Olympus TG1

[Franco Darioli]

OK, worth a look

http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/05/08/Olympus-Tough-TG1-iHS-rugged-waterproof-shockproof-12MP-compact-camera
25-100mm F2 -4.9 (slow tele end…) shock/waterproof.
So a faster and wider lens than the Pana …
will have to wait for some pics but it does have potential
A bit heavy at 7.8oz lets hope that the extra weight is there for a good reason..
Franco

[drowning in spam]

Bright and wide is a good start.

[Rick M]

del

[Nick Truax]

Hi Rick,

Wondering if you have any follow-up on this neat little number?
Specs certainly intrigue…

TIA

[Rick M]

del

[Jerry Adams]

It seems like ruggedized cameras have smaller lenses

Both diameter, and they don't extend out of the camera when you turn the camera on

Does this mean they take poorer pictures?

Worse in low light conditions?

[Franco Darioli]

Jerry
Does this mean they take poorer pictures?

Worse in low light conditions?

Smaller lenses (in size and aperture) is the case with the other cameras, however not (in aperture) with this one and that is why I typed that F2 in bold because it is about 4x brighter than some..
(F2 lets 4x more light in than F4 , most compacts of this kind have a max aperture of 3.3 to 3.9)
F2 means tha half of the available light hits the sensor, at F4 it is a quarter so it is F 1/2 or F1/4…
As for the final image, (detail/sharpness/colours/exposure), that depends a lot on the sensor and the image processor the camera is using.
So having the exact same lens and sensor but a different "engine" you get a different image
(somewhat like people using Photoshop will get a different look starting with the same file)
BTW, the optics don't protrude but travel internally (called folding optics).
This is a Minolta patent. (most of those cameras are made by Sanyo now owned by Panasonic)
Franco

[Jerry Adams]

Thanks Franco

I have a 5.5 oz Olympus Stylus 1010

Some day I'll have to replace it, although the current problem is just that the labels are wearing off the buttons, but I can figure it out. And there's a cover over the lens that opens up when I turn it on and sometimes it doesn't open. I think maybe it's F3.5.

One thing I hate is when it's cloudy in trees, the images are blurry. Lower F would make it better.

[Will Webster]

> (F2 lets 4x more light in than F4 , most compacts of this kind have a max aperture of 3.3 to 3.9)

Correct.

> F2 means that half of the available light hits the sensor, at F4 it is a quarter so it is F 1/2 or F1/4…

Not exactly. By that reasoning a f/0.95 lens from Voigtlander ($1,000) or Leica ($11,000) would capture more light than is actually present.

An aperture of f/2 means that the effective diameter of the lens is half the focal length (diameter = f/2 where f = focal length). A 200 mm telephoto with a 100 mm aperture, or a 6 mm P&S with a 3 mm aperture, would each be f/2 and would let in the same amount of light.

[Franco Darioli]

Yes mine was a bit of a lazy explanation…
however
"A 200 mm telephoto with a 100 mm aperture, or a 6 mm P&S with a 3 mm aperture, would each be f/2 and would let in the same amount of light."
That is the theory explained on the net.
In practice it does not work like that.
Lets say that that your scene has a light value of EV 12. That is F1 at 1/1000th or F5,6 at 1/125 and so on.
Now regardless of the lens you have you need a certain amount of light that corresponds to the above values to get that "correct" exposure.
Size will not give you that.
The exact amount of light that hits the film/sensor is determined by the type of glass , the coating and the design (number and type of elements) used .
So the relationship between the focal length and the aperture is a start but not the full story.

Note how a bunch of full size (35mm) 50mm F1.8 or for that matter a bunch of 200mm F4 will look physically different,
They neither have the same front element size nor are 50mm or 200mm long.
If by aperture what is meant is the size of the aperture blades, that does not work either because that needs to take into account the ammount of light that reaches the blades and the ammount of light lost after that because of different type of glass/coating and elements design on the rear elements.
See in the below link the Fuji 55mmF2.2 aginst the Auto Takumar F2.2.
I can safly assume that the Super Takumar has better coatings and glass than the Fuji however as you can see the front element is larger …
Franco
See a larger size here :
http://www.flickr.com/photos/norm_p/2658354826/sizes/l/in/photostream/
Compare the sizes of the Pentacon 1.8 50mm with the Canon 1.8 50mm (on the far left)
Also the Super Takumar 551.8 with the Fuji 55 1.8 as well as the Fuji F2.2 with the auto Takumar 55 F2.2

Much later…
Today DPReview mentioned some new Zeiss Lense that have a T stop of 2.9…
That reminded me of this thread…
The T stop is the one where the formula mentioned by the previous poster works because it does not take into account light loss due to different coating and elements and so on…

[Bob Gross]

Hey, Franco.

Back in college physics class, they taught us how and why a good lens looks either brown or blue-green when you look into it. It has to do with the types of anti-reflective coatings and their thickness (it's an optical thing). I always found that fascinating. Beginners look at a lens and see the brown or blue thing and believe that it is a defect. If you look out through the same lens, it is clear. Oh, well.

–B.G.–

[Franco Darioli]

A blue tinge is a dead giveaway that it is just single coated.
Multiple colours means multi coating but quantity is not always quality either.
If you get the chance, pick up a piece of High Density glass and a standard piece of optical glass and you will find the former to be a lot heavier but it does let more light through..
(that is one reason why top lenses as well as good binos are heavy )
Franco

[Bob Gross]

" (that is one reason why top lenses as well as good binos are heavy ) "

Tell me about it.

When I go backpacking, I am carrying a DSLR camera with a Canon L lens and a normal lens. We are talking about roughly ten pounds here.

–B.G.–

[Brad Rogers]

How would this compare to something like the Canon s90? I have a s90 and an older olympus 720sw. The 720sw takes poor pictures perticularly at low light, but since most of my trips include rain and water crossings it goes with me more often than not because it is waterproof.

[Franco Darioli]

The only comparison shots I have seen so far don't look that good…
In spite of the 2 stop gain in ISO and the almost 2 stop wider aperture the Pana TS4 still produced cleaner low light shots.
But sooner or later DPReview will do a test and that will allow a better comparison with other cameras like the s90.
(DPReview (top menu bar) Reviews Studio Comparison Tool )
Franco

[Rick M]

del

[Franco Darioli]

Thanks Rick
Kind of mixed results there (lots of colour fringing in the BW resolution shots but much better in colour)
The one I had seen was this :
http://www.digitalversus.com/digital-camera/face-off/12688.html

UW shots.
Just amazing…
I used to sell Nikonos stuff.
Heavy and expensive and you never knew if you captured anything at all…
Franco

[Eric Blumensaadt]

Amazon is now shipping my Olympus TG-1 iHS camera and accessories kit (not lens adaptor or lens – yet). YIPPIE!

FINALLY, after years of waiting and watching the technology improve, a backpacking camera worthy of the cash layout.

[Rick M]

del

[Franco Darioli]

The F2 is only available at 25mm, that is at the widest setting.
Like most compact cameras as soon as you zoom, even a litle bit, the apertures drops.
So the widest aperture available is F2 at 25mm slowing down to a max of F4.9 at 100mm
As a comparison the Canon S110 is F2 at 24mm but F5.9 at 120mm

[Rick M]

del

[Franco Darioli]

That would be a good indication that either the lens is not that good at F2 or simply the programmers are opting for a slightly greater depth of field to avoid out of focus images.
You will find that many compacts have a bias (on auto) towards or away from a particular aperture

I just had a look at a night time street shot taken with the Canon S110 at the widest setting on auto, the aperture was 3.5
this shot :

[Author]

Posts