TG4(and similar camera type) Question

[smoker21]

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...

 

[Jacque1]

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.

Rx100 is not meteo sealed....

 

[Jacque1]

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...)

 

[Enders Shadow]

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.

Loading…

www.dpreview.com

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

 

[BorisK1]

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.

Rx100 is not meteo sealed....

I said "in Meikon housing":

Loading…

www.amazon.com