How good is DXO as a RAW developer?I try it on my NEX-5N RAW buy top me color is not as natural as out of camera JPEG
Dpreview is not helping people by not emphasizing the slow lens of all these camera except TG-2 and WG-3
Giving similar score to these slow lens camera as TG-2,WG-3 is really not doing any good to the photographic community
They should get a much lower score to let everyone know that these are outdated and obsolete
Can BSI actually worsen low ISO IQ?I think that is possibleI would got a GR or Coolpix A and left the zoom to my TG-2 which is less than 10% of my pic
jaygeephoto: Taken with my WG-3 last month:http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/post-your-photos/229906-sports-sailing-rhode-island.html#post2438258
Is lack of an aperture mode as in TG-2 a problem?the image in your sample has F9.5 which would suffer from diffractionor maybe not because it is probably using an ND filter
JohnEwing: Small, toughened cameras such as this are not as good for diving as pure UW jobs or DSLRs in housings, but they're great for sports where you might be getting sweaty, caught in downpours or knocked about, where getting the image counts for more than pixel-peeping.
The trouble from the manufacturer's point of view is that, for this purpose, 2- or 4-year-old models are just as good as the latest offerings. On a 1200 km Audax, such tomfoolery as WiFi and glacially slow GPS is useless.
Get a used or new old-stock Panny TS3/FT3 or even an TS1/FT1 and you'll not be missing out by much in comparison.
you are probably rightMy Panasonic TS1 is still working and believe it or not, at base ISO it may be better than all current waterproof camera because it has a CCD sensor not CMOS
If people understood CCD got fantastic color at base ISO
jaygeephoto: Buy a Pentax WG-3 in black, with or without GPS. It's a great value and doesn't look like a tub toy. You can use it as a general purpose point and shoot and not look foolish. The image quality is outstanding too for a camera of this type.
Do you own it?astonishing compare to what?got TG-2 and curious about WG-3
why not TG-2?
Jefftan: Only TG-2 and WG-3 with F2 lens is worth buying
Anyone buying this camera not prepare to use it indoor? if so would you want ISO 200/400 or ISO 800/1600
So simple. This slow lens waterproof are obsolete and why they still exist is many buying public don't understand lens aperture
I have TG-2 and is definitely much better than my Galaxy smartphone. The only thing I don't know is if WG-3 is better than my TG-2. It seems there is less NR in WG-3 and more detail left but this is only evident at 100%
For normal viewing on screen image is very attractive. In good lighting I can mistaken them to be take by my NEX-5N
If they further improve it to F1.4 than can use up to ISO 400 in low light than it would be perfect
Now still have to use ISO 800 in many scenario and as you know not very good
ISO 400 is the highest tolerable ISO for small sensor
Only TG-2 and WG-3 with F2 lens is worth buying
Pentax WG-3 become Ricoh WG-4?
Jefftan: "The big unknown right now is image quality - the 70D uses a 20.2MP sensor but the image is formed from 40.3M photodiodes, which is a lot to fit onto an APS-C chip."
not just noise, what about diffraction
diffraction start at F5.7
stupid idea from Canon
"The big unknown right now is image quality - the 70D uses a 20.2MP sensor but the image is formed from 40.3M photodiodes, which is a lot to fit onto an APS-C chip."
Jefftan: Dpreview staffthis is not a comparison review. no same scene shot with different cameraonly studio shot which for unknown reason TG-2 is not too good contradicting my real world use
in studio shot WG-3 is best
thanks for the reply
Dpreview staffthis is not a comparison review. no same scene shot with different cameraonly studio shot which for unknown reason TG-2 is not too good contradicting my real world use
check out this comparison page
To my surprise the camera with the most detail is Pentax WG-3
I have TG-2 and is generally happy with it
Scanlon: I bought this camera before a snorkeling trip to the Caribbean, thinking that, with the bright lens, it would deliver sharp images. I was wrong, and fortunately, I realized that before I went and returned it, for the Canon G15, which is not an underwater camera and more expensive, for sure, but which produced incredible images throughout our trip, almost on a par with my DSLR. Glad I made the change. Having said this, for years I had the Olympus 850 SW, which was an underwater camera. While I never had the opportunity to use it underwater, it did turn out very sharp images, Unfortunately, it was dropped and the LCD screen broke, necessitating the search for a new camera (for my wife). Needless to say, I was shocked at how soft the images from the TG-2 were.
I have TG-2 and disagree with what you saidfor land photo, the camera has very decent sharpness for any point and shoot camera and exceptional for a waterproof camera
Your comment is misleading for people who might be interested in this camera
that ISO 1600 sample is very good for a small sensor
I would buy a GR or NEX-3N and anyone care about their money should
$750 crazy price for 1 inch sensorHow much bigger is NEX-3N at $450
but IQ must be much bettercan't understand Sony pricing
samples at both ISO 160 and 3200 not impressive at all
ISO 160 sample not much detail. These may be out of camera jpeg, not sure if RAW better
ISO 3200 lots of noise
Anyone know why pair with 16-50mm instead of 18-55mm kit lensIs the 16-50mm worse than 18-55mm?
Get a weekly update of all that's new in the digital
photography world by subscribing to the Digital Photography Review