TG4(and similar camera type) Question

the first thing I did was to check with my old Sony tx10; of course when you look at 100% all the small details look like scrambled artifacts, but when checking the image "fit to screen" it does not look over processed and "fake". I guess you are right, the RAW should solve the problems, with spending some extra time one them...

I have been checking sample pictures for a long time now and most of them look good. in this forum there is a mirror image of the sea which looks very nice, with clearer details, but then you see some other images that when you look at the image, it just looks weird... I guess it is hard to articulate the feeling...

Nevertheless, thank you for you help. I will try to find one and take some shots and see how it behaves...

BorisK1 said:

BorisK1 a écrit:

Cela dépend de ce que les questions de QI spécifiques que vous rencontrez. Le TG-4 sera la tête et les épaules au-dessus du 860 dans les situations de faible éclairage, parce que la lentille plus rapide permet à l'appareil d'utiliser ISO plus faible.

Aussi, si vous êtes en juger QI en regardant les images à grossissement de 100%, vous verrez une grande différence de RAW. Les fichiers JPEG de reflex Olympus difficiles sont optimisés pour l'affichage de taille normale, de sorte qu'ils regardent overprocessed à 100%.

Mais si vous voulez une augmentation significative de QI, examiner obtenir un Sony RX100 dans le logement Meikon. Il est petit (ish), imperméable à l'eau, et pas super cher, surtout si vous restez avec un modèle plus ancien, comme le RX100 originale.

Click to expand...

Rx100 is not meteo sealed....

I have a tg3 until one year in augustus. I'm very happy with it. I don't want a tg4, because I don't make raw (even with my em5II, than I buy to replace my stylus1).

If you want to protect yout front glase you can put the adaptator which one can receive filter of 40.5mm (uv, pola, nd...)

The EXIF data from your image shows different exposure values than I'd expect from my TG-3. In the several hundred shots I've taken at wide end of the zoom range, under normal daylight conditions, it has never selected f/2.8, 1/1000 at ISO 200. That EV 13 combination seems like a weird choice while at wide zoom. (At least in Program mode and Auto ISO) At minimum, with that much light, I'd expect my TG-3 to use ISO 100.

The TG-4 manual indicates the default metering mode is ESP. It should have come out of the box in that mode.

I haven't played much with the "Shadow Adjust" settings on my TG-3. Except with some early test shots, I've kept it in the default Auto mode. By having it On, the camera may be selecting a higher ISO. I'd suggest switching "Shadow Adjust" back to Auto to see if it makes a difference.

Another user just posted some TG-4 samples. His camera produced exposure values a bit closer to what I've experience with my TG-3. However, in lighting where I'd expect the ND filter to be used (f/8 at the wide end) it wasn't selected. Instead it shifted to a shutter speed higher than is typical of TG-3's programming.


Guess I'll keep checking samples to see if this is the norm for the TG-4.

Jacque1 said:

Jacque1 said:

BorisK1 a écrit:

Cela dépend de ce que les questions de QI spécifiques que vous rencontrez. Le TG-4 sera la tête et les épaules au-dessus du 860 dans les situations de faible éclairage, parce que la lentille plus rapide permet à l'appareil d'utiliser ISO plus faible.

Aussi, si vous êtes en juger QI en regardant les images à grossissement de 100%, vous verrez une grande différence de RAW. Les fichiers JPEG de reflex Olympus difficiles sont optimisés pour l'affichage de taille normale, de sorte qu'ils regardent overprocessed à 100%.

Mais si vous voulez une augmentation significative de QI, examiner obtenir un Sony RX100 dans le logement Meikon. Il est petit (ish), imperméable à l'eau, et pas super cher, surtout si vous restez avec un modèle plus ancien, comme le RX100 originale.

Click to expand...

Rx100 is not meteo sealed....

Click to expand...

I said "in Meikon housing":