On this first results page I’ll compare all three cameras at, or near to, their widest focal lengths. As mentioned above, I’ve aimed to match the vertical height of each image, which involved nudging the Lumix FZ200 in by a notch. As for the RX10, it may deliver a slightly wider field of view than the STYLUS 1, but due to differences in their aspect ratios, their vertical heights are already fairly well matched when both are zoomed-out to their widest settings. So to clarify below you’re looking at the RX10 and STYLUS 1 at their widest focal lengths and the FZ200 zoomed-in a tad to match. The crops, as always, are taken from the areas indicated by the red rectangles and reproduced below at 100%. The STYLUS 1 and FZ200 crops show the same area as both share the same 12 Megapixel resolution, while the RX10 crops show a smaller area due to its higher 20 megapixel resolution.

I tested all three cameras at every aperture setting and at their widest focal lengths, found all delivered their crispest results at f4. Note at f2.8 the results sometimes delivered higher contrast and a slightly crisper centre, but f4 was the best all-round, especially at the edges.

And it’s the edges where this first battle is fought. Of the three cameras, the STYLUS 1 is suffering the most at its edges, with visibly softer results than either the Lumix FZ200 or Sony RX10. Move away from the edges and the STYLUS 1 improves a lot, although the Lumix FZ200 manages to match it at this wide focal length. Meanwhile the higher resolution of the Sony RX10, coupled with a lens that’s sharp to the edges at wide angle wins this first test.

It’s all very well comparing cameras at their widest focal lengths, but what happens as they zoom-in? To find out, I additionally tested the three cameras at 50, 100 and 200mm, followed by comparing the STYLUS 1 and FZ200 at 300mm and finally checking out how the FZ200 looks at 600mm. Find out how they compare in my 50mm comparison, 100mm comparison, 200mm comparison, 300mm comparison and 600mm comparison. Alternatively you can compare their performance at higher sensitivities in my noise results or check out what’s happening behind the scenes in my RAW noise results. Or perhaps you’d like to check out my sample images or skip straight to my verdict on all three cameras!

On my second results page I’ll compare all three cameras at an equivalent focal length of 50mm, and as before I’ve attempted to match their vertical coverage by fine-tuning their zooms. The crops, as always, are taken from the areas indicated by the red rectangles and reproduced below at 100%. The STYLUS 1 and FZ200 crops show the same area as both share the same 12 Megapixel resolution, while the RX10 crops show a smaller area due to its higher 20 megapixel resolution.

I tested all three cameras at every aperture setting and at an equivalent of 50mm I found the RX10 and FZ200 were crispest wide-open at f2.8, while the STYLUS 1 performed best closed a stop to f4, delivering a slightly more contrasty result that was also better corrected at the edges.

With all three zoomed-into 50mm, their optical sharpness becomes closer than at wide angle. The STYLUS 1 improves a lot at the edges compared to the last page, although I’d still say the FZ200 enjoys a minor edge in sharpess, albeit nothing to base a buying decision on. Interestingly in the first row, the STYLUS 1 enjoys a small advantage over the FZ200, better resolving the tonal detail which separates the lines on the blue window and entrance blinds. But again it’s the Sony RX10 which delivers the best result here with crisp details up to the edges and a higher degree of real life detail thanks to its higher resolution.

What happens as they zoom-in further? To find out, I additionally tested the three cameras at 100 and 200mm, followed by comparing the STYLUS 1 and FZ200 at 300mm and finally checking out how the FZ200 looks at 600mm. Find out how they compare in my 100mm comparison, 200mm comparison, 300mm comparison and 600mm comparison. Alternatively you can compare their performance at higher sensitivities in my noise results or check out what’s happening behind the scenes in my RAW noise results. Or perhaps you’d like to check out my sample images or skip straight to my verdict on all three cameras!

On my third results page I’ll compare all three cameras at an equivalent focal length of 100mm, and as before I’ve attempted to match their vertical coverage by fine-tuning their zooms. The crops, as always, are taken from the areas indicated by the red rectangles and reproduced below at 100%. The STYLUS 1 and FZ200 crops show the same area as both share the same 12 Megapixel resolution, while the RX10 crops show a smaller area due to its higher 20 megapixel resolution.

I tested all three cameras at every aperture setting and at an equivalent of 100mm I found the STYLUS 1 and FZ200 were crispest at f4, while the RX10 performed best closed a stop further to f5.6.

Here I’d say all three start off resolving similar amounts of detail, although as you examine the later crops, the RX10 again enjoys a visible edge over its lower resolution rivals. Meanwhile the STYLUS 1 and FZ200 are looking very similar, although for my money the latter is slightly crisper on the optics, while the former is slightly cleaner on the noise. Ultimately not much to choose between the pair though.

What happens as they zoom-in further? To find out, I additionally tested the three cameras at 200mm, followed by comparing the STYLUS 1 and FZ200 at 300mm and finally checking out how the FZ200 looks at 600mm. Find out how they compare in my 200mm comparison, 300mm comparison and 600mm comparison. Alternatively you can compare their performance at higher sensitivities in my noise results or check out what’s happening behind the scenes in my RAW noise results. Or perhaps you’d like to check out my sample images or skip straight to my verdict on all three cameras!

On my third results page I’ll compare all three cameras at an equivalent focal length of 200mm, and as before I’ve attempted to match their vertical coverage by fine-tuning their zooms. The crops, as always, are taken from the areas indicated by the red rectangles and reproduced below at 100%. The STYLUS 1 and FZ200 crops show the same area as both share the same 12 Megapixel resolution, while the RX10 crops show a smaller area due to its higher 20 megapixel resolution.

I tested all three cameras at every aperture setting and at an equivalent of 200mm I found the RX10 and STYLUS 1 were crispest at f4, while the FZ200 performed best closed a stop further to f5.6.

While this focal length represents the extreme end for the RX10, I’d say the analysis is pretty much the same as at 100mm. As such the STYLUS 1 and FZ200 share similar amounts of real-life detail, with the latter enjoying slightly crisper and more contrasty optics, but the former enjoying slightly lower noise. Meanwhile the RX10 continues to deliver the best results of all three, genuinely resolving finer detail thanks to a combination of a higher resolution sensor and superior optics. Since 200mm is the longest the RX10 will zoom, the next comparison page is between the STYLUS 1 and FZ200, with both set to 300mm.

What happens at 300mm and longer? Find out in my 300mm comparison and 600mm comparison. Alternatively you can compare their performance at higher sensitivities in my noise results or check out what’s happening behind the scenes in my RAW noise results. Or perhaps you’d like to check out my sample images or skip straight to my verdict on all three cameras!

On my fourth results page I’ll compare both cameras at an equivalent focal length of 300mm, and as before I’ve attempted to match their vertical coverage by fine-tuning their zooms. The crops, as always, are taken from the areas indicated by the red rectangles and reproduced below at 100%. The STYLUS 1 and FZ200 crops show the same area as both share the same 12 Megapixel resolution, while the RX10 is not present here as its maximum focal length is 200mm.

I tested both cameras at every aperture setting and at an equivalent of 300mm I found the STYLUS 1 was crispest at f4, while the FZ200 performed best closed a stop further to f5.6.

Once again it’s a repeat of what we saw on the earlier pages: the FZ200 looks crisper, but the STYLUS 1 looks less noisy. It’s worth noting that noise speckles can actually give the appearance of a sharper image, so don’t discount the STYLUS 1 as being softer due to lesser optics here. Ultimately both are delivering very similar degrees of real-life detail, although the STYLUS 1 is definitely a little cleaner.

Another thing worth mentioning is the RX10. Its lens may stop at 200mm equivalent, but its higher resolution means if you were to take a 12 Megapixel crop from this focal length, you’d actually end up with an image that covers almost the same area as the STYLUS 1 here. The Olympus manages to get a little tighter, so ultimately wins that battle, but the Sony comes very close so don’t discount it if you want to shoot at 300mm.

300mm is the longest focal length of the STYLUS 1, so it too bows out at this point. But being a thorough reviewer I don’t want to just say the FZ200 continues on to zoom twice as close. I want to see if it’s any good at 600mm. Find out in my 600mm comparison. Alternatively you can compare their performance at higher sensitivities in my noise results or check out what’s happening behind the scenes in my RAW noise results. Or perhaps you’d like to check out my sample images or skip straight to my verdict on all three cameras!

On my sixth results page I’ve tested the Panasonic Lumix FZ200 in isolation at its longest focal length of 600mm, as neither the Sony RX10 nor Olympus STYLUS 1 can zoom anywhere near as close.

The crops below look very respectable in terms of optical performance, with the FZ200 delivering crisp results – indeed this has been evident across the entire focal range, which is impressive given the 24x stretch and the relatively low price of the camera.

But with the good comes the unfortunate: the FZ200, like all cameras with 1/2.3in sensors exhibits visible noise when viewed 1:1 even at the lowest sensitivity. There’s a strong sprinkling of noise across this image, and while it’s also present at shorter focal lengths, it’s more obvious here thanks to the larger expanses of flat coloured areas. If your subject remains complex and detailed even at 600mm, then you may not notice it as much, but in this particular composition, the weakness of the FZ200 is revealed. Only you can decide if it’s a problem or not, but noise like this can be smoothed fairly effectively in post processing, especially if you feed it a RAW file, and again the FZ200’s optics at least mean there’s plenty of detail to start with.

Now it’s time to compare the performance of the Sony RX10, Olympus STYLUS 1 and Lumix FZ200 at higher sensitivities in my noise results or check out what’s happening behind the scenes in my RAW noise results. Or perhaps you’d like to check out my sample images or skip straight to my verdict on all three cameras!

I matched the vertical field of view on each camera and set them at an aperture previously determined to deliver the sharpest results.

I matched the vertical field of view on each camera and set them at an aperture previously determined to deliver the sharpest results.

All RAW files were processed using Adobe Camera RAW using the same settings for white balance, sharpening (50 / 0.5 / 36 / 10), and noise reduction (all disabled).