Olympus Stylus Tough TG-4 to offer Raw capture

That is the crux, isnt it? But since it has been stated often enough by others and me (even in this thread) what truly is wanted (but probably not economically feasable), I will leave it at that. I will just add that I really only use the TG for underwater shots. For above my NX is of course way better, even if less convenient.

I think a tough camera could be a box of 1.5" thick, by 4" inches long, by 2.5" high.

These dimensions would allow for a bigger sensor, bigger battery, two SD card slots, and still fit a jacket pocket.

BorisK1:

And move the data from the card to computer wirelessly?

My point is there are other reasons to open the door of the battery compartment.

"My point is there are other reasons to open the door of the battery compartment."
I was talking about a very specific situation. As long as you're in a hot, humid place, opening the camera door should be avoided as much as possible.

Haven't you seen the multiple complaints about waterproof cameras fogging up on the inside?

"And move the data from the card to computer wirelessly?"
Get a large enough memory card and wait to copy the files until the camera is in an air-conditioned room, or on an airplane. Or use WiFi.

It certainly beats having the *inside* of your lens fog up as soon as you get in the water.

BorisK:

Yes, I've seen the points. And I've owen Pentax version a tough camera for some years and haven't had a problem. Though not I've not tried it under water in some time.

Right, I'd thought of the bigger card, but fast 128GB cards, aren't exactly cheep.

So I think there's a place for wireless charging and really fast wireless data transfers, but there's also a place for much better doors.

128GB is a lot of space. It's well over 6500 raw captures. If you're diving, the battery will limit you to 300-400 frames per dive, tops. That's 15-20 dives.
Something tells me, if you can afford this kind of vacation, an extra $100 for a memory card won't make a huge difference. And for a slightly less impressive trip, a 64GB card might just work.
But it's moot anyway, because there's no wireless charging, and that camera door needs to open every 300-400 shots to charge the battery.
But your *actual* point was not about the wireless charging at all, was it?
Was about o-rings?

B:

Right O-rings, and a body the size of a say a Canon G16. That bigger body would allow for a bigger sensor still with an internal zoom and also a bigger battery. And of course raw.

Right. And before you know it, you end up within an inch of a Nikon AW1, or a Sony RX100 in a Meikon housing.
Why is that extra inch important for a dive camera?

When kayaking, climbing, skiing, or swimming, the camera has to stay out of the way to avoid injury. But divers already have a huge pile of gear hanging off then in all directions. They don't deal with fast moving water, don't scramble through dense vegetation.

Why does camera size matter to a diver?

B:

'Cause the extra dimensions can fit an internal lens and a bigger sensor.

The Nikon 1AW isn't really a dive camera.

I'm thinking on the street in the rain at night or snorkling with brief excursions down to 10 feet below the surface.

A much simpler option for charging without opening any water sealed door is a magnetic connector, which is a) dirt-cheap and b) can transfer any amount of current, whereas wireless Qi-style charging can be more limited. My waterproof Pebble watch uses it, my waterproof Xperia smartphone uses it. Works well. Opening doors on a waterproofed device for charging is not very well thought out (unless it is intended to break out-of-warranty eventually, so you have to buy a new camera :-))

Instead of a touchscreen, the TG series have the "bump" controls, when you can change settings by tapping on the camera body.

It's not nearly as nice as a good touchscreen would've been, but it works, even when the camera is wet and you're wearing gloves.

You are right.

Still I wish my TG-2 has S mode instead of A mode even Oly has no intention for introducing M mode.

I need some control.

My TG-1 doesn't even have the "A" mode, and it's my main source of frustration with the camera.

Whenever the light gets brighter than a certain level, the camera activates the ND filter, and there's *nothing* I can do to switch it off. Various modes (including sports and snow), any and all ISO settings, any exposure compensation - nothing will shut it off.

The "A" mode should allow me to finally shut off that ND filter at will.

Now that I think about it, I can see how an "S" mode would be tricky with just the three possible aperture values.

Say, you set shutter speed to 1/400 and ISO 200, but the current light levels dictate either f:2.8 1/200, or f:8.0 1/1600. There is no f:4. What should the camera do - ignore your setting? Underexpose? Overexpose? Zoom in to obtain f:4?

I do not know what OLY will do in the case you presented.

My other camera will show the warning by tuning the S value display to Red when I set the shutter speed which the camera "thinks" it will cause Underexpose or Overexpose.

The S value display has three different color: white, yellow, and red in my other camera.

Interesting! I never knew how other models make this work. Makes sense. It's not ideal, but better than no control at all.

Oly will add S or even M mode one day as Oly needs to add sth new to every released TG, A mode in TG2, Wifi in TG3, and now RAW in TG4 for example. little by little.

What's for TG5, TG6...?

They might, or they might not. This year Panasonic refreshed their TS rugged flagship to the model 6 by adding (drum roll... wait for it...) TWO NEW BODY COLORS!!!

That's all they changed from TS-5.

Oh yeah, remember a week ago you were asking about TG's combination iris / ND filter aperture?
I can confirm: If you power up the camera in bright light while looking through the front lens, you can see it quite plainly. F:2 or no, that hole looks tiny!

Does TG have 1-stop iris aperture?

I can try to see if DOF changes between F2.0 and F2.8 @25mm.

Funnily enough, after doing some research on my new camera, I learnt this trick! Much better, blur free shots now, but of course there's a trade off on noise. However, I will take non blurry shots over noise any day of the week! This camera just became the kids camera most of the time, so I have left it set to auto high, and we're getting much more usable shots.

There's another trick I found to control shutter speed.

Once, I was trying to get a shot of the full moon, but whatever I did, the camera flatly refused to go past 1/4 of a second or so, severely overexposing the moon face.

Then I had an idea to enable the flash - and voila, 1/100s and a well exposed moon. Must've looked funny to onlookers though :)

"This camera is the kids camera."

I couldn't agree more. I have a TG-1 and it has survived being tossed around by two toddlers over the years. Yeah it's waterproof, crushproof, drop-proof, but most importantly it's kid-proof. I might upgrade it to the TG-4 now.

Mine survived the kids just fine - The cracked screen is all my fault. I was photographing something on the ground, and it slipped out of my hand. Didn't fall more than a foot or so, but the screen landed on a sharp pebble. It still works, but no longer waterproof.

I think, part of the blame goes to the rough spot on the screen that got rubbed out by the fabric of my PFD. My TG-4 is going to have a screen protector.

Yeah, I'm aware of the case for the Oly.
That's why I said "expensive case". It's more expensive than the camera!
Which makes the whole show worthless. I'll stick to the Nikon AW130, thanks.
It can do 30 metres and although I never go deeper than 20 metres nowadays, it's just perfect.
And divers don't stick to larger sensors: for any detail or macro shot after 10 metres you NEED flash, period. Sensor size is immaterial when red colour just isn't there.

Maybe. The key difference between the two types is that the Olympus TGs use a folded light path and the Nikon AW is an ILC and uses a direct light path. I acknowledge that my call for a tough camera with a 1" sensor assumes that a folded light path would be possible for a 1" sensor. A 1/2.3" sensor is 6X4.6mm where a 1" is about 13X9mm, so roughly twice the linear dimensions. Maybe it would be too hard - I don't have the expertise to say. OTOH, the outcome - a small, tough, submersible camera with a bigger sensor is still a great goal.

Rod McD:

The Nikon 1 has a much bigger sensor. That's the key difference.

I've often thought a folded light path for a bigger sensor+zoom could be build into a handle. Like a big hand grip on a DSLR, but then the body would be tiny, just a screen on the back and a few buttons and a card slot.

In order to fit a large sensor and a fast zoom into the dimensions of a rugged camera, something drastic has to happen.

A completely new technology, like flat optics or miniaturized camera array. Our a drastically new design of a zoom lens, perhaps with dynamically changing geometries of lens elements. Perhaps with reflective elements working in concert with refractive to form a folded light path.

Unfortunately, right now there's very little money to be made in the fixed-lens camera field, so R&D dollars are tight.

Perhaps a sensor that can flex depending on the zoom lens position. That could save a good bit of space, if fully worked out.

But it's years away.

Still: it'd be such a perfect invention. A compact, rugged, waterproof 1". So many people would buy it in a heartbeat - including me.

thirup,

I agree that it would be appealing, assuming the lens optically decent and fast. Until then there's the Nikon 1AW.

They do. It's called: Nikon AW130 and came out a couple of months ago. 30m depth, no case!

For me theproblem is solved: Olympus E-PL2 with Olympus housing. However a camera that can go without additional housing to 40m is missing.
I didn't know about Nikon AW130. I hope that sommone will design a digital Nikonos!!

Um thanks for the unsolicited parenting tips. I'm pretty sure that I- being her father- know what my 4yr old can handle.

pjl321- no the TG4 has not been out for a year- the TG3 doesn't have raw- which is absolutely vital and significant to me. So i'll just pretend your reply doesn't exist.

Struck me as very know-it-all. I don't give other parents tips, every parent child relationship is different.

Different strokes for different folks. :)

Viewfiner for underwater?

I don't think so
low ISO remove NR
High ISO use DXO Prime NR

Significant IQ improvement

@HowaboutRAW: true (I own one), but that is with 'just' 12 MP...

MB:

This is probably the 1/2.3" Sony sensor Olympus can buy today. It's already in use in the TG3. I guess it's possibly a Panasonic sensor, but not likely.

@HowaboutRAW
I didn't say anything about the files, just the whining ;)
OTOH looking at sample images, the waterproof cameras seem just a bit worse across the board. I don't know, maybe it's just me.

Ocolon:

The lens doesn't make raw worse.

And raw remains really helpful for the adjustment of white balance alone.

Because of the smaller sensor and denser pixels raw helps less than most are used to with noise control, but it still sure beats the jpeg artifacts.

Ocolon:

Lens distortion is not an effect of the raw file.

Nor is lens chromatic aberration.

Having the raw file helps with fixing both. (Right even better lenses make for better files.)

I barely ever look at out of camera jpegs if the body shoots raw. And this one does.

Then, the TG3 doesn't have an especially weak lens, so therefore I'm betting raw will really help improve upon the image quality of the TG3.

This, and the TG3/2, are not low end cameras, you've confused small size with low end.

"Olympus, please make a rugged version of the XZ-2"
That 's something I 'd like to have too... Plus the lastly added features into the Stylus 1 firmware...

Karroly + KonstantinosK:

It's next to impossible to water seal a moving zoom, that collapses into the body, like the XZ2.

There's the Nikon 1 AWS.

This is the strategy of most camera makers. Never release a camera with every possible feature. If you did, there would be no reason to upgrade. So always keep features limited so that they can be added one at a time to ensure people upgrade.

Revenant:

That's a different point.

And correction is easy enough with an updated ACR or other raw extraction program.

Try RawTherapee 4.2 on a raw from the Canon G7X to see a distorted raw. But Canon still has raw as an option.

Bet the TG4's lens isn't significantly different than that in the TG3.

HowaboutRAW, thanks for the enlightenment. I'd take a rugged version of the XZ-2 with smaller internal zoom or even no zoom at all. The bigger sensor would be what I'd like. From what I read the ruggedness of the Nikon 1 AW is a joke.

Kons:

The no zoom at all idea is a good one.

The Nikon 1AW isn't a joke, it's not a Nikonos V though.

HowaboutRAW,

> Lens distortion is not an effect of the raw file.
> Nor is lens chromatic aberration.

True! As I said in my first post – the quality could be very bad “due to the architecture of lens systems in these rugged compacts”.

> Having the raw file helps with fixing both.

If the camera gives you a JPEG that has been corrected in-camera, you don't need to fix this anymore. So RAW files don't help you in this regard unless the in-camera correction is bad. RAW files enable you to do it yourselves.

> I barely ever look at out of camera jpegs if the body shoots raw.

Your username gave that away. ;) I only use DNG raw files from my main camera too. I love to have raw files. I like that Olympus includes the option in this camera now. You seem to defend RAWs which I never meant to criticize. English isn't my native language so sorry if I expressed something imprecisely and caused confusion.

> Then, the TG3 doesn't have an especially weak lens

That's what I hope. We'll know soon.

Ocolon:

No, you said specifically the raw quality would be bad. Try not to do that kind of misdirection.

Absolutely untrue: "If the camera gives you a JPEG that has been corrected in-camera, you don't need to fix this anymore."

The TG3 has been out for at least a year, you can check jpeg samples already.

@HowaboutRaw
KonstantinosK was talking about a rugged version. As far as I understand this is not quite the same as water-sealed. However, there is a "trick" to seal the moving zoom of the XZ-2. If you screw the adapter tube to the camera and screw a filter to the tube, you get a "sealed" moving zoom... Not truly pocketable, but this is what I do when I shoot in windy/dusty condition...

Karroly:

But I had a Panasonic LX5 setup that what, and I'd never claim that as even weather sealed.

The Nikon 1 AW has tubes around the lenses and then the lens/tube assembly mounts to the camera making a water sealed system. But the tube permanently extends from the body. It does not collapse.

To use a bigger sensor and have internal zoom, the camera will need a bigger body.

@HowaboutRAW

> No, you said specifically the raw quality would be bad.

No, I did not. I said the RAW quality *might* be bad in rugged compacts and that *might* be the reason why companies didn't give access to RAWs. It's speculation, because of course I cannot judge the quality of something that's not provided.

And yes, I wrote literally “due to the architecture of lens systems in these rugged compacts”. Look above, it's still written there.

> Absolutely untrue: "If the camera gives you a JPEG
> that has been corrected in-camera, you don't need
> to fix this anymore."
>
> The TG3 has been out for at least a year, you can
> check jpeg samples already.

Huh? Where did I refer to the TG3? I didn't. Also, when quoting me you've conveniently excluded the part from my message where I said “… unless the in-camera correction is bad”, which it might be in case of the TG3. I don't know whether that's the case or not and I've never pretended to.

I don't know why you're twisting my words.

Ocolon:

Recheck your phrasing. And the use of "might". But I'll accept that you meant something else.

You referred to the TG-3 when you quoted me.

And this point remains absolutely untrue:

"Absolutely untrue: 'If the camera gives you a JPEG
> that has been corrected in-camera, you don't need
> to fix this anymore.'"

No I'm not twisting your words, you keep posting sillinesses about this camera and its immediate predecessor, and raws in general.

HowaboutRAW,

> You referred to the TG-3 when you quoted me.

Correct, but only *after* those of my words that you wrongfully related to the TG3.

> you keep posting sillinesses about this camera

Oh my. I've not stated anything about the TG-4 as a fact. KonstantinosK said that he wonders about something. I picked that up and speculated about cameras in this class in general. And I expressed hopes for the TG-4, namely that its lens will be good. How is that silly?

> and its immediate predecessor

The TG3 is your topic, not mine. You keep posting about it. It's true that I once made a statement in this thread that seems to refer to the TG3 via the quote I made of your text. Those words could be understood as "we'll soon se whether the TG-3 has a good lens". Mea culpa. What I meant was: We'll soon see whether the TG-4 has a good lens. Other than that, I've stated nothing about the TG-3 as a fact and I wouldn't, because I don't know the camera.

(to be continued)

(continued)

> and raws in general

It's only your opinion that what I said would be silly. And you seem to misinterpret my words to reassure yourself …

> No I'm not twisting your words

… but I accept that you don't mean to.

I suspect that you're a rather intelligent guy. However, socially apt persons would have stopped picking on me when I took all the responsibility for any misunderstandings on me and apologized, explaining that English isn't my native language. Instead, you tell me that I shall recheck my phrasing, you misrepresent my words and now you're resorting to calling my posts silly, which is bordering on being rude. This is absolutely unnecessary. I did not criticize this camera. I did not criticize any other camera here. I did express my appreciation of RAWs – I know what they're good for, I use them myself all the time. You're attacking a straw man.

I hope it makes you feel better at least, or else this is just wasting everyones time.