (6-24.0mm f/1.8-2.5). Both cameras offer the same maximum aperture.
Concerning the storage of imaging data, both the XZ-1 and the XZ-2 write their files to SDXC cards.
Connectivity comparison: Olympus XZ-1 vs XZ-2
For some imaging applications, the extent to which a camera can communicate with its environment can be an important aspect in the camera decision process. The table below provides an overview of the connectivity of the Olympus XZ-1 and Olympus XZ-2 and, in particular, the interfaces the cameras (and selected comparators) provide for accessory control and data transfer.
|Olympus XZ-1»||Y||mono||-||-||-||mini||2.0||-||-||-||Olympus XZ-1|
|Olympus XZ-2«||Y||stereo||mono||-||-||mini||2.0||-||-||-||Olympus XZ-2|
|Canon G16« »||Y||stereo||mono||-||-||mini||2.0||Y||-||-||Canon G16|
|Olympus TG-5« »||-||stereo||mono||-||-||micro||2.0||Y||-||-||Olympus TG-5|
|Olympus E-PM2« »||Y||stereo||mono||-||-||mini||2.0||-||-||-||Olympus E-PM2|
|Olympus E-PL2« »||Y||stereo||-||-||-||mini||2.0||-||-||-||Olympus E-PL2|
|Olympus E-PL3« »||Y||stereo||-||-||-||mini||2.0||-||-||-||Olympus E-PL3|
|Olympus E-PM1« »||Y||stereo||mono||-||-||mini||2.0||-||-||-||Olympus E-PM1|
|Olympus E-PL1« »||Y||stereo||-||-||-||mini||2.0||-||-||-||Olympus E-PL1|
|Panasonic FZ200« »||Y||stereo||mono||Y||-||mini||2.0||-||-||-||Panasonic FZ200|
|Panasonic LX7« »||Y||stereo||mono||-||-||mini||2.0||-||-||-||Panasonic LX7|
|Panasonic FZ150« »||Y||stereo||-||-||-||mini||2.0||-||-||-||Panasonic FZ150|
|Panasonic LX5« »||Y||mono||mono||-||-||mini||2.0||-||-||-||Panasonic LX5|
|Pentax MX-1« »||-||stereo||mono||-||-||mini||2.0||-||-||-||Pentax MX-1|
Both the XZ-1 and the XZ-2 have been discontinued, but can regularly be found used on eBay. The XZ-1 was replaced by the Olympus XZ-2, while the XZ-2 does not have a direct successor. Further information on the two cameras (e.g. user guides, manuals), as well as related accessories, can be found on the official Olympus website.
Review summary: Olympus XZ-1 vs XZ-2
So how do things add up? Is the Olympus XZ-1 better than the Olympus XZ-2 or vice versa? A synthesis of the relative strong points of each of the models is listed below.
Reasons to prefer the Olympus XZ-1:
- Less heavy: Is lighter (by 71g or 21 percent) and hence easier to carry around.
- More affordable: Was introduced into a lower priced segment (17 percent cheaper at launch).
- More heavily discounted: Has been on the market for longer (launched in January 2011).
Arguments in favor of the Olympus XZ-2:
- More detail: Has more megapixels (11.8 vs 10.1MP), which boosts linear resolution by 8%.
- Better image quality: Scores substantially higher (15 points) in the DXO overall evaluation.
- Richer colors: Generates noticeably more natural colors (1.6 bits more color depth).
- More dynamic range: Captures a broader range of light and dark details (0.9 EV of extra DR).
- Better low-light sensitivity: Can shoot in dim conditions (0.9 stops ISO advantage).
- Better jpgs: Has a more modern image processing engine (TruePic VI vs TruePic V).
- Better video: Provides higher definition movie capture (1080/30p vs 720/30p).
- More detailed LCD: Has a higher resolution rear screen (920k vs 614k dots).
- More flexible LCD: Has a tilting screen for odd-angle shots in landscape orientation.
- Fewer buttons to press: Has a touchscreen to facilitate handling and shooting adjustments.
- Faster burst: Shoots at higher frequency (5 vs 2 flaps/sec) to capture the decisive moment.
- More modern: Was introduced somewhat (1 year and 8 months) more recently.
If the number of relative strengths (bullet points above) is taken as a guide, the XZ-2 is the clear winner of the contest (12 : 3 points). However, the pertinence of the various camera strengths will differ across photographers, so that you might want to weigh individual camera traits according to their importance for your own imaging needs before making a camera decision. A professional sports photographer will view the differences between cameras in a way that diverges from the perspective of a street photog, and a person interested in family portraits has distinct needs from a landscape shooter. Hence, the decision which camera is best and worth buying is often a very personal one.
How about other alternatives? Do the specifications of the Olympus XZ-1 and the Olympus XZ-2 place the cameras among the top in their class? Find out in the latest Best Travel-Zoom Camera listing whether the two cameras rank among the cream of the crop.
In any case, while the specs-based evaluation of cameras can be instructive in revealing their potential as photographic tools, it says little about, for example, the shooting experience and imaging performance of the XZ-1 and the XZ-2 in practical situations. At times, user reviews, such as those published at amazon, address these issues in a useful manner, but such feedback is on many occasions incomplete, inconsistent, and unreliable.
Expert reviews: Olympus XZ-1 vs XZ-2
This is why hands-on reviews by experts are important. The adjacent summary-table relays the overall verdicts of several of the most popular camera review sites (cameralabs, dpreview, ephotozine, imaging-resource, and photographyblog). As can be seen, the professional reviewers agree in many cases on the quality of different cameras, but sometimes their assessments diverge, reinforcing the earlier point that a camera decision is often a very personal choice.
|Olympus XZ-1»||-||74/100||4.5/5||4.5/5||4.5/5||Jan 2011||499||-||Olympus XZ-1|
|Olympus XZ-2«||+||-||4.5/5||4/5||4.5/5||Sep 2012||599||-||Olympus XZ-2|
|Canon G16« »||+||-||4.5/5||4.5/5||4.5/5||Aug 2013||549||Canon G16|
|Olympus TG-5« »||+ +||-||4/5||o||4/5||May 2017||449||Olympus TG-5|
|Olympus E-PM2« »||-||77/100||5/5||4.5/5||4.5/5||Sep 2012||499||-||Olympus E-PM2|
|Olympus E-PL2« »||83/100||71/100||4.5/5||4.5/5||4.5/5||Jan 2011||599||-||Olympus E-PL2|
|Olympus E-PL3« »||+ +||72/100||4.5/5||-||4/5||Jun 2011||599||-||Olympus E-PL3|
|Olympus E-PM1« »||86/100||71/100||4.5/5||-||4.5/5||Jun 2011||499||-||Olympus E-PM1|
|Olympus E-PL1« »||86/100||69/100||4/5||4.5/5||4.5/5||Feb 2010||599||-||Olympus E-PL1|
|Panasonic FZ200« »||+ +||80/100||4.5/5||4.5/5||4.5/5||Jul 2012||599||-||Panasonic FZ200|
|Panasonic LX7« »||+ +||75/100||4/5||5/5||4.5/5||Jul 2012||499||-||Panasonic LX7|
|Panasonic FZ150« »||+ +||76/100||4/5||5/5||4.5/5||Aug 2011||499||-||Panasonic FZ150|
|Panasonic LX5« »||+||73/100||4.5/5||5/5||4.5/5||Jul 2010||499||-||Panasonic LX5|
|Pentax MX-1« »||-||74/100||4/5||3.5/5||4/5||Jan 2013||499||-||Pentax MX-1|
|Notes: (+ +) highly recommended; (+) recommended; (o) reviewed; (-) not available.|
The review scores listed above should be treated with care, though. The ratings are only valid when referring to cameras in the same category and of the same age. Thus, a score needs to be put into the context of the launch date and the launch price of the camera, and comparing ratings of very distinct cameras or ones that are far apart in terms of their release date have little meaning. It should also be noted that some of the review sites have over time altered the way they render their verdicts.
Other camera comparisons
Did this review help to inform your camera decision process? In case you are interested in seeing how other cameras pair up, just make a corresponding selection in the search boxes below. There is also a set of direct links to comparison reviews that other users of the CAM-parator app explored.
- Canon G15 vs Olympus XZ-2
- Canon G7 X vs Olympus XZ-1
- Leica M8 vs Olympus XZ-1
- Olympus E-PL1 vs Olympus XZ-1
- Olympus E-PL2 vs Olympus XZ-2
- Olympus E-PL3 vs Olympus XZ-1
- Olympus E-PM1 vs Olympus XZ-1
- Olympus E-PM2 vs Olympus XZ-1
- Olympus XZ-1 vs Panasonic FZ200
- Olympus XZ-1 vs Panasonic TZ90
- Olympus XZ-2 vs Pentax MX-1
- Olympus XZ-2 vs Sony HX99
Specifications: Olympus XZ-1 vs Olympus XZ-2
|Camera Model||Olympus XZ-1||Olympus XZ-2|
|Camera Type||Fixed lens compact camera||Fixed lens compact camera|
|Camera Lens||28-112mm f/1.8-2.5||28-112mm f/1.8-2.5|
|Launch Date||January 2011||September 2012|
|Launch Price||USD 499||USD 599|
|Sensor Specs||Olympus XZ-1||Olympus XZ-2|
|Sensor Format||1/1.7" Sensor||1/1.7" Sensor|
|Sensor Size||7.85 x 5.89 mm||7.6 x 5.7 mm|
|Sensor Area||46.2365 mm2||43.32 mm2|
|Sensor Diagonal||9.8 mm||9.5 mm|
|Sensor Resolution||10.1 Megapixels||11.8 Megapixels|
|Image Resolution||3664 x 2752 pixels||3968 x 2976 pixels|
|Pixel Pitch||2.13 μm||1.91 μm|
|Pixel Density||21.81 MP/cm2||27.26 MP/cm2|
|Moiré control||Anti-Alias filter||Anti-Alias filter|
|Movie Capability||720/30p Video||1080/30p Video|
|ISO Setting||100-6400 ISO||100-12800 ISO|
|Image Processor||TruePic V||TruePic VI|
|DXO Sensor Quality (score)||34||49|
|DXO Color Depth (bits)||18.8||20.4|
|DXO Dynamic Range (EV)||10.4||11.3|
|DXO Low Light (ISO)||117||216|
|Screen Specs||Olympus XZ-1||Olympus XZ-2|
|Viewfinder Type||Viewfinder optional||Viewfinder optional|
|LCD Framing||Live View||Live View|
|Rear LCD Size||3.0 inch||3.0 inch|
|LCD Resolution||614k dots||920k dots|
|LCD Attachment||Fixed screen||Tilting screen|
|Touch Input||no Touchscreen||Touchscreen|
|Shooting Specs||Olympus XZ-1||Olympus XZ-2|
|Autofocus System||Contrast-detect AF||Contrast-detect AF|
|Continuous Shooting||2 shutter flaps/s||5 shutter flaps/s|
|Time-Lapse Photography||Intervalometer built-in||Intervalometer built-in|
|Image Stabilization||In-body stabilization||In-body stabilization|
|Fill Flash||Build-in Flash||Build-in Flash|
|Storage Medium||SDXC cards||SDXC cards|
|Second Storage Option||Single card slot||Single card slot|
|UHS card support||no||no|
|Connectivity Specs||Olympus XZ-1||Olympus XZ-2|
|USB Connector||USB 2.0||USB 2.0|
|HDMI Port||mini HDMI||mini HDMI|
|Wifi Support||no Wifi||no Wifi|
|Body Specs||Olympus XZ-1||Olympus XZ-2|
|Battery Type||Li-50B power pack||Li-90B power pack|
|Battery Life (CIPA)||320 shots per charge||340 shots per charge|
111 x 65 x 42 mm
(4.4 x 2.6 x 1.7 in)
113 x 65 x 48 mm
(4.4 x 2.6 x 1.9 in)
|Camera Weight||275 g (9.7 oz)||346 g (12.2 oz)|