Sensor size is still important for quality and perspective. DPReview should always list it on the top.
But look up DOF filter, irmo.

Depends.
For normal to wide-angle shots, that WG-2 captured above base ISO, there will be a *huge* IQ improvement, because WG-3 will be using lower ISO to get the same shot.
For telephoto and base-ISO shots, not so much.

Maxfield_photo, there are no 12 bits of genuine information in those tiny pixels, even JPEGs at base iso show some noise. People keep expecting the same difference between RAW and JPEG as for APS-C sensor, forgetting than 16-mpix APS-sensor pixels are about 16 times bigger as those 16-mpix 1/2.3" sensor pixels. 16 times translates to missing 4 bits.
Given the bayer filter, color resolution is also not really lost in JPEG.

peevee1:

Actually no, people who want raw in these small cameras aren’t only looking to reduce noise. They want better colour and exposure control; those are two things having the raw data automatically provides.

Then there'd be the smearing problem with jpegs; raw avoids that mess.

Albeit somewhat bigger sensors, but my Canon G2 and Panasonic LX5 both have improved image quality control with raw (yes the Canon has a good jpeg engine).

So it’s bothersome, to say the least, to see claims that raw wouldn’t provide many improvements in these small tough cameras. Just ridding these cameras of jpeg smearing would make raw data capture very valuable.

And repeating myself: It’s not like there aren’t other small cameras that capture raw.

You have a good point, pevee. I do understand that the DR of a tiny sensor can't compare to that of an APS-C, let alone a full frame or larger sensor. For me, the desire for a waterproof camera that shoots RAW is as much about my workflow as it is image quality. Being able to re-interpret WB after the fact, color profiling with my ColorChecker Passport. The MX-1 can shoot in RAW, so why not a waterproof compact with the same sensor?

Hammer - GoPro Hero 3?

How is the zoom going on the GoPro? Or, wait. Is it waterproof without an extra case? Oh, wait.

Timmbits . . . what is your take on the Olympus TG-1 or TG-2?

seilerbird666:

I used my Nikonos under water some, and don’t remember having to grease the O ring every time. Yes it was something indicated by Nikon, but not an every roll of film or lens change thing.

Many water tight flashlights use O rings. Now I’ve not used them under the water, but there many are rated for diving, in particular the ones sold under the name Princeton Tec in the USA.

It would be better if the makers of these small tough cameras worked out a better sealing system. That includes making the bodies a bit thicker to allow for say 25 mm screw down ports–that size allows for an SD card and a reworked battery. Then the somewhat deeper body would allow for greater internal zoom systems.

“Pro housings” are big and costly. And very complicated to keep sealed. Nor do you then get a camera you can easily fit in a bag or big pocket. Even the Nikonos, with lens, could fit in a big cargo pocket.

Old Arrow–

The reason I like screw down watersealing systems is the inherent problems in hinged doors, now doors with real latches that tighten when turned 90 degrees to latch would be a possibility–that’s the system the Nikonos used.

I think the camera makers are missing a large market for a camera with better sealing and a somewhat bigger box+sensor–raw too of course. I bought my Pentax tough years ago. And I’m not real inspired to replace it with more pixels. (Only interesting developments have been BSI and F2.0 lenses–not news to you I’d posit.)

As you recall, Nikonos III uses an o-ring around the upper rim of the deck simply pushed into the casing. The lens locks it together, its own o-ring sealing the port simultaneously.
Nikonos V's lens is sealed and spring-locked into its port in the same way, and the back door had a ring in the groove, loose hinges on one side and a locking latch on the other.
Acually, any hinge / latch arrangement is only important in the first two or so meters of depth anyway, since the seals have to be in proper "starting" positions to adjust to the growing pressure. After that, the pressure makes both the opening of the hatch or removal of the lens nearly impossible.
The screw-down arangement or tightening latches do not augment the sealing quality. Remember that the door and/or the lens are seated metal-to-metal, and the o-ring sealing ability comes from its alignment within all four sides of its groove, and not from tightening force of the mechanism (unlike some of the Ikelite case models).

OA--

You've thought about this more than I have, but I still think that in shallow water, before pressure is the sealing force, a latch that tightens the door against the O ring in the grove would keep the seal better than what's offered today on these "tough cameras".

I don't own a Nikonos anymore so can't easily check your points. I apprehend the one about the metal keeping the rings in place, but a metal to metal seal seems far fetched.

(I guess you could me that the metal of the door touches the metal of the body and the O ring is in a grove slightly bigger than the resting diameter of said O ring and closing the door expands the O ring to fill the space, while at the same time the metal touches metal. Then still you'd want a latch that snugs up while closing not one that's only open or closed. You'd want this property to compensate for any variation in the O ring sizing--a variation that could come from age or temperature.)