Dive in: Waterproof compact group test posted

The IQ of the first sample photo (dock, boats, etc.) at full size is beyond bad, it's awful. OK for email sharing, but no way could you do even an 8x10in print of anything detailed, much less do any cropping/enlarging.
Oh, well, maybe next year...

Dec 3, 2014permalink

Bowest

Is there any other camera that is water resistant that could just be used not for underwater but in rain.

Oct 25, 2014*permalink

There are a lot of weatherproof cameras, but they cost more, and they are usually bigger and heavier. GH3, etc. On the other hand, you can get far better images, and great video with them. Google "weather proof" or "weather sealed" cameras and see what comes up.

Dec 3, 2014permalink

SLOHarmer

Has anyone tried out the Olympus dive housing for the TG-3? I read that Ikelite just produced a dive housing for this camera, and I am curious how the two stack against each other.
Thanks.

Oct 9, 2014permalink

Bowest

SLOHarmer, why would you want a dive case for the TG-3. It's underwater rated down to about 40 ft.

Oct 25, 2014permalink

Serious divers don't always stop at 40ft, and going through surf can create sudden pressure changes. Also, a certain percentage of TG cameras do leak at even shallow depths.

Dec 3, 2014permalink

BobSter66

Can someone explain what is involved in toggling the GPS on/off on the Canon Powershot D30. Is is just a question of using a different menu or do you have to do something fundamental like reset the whole camera ?

TIA

Sep 20, 2014permalink

BobSter66

OP says: In the absence of a response, I took the bus back into town to investigate further. Turns out that the GPS doesn't work at all (all GPS menu options are greyed-out) until you set the time and date. That was the problem - the store display models had bybassed that setup step. Once those initial settings are done, it is a simple matter to toggle the GPS on and off from either of two easily-accessible menus.

Oct 3, 2014permalink

fracam

Where did you get the case? Sounds ideal for snorkeling. Thanks F

Sep 2, 2014permalink

ecm

There are other options. I use a $35 soft underwater case with my good quality compact zoom, and I have no issues. I'm particular about sealing the case and I always test in the hotel before going out. The two items together give me better quality photos for less than the cheapest of these models. For occasional snaps while snorkeling on your yearly holiday you don't need a dedicated undewater camera.

Aug 27, 2014permalink

Steven Woodward

I managed to get a TG-3 about a month ago (from Best Buy in Canada) and have had plenty of fun with it, UNTIL I decided to take it scuba-diving. Once I reached about 30-feet-deep, the camera controls locked up and I could see that the rear protective screen was deforming enough from the pressure that it was actually touching the LCD beneath. Not good! There was no water infiltration at all, but what this means (assuming this is a design and/or manufacturing defect common to all TG-3s) is that the camera is nowhere near capable of the claimed 50-foot depths (you'd need the $300 underwater housing to really do any significant diving with it). Olympus have asked me to send the camera in for "repair," but I'm not sure what that repair would consist of. AND I'm lumped with a $50 bill for shipping and insurance after having the camera for just a month.

Aug 21, 2014permalink

SLOHarmer

What was the outcome of this case? It sounds like you got a defective camera, but if none of these cameras can handle a 30 foot dive, then I would not be comfortable taking this camera snorkeling. Thanks.

Oct 9, 2014permalink

dannormal

I purchased the TG2. It is an okay camera. It has one sales breaker which I suspect most have, including these new ones. When I am in bright sunlight (down the beach or snorkeling and swimming or down the park with the kids and the dog) the LCD display is impossible to see. I mean impossible, not difficult or a little bit bad, I mean impossible. Too many reviews I have read either ignore this fact or fail to emphasize this fact strongly enough. Particularly in the conclusions section. It makes framing pot luck, click and hope if you like. My strong advise is only buy these types of cameras after trying one in the sun.

Aug 14, 2014permalink

m61376

The screen on the TG3 is markedly better. My daughter has the TG2 and I just bought the TG3 and the screen difference is not just hype. I had trouble seeing the screen on the TG3 with sunglasses in bright sunlight, but could with the newer model.

Aug 20, 2014permalink

Michel Gignac

Simply install over the screen a matt screen protector like the one you would use over your smart phone. I did that and I can see just fine even in brigh sunlight. And it resists water when you snorkel with the camera.

Oct 25, 2014permalink

roperv

Purchased the Olympus TG 3 on Friday and returning it on Tuesday. Very disappointed. I gave it a quick test (video & pix) around the house and it seemed to be working perfectly. Used it again that evening and it had trouble focusing quickly, maintaining focus, or not focusing at all. This applied to pix and video. Tried it again the following day and it seems to be "almost" in focus. Using the video in a quiet situation and you record the motorized zoom. I have a TG 830 that has worked perfectly, in and out of the water. Maybe this was just a defective device but I think I'll look long and hard before making my next purchase. By-the-way, your reviews are great, They are very useful in my decision making.

Aug 5, 2014permalink

I bought TG-2 for brighter F2 lens, 25mm wider angle, OEM WA and Tele conversion lens. Other than that, TG-2 is a so so camera, and the (low-light) IQ is no better than my Nokia phone.

Per other review sites, TG-3 has more noise than TG-2 because higher MP count.

Aug 11, 2014*permalink

@roperv,

The problems that you mentioned are carrying over from TG-2, and TG-2 has more problems which TG-3 should have as well.

Aug 14, 2014permalink

Valiant Thor

It could be too that maybe your home and family actually went out of focus that evening and never recovered. It happens.

Aug 17, 2014permalink

Mario russell

i do adventure hiking in rivers and the camera is always in the water and getting bounced around on rocks.Ii own a AW 100 but everytime i go in water to take a picture there is a water spot on the lens.Resulting with pictures with water marks and blotches. Totally useless once in water.GPS unnecessary.
i want to purchase a new camera so i am looking at my options.i also would prefer Raw.
Nikon1aw1 vs Sony RX100 11 with a water-proof case vsTG-3 vs GO-PRO
I like the new sony RX100 111 but no waterproof case has been released as yet.
What is the best option?

Jul 16, 2014*permalink

http://www.nauticamusa.com/news/2014/7/17/new-housing-for-sony-rx100-mk-iii

Sony RX100 111 waterproof case was released last week.

"Nauticam is pleased to announce the release of it's newest aluminum underwater camera housing for the Sony RX100 III. The NA-RX100III"

Jul 24, 2014permalink

Observation regarding the tests. They are very well done and very helpful. However...the space needle test is "too ideal" for the outdoor shot. One set of tests needs to be done to test the dynamic range in "less than ideal" lighting. Point roughly in the direction of the sun near noon...feature a lot of sky, areas in the shade (like hills) and preferably a tree line against a bright sky. THAT would be illustrative.

For video (roughly) the frame of reference in the tests does not move which isn't realistic. These cameras will be used frequently on dirtbikes, kayaks, boats, etc... A proper test would be to create a mount for the 4 cameras...slap it to a bike/kayak...cruise though an area with strong shadows/highlights and see what happens!

Really wish the Hero 3 was included in these tests. Different animal I know...kind of...but similar enough it should be compared with other ruggeds.

Jul 12, 2014permalink

AW120 and AW100 owner here. Not sure about the complaint that the screen is hard to see? Is very easy for me to see outdoors. Does scratch easily though. Not sure about the jab at the AW120's overly serious GPS system...is lifesaver when trying to find take-outs when kayaking.

The AW120 is substantially better than the AW100 when it comes to field of view, white balance, dynamic range, bad noise reduction and low-light situations. Still are dynamic range issues with some light conditions but all cameras struggle with strong light/shadows. Wish the 120 had a polarizing filter attachment like the 100. The hyrbid VR kills field of view for video and I turn it off. Water fog is getting behind the lens unfortunately (they were supposed to fix this). It does dry out...but still. Wish it supported 60p at 1080...Hero 4 will have 4k and support 1080 at 120 FPS with tone mapping! Good camera with issues...almost got the TG3 but that overexposes pictures and takes smudgy videos.

Jul 12, 2014permalink

tom1234567

WHERE is the Pentax K3

Jul 11, 2014permalink

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eo61t5fH6Qw

You can not submerge K3 in water, but it is weather sealed just like K5 and K7 as seem in the video clip:

Jul 12, 2014permalink

AlexReusch

I own the Ricoh WG-4 GPS and I must say that this camera is far from being waterproof. The locking mechanism is very loose and it does not seal properly. The camera is totally new, but already after a few days of using, it stopped working. Max. dive depth was 1m and I took care of my equipment. I had a Panasonic model before, which is after 3 years of heavy usage still working great (gave it to a friend). Also, the battery is not making reliable contact. The whole concept seems to me a design failure. I cannot recommend this camera. I will exchange it, when back home. Too bad, it ruined a part of my holidays...

Jul 11, 2014permalink

Flex M

Sorry about your missed shots.. :(
However if the product is defective as you state " locking mechanism is very loose and it does not seal properly" - why risk taking it underwater??
I've had mine for a while now and the waterproofing is pretty beefy in comparison to other cams. There is a two-latch system. The second latch locks to make sure that you don't accidentaly undo the main one.
Even though this cam is rated down to like 40ft, I'd personally not take it nor any of the others below 20 - 25ft. None of these are real dive cameras, but they're good enough for most on the water and a little under, uses.
Hope you can get your cam replaced under warranty!

Jul 22, 2014*permalink

santamonica812

For me, the initial question I would ask about ANY digital camera is: does it shoot RAW? It's sort of hard to believe that in an article about camera reviews where about 10 factors are looked at, RAW capability was considered less important than all the others that were given.

Was the article written with the assumption that serious photographers would only be interested in DSLR cameras with underwater housings?

Odd odd omission.

Jul 7, 2014permalink

pixel_colorado

RAW?...these are inexpensive compact cameras whose main claim to fame is they are rugged and fun to use.

Jul 9, 2014permalink

franta123

Just to be pedantic:
the abbreviation for "continued" is "cont.", not "con't".
It should not bother me, but it does.

Jul 4, 2014permalink

Music Hands

Better yet, cont'd.

Aug 26, 2014permalink

arieswar

a waterproof camera with bigger sensor would be interesting

Jun 28, 2014permalink

recsea pl

I thing that underwater cameras like this are more like a "toys" than "real underwater setup". Many of my shots http://bluecorner.pl/fotografiapodwodna/ I made quite deep. It is impossible to achieve such good effects without good setup. Many interesting species live deeper not on shallow depths. When you go deeper you need strobe because it is getting dark.

I think that RX100 I/II with housing is more expensive but much more flexible option. You can go much deeper. You got RAW editing, external strobe options, wide range of converters for macro or wide angle to extend your setup in the future.

Cameras like this are good for holidays or snorkeling. If you dive a lot, probably you got money to buy and carry much better setup :).

Jun 26, 2014permalink

Jefftan

no sample photo for WG-4, can dpreview fix this?
Thanks

Jun 26, 2014permalink

Leandros S

Why so few underwater shots in the samples galleries, especially for the Olympus, which you declared to be the winner?

Jun 23, 2014permalink

shenlonco

Funny why no Panasonic lumix I got one and it works really good!

Jun 21, 2014permalink

Jefftan

I own a TG-2. I am curious whether 16MP TG-3 is an upgrade or downgrade from TG-2 under low light
TG-2 has done alot right, quick operation, good battery life,good WB but my biggest complain is heavy noise reduction
Don't know whether they use lower NR in TG-3

Curiously Sony the innovator in the industry just give up or is it really? or rather something revolutionary is planned next year? I own TX-5 the first one with 10 MP and is generally happy with it. Sadly the camera is lost under sea and successor IQ go downhill. Really want a truly new waterproof cam from Sony

Right now, only 2 camera is worth considering TG-3 and WG-4 for the F2 lens

Jun 21, 2014permalink

"I own TX-5 the first one with 10 MP and is generally happy with it. ...and successor IQ go downhill."

This is expected as TX5 is 10MP -> TX10/20 is 16.2MP -> TX30/200 is 18MP.

For the same sensor size, the higher the MP = The lower the IQ.

Sensor technology has been improving, BUT the improvement is not fast enough to offset the increasing in MP.

Jun 22, 2014*permalink

bondiphotos

I'm not enthused about any of the above. Back to the drawing board. May have to consider a AW1. Wish Canon would make an equivalent.

Jun 21, 2014permalink

DO NOT BUY ANY OF THESE!!! is the best advice I can give you.

I purchased the best of the past years' roundups, the Panasonic, figuring that it should be a little bit better than the dismal tiny-sensor cameras out there.
Boy was I wrong, and it was wasted money. It became an expensive hand-me-down for my 8 year old girl - at least she can drop it, we can take it out on the inflatable kayak, and she is delighted with all she does with it (stop motion video, pictures of her dog...) and she's just too delighted to discover what she can do with a camera to worry about IQ.

If you are to get yourself a waterproof camera, get at least something with a 1" sensor or larger if any are available. I haven't researched this in the past months, but I do remember Nikon has the waterproof version of their Nikon-1. That is what you should get.

If you're going to have crappy image quality that these things deliver, you may as well just get the Sony waterproof smartphone and use that instead.

Jun 21, 2014*permalink

It seems that "Sony waterproof smartphone" works for you very well than Panasonic. Keep use it.

Jun 21, 2014permalink

...or buy the cheapest one for $100 (not review here) and enjoy taking pictures with the same IQ as these overpriced crappy IQ cameras.

Jun 21, 2014permalink

http://www.amazon.com/COOLPIX-Waterproof-Digital-Camera-2-7-inch/dp/B009E9D7YO/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&qid=1403353709&sr=8-7&keywords=waterproof+camera

For $59, there is the "Nikon COOLPIX S30 Waterproof Digital Camera" from amazon.

As always, there are WP cameras for every one @different price/quality...

Jun 21, 2014*permalink

CaseyComo

I have the AW120. It can take decentish pics, and, of course, the real perk is that it can take them in places where I wouldn't bring my other cameras.

I also like the fact that I can give it to my 6 and 8 year old sons and not worry about drops, etc. It's like any camera...it has its uses and it's good as long as one has reasonable expectations. Except Leicas...those things make no sense ;)

Jun 21, 2014permalink

The IQ may not be great, but I was able to use my TG-1 to get 17th place in the "Olympus non SLR" challenge. Beat out several entries made by cameras with larger sensors such as the OM-D E-M1. These ratings are certainly subjective, but if the image quality was truly "crappy", as you state, then I wouldn't think that many people would have voted for it. Not saying the TG cameras are remotely comparable to the OM-D line, but it seems a bit unfair to write them off entirely.

My challenge post using the TG-1:
http://www.dpreview.com/challenges/Entry.aspx?ID=833881&View=Results&Rows=4

Jun 22, 2014permalink

ChrisAN82, Congratulations, nice picture. Wouldn't you say that this picture was taken under ideal light for any camera? I bet what won you the 17th wasn't picture IQ but composition.
Now, under the water these cameras IQ is "crappy" even at 8"x10" print size. I own an Oly myself and aside from the fact that it is fun to use in a pool and that the kids can drop it I don't see photographic quality worth mentioning aside from convenience. If you really want to take good quality pictures underwater (I'm a diver) then buy yourself a housing for you favorite camera and use it underwater. Best pictures are taken no deeper than 5-10 meters deep.

Jun 23, 2014*permalink

lacikuss, thanks! Totally agree about the lighting and composition. That picture was taken in nice bright light. My only point was that these cameras can take nice shots, unlike the "crap" rating that Timmbits stated above.
True, the underwater IQ isn't amazing. It seems these cameras aren't designed for ultimate IQ though. They're designed for, as you stated, convenience. I've used Olympus Tough cameras in freshwater lakes, the ocean, on snowy freezing ski slopes, and rowdy bachelor party weekends in Las Vegas, and they have survived all of it. Heck, I even had one survive going through the wash cycle and dryer and work fine afterwards. How many other cameras, for the price, could survive all that? They are extremely convenient and still manage to take acceptable, and sometimes great, images.

Jun 25, 2014permalink

ChrisAN82,

Very well said, I do not think Timmbits can see ANY difference between 1" sensor and Oly-TG for your sample shot even @8x10.

Good shot!

Jun 25, 2014permalink

Thanks Mike FL!

Jun 25, 2014permalink

Sam in Hawaii

The Nikon 1 AW 1 is reportedly not actually all that waterproof; apparently, it's super-finicky about the various seals. Underwater photography is miserably hard. A "real" camera in a Melkon $100 housing does a much better job than any ruggedized camera I've seen.

Jun 25, 2014permalink

Some of you did not get the point I was making, in trying to help those who rely on these reviews to make their purchases. Ask yourself, what is the purpose of offering all this "advice" for free? It is the ultimate marketing newsletter that customers actually read, it is designed to stimulate sales. But these cameras are NOT worthy of your hard-earned dollars, offering LOUSY IQ, like ANY other 1/2"sensor camera, in water or out of water, regardless! And no, I do not have a Sony underwater phone - but before spending a couple or a few hundred, and accepting the dismal image quality, I totally would get that instead.
But if you want good IQ (or acceptable IQ if you prefer), get something with a bigger sensor or don't bother.
Vote with your money!

Jul 21, 2014permalink

Timmbits,
Interesting comment about smartphones. I gave up on "tough" cameras due to the horrendous IQ; I came to this page (again) today after googling "tough cam vs. waterproof smart phone."
So far it looks like smartphones are winning in this category.
BTW, the Nikon 1 AW1 was pulled from the US market but still available in Japan. However, with no IS (did they assume that it wasn't needed underwater) there's little point to it since above-water (did they assume no one would ever take it out of the water?) capability will be reduced.

Dec 8, 2014permalink

well said @Kawika

about the 1aw1 system:
I do believe that in the density of water, IS is superfluous, but it is nice to have out of the water.

?maybe they detected that the physics causes wobbles underwater if the rotational frequency is the same as in atmosphere?

Regardless... with the LX100, the GX7, and other models coming out next year, having an ILS with a 1" sensor has become less relevant.

It would be nice/interesting to see if any of the cameras with fixed lens will be introduced in a waterproof version.

PS: I simply gave my Panasonic TS (a gold award winner here) to my little girl. she plays with it, takes films and pictures of her little dog, makes stop motion video, and we took a few underwater pics in the public pool. it's OK for that. but it's rather expensive for a toy.

Dec 18, 2014*permalink

rondhamalam

Bought AW120 and returned it within a week...
It's awfully flare and glare sensitive that you cannot see any details, and the flash is inconsistently Overexposure.

Jun 20, 2014permalink

http://kayakfari.wordpress.com/trips-sea-stories-pics/random-gallery-2/florida-south-florida/urban-paddling-in-south-flaariduh-florida/kayaking-the-boca-raton-holiday-boat-parade/

AW120 owner here. I only get flare issues if there is dirt on the lens. Definitely make sure the lens is very clean. If you have glare issues, you may need to use the exposure compensation dial. For the most part strong glare should only appear in high dynamic range pictures (strong light/shadows)...else the white balance mode can take care of this. You may be shooting in harsh lighting conditions that are not suited for any rugged camera.

Jul 12, 2014permalink

rondhamalam

My lens was very clean. From new I took care carefully. The glare started since new. It is the camera problem. Very sensitive to the glare, any mild light from above creates glare. I have D800, D700, D5100, and good lenses, the wife had the Canon lines. I have been using digital cameras since 2004.

Jul 18, 2014*permalink

Flex M

I can vouch for the Pentax WG-3 (basically same as Ricoh WG-4). None of these cams look good at 100%, but I narrowed it down to the Oly TG-2 and the WG-3. Chose the Pentax on the basis of better user interface and much lower cost (at the time was like $200)!
It handles well, allowing me to program quick access via the 'Green' button to ISO, EV, WB, AE metering as well as the standard 4-way controller for AF, flash & drive mode which includes BRACKETING!!Tthe Dual SR system really does help, and I can take decent shots from a moving kayak at night at ISO 800 f/2 1/4 to 1/8 sec exposures - not bad for this little cam:

http://kayakfari.wordpress.com/trips-sea-stories-pics/grass-paddling-in-the-east-everglades-expansion-area/

You can check out the full-screen panoramas and zoom in to see the IQ!
-Flex

Jun 19, 2014permalink

When downsizing the images all look the same so way pay more than $100 for that?

Jun 21, 2014permalink

PedroMZ

I cannot understand why manufacturers do not use the larger sensor from the G series Canon or the Lumix LX 7 for example. The cameras would still be very pocketable (the zooms are only very modest anyway) and the IQ would be very substantially improved. These cameras are often the ones you have with you in wonderful unspoilt countryside with great landscape opportunities yet you are rewarded with images of such mediocre quality (even at ISO 100) that anything bigger than A4 is not contemplatable.

Jun 19, 2014permalink

If manufacturers REDUCE the megapixels by half or more, the "IQ would be very substantially improved". Guaranteed!

That's why Enthusiast/High-end P&S has LARGER sensor, but LESS megapixels because manufacturers do NOT want to fool enthusiasts who understand right and wrong.

Unfortunately, most people think that more the megapixels, better the camera which makes manufacturers has no choice other than increasing the megapixels, such as TG2 -> TG3.

Sad for the inconvenient truth.

Jun 19, 2014*permalink

The "tough cams" are true marvels of miniaturization. Those lenses are in there sideways, with mirrors or prisms bending the light like a periscope, just so the lenses could fit into the box.
Larger sensors will not just mean slightly larger bodies. To get an optical path 50% wider (that's a 1 stop improvement), they'd need either a body that's 50% thicker, or to drop the whole concept of "periscope" optics and return to a protruding lens.

Jun 19, 2014permalink

double post- deleted

Jun 19, 2014*permalink

double post -deleted

Jun 19, 2014*permalink

double post - deleted

Jun 19, 2014*permalink

double post - deleted

Jun 19, 2014*permalink

double post - deleted

Jun 19, 2014*permalink

Sorry, don't know if it's my browser or DPreview software. First it seemed like my "Post" button got stuck, then I got seven identical posts.

Jun 19, 2014*permalink

duplicate post - deleted

Jun 19, 2014*permalink

to Mike FL:
Mike, nothing stops you from reducing the resolution in postprocessing. Or setting the camera to shoot in lower resolution (I often do so).

Jun 19, 2014permalink

"setting the camera to shoot in lower resolution" may lower the IQ.

"Higher sensor MP = lower IQ" which was what I meant.

Jun 19, 2014*permalink

Downsizing images with good software on a powerful PC will improve iQ by about the same margin.

Jun 19, 2014permalink

We need a waterproof RX100, simple as that.

Jun 21, 2014permalink

I bet manufactures don't want to jeopardize their already lucrative market of pro-underwater gear...

Jun 23, 2014permalink

kelpdiver

If the object truly is a waterproof camera, not just something that is ok if dropped in the pool, you can take almost any Canon or Olympus model and then buy the truly "waterproof" (130+ft) housings. The housings are 150-200 over, but if you don't care about 1080p video, there's an abundance of cheap older used models whose jpg output is just as good.

Jun 19, 2014permalink

sderdiarian

And the value winner is...the Pentax WG3. Same lens and other specs as the re-badged WG4, but sells for $249 on Amazon. Look no further.

Jun 18, 2014permalink

Sony DSC-TX30 (on Amazon) for less than $200 is not bad at all.

Jun 19, 2014permalink

FWIW:

You can get 20mm wide angle from Pentax WG3 by using O-LA135 lens adapter + DW-5 Ricoh Wide Conversion Lens.

U also can mount 3nd party Telephoto Conversion lens on O-LA135.

But, the above solutions are NOT as same as Oly-TG1&2&3 because Oly's WA and TeleA are waterproof.

BTW:
Oly also released a "LED Light Guide, LG-1" for macro photography, and LG-1 can be used for TG-1&2&3.

Jun 19, 2014permalink

Mike, IIRC, Sony tough cams have touchscreens, which don't work when wet.

Jun 20, 2014permalink

BorisK1, I think Pentax WG3 is a better deal than Sony because WG3 has faster and wider lens for only $50 more.

Jun 20, 2014*permalink

Agreed. The faster lens makes a huge difference in usability.

Jun 20, 2014permalink

jeffharris

With such small sensors, If manufacturers would keep the megapixels LOWER the image quality could be much better! 10MP or below is perfectly good for cameras like theses.

I have Olympus TG1 and an earlier Tough camera (TC130?)

Jun 18, 2014permalink

Increasing megapixels actually *increases* the IQ of the final image. A large-MP image delivers high resolution, though with noise and shallow DR.
Then, if you like, you can use a combination of NR and downsiampling to obtain a smaller image with less noise and deeper DR - the same IQ you would've gotten from a lower-MP sensor, but with more resolution.

Jun 20, 2014*permalink

I am ignoring BorisK's remark, and replying to the original post.
Yes, larger photosites would help, but going from 12 or 14, down to 10mp, you are still dealing with TINY photosites. I think that a 1" sensor is the absolute minimum size in these modern times - otherwise you may as well just settle for the Sony waterproof smartphone! why bother with this crappy IQ you get from these tiny sensors?

Jul 21, 2014permalink

Daniel Clune

Smart phones are NOT as good as these camera period. I been using a Nikon AW110. Is it great, no. BUT it way better than any cell phone I have seen. Iam a kayaker and paddle with groups and we all post pictures from the paddles. All the ones who use cell phones whether there iphones or androids the pictures suck compared to my Aw110. not even close.

Dec 31, 2015permalink

Daniel, I think your friends' phones might have the image marred by the plastic casings and ziplock bags. you can count the number of waterproof smartphones out there on half a hand. so you and I both know that something is covering their lenses.
now I am not a fan of smartphones.
but other users have commented that their underwater cameras are no better than the best of the smartphones (those that own one).
I agree, almost all smartphones are NOT as good as these cameras.
but these cameras are SO BAD, that they aren't any better than the best of the smartphones.

hence, what I was saying, why even bother?
just make a waterproof version of the best of the smartphones - or at least a model with the best of the lens+sensor combination, and force makers to come up with something better than this junk.

my underwater camera won editor's pick.
and it is now a toy for my little daughter.

Jan 10, 2016permalink

springsnow

I wonder if it's better to just use your smartphone if you have waterproof ones like the SGS5 or the Xperia Z lineup. I mean none of these have anything particularly stellar in terms of image quality, and since most people would downsize them anyway, imo a smartphone would be good enough.

Jun 18, 2014permalink

areichow

If those are good enough for you, great - use that! You're not in the target market.

I don't own a waterproof compact and I'm not in the market for one. If I did more canoeing or kayaking I would seriously consider it. It'd probably go for a stand alone camera over a waterproof smartphone because a $300-350 camera is cheaper than a $400-700 off-contract smartphone, because of the better IQ, because of the optical zoom, and because the camera is going to get a lot better battery life than a smartphone. When I go camping or backpacking, I can't leave my phone powered on all the time - I usually turn it on once or twice a day. Any more than that and I'm going to be out of battery after a single day. Most smartphones wouldn't make it through an entire day if you were also taking it out and taking pictures with any regularity.

Jun 18, 2014permalink

kelpdiver

smartphone is a much more expensive loss if it floods. That SGS5 is only rated as water resistance to 1m, which means that even skin diving to 10 ft is a questionable drill. And don't forget that dynamic pressure (swimming up and down) is very different than static pressure.

Jun 19, 2014permalink

@springsnow, I fully agree with you!
I own the Panasonic, which was tied 1st place with the Sony in the previous roundup, and I am extremely dissatisfied with the image quality (in or out of water). these cameras are not worth our money, or our memories. I use an APS for everyday photography, and would not consider a 1" sensor camera for that, but I certainly would for underwater. In fact, I think it is the ideal compromise.

Jul 21, 2014permalink

siquijor

Even at ten meters if a camera is moved quickly the pressure will exceed its maximum. Pointless for scuba and even questionable fr snorkeling.

Jun 18, 2014permalink

odoketa

I can definitely say this is not true for snorkeling. I would be quite surprised if it's true for diving. Among other things, if you're flailing about at 20m you are not a very good diver (I just spent a week with some of those folks, and they had enough trouble without adding a camera into the mix).

Jun 20, 2014permalink

Summerhill

I want a waterproof camera to take kayaking, etc. I may drop it in the water,but won't be diving with it. I would like to have the highest quality pictures I can get in a compact...that can be dropped in the water.

Are there other cameras that I should consider?

Jun 18, 2014permalink

varelse

iPhone 5 + Lifeproof Nuud Case + Lifeproof float jacket, is what I use to complement the Dslr kit for kayaking and snorkeling. I'm done with quirky, yet another compromised compacts.

Jun 18, 2014permalink

areichow

The Nikon 1 AW1, which has a much larger sensor and better image quality than the cameras in this review. Another option, though very expensive, is getting a waterproof case. Those will run you about as much as one of these cameras by itself. An RX100 with ah underwater case would give you great image quality, but the case by itself will set you back $400...

Jun 18, 2014permalink

Nudibranco

except that it is big and not with right focal for UW images

Jun 18, 2014permalink

chrisby

I use my waterproof camera mainly for bad weather and dust and dirt protection. You should look at Panasonic FT5. I have the FT3, quite old, and picture quality is really good. Picture quality of FT4/FT5 is even better. Also according reviews: if you more look for picture quality you cannot do wrong with FT serie!

Jun 19, 2014permalink

What kind of kayaking? If it's open ocean or whitewater (and if you want to shoot without pulling off the sprayskirt), rugged cams are by far the most convenient, because they'd fit into a small PFD pocket. (I'd recommend Olympus for battery life and fast responses, or Panasonic TS-5 if video is a priority).

If it's lakes or calm rivers, or if you're okay with pulling the sprayskirt each time you need to take a picture, I'd go for a Sony RX 100 II or III in a waterproof case, or a Nikon AW.

Jun 19, 2014permalink

slncezgsi

Seems that these rugger water tight cameras are left behind - not much has happened in the handling or IQ department over past few years - contrary to high end P&S and mirror less cameras.

Jun 18, 2014permalink

J. Michael

overall image quality is gar-bage. Toys at best.

Jun 18, 2014permalink

sierranvin

The comparison table says Canon model = 12mp
The Canon-specific page says it has 16mp
This review is providing me with a less than pleasing handling experience.

Jun 18, 2014permalink

Jeff Keller

It's 12.1MP. Camera-specific page has been fixed.

Jun 18, 2014permalink

Shellblower

Including the AW1 using JPG unfortunately will not show what is really possible with the AW1 as the JPG engine is not the best. Developing AW1 RAWs with DxO is another thing.
Of course the f/2.0 lenses of the compacts are one stop better than the 10mm fixed AW lens and one and a half stop better than the AW zoom but in the end (having good light) it is possbile to capture way more detail with the AW1 than with any of the compacts hence even under ideal conditions (good light, base ISO) IQ does not get any better with the compacts.

Jun 18, 2014permalink

"Of course the f/2.0 lenses of the compacts are one stop better than the 10mm fixed AW lens and one and a half stop better than the AW zoom"

FWIW:
It is NOT totally true. The Oly TG could have 4 stop (1.5 stop lens + 2.5 stop Image stabilization) better than AW1's zoom lens because AW1 does NOT have any Images stabilization (for both lens).

"4 stop" is a LOT which is ISO 400 vs 6400 (or ISO 1000 vs ISO 16,000 which Nikon does not have).

BTW:
I'm not sure if AW1 can produce useable 5"x7"(low-light) pictures from ISO 6400...

Jun 19, 2014*permalink

Shellblower

2.5 stops for IS for me is a bit optimistic and it only applies for static scenes. But anyway, AW1 wins in the category 'best achieveable qualiy'.

Jun 21, 2014permalink

Marvol

Another comparison that would be worth making is against a mirrorless or small DSLR (or even a high-end compact) and an underwater casing.
As people might already have that camera plus lens, the *opportunity cost* of just the casing could well be *lower* than buying one of those specialised cameras.

Then of course it should be no contest regarding image quality (esp because such cam will shoot RAW) but it would be interesting WRT handling.

Jun 18, 2014permalink

Marvol

As mentioned below, pity you didn't (couldn't, maybe) include the Nikon 1 system waterproof version.
Would have been great for two reasons:
1) does the larger sensor REALLY blow the rest out of the water (no pun intended) quality wise?
2) is the extra money worth spending for those that want a better all-round and more flexible underwater/rugged system?

Jun 18, 2014permalink

Shellblower

Jun 18, 2014permalink

Nikon AW 1 does not compete against "rugged cams". It's built for different scenarios.

A Nikon AW 1 should be compared against the likes of Sony RX100 III in a waterproof case.

Jun 18, 2014permalink

Marvol

@Boris: Rubbish.

From DPR's First Impressions Review (and simply the AW1 spec sheet), it is waterproof to 15m, shockproof to 2m and freezeproof to -10C. That's only significantly worse for depth than the Canon in this test. Only two of four in the test are crushproof (which is the least important for your average snorkler/swimmer/snowboarder).

Jun 18, 2014permalink

@Marvol: "Rubbish" - nice of you to publish your real name!

Mr Rubbish, try to put that AW1 into a PFD/wetsuit/swimsuit pocket, attach it to a lanyard, or clip it to a harness. *Then* try doing something, you know, active. *While* taking pictures.

Even if you, mr. Rubbish, could fit it somewhere on your esteemed person, see how long it survives any real activity.

Or perhaps, mr. Rubbish, you could compare the outside dimensions of the two cameras without leaving the comfort of your favorite recycle bin:

Nikon AW 1, with 11-27.5mm f/3.5-5.6 lens (leaving a generous 10 mm for the mount):
114 x 72 x 82 mm (4.47 x 2.81 x 3.23″)
Olympus TG-3:
112 x 66 x 31 mm (4.41 x 2.6 x 1.22″)

To summarize:
http://4.static.img-dpreview.com/files/p/TS375x375~products/nikon_aw1/shots/472e6c08b2144ef0b6b2f1c259a464de.png
*This*, mr. Rubbish, is *not* a rugged cam.

http://4.static.img-dpreview.com/files/p/TS375x375~products/oly_tg3/shots/ed6755c107ef481083bffebb8f891558.png
*This* is a rugged cam.

Jun 19, 2014permalink

What's with people demanding RAW on a camera with 16 million pixels on a tiny 1/2.3" sensor? Look at the pictures, they have noise (VISIBLE IN JPEG!) even at base ISO!
What do you expect from RAW, more encoded noise? Because JPEG at max quality already encodes 12 bit/pixel, and those tiny pixels don't have even 10 bits of information (as opposed to noise) in them!
Want to correct the picture - go ahead and correct the JPEG. Same thing. RAW is not going to turn these 16 mpix into 16 mpix from D4s!
Besides, except on Oly and Pentax at the very wide end, these pixels are way smaller than Airy disks, and even then Bayer-interpolated! Downscale 4:1 and stop fooling yourself.

Jun 18, 2014*permalink

sbszine

I'd like RAW on these for contrast and colour, not noise and sharpness. Having an in-camera contrast setting would do.

Jun 18, 2014permalink

JimH

Yes. The one thing I really love having RAW files for is for white balance. Once the wrong WB is encoded/compressed in JPG, it's really hard to make any major changes without exposing the non-linear compression of the JPG file.

So RAW can be handy. But I agree that you're never going to get the sharpness out of one of these tiny sensors that you'd get with a larger-sensor camera.

Jun 18, 2014permalink

JimH,

I used Oly TG-2 for about 4,000 shots across more than 10 different countries, and the scenes includes cold, warm, fog, rain, snow, sunny, day, evening, indoor... Oly TG-2's auto WB performance is much better than my other cameras, such as Pana LX7's iAUTO as far as I can see/tell.

I agree with you that it is not easy to correct JPG's WB, and it is ALMOST impossible in some cases.

Jun 18, 2014*permalink

(unknown member)

Dynamic Range!

Jun 18, 2014permalink

Daniel Stehura

Ever since Sushi came around everybody wants RAW. They want RAW on an iPhone, RAW on their iWatch and you know it's not going to happen!

Jun 18, 2014permalink

"I'd like RAW on these for contrast and colour, not noise and sharpness."

You can do it on JPEG, just as well! What stops you? I know, it is better on RAW - ON m43 and up because their big pixels have extra info not encoded in the JPEG. These tiny P&S pixels do not.

Jun 18, 2014permalink

"Yes. The one thing I really love having RAW files for is for white balance. Once the wrong WB is encoded/compressed in JPG, it's really hard to make any major changes without exposing the non-linear compression of the JPG file."

1) Don't use highly compressed JPEG, use superfine.
2) AutoWB does not make terrible mistakes, usually only small adjustment is needed.
3) Their sensors would not provide more information in RAW either, stop projecting your experience with MUCH MUCH bigger pixels on these.

Jun 18, 2014permalink

Daniel Stehura

Buy a waterproof case for a Sony RX 100 III and blow all these cameras away. They will never get a Waterproof camera up to these Specs in your Lifetime!

Jun 18, 2014permalink

I do not think there is REAL demand for RAW for these cameras.

If company can sell more cameras by just having RAW, they will add it as it is NOT a big deal for any company.

BTW: Nokia is starting to add RAW to its Windows' Phone.

Jun 18, 2014*permalink

"Buy a waterproof case for a Sony RX 100 III and "

...try to put the resulting contraption into your trunk pocket. :)

Jun 18, 2014permalink

Jan Toude

I need RAW to tweak noise reduction to my taste. I prefer more details and more noise. Also, having RAW allows to use time-consuming noise reduction methods. In future, new noise reduction algorithms will surely appear, and this will allow me to improve my old photos. I almost always shoot RAW with my Canon PowerShot A1300 + CHDK (16MP 1/2.3" CCD).

Jun 18, 2014permalink

springsnow

I hear you. I had the highly praised Panasonic FZ200 super zoom that has 1/2.3" sensor, and often times, trying to tweak the RAW to look exceptional feels more of a waste of time than just using the JPEG.

Jun 18, 2014permalink

kelpdiver

If you ever used these compact cameras for underwater use, and doubly more if you ever used an SLR as well, you'd know why RAW is attractive. In wider angle shots where no subject is within 5 or 6 ft of you, the end result is a blue-green mess that is extremely difficult to fix on jpg, and easy with RAW.

Jun 19, 2014permalink

Death89

I will preface this by saying I'm a complete novice as it stands, but would you not also benefit from RAW in more successful downsampling of the images?

Please understand I'm coming from a background of smartphones (which got me into photography - now getting into it more seriously) and I read many articles about downsampling with the RAW data being more effective as artefacts have not been introduces at that point.

Jul 2, 2014permalink

You absolutely need raw for proper WH, lighting and color correction. It's easy for the company to program and SD cards have a lot of capacity now, so there is no excuse. A lot of photography done with rugged cameras will be shot in very non-ideal conditions (strong light/bad light angle/too much sky/water reflecting light/strong shadows,etc...) so the need for post-processing is very strong. As is, most rugged produce pictures already come with color-banding damage and fixing lighting issues is very tricky without exaggerating the problem.

People think the marketing angle behind ruggeds is that they are toys it. It is not. It is that you can take pictures in locations/situations that you can't with other cameras and the need for quality is very real and important. And quality for digital photos now means lighting/contrast/WB....high resolution photos are way overrated for web and not the relevant anyways.

Jul 12, 2014permalink

trunksye

If the videos from TG-3 are still clicking noise all the time...

Jun 18, 2014permalink

Yes, my TG-1 had the clicking during video and I hear the TG-2 does as well. I was hoping the reviewer in this article would have addressed this issue, but unfortunately it did not get mentioned.

Jun 22, 2014permalink

Serenity Now

Bought my daughter a Canon D20 on sale a year ago and she absolutely loves it. I owned the classic A70 Canon point and shoot all those years ago and what a great little camera that was. Then the Canon IQ really went south. Happy to say the D20 is a very welcome return to that "pleasing" look with a very high keeper rate.

IQ is the thing for me so I'd go D30 although no WiFi is a big oversight.

Jun 17, 2014permalink

msolea

Too bad Canon has not updated the D10 style and IQ.... Perhaps, Nikon will make a fixed lens version of its 1AW1... It has decent quality at least...

Jun 17, 2014*permalink

Mikity

I recognize that beach! Hope you had fun on the Big Island Jeff ;-)

Jun 17, 2014*permalink

Low light comparison is useless, 2 cameras at 1/50s, one at 1/40 and one at 1/15s. Riiight. And zoomed in to boot, like it is how low light shots are done. How about wide end, Low Light handheld scene mode (or Auto on all 4) and see what they can really do.

Jun 17, 2014permalink