Just posted: Olympus Tough TG-2 iHS Review

Um, and the TG2 I've handled seems well enough made. Not much different than my waterproof Pentax W30.

Are people reporting build quality problems with Olympus tough cameras, say in the Amazon comments section?

Jul 6, 2013permalink

Pierrrrrrre

Well yesterday the Mode selector dial fell off. I mean, on this picture: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympus-tg2/images/side-by-side.jpg it's the dial with A, MAGIC, C1, C2, etc.

After only two days of use (and not tough testing at all!), I am a bit surprised... Gonna take it to the shop later on to see if this can be fixed.

Jul 7, 2013*permalink

P-

Sorry to read about your troubles, at least that's the right model.

Are people reporting similar problems with the TG1 (nearly the same body from last year) at Amazon?

Jul 7, 2013*permalink

Pierrrrrrre

I got it just before this review was made, and I'm pleased with it!

I think there might have a mistake in the review, though:

"The TG-2 can also record high speed video at 60 or 120 fps, though the resolution drops to 640 x 480 and 320 x 240. When played back at normal speed, everything appears to move in slow motion."

But in the documentation of the camera, it is 120 fps in 640x480, and 240 fps in 320x240.

Although 320x240 is a very small resolution, the effect is really nice, especially with water drops :)

Jul 4, 2013permalink

urix

When I try to download original movie samples I get a message that an access denied. How can I get them?

Jul 3, 2013permalink

Sirandar

For a rugged camera the LCD seems terribly exposed with no cover. One scrape against a rock and the rugged camera would be near unusable ...

Jul 2, 2013permalink

Um it's like almost all small "tough" cameras.

And then, just get a screen protector--it's one of the first things people buying new digital cameras are encouraged to do.

Jul 2, 2013permalink

A scratched monitor does not make any camera unusable, by far. It's only for cadring, anyway. A scratch or three does not affect anything important (except maybe reselling as used).
And if the camera was used as intended in outdoors circumstances, it will gather scratches, no way around it.

Jul 2, 2013permalink

calmwaters

Where in your head did you ever think a scratch on the glass would make a camera unusable? Also, it is not a LCD it is an OLED screen.

Jul 4, 2013permalink

techmine

somehow I always felt that Olympus PnS shots are very good in color/contrast/sharpness. I never owned one but compared them with my Nikons and Canons. Always up a notch. Apart from extremely low light photo samples, the daylight shots are great. Hikers will enjoy this cam IMHO...

Jul 1, 2013permalink

This is plenty good for a jpeg only camera, I've tested it and PhotographyBlog posted jpegs months ago.

(I know nothing about the video capacities and qualities.)

Jul 1, 2013permalink

ArcaSwiss

Mushy photos = Silver Award ? That's weird

Jun 30, 2013permalink

jkoch2

The camera exists to survive falls, or go under water, and continue to work. It also tells you where, how deep, or high you were. It also starts up fast and has rapid AF. Yet you would measure it as a studio DSLR?

Jul 1, 2013permalink

AbrasiveReducer

In other words, it does everything except produce sharp pictures. I guess that's why it missed getting the gold award.

Jul 1, 2013permalink

AbrasiveReducer:

The 200 ASA through 800 ASA jpegs posted at PhotographyBlog are plenty sharp.

I have some ISO 1600 pictures that I shot in store, and they're plenty sharp for that kind jpeg only small camera set at high ISOs.

So guessing from low the ASA PhotograpyBlog jpegs, at least one shot at F2.0, this camera has a plenty sharp lens.

Jul 1, 2013permalink

AbrasiveReducer

Olympus has always made great, small cameras and lenses so I wouldn't be surprised if this camera has outstanding quality. But then, the review is misleading, except for the award.

Jul 1, 2013permalink

AbrasiveReducer:

Then don't pay attention to the DPReview's conclusions regarding sharpness and look at PhotograpyBlog's jpegs from months ago. (None shot underwater--just the street and bookcase scenes they always use.)

Jul 1, 2013permalink

Dpreview staff
this is not a comparison review. no same scene shot with different camera
only studio shot which for unknown reason TG-2 is not too good contradicting my real world use

in studio shot WG-3 is best

Jun 30, 2013permalink

Comparative review is coming after all six cameras get full reviews.

Jun 30, 2013permalink

thanks for the reply

Jul 1, 2013permalink

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympus-tg2/4

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

Jun 30, 2013permalink

100 shots at f5.4 fps, wow. But I did not get about 15 fps and 60 fps: "If you don't mind lowering the resolution to 3 megapixels, you can shoot at 15 or 60 frames/second, which produces high-speed and slow-motion videos (respectively) when played back at normal speed."

Does it produce VIDEO of those fps (and then is it 3 MP video, meaning higher resolution than FullHD), or does it produce series of shots that you can CONVERT to video (and then what software do you use to convert, is it included or is it in camera)?

And at 15 and 60 fps - what shutter speed does it use - depending on that you can either freeze motion or get smooth video.

Jun 30, 2013permalink

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.

Jun 30, 2013permalink

Were you shooting raw with the Canon G15?

Jun 30, 2013permalink

For most people not used to underwater photography, almost every camera might appear as producing soft(er) images. But many times it comes from the ambiental reasons, and not from the camera deficiences.
Water is very different photographing medium from the air. It changes the light very much depending on the surface state, refraction level, suspended matter (visible by eye or not), even temperature and density differences - such as freshwater spring in saltwater, etc. It requires a bit getting used to.
Otherwise, many people in water tend to take photos rather optimistically as regards shooting distance (especially with flash).
Excepting w/a photos, rarely will one be able to shoot objects further than 2 meters away. Also, that's why u/w macros usually come out the best.
There are strong differences in u/w vs. dry land photography, it should be studied prior to shooting photos, so it pays to look it up on the net. This will add reality to expectations, and quality to pictures.

Jun 30, 2013permalink

I have TG-2 and disagree with what you said
for 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

Jun 30, 2013*permalink

swpars

I purchased a TG-2 recently and am very pleased with the sharpness of its images. It's not up to the level of my Nikkor primes but it's very good for a P&S camera, especially a waterproof one.

Jul 1, 2013permalink

jkoch2

You compare underwater shots against landlubber shots with other cameras. Not very fair or meaningful. Even Caribbean waters have silt or algae, and light is good only at mid-day. The waters absorbe red wavelengths quickly and muddle images at distances over 10' or so.

Jul 1, 2013permalink

Jonathan Lee

hum, is there underwater white balance on the cam?

Jun 30, 2013permalink

Yes

Jun 30, 2013permalink

For what it's worth, UW WB on any underwater camera is not very important. We use daylight to see an underwater scenery, and so does the camera. Thus, what we see is what the camera sees, and vice versa.
The (sun)light filtering through the water layer varies with water depth, but also water chemistry, surface state (e.g., calm, wavy, insolation angle / time of the day) and other things, such as quantity and sort of suspended matter in the water. There are factors like added diving depth to the object distance, etc.
We do not know for which kind of water the pre-programmed UW WB was intended. There is a difference between sea(s) waters and also lake(s), rivers and creeks which is quite wide in variety. Thus, there is no such thing as an universal "WB for water".
On the other hand, whether one may or may not like the bluish or greenish hues which will appear on the photos, is a matter of taste. But it is usually easier to post-process the Daylight WB-shot pics than UW WB-shot images.

Jun 30, 2013*permalink

schaki

The Powershot D20 may have a slow lens but at least preserves fine-details better due to low NR. How hard could it be for Olympus to include NR options or Raw? Guess not so hard..

Jun 29, 2013permalink

Klimt z

If the screen can't be seen underwater or out in the sun and surf or the beach it is useless for the environment most of us want it for. If you are out in the surf it is very frustrating to see a reflection of yourself in the screen. I tried several. The Fuji had a great screen but the IQ was terrible. Frankly, I was quite irritated because reviewers never mentioned the one thing that made them useless. Also irritated because this one looks like a cool camera rendered useless because the designers never got it out of the lab or they would never have let it happen.

Jun 29, 2013*permalink

You might like to add some sort of soft material shade around the upper and side rims of the monitor, such as thin Neoprene supported with wire. It can be fastened to the tripod connecting point. It will not help much with sheer image quality, but it might help you to see what you frame (which is the main purpose of the camera monitor anyway).
DIY has always been an important source of photography aids. There is no use waiting until the manufacturers think of something, as they, more often than not, appear to "listen to some other voices". :)

Jun 30, 2013permalink

Henry Falkner

Maybe a COMPARISON of water-resistant cameras might have put the optical observations into perspective. I understand that underwater you loose light very rapidly, hence the need for noise reduction. - But what took you so long to do the review? The camera has been on the shelves for months!

Jun 29, 2013*permalink

jkoch2

Cold weather and water in Seattle and high cost of travel to Hawaii.

Or would a bathtub test suffice?

Jul 1, 2013permalink

Waterengineer

I was foolishly holding out hope for this camera. With the "slightly soft imagest, clipped highlights, chroma aberration," no thanks.

Jun 29, 2013permalink

"Images slightly soft, with mushy details
Tends to clip highlights; chromatic aberrations can be strong at times"

How is that good inage quality?

Jun 29, 2013permalink

Good for its class. All of these compact cameras do that to some degree.

Jun 29, 2013permalink

And raw recording could make this camera's image quality outstanding, for it's class.

Jun 29, 2013*permalink

AbrasiveReducer

If "slightly soft and mushy" qualifies for an award, it might make sense to put it in context. "Ok, it's not great, but it's a little better than camera A and a little worse than camera B". Just seems odd that something like image quality does not have to be outstanding to get an award.

Jun 30, 2013permalink

It is hard to have anything outstanding in this class. But don't forget, when D20 etc will have unusable ISO 3200, this one will have quite useable ISO 800. None of them is made for pixel peepers, and even 12 MP is excessive for the sensor like this and HD screens.

Jun 30, 2013permalink

Comparing underwater cameras in quality with dry-land cameras will always be confusing, as the ambients differ too much. It is especially true if you review amphibious cameras. These are supposed to operate in both media, and it has its limitations.
True underwater optics must be corrected for water. These corrections (like dome ports or other non-flat solutions) will then not work outside. And if you have zoom lenses which range from wide-angle to short tele, there is no solution other than using flat port, which is not equally good at all focal lengths.
That's why Nikonos (mark II through V) had a choice of five lenses. Beside its dry-land-only 28mm, there were additional 28mm and 15mm for exclusive underwater use.
The (prime) 35mm and also 80mm lens had flat ports, and were usable on both sides of the surface. The UW 28mm had a concave front element, and 15mm UW had a dome.
There is a way to make high quality UW cameras... but it seems the will to do so sadly lacks...

Jun 30, 2013permalink

Can't believe never really followed on that concept in the digital era, underwater housings non-withstanding. I remember Olympus having UW housings right from the get-go with the C-XOXO series.

Jun 30, 2013permalink

Gesture:

For what it's worth you have to remember that Olympus gave up making cameras, film and any digital it had out, in about 2001. Then a few years later they reentered the camera market.

Also most housings for say the Canon G series aren't made by Canon. (And Canon's the odd man it that it appears to also make some housing still.)

Jul 1, 2013permalink

Plus, this is the one segment that traditional cameras manufacturers can prosper in, so, yes, why not upscale the models. Even now, I doubt many will use their iPhone seaside or in water.

Jun 29, 2013permalink

steelduck

I bought this camera a few months ago when it came available. I generally like it a lot for the "beach camera" purpose. The only dislikes are the GPS that sucks battery big time. It is empty in one day even when the camera is off, as it keeps on tracking when you shut it down to get a faster fix when you put it on again. The other dislike is the red ring around the lense. It keeps on dropping off the camera. I have already lost one of them (it can with two).

Jun 29, 2013permalink

Rod McD

1. Why is it that every one the manufacturers of these rugged cameras assume that the people who need them aren't interested in higher IQ? Outdoor photographers (hikers, climbers, cavers, kayakers, cyclists, yachties, etc) really value their forays into wild places and the images they bring back. Would somebody kindly offer a more serious camera with a larger sensor. I fully expect it to cost more and weigh more and I would be prepared to pay for the improvement.

2. Why do they all ignore two hundred years of engineering knowledge about seals? The internet is full of leak experiences and failures to honor guarantees. They could use a 1" O-ring on the base of a decent grip and it would be big enough to take an SD card and an appropriately shaped battery. And it would allow them to offer better specs. Just do it.

Jun 29, 2013permalink

Marty4650

Because the "serious underwater photographers" are using outstanding cameras with very expensive underwater housings, and not some $499 compact camera.

You just can't have perfection at this price point.

Dpreview understands this, and reviews a Tough camera for exactly what it is, and not as a competitor for a Nikon D4 with an waterproof housing.

Jun 29, 2013permalink

Whoever has an interest in how the proper underwater / all weather camera should be built and protected, should look up and study the Nikonos III model. The ergonomics of the camera were perfect, the sealing and locking system allowed for interchangeable lenses, and the camera was able to stand double the rated pressure depth easily.
The swimming and walking body positions require different layout of the camera control elements - and Nik III had it solved.
Also, never mind that it was not "shirt-pocketable" - it fitted the wind jacket pocket easily.
Long time ago I thought that model III or V would be replicated in digital version as a matter of pure logic, but to this day nobody attempted that (or maybe someone blocked the idea?).
In the meantime, the current line of amphibious cameras is far inferior in every sense, with "betterings" every two years or so... while the same market, once so happy with Nikonos, is still out there, waiting...
Is there such a thing as "design crime"?

Jun 29, 2013permalink

http://www.dpreview.com/news/2005/01/31/casioexp505

Yes. Interesting that Nikon was once a pioneer with the Nikonos cameras, but never seemed to follow it up in the digital age?

Jun 29, 2013*permalink

Rod McD

To Marty4650......I know full well that these compacts don't attempt to emulate a D4 in a housing (that probably cost as much as the D4). Your response suggests that there is no possibility of an engineering option in-between, which is completely false. Oldarrow has mentioned the Nikonos. Yes a modern day equivalent would probably be $2K, but it would be a whole lot better than these compacts and, to many users, a whole lot better than a black mastodon in an UW housing. Try kayaking with one of those stuffed into your life jacket. Fujifilm also developed a series of inexpensive water resistant heavy duty cameras in the film era that used proper O-rings for the battery compartments. It can be done.

Jun 30, 2013*permalink

keeponkeepingon

Can we burry this phrase. It's overused, apologetic, meaningless and a bit silly:

"Photo quality isn't fantastic on the TG-2, but it's more than good enough for purpose and target audience. "

Olympus claims that "the Olympus TG-2 iHS was designed with the serious photographer in mind. ". If the target audience is the serious photographer, I would think IQ would be a concern.

Jun 29, 2013permalink

Anepo

I agree if Olympus claims it to be designed with the serious photographer in mind they should review it that way and to be honest it would be DEMOLISHED in the review then because of how stupid Olympus were to say that.

Jun 29, 2013permalink

BorisK1

A serious photographer uses the camera that's appropriate for the assignment. If the conditions force the use of a rugged camera, the photographer will work with what he has.
A waterproof camera cannot have an extending lens, which is probably the biggest limitation in its optical design.

Jun 29, 2013permalink

keeponkeepingon

So why have an extending lens at all? How useful is telephoto under water, especially as the lenses get gosh awful slow when extended.

I've had tons of fun with a simple disposable fixed focal length waterproof film camera. Why not a decent fixed focal length UW camera? I'd think such a camera would be popular with the camera crowd. Put a M43 sensor with a fixed 35mm equivalent lens in reasonably sized body and you'd have a nice little snorkeling gem.

Or you could put a telephoto lens in a fixed body. Casio did it with the 5X EX-P505 and I loved that little camera. Enclosing the telphoto lens makes it a favorite to hand over to the kids.

Jul 1, 2013permalink

I think what BorisK1 meant would be a lens that extends (changes its volume) underwater. Any variable-volume casing which contains gas is very complicated to build, although it is technically possible. A variable-volume casing would work well in a liquid-filled system, or if the camera is connected to its own dynamic pressure-compensation gas source.
You could actually have much better results with interchangeable lenses, each covering a limited range which would not be affected by the port form. Thus, there could be, say, 15-28mm zooms behind a dome port, and 35-100mm zoom with flat-glass port, each in their fixed-volume housing. The latter could be used on dry land as well.
If someone would decide to replicate a Nikonos system, I expect they'd offer some new zoom lenses too. Meantime, the existing fixed-focus Nikonos range would still be as good as always.

Jul 2, 2013*permalink

viktoriskra

These waterproof camera tests are being published quite '5 to 12', don't you think? Since the majority of us are crammed in the same hemisphere, I would suggest to finish these in the next week or so.

Other than that, great work, DPR team!

Jun 29, 2013permalink

We're in Seattle - summer's only just started ;)

Jun 29, 2013permalink

Shamael

Summer in Seattle, hmmmmmh, ok, let's call it summer, Barney. Don't mind, i live at 10 degrees north of the equator.

Jun 29, 2013permalink

arhmatic

The Olympus seems to better that other waterproofed cameras, but one thing is not clear to me...

The image quality is what you'd expect from a $150 camera. People say "it's allright, it's waterproofed..." and I agree with that, but... take a little more expensive camera, add $100 worth of waterproofing, maybe $150 --- can't be more than that, and you will end up with a much better camera... Some people would pay for it... I mean, what is the market for this camera? If you can afford a trip to Hawaii for snorkeling, I am sure paying a little more for a camera is not that much of a concern.

Jun 29, 2013permalink

BorisK1

A half-decent waterproof case won't be under $200. And it will be much larger, because your "slightly more expensive" camera will have a lens that sticks out of the body by at least 2-3 inches.

Jun 29, 2013permalink

Maxfield_photo

The graphic designer who created the above image probably should have thought things through a bit more, the last thing you want to see coming out of your underwater camera is air bubbles.

Jun 28, 2013permalink

But... but... you don't want the camera to suffocate...!

Jun 28, 2013permalink

PC Wheeler

Must be from the fish inside.

Jun 28, 2013permalink

Optimal Prime

Maybe a flatulent fish? Not to mention the scene on the camera screen doesn't seem to match the one if is trying to shoot...

Jun 28, 2013*permalink

InTheMist

Oh! I've been waiting for this. I really like the Olympus Tough series and with vacation coming up...

Time to upgrade.

Jun 28, 2013permalink

BorisK1

As far as I know, the TG-2 uses an iris type aperture to get to F:2.8, and an ND filter to get to F:8.

Jun 28, 2013permalink

that ISO 1600 sample is very good for a small sensor

Jun 28, 2013permalink

Ben O Connor

Images are so fine. Both in wide angel & closer ones as well. Totally suprisiing.

Jun 28, 2013permalink

vapentaxuser

The images have nice color and contrast to them.

Jun 28, 2013permalink

For the camera with so impressive set of features you'd expect someone at Olympus would finally decide to implement a proper water-sealing system at the hatches. These gaskets are simply too sensitive and unreliable. As always, it leaves an impression of purposefully created weak spot, which will never be covered by warranty.
Also, Olympus (and others) could significantly reduce the possibility of water ingress by creating one single access hatch sealed by o-ring, instead of two, sealed with their funny gummy-things.
Third, it is never wise to charge the battery within the sealed casing. Aside of augmenting the explosion force, it heats up the case interior. This may later cause port / monitor fogging.
As to the fogging you mention, the humidity possibly remained from the camera assembly line - no need for additional water leak to create it.
One of the best ways to remove fogging would be to replace the inner air volume with nitrogen. It is not difficult, as any tyre service has it...

Jun 28, 2013permalink

Are you propose to them to assemble it in pure nitrogen? And for customers do it after each port opening (for SD card or battery charging)? ;)

Jun 30, 2013permalink

I'm suggesting a possible solution against internal fogging, and not after every opening. For a while, it will remain in there.
It would be quite simple for manufacturers to partition the user-accessible space in a way that will keep the dry gas (nitrogen) in the rest of the camera volume unaffected by opening of contact / battery / memory card ports. If you think of this access as a box with gilded contacts on the service side and several wires on the other, it is not difficult to seal (thermal glue would suffice).
It does not cost worth a mention, and if the camera was then assembled in (or purged with) nitrogen, it would solve a source or two of frustration. Even if a drop or two of water would enter the user-accessible space, that barrier would keep it from going deeper.
From experience: whenever any wet camera is opened, care should be taken that the port is facing downwards, and the cover is opened slowly. That takes care of the drops that might have remained around the seal.

Jun 30, 2013*permalink

BPW

How about no ports at all? Use inductive charging and wireless image transfer. Pentax already has inductive charging.

Jun 30, 2013permalink

Sure, but with the current state of battery technology, it is still safer to charge batteries outside of the sealed casing. If there's an explosion, the casing could make it really dangerous.
It is possible to make a permanently sealed camera with sufficiently large internal memory and wireless data transfer, and maybe organize an outside, (replaceable) batery module screwed into properly sealed contact point.
There are many easy ways to make today's UW cameras better, more depth-resistant, with better range od accessories (as if there's any), but the manufacturers have chosen to do it all "next time".
We are being fed the already existing technology by eyedropper. There are no technical problems in replicating Nikonos in its digital version, articulated monitor and external flash / lighting included, but they will continue to sell us anything as long as there are sufficient buyers of anything.
Next year cameras will go sensational 3" deeper and play MP3 sounds.
That's business. :(

Jun 30, 2013*permalink

Albino_BlacMan

Has DPR reviewed a camera that hasn't gotten at least a silver award in the last 2 years?

Awards lose their meaning a bit when everyone gets them...

Jun 28, 2013permalink

Not every camera gets an award.

Jun 28, 2013permalink

The first waterproof camera in this series got no award: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canon-powershot-d20/

Jun 28, 2013permalink

Absolutic

I only pay attention to gold awards, not to silver awards. By the way, Dpreview, I think it is time to institute platinum awards for absolutely exceptional cameras and lenses (Score 85 and higher)

Jun 28, 2013permalink

Optimal Prime

And a Diamond award for scores above 100...?

Jun 28, 2013permalink

MichaelKJ

Cameras reviewed so far in 2013 (excluding group reviews)
Gold = 7
Silver = 9
No award = 3
Lake Wobegon effect?

Jun 29, 2013permalink

First, you'll have to explain what 'Lake Wobegon effect' means.

Jun 29, 2013permalink

Shamael

The Lake Wobegon effect, a natural human tendency to overestimate one's capabilities. Lake Wobegon is some kinda fictional invented town in Minesota. You need to see the live show A Prairie Home Companion that you could see in Fitzgerald Theater in St Paul, Min, to understand this. MichaelKJ has stated something he knows and others ignore, what I would classify as a bad idea in this context.

One can never rate any stuff in a correct way for just anyone. We all have different points of view, I like testers writing they think or estimate this or that, what reflects their point of view. But, we all are the creators we read about in the Bible, we create the world to our own image by comparing all we see with our personality, and this ego is composed of all we find in life, the evidence we encounter, on the other side all the crap that is washed in our brain by others, people, News, TV, Obama, Ron Paul, the Pope, the Imam, our doctor, and what ever we find as brainlaundromats on earth.

Jun 29, 2013*permalink

Shamael

It is this diversity of opinions and points of view that makes the world go forward, or retract, by destruction and reconstruction. Creativity is always a question of virginity. You can't create anything on a place where something is, the old has to go first and you create a state of nothingness, a virgin space, be this by demolition or simple barbarian destruction, like wars. Out of that virgin space emerges a new virgin birth. Now, all in life goes that way, and once created, we can modify and improve the created object or being, until it becomes valueless and then it collapses. To replace it, we need to destroy and create something new, but here again, someone creates it to his image and points of view. Market tries here to see what can fit most of us, but never all of us, even if i found that marketing is a place where many famous donkeys, that walk beside of their shoes, move around. But, one needs a lot of things to create a world anyway.

Jun 29, 2013*permalink

marike6

Lots of cameras have gotten nothing. For whatever reason, the Pentax K-01, Nikon 1 V1, and Panasonic GF2 were deemed not worthy of a DPR award.

How a camera with the gorgeous IQ of the K-01 or the unrivaled AF performance / processing of the V1 are considered unworthy when pretty much anything with a lens gets an award is anybody's guess.

Jun 29, 2013permalink