Better Pics, Less MegaPixels?!?

ZombieCake

Well-known member
Olympus have announced a new tough camera to replace the TG-4, the TG-5, just as I was about to get a TG-4.  Most interestingly they've replaced the 16MP sensor with a 12MP one.  Supposed to be better in low light with an extended ISO range.  I was soooo close to buying a TG-4 when I saw the blurb for this one.  At current prices the TG-5 is ?100 more (?399 vs ?299, give or take).  So an interesting dilemma.  The lower megapixel count is not as bad as it seems:  I've a few 12 MP cameras and they do take nice pics.  For example the Leica D-Lux 109 (PanasinicLX100) is pretty good in low light and has an interesting 16MP sensor that only gives 12MP images as it has a physical aspect ratio switch (1:1, 16:9, 4:3, 3:2) to preserve 12MP at the different aspects.  Can just about at times get away with 3200 or 6400 ISO.  https://uk.leica-camera.com/Photography/Compact-Cameras/Leica-D-Lux-Typ-109  Similarly the Pentax MX-1 at also 12MP takes a nice photo up to about 1600 ISO. https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/pentax-mx-1 (and seems to share Olympus DNA (or the other way around). Not unusual lots of manufacturers make parts for each other's devices)  Problem is that neither are weather sealed.  I solved the problem of the MX-1 making fizzing noises after it got damp by putting silica gel sachets in the battery compartment and leaving in a warmish place for a few days...  :eek: 
Sony do a 12MP camera for about ?2500 rrp (which I don't have)  https://www.sony.co.uk/electronics/interchangeable-lens-cameras/ilce-7sm2 but can push to a much higher ISO than the TG-5 and has a full frame sensor to boot so would be better at seriously low light.  They also knock out 42MP toys.  I guess the larger pixels equal less noise at higher ISO ratings. Unfortunately I don't have the cash for that or fast glass to affix on it, and is kind of missing the point of a compact.
So 16MP will give a better theoretical larger printed image, but 12 MP could perhaps give a better quality one in the conditions it's likely to be used in.  Piccies from Old Ruminator and others do show the ace quality of the current TG-4, and some gadgets on new toys are less likely to be used (e.g. 4k video for me).  Fewer MP's on a  smaller sensor seems a good idea as they'll be larger and so less noisy, but either way pushing to 12800 ISO is probably better for marketing rubbish than image quality.
So what to do TG-4 or TG-5 ??!!?? And then either a black one or a red one! Or are there other super tough cameras I've missed?
 

mudman

Member
To tell the truth I haven't a clue. I would probably wait for some comparative reviews to come out.
I can give my view on the colour problem though. I have the black TG-4 and if it hadn't been for the red wrist strap them I would never have found it a couple of times when I dropped it into streamways. So go for the red one. You're more likely to find it if you drop it.
 

reforma

Member
Mega Pixels only really determines the size you can blow the image up and if you have clever software its even less important. In my opinion its a useless measurement and because its something that camera manufacturers can easily improve they have made it super important in their marketing.

ISO, aperture, auto focus  all much more important 
 

ILT

Member
I don't profess to understand all of these things but marketing created the megapixel envy that has been prevalent for the past ten years or so.
I use an Olympus TG4 sometimes - usually if I'm somewhere where I believe the risk of me dropping the camera is high.
Normally I use two dSLRs - they both have the same megapixel count (about 20 from memory...but it wasn't a consideration) but the sensor size is different. There are plus an minus points for each body but the features of each are almost identical.
The one with the larger sensor gives consistently better results when there is low light (and about half my photography is in the dark).

Same photographer, equivalent focal length lenses (mostly) and same megapixels.

My conclusion - big megapixels are better than small megapixels!

Theoretical size that an image can be enlarged to...no idea as I print at 18x12 and even my old five megapixel minolta compact produced reasonable prints up to that

As for which of the two Olympus models to go for...no idea. I've seen excellent photos from the TG4 (not my photos!) and I long ago decided that early adoption of new camera models just leads to an empty bank account.

One thing I don't like about the TG4 is that the lens surround falls off regularly. Maybe my example or maybe all. Easy enough to fix with a bit of gaffer tape
 

Duncan S

New member
ILT said:
One thing I don't like about the TG4 is that the lens surround falls off regularly. Maybe my example or maybe all. Easy enough to fix with a bit of gaffer tape
Check the lines on the body and ring are lining up...
There is an extremely firm click needed to 'lock' the ring in place, much firmer than you might expect.
 

Duncan S

New member
I reckon anything over 8mp is good enough for reliably producing A3 prints.

My first digital camera had 4mp and one of those pics was printed at A3 and used as the centre image in my LRPS panel - it looked great!
Admittedly to get a decent A3 print there was no room for rotating or cropping without reducing the quality, but 4mp was plenty good enough!

I have a TG4 and it is a great little camera, but the sensor is very much from the previous generation.
The TG5 sensor should be far more sensitive due to larger photobuckets (less mp) and back lit (less noise), and probably a few other improvements too. The specs say it is usable up to ISO 12800 and it will be interesting to see how usable this is.
It is possible the TG5 will suit the caving community extremely well!
 

ILT

Member
Duncan S said:
Check the lines on the body and ring are lining up...
There is an extremely firm click needed to 'lock' the ring in place, much firmer than you might expect.

I wouldn't describe it as 'extremely firm'. On mine it's a fairly dull kind of a click and it easily de-locates.

As I said, "Maybe my example".
 

TheBitterEnd

Well-known member
It?s to do with the size of each photosite (often referred to as a pixel). The bigger the photosite the more photos it receives and so less  amplification is needed to produce the desired output level (i.e. ISO equivalent). Increasing the amplification increases the noise so from a low-light noise point-of-view larger photosites are a good thing. This can be achieved in one of two ways, a larger sensor or fewer, larger photosites ( = fewer mega-pixels). Couple that with the fact that with each generation of sensor the noise levels tend to be reduced and the newer version should be better.

BTW it?s got to be Red :)
 

ZombieCake

Well-known member
An 1080p HD TV is only around 2.1 mega pixels, so that perhaps sheds an interesting perspective on the megapixel issue if that's what you view things on.  Must admit I tend to shoot at highest resolution / quality possible, and I'm rather lazy when it comes to RAW as I'd rather get it right in camera (and it's not often but no means non-existent I have had some slight regrets on that philosophy  :-\  There again I still shoot film (this week's fave camera is an Olympus 35 RC rangefinder  http://www.kenrockwell.com/olympus/35rc.htm for review and Leica comparison) so am used to things not developing quite how I imagined!).
Anyway talking about A3 prints and a slight aside I've recently got a Canon Pixma Pro 100s A3+ printer and am mightily impressed by the results.  I quite like the fact that it has additional grey inks for mono work.
 

ZombieCake

Well-known member
Has anyone used the 'microscope' mode on a TG-4 or the extreme macro mode on a Ricoh (Pentax) compact, or something else?  Reason for asking is that I take a lot of photos of certain features in caves that need a sort of relative close up and certain lighting angles to pull out the textures of the rock.  Essentially it's faint engravings and the shadows cast by light in various directions brings them to life.  Typical situation is in one hand the camera and the other a light source (typically a Manfrotto Lumimuse https://www.fujiholics.com/manfrotto-lumimusee-led-lights-review/ , or it's predecessor with constant variable light).  If space permits I'll chuck the camera on a tripod, bit still need the variable light to bring out the textures, suffice to say it's usually quite awkward.  None of my stuff can get close to the claimed 1cm from Olympus /  Ricoh and at that distance I wonder what the illumination and so texture of the rock would be. 
 

Tommy

Active member
Old Ruminator has some shots using the Microscope mode on here somewhere. They look great!
 

The Old Ruminator

Well-known member
I have used the ring flash once or twice. Its not an actual flash for the TG series but reflects the light from the camera flash. For some reason it worked better with the older TG 2 rather than the TG 4. Several of us just use helmet lamps on I Auto where the flash is off. All the TG's seem to have peripheral focus drop off on Macro/ Microscope. Shots will have to be cropped. The usual problem with this type of shot is the tiny depth of field . I Auto may ramp up the ISO but also open up the f stop. Clearly the smaller the aperture the better the  depth of field will be. With me its all about minimum set up so I tend to take photos as I go along. Regarding less pixels as stated you will almost certainly have to crop macro shots so more pixels the better in theory. Ultimately most of my images are saved at less than 1 MB for easier uploading to Photobox or Photobucket. I have just had back my 41st Photobox book. Not all are caving but they keep sending me %50 discounts. I really must desist.
 

Amy

New member
MP means nothing after a certain point. For print to be good you want 300dpi so for standard 8x10 you need 7.4MP

Even 220-250 you wont much see. 300 means you can look super close and see no pixilation.

Your sensor is way more important, as is your lens.
 

Duncan S

New member
I've just picked up a shiny new black TG-5  ;)
Am off to join the Ario Caves Project tomorrow followed by a week in Cantabria, so will be giving the camera a lot of abuse during the next month. By the time I next post I should have a good feel for how much of an improvement the TG-5 is over the TG-4.
I've justified the upgrade as being a little more able to do justice to photos while on expedition, and knowing how much was taken out of me physically and mentally during last year's expedition I may not be looking to carry on in future years. I'm making the best of it while I still can...

Initial impressions are very good.
It feels like an incremental improvement rather than a huge change.
The charging lead is now micro-USB (hooray), there is a lock on the accessory ring (hooray), battery is the same as the TG-4 (hooray).
Biggest difference while playing in the camera shop is the image stabilisation is very effective. We took a set of shots between 1/5 and 1/4 s hand held at arms length with one hand, and they were all pin sharp. Focus is noticeably faster which bodes well for underground use in poor light.
The highest ISO we tested was 1600 which had a hint of grain and text was crisp and clear viewed at pixel level.

Am currently updating Lightroom in the hope I can read the RAW files without waiting till later in the year...

As said - I'm going to be off the internet for most of July and will update this thread when I get back.
 

ZombieCake

Well-known member
I've just picked up a shiny new black TG-5 
Cool! I'm hanging out for a red one (well, until I can't wait any longer...) went to an open day / seminar thing a seek or so ago at a camera shop and the Olympus reps were saying red ones in short supply at present and they'd pretty much sold out of the black ones (so got a 12mm Samyang lens and a couple of Lume Cube lights for my camera fix instead).
Be really interested to see low light performance. ISO 1600 performance sounds good for a sensor that size.  Have fun! 
 
Top