Not so tough, not that bright

Having to choose between an underwater housing and a 'proper' rugged camera, looking at the specs and positive reviews, I decided to give TG-4 a go. After all, it's quite pricey, so it must be good, right?

First impression was OK, since it is a very snappy camera and also easy to control. This is also helped by the no-nonsense menu system, very appropriate for such a model.

Had lots of fun with the Microscope mode. Wow, it really works. By the way, grab the circular light for it, unless you want to constantly be put off by the longer shutter speed you have to select in order to compensate for the lack of light at such proximity. I almost feel like that ring should be included in the box.

Alas, my biggest two complaints: IQ and ruggedness. See, checking the captured imagery on a proper screen reveals just how little detail this camera is able to solve. It's true, when light is aplenty, it does nice exposures, if a tad on the neutral-cold side, but they always fail closer scrutiny. When light goes dim, however, don't be fooled, that F2 lens and integrated flash unit never result in any decent photos. It's downright horrible for a dedicated camera, be it rugged or not. Had much better results from pocket models which used to cost 1/2 to 1/3 of TG-4's price on their launch. Yes, you can use longer tripod exposures, but detail still falls short of even many mobiles. In fact, there are lots of better mobile options, at least if you're willing to live without a zoom.

Ruggedness: two dips into seawater and the same amount of appropriate clearing / drying procedure later, the glass in front of the lens showed peeling. It was the hydrophobic coating. Same for parts of the LCD. Mind you, the Black Sea isn't exactly as salty as the Greek Aegean and it was submerged for a matter of minutes.

Instantly, flare response changed, revealing a huge weakness in handling lateral light. With a 25mm equivalent focal length, it proved difficult not to be affected by it.

So, long story short, I returned it and asked for a refund. Will get a proper underwater casing for a camera which is actually able to take competent underwater pictures.

On the plus side, it looks like a good pool companion. I'm not sure, however, why you'd pay so much for a pool/rafting camera.

Pluses:

- Extremely snappy, decent exposure in good light

- Easy one-handed control, intuitive and simple menu

- A plethora of modes, underwater color balance excellent

- Feels pretty solid

Minuses

- Horrible image/video quality in all but the best possible light

- Lots of highlight clipping

- Color rendering options limited, JPEG curve profiles not very attractive (subjectively)

- Hydro coating started to peel off after just two dips, in spite of appropriate maintenance and protection. LCD scratched easily. Tough luck, huh?

Overall:

Cannot recommend it at all. Not that tough, stunningly bad IQ in all but good light, detail smearing even at the lowest possible ISO values.

Unfortunately i agree with you on the IQ, I was very disappointed, (some are not but probably looking for less e.g. Vaughan who's dog does not appear to have hair, just some sort of mush)

I have not had a toughness issue, although has only been used for one underwater holiday as yet.

I have also looked at enclosures hoping to reuse some 'obsolete' equipment such as my 400D and 10-22 lens, but they are horridly expensive unless you use a plastic bag (aquapac etc). Having had a failure several years ago on an Aquapac I am less than enthusiastic about that option (To be fair I did have good after sales support from Aquapack, but the camera had been destroyed at Ras Mohammed loosing me shot opportunities)

Hope you find a solution you can live with and do not have a problem with your refund.

Thanks for sharing your experience. Fortunately, I didn't have a problem with returning it, as the Olympus representatives assumed responsibility for the design issues which I had pointed out when sending it back.

I agree underwater housing is expensive, however I'd sooner use a K-S Pentax series than this type of compact cameras.

Got a promise for an RX100 II @ 250 EUR in very good shape, I'm expecting to find some suitable underwater housing for it if I ever get the idea again.

For poolside, something like the S4 Active or a similar smartphone (Sony has one, can't remember its name) is always enough.

I've been using Olympus since E-10/E-20, which I thoroughly enjoyed apart from them being on the slow side and devouring a set of batteries in 10-15 minutes. Really liked the E-30 and generally their features, however I could never settle on their FT/MFT system, it simply lacked something.

Apart from Nikon, the best pick I've had was Pentax, however since Fuji X-T1 and their weather sealed primes Pentax lost a lot of its appeal. For compacts, I'm partial to Panny and Sony, since they offer an excellent balance of photo and video features. The old bunch (Nikanon) failed to properly innovate in the last decade. Oly I still like though.

Andrei L wrote:

Having to choose between an underwater housing and a 'proper' rugged camera, looking at the specs and positive reviews, I decided to give TG-4 a go. After all, it's quite pricey, so it must be good, right?

First impression was OK, since it is a very snappy camera and also easy to control. This is also helped by the no-nonsense menu system, very appropriate for such a model.

Had lots of fun with the Microscope mode. Wow, it really works. By the way, grab the circular light for it, unless you want to constantly be put off by the longer shutter speed you have to select in order to compensate for the lack of light at such proximity. I almost feel like that ring should be included in the box.

Totally agree so far

Alas, my biggest two complaints: IQ and ruggedness. See, checking the captured imagery on a proper screen reveals just how little detail this camera is able to solve. It's true, when light is aplenty, it does nice exposures, if a tad on the neutral-cold side, but they always fail closer scrutiny. When light goes dim, however, don't be fooled, that F2 lens and integrated flash unit never result in any decent photos. It's downright horrible for a dedicated camera, be it rugged or not. Had much better results from pocket models which used to cost 1/2 to 1/3 of TG-4's price on their launch. Yes, you can use longer tripod exposures, but detail still falls short of even many mobiles. In fact, there are lots of better mobile options, at least if you're willing to live without a zoom.

You don't explain here if you mean underwater or normal shooting. When I compare it while zooming on my PC screen (1920x1280) vs my m43 or 1" cameras, yes it resolves much lower detail. But if you don't zoom and just print the photo, then quality is pretty decent. Another plus is that both above and underwater water it does have great SOOC colors (better than my Panasonic GX7).

A negative that you could mention is the very low DR of its sensor which practically makes the RAW capability pretty useless.

Ruggedness: two dips into seawater and the same amount of appropriate clearing / drying procedure later, the glass in front of the lens showed peeling. It was the hydrophobic coating. Same for parts of the LCD. Mind you, the Black Sea isn't exactly as salty as the Greek Aegean and it was submerged for a matter of minutes.

Havent noticed that but was also washing the camera with tap water everyday after snorkeling in Syros and Karpathos (Aegean see).

On the plus side, it looks like a good pool companion. I'm not sure, however, why you'd pay so much for a pool/rafting camera.

Pluses:

- Extremely snappy, decent exposure in good light

- Easy one-handed control, intuitive and simple menu

- A plethora of modes, underwater color balance excellent

- Feels pretty solid

Agree

Minuses

- Horrible image/video quality in all but the best possible light

Yes, it is not that good, but you expect that when buying such a small sensor camera. From another perspective, think if you are willing to risk a much more expensive 1" camera with a housing... And also think about the size. The TG4 can fit in my swimsuit pocket, so I can swim with my both hands. Forget that with any housing...

- Lots of highlight clipping

- Color rendering options limited, JPEG curve profiles not very attractive (subjectively)

Haven't noticed that.

- Hydro coating started to peel off after just two dips, in spite of appropriate maintenance and protection. LCD scratched easily. Tough luck, huh?

Overall:

Cannot recommend it at all. Not that tough, stunningly bad IQ in all but good light, detail smearing even at the lowest possible ISO values.

Yannis1976 wrote:

Andrei L wrote:

Having to choose between an underwater housing and a 'proper' rugged camera, looking at the specs and positive reviews, I decided to give TG-4 a go. After all, it's quite pricey, so it must be good, right?

First impression was OK, since it is a very *_snappy_* camera and also easy to control. This is also helped by the no-nonsense menu system, very appropriate for such a model.

Had lots of fun with the Microscope mode. Wow, it really works. By the way, grab the circular light for it, unless you want to constantly be put off by the longer shutter speed you have to select in order to compensate for the lack of light at such proximity. I almost feel like that ring should be included in the box.

Totally agree so far

Alas, my biggest two complaints: IQ and ruggedness. See, checking the captured imagery on a proper screen reveals just how little detail this camera is able to solve. It's true, when light is aplenty, it does nice exposures, if a tad on the neutral-cold side, but they always fail closer scrutiny. When light goes dim, however, don't be fooled, that F2 lens and integrated flash unit never result in any decent photos. It's downright horrible for a dedicated camera, be it rugged or not. Had much better results from pocket models which used to cost 1/2 to 1/3 of TG-4's price on their launch. Yes, you can use longer tripod exposures, but detail still falls short of even many mobiles. In fact, there are lots of better mobile options, at least if you're willing to live without a zoom.

You don't explain here if you mean underwater or normal shooting. When I compare it while zooming on my PC screen (1920x1280) vs my m43 or 1" cameras, yes it resolves much lower detail. But if you don't zoom and just print the photo, then quality is pretty decent. Another plus is that both above and underwater water it does have great SOOC colors (better than my Panasonic GX7).

Normal shooting. Under the water, it's way better than the Panny FT series. My point is that it falls short under normal usage. Also, some of the frames already look smeared even when fitting the image to a 16:9 screen without zooming further. Which, sorry to say, for a 12 MP sensor is miserable, at least at base ISO, if not even two stops up.
Not to mention its atrocious low light with flash results. Something like a TZ-5 constantly outresolves it in terms of detail and overall DR, which is a bit weird. I suspect it has more to do with the processing.
But, except for the slightly neutral to cold tendency, I agree it does have a better SOOC color than many cameras. Don't like the slight tendency for magenta and underpowered reds/yellows, but the warm (cloudy) preset did help with that to some extent.
GX7? Dunno, never shot that, but it seems like a very nice camera, even if you have to shoot RAW and develop for better colors.

A negative that you could mention is the very low DR of its sensor which practically makes the RAW capability pretty useless.

I did mention highlight clipping, which is basically what it amounts to. Tends to cut off sooner than you'd expect and yes, cannot really recover much from RAW. From this perspective, I can say I've been spoiled by the fantastic Fuji X10 jpegs (could force process the JPEG itself in ACR/LR and pull out tons of detail in both highlights and shadows). Not to mention the X-E2.

Ruggedness: two dips into seawater and the same amount of appropriate clearing / drying procedure later, the glass in front of the lens showed peeling. It was the hydrophobic coating. Same for parts of the LCD. Mind you, the Black Sea isn't exactly as salty as the Greek Aegean and it was submerged for a matter of minutes.

Havent noticed that but was also washing the camera with tap water everyday after snorkeling in Syros and Karpathos (Aegean see).

It seemed weird for me as well. At first I thought it's some resilient dirt, then that it got somehow scratched - but no, it was hydro coating failure.

On the plus side, it looks like a good pool companion. I'm not sure, however, why you'd pay so much for a pool/rafting camera.

Pluses:

Agree

Minuses

• Horrible image/video quality in all but the best possible light

Yes, it is not that good, but you expect that when buying such a small sensor camera. From another perspective, think if you are willing to risk a much more expensive 1" camera with a housing... And also think about the size. The TG4 can fit in my swimsuit pocket, so I can swim with my both hands. Forget that with any housing...

I've seen much better sensors of the same size, especially CCD-based, before CMOS became norm. I didn't get it specifically for snorkling (good luck with that in the Black Sea, you need a powerful reflector to see something one meter away in many places), but for its overall rugedness promise together with decent imaging quality. But aside from subjects standing really close and the wide end of the zoom, it's not very useful for me - that's why I'd sooner go for an underwater phone.

Well you can't do much better in terms of pocketable underwater cams, but it's a real shame they haven't gotten the overall IQ just right. It does cost as much as an RX100 I (450 EUR in Romania, full price) and it's really not that far off what an RX 100 II costs. Both of which employ much more expensive tech, safe for the proofing.

Haven't noticed that.

That's the limited DR I was mentioning.

• Hydro coating started to peel off after just two dips, in spite of appropriate maintenance and protection. LCD scratched easily. Tough luck, huh?

Overall:

Cannot recommend it at all. Not that tough, stunningly bad IQ in all but good light, detail smearing even at the lowest possible ISO values.
--
Yannis
https://www.flickr.com/photos/127079204@N06/

I still maintain my opinion about it having bad IQ, in terms of smearing - I always favored a bit of noise over that smearing effect... but I do like your pictures