Leica M Typ 262 vs Olympus TG-4
The Leica M (Typ 262) and the Olympus Tough TG-4 are two digital cameras that were officially introduced, respectively, in November 2015 and April 2015. The M Typ 262 is a rangefinder-focusing mirrorless camera, while the TG-4 is a fixed lens compact. The cameras are based on a full frame (M Typ 262) and a 1/2.3-inch (TG-4) sensor. The Leica has a resolution of 23.7 megapixels, whereas the Olympus provides 15.9 MP.
Below is an overview of the main specs of the two cameras as a starting point for the comparison.
Going beyond this snapshot of core features and characteristics, what are the differences between the Leica M (Typ 262) and the Olympus Tough TG-4? Which one should you buy? Read on to find out how these two cameras compare with respect to their body size, their imaging sensors, their shooting features, their input-output connections, and their reception by expert reviewers.
Body comparison
The side-by-side display below illustrates the physical size and weight of the Leica M Typ 262 and the Olympus TG-4. The two cameras are presented according to their relative size. Three successive views from the front, the top, and the rear are shown. All size dimensions are rounded to the nearest millimeter.
The M Typ 262 can be obtained in two different colors (black, silver), while the TG-4 is also available in two color-versions, but different ones (black, red).
If the front view area (width x height) of the cameras is taken as an aggregate measure of their size, the Olympus TG-4 is considerably smaller (34 percent) than the Leica M Typ 262. In this context, it is worth noting that both cameras are splash and dust-proof and can, hence, be used in inclement weather conditions or harsh environments. More than that, the TG-4 is water-proof up to 15m and can, thus, be used for underwater photography.
The above size and weight comparisons are to some extent incomplete and possibly misleading, as the TG-4 has a lens built in, whereas the M Typ 262 is an interchangeable lens camera that requires a separate lens. Attaching the latter will add extra weight and bulk to the setup. You can compare the optics available for the M Typ 262 and their specifications in the Leica M Lens Catalog.
Concerning battery life, the M Typ 262 gets 400 shots out of its Leica BP-SCL2 battery, while the TG-4 can take 380 images on a single charge of its Olympus LI-92B power pack. The power pack in the TG-4 can be charged via the USB port, which can be very convenient when travelling.
The following table provides a synthesis of the main physical specifications of the two cameras and other similar ones. In case you want to display and compare another camera duo, you can use the CAM-parator app to select your camera combination among a large number of options.
# | Camera Model |
Camera Width |
Camera Height |
Camera Depth |
Camera Weight |
Battery Life |
Weather Sealing |
Camera Launch |
Launch Price (USD) |
Street Price |
|
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1. | Leica M Typ 262 | 139 mm | 80 mm | 42 mm | 680 g | 400 | Y | Nov 2015 | 5,195 | ebay.com | |
2. | Olympus TG-4 | 112 mm | 66 mm | 31 mm | 247 g | 380 | Y | Apr 2015 | 379 | ebay.com | |
3. | Canon 1D X Mark II | 158 mm | 168 mm | 83 mm | 1530 g | 1210 | Y | Feb 2016 | 5,999 | ebay.com | |
4. | Canon 80D | 139 mm | 105 mm | 79 mm | 730 g | 960 | Y | Feb 2016 | 1,199 | ebay.com | |
5. | Canon G3 X | 123 mm | 77 mm | 105 mm | 733 g | 300 | Y | Jun 2015 | 999 | ebay.com | |
6. | Fujifilm XP130 | 110 mm | 71 mm | 28 mm | 207 g | 240 | Y | Jan 2018 | 229 | ebay.com | |
7. | Leica M-E Typ 240 | 139 mm | 80 mm | 42 mm | 680 g | 500 | Y | Jun 2019 | 3,999 | ebay.com | |
8. | Leica M10-P | 139 mm | 80 mm | 39 mm | 660 g | 210 | Y | Aug 2018 | 7,995 | ebay.com | |
9. | Leica M10 | 139 mm | 80 mm | 39 mm | 660 g | 210 | Y | Jan 2017 | 6,595 | ebay.com | |
10. | Leica Q Typ 116 | 130 mm | 80 mm | 93 mm | 640 g | 300 | n | Jun 2015 | 4,249 | ebay.com | |
11. | Leica SL | 147 mm | 104 mm | 39 mm | 847 g | 400 | Y | Oct 2015 | 7,450 | ebay.com | |
12. | Leica M Typ 240 | 139 mm | 80 mm | 42 mm | 680 g | 500 | Y | Sep 2012 | 6,950 | ebay.com | |
13. | Nikon W300 | 112 mm | 66 mm | 29 mm | 231 g | 280 | Y | May 2017 | 389 | ebay.com | |
14. | Nikon D7200 | 136 mm | 107 mm | 76 mm | 765 g | 1110 | Y | Mar 2015 | 1,199 | ebay.com | |
15. | Olympus TG-6 | 113 mm | 66 mm | 32 mm | 253 g | 340 | Y | May 2019 | 449 | ebay.com | |
16. | Olympus TG-5 | 113 mm | 66 mm | 32 mm | 250 g | 340 | Y | May 2017 | 449 | ebay.com | |
17. | Olympus E-M5 II | 124 mm | 85 mm | 45 mm | 469 g | 310 | Y | Feb 2015 | 1,099 | ebay.com | |
Note: Measurements and pricing do not include easily detachable parts, such as add-on or interchangeable lenses or optional viewfinders. | |||||||||||
The price is, of course, an important factor in any camera decision. The manufacturer’s suggested retail prices give an idea on the placement of the camera in the maker’s lineup and the broader market. The TG-4 was launched at a lower price than the M Typ 262, despite having a lens built in. Usually, retail prices stay at first close to the launch price, but after several months, discounts become available. Later in the product cycle and, in particular, when the replacement model is about to appear, further discounting and stock clearance sales often push the camera price considerably down.
Sensor comparison
The imaging sensor is at the core of digital cameras and its size is one of the main determining factors of image quality. All other things equal, a large sensor will have larger individual pixel-units that offer better low-light sensitivity, wider dynamic range, and richer color-depth than smaller pixels in a sensor of the same technological generation. Further, a large sensor camera will give the photographer additional creative options when using shallow depth-of-field to isolate a subject from its background. On the downside, larger sensors tend to be more expensive and lead to bigger and heavier cameras and lenses.
Of the two cameras under consideration, the Leica M Typ 262 features a full frame sensor and the Olympus TG-4 a 1/2.3-inch sensor. The sensor area in the TG-4 is 97 percent smaller. As a result of these sensor size differences, the cameras have a format factor of, respectively, 1.0 and 5.6. The sensor in the M Typ 262 has a native 3:2 aspect ratio, while the one in the TG-4 offers a 4:3 aspect.
With 23.7MP, the M Typ 262 offers a higher resolution than the TG-4 (15.9MP), but the M Typ 262 nevertheless has larger individual pixels (pixel pitch of 6.01μm versus 1.33μm for the TG-4) due to its larger sensor. Moreover, the M Typ 262 is a somewhat more recent model (by 7 months) than the TG-4, and its sensor might have benefitted from technological advances during this time that further enhance the light gathering capacity of its pixels. Coming back to sensor resolution, it should be mentioned that the M Typ 262 has no anti-alias filter installed, so that it can capture all the detail its sensor resolves.
The resolution advantage of the Leica M Typ 262 implies greater flexibility for cropping images or the possibility to print larger pictures. The maximum print size of the M Typ 262 for good quality output (200 dots per inch) amounts to 29.8 x 19.9 inches or 75.6 x 50.5 cm, for very good quality (250 dpi) 23.8 x 15.9 inches or 60.5 x 40.4 cm, and for excellent quality (300 dpi) 19.8 x 13.3 inches or 50.4 x 33.7 cm. The corresponding values for the Olympus TG-4 are 23 x 17.3 inches or 58.5 x 43.9 cm for good quality, 18.4 x 13.8 inches or 46.8 x 35.1 cm for very good quality, and 15.4 x 11.5 inches or 39 x 29.3 cm for excellent quality prints.
The Leica M (Typ 262) has a native sensitivity range from ISO 200 to ISO 6400, which can be extended to ISO 100-6400. The corresponding ISO settings for the Olympus Tough TG-4 are ISO 100 to ISO 6400 (no boost).
In terms of underlying technology, the M Typ 262 is build around a CMOS sensor, while the TG-4 uses a BSI-CMOS imager. Both cameras use a Bayer filter for capturing RGB colors on a square grid of photosensors. This arrangement is found in most digital cameras.
For many cameras, data on sensor performance has been reported by DXO Mark. This service assesses and scores the color depth ("DXO Portrait"), dynamic range ("DXO Landscape"), and low-light sensitivity ("DXO Sports") of camera sensors, and also publishes an overall camera score. The following table provides an overview of the physical sensor characteristics, as well as the sensor quality measurements for a selection of comparators.
# | Camera Model |
Sensor Class |
Resolution (MP) |
Horiz. Pixels |
Vert. Pixels |
Video Format |
DXO Portrait |
DXO Landscape |
DXO Sports |
DXO Overall |
|
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1. | Leica M Typ 262 | Full Frame | 23.7 | 5952 | 3976 | none | 24.8 | 13.7 | 2478 | 90 | |
2. | Olympus TG-4 | 1/2.3 | 15.9 | 4608 | 3456 | 1080/30p | 20.2 | 11.6 | 737 | 47 | |
3. | Canon 1D X Mark II | Full Frame | 20.0 | 5472 | 3648 | 4K/60p | 24.1 | 13.5 | 3207 | 88 | |
4. | Canon 80D | APS-C | 24.0 | 6000 | 4000 | 1080/60p | 23.6 | 13.2 | 1135 | 79 | |
5. | Canon G3 X | 1-inch | 20.0 | 5472 | 3648 | 1080/60p | 21.4 | 12.3 | 521 | 63 | |
6. | Fujifilm XP130 | 1/2.3 | 15.9 | 4608 | 3456 | 1080/60p | 20.6 | 12.1 | 1000 | 51 | |
7. | Leica M-E Typ 240 | Full Frame | 23.7 | 5952 | 3976 | 1080/25p | 25.2 | 14.2 | 2821 | 94 | |
8. | Leica M10-P | Full Frame | 23.8 | 5952 | 3992 | none | 25.1 | 14.1 | 2739 | 93 | |
9. | Leica M10 | Full Frame | 23.8 | 5952 | 3992 | none | 24.4 | 13.2 | 2133 | 86 | |
10. | Leica Q Typ 116 | Full Frame | 24.0 | 6000 | 4000 | 1080/60p | 24.3 | 12.7 | 2221 | 85 | |
11. | Leica SL | Full Frame | 24.0 | 6000 | 4000 | 4K/30p | 25.0 | 13.4 | 1821 | 88 | |
12. | Leica M Typ 240 | Full Frame | 23.7 | 5952 | 3976 | 1080/25p | 24.0 | 13.3 | 1860 | 84 | |
13. | Nikon W300 | 1/2.3 | 15.9 | 4608 | 3456 | 4K/30p | 20.5 | 12.0 | 938 | 50 | |
14. | Nikon D7200 | APS-C | 24.0 | 6000 | 4000 | 1080/60p | 24.5 | 14.6 | 1333 | 87 | |
15. | Olympus TG-6 | 1/2.3 | 12.0 | 4000 | 3000 | 4K/30p | 20.7 | 12.2 | 1127 | 52 | |
16. | Olympus TG-5 | 1/2.3 | 12.0 | 4000 | 3000 | 4K/30p | 20.5 | 11.9 | 934 | 50 | |
17. | Olympus E-M5 II | Four Thirds | 15.9 | 4608 | 3456 | 1080/60p | 23.0 | 12.5 | 842 | 73 | |
Note: DXO values in italics represent estimates based on sensor size and age. |
Many modern cameras cannot only take still pictures, but also record videos. The TG-4 indeed provides for movie recording, while the M Typ 262 does not. The highest resolution format that the TG-4 can use is 1080/30p.
Feature comparison
Apart from body and sensor, cameras can and do differ across a range of features. For example, the M Typ 262 has an optical viewfinder, which can be very useful when shooting in bright sunlight. In contrast, the TG-4 relies on live view and the rear LCD for framing. The table below summarizes some of the other core capabilities of the Leica M Typ 262 and Olympus TG-4 in connection with corresponding information for a sample of similar cameras.
# | Camera Model |
Viewfinder (Type or 000 dots) |
Control Panel (yes/no) |
LCD Specifications (inch/000 dots) |
LCD Attach- ment |
Touch Screen (yes/no) |
Max Shutter Speed * |
Max Shutter Flaps * |
Built-in Flash (yes/no) |
Built-in Image Stab |
|
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1. | Leica M Typ 262 | optical | n | 3.0 / 921 | fixed | n | 1/4000s | 3.0/s | n | n | |
2. | Olympus TG-4 | none | n | 3.0 / 460 | fixed | n | 1/2000s | 5.0/s | Y | Y | |
3. | Canon 1D X Mark II | optical | Y | 3.2 / 1620 | fixed | Y | 1/8000s | 16.0/s | n | n | |
4. | Canon 80D | optical | Y | 3.0 / 1040 | swivel | Y | 1/8000s | 7.0/s | Y | n | |
5. | Canon G3 X | optional | n | 3.2 / 1620 | tilting | Y | 1/2000s | 5.9/s | Y | Y | |
6. | Fujifilm XP130 | none | n | 3.0 / 920 | fixed | n | 1/2000s | 10.0/s | Y | Y | |
7. | Leica M-E Typ 240 | optical | n | 3.0 / 920 | fixed | n | 1/4000s | 3.0/s | n | n | |
8. | Leica M10-P | optical | n | 3.0 / 1037 | fixed | Y | 1/4000s | 5.0/s | n | n | |
9. | Leica M10 | optical | n | 3.0 / 1037 | fixed | n | 1/4000s | 5.0/s | n | n | |
10. | Leica Q Typ 116 | 3680 | n | 3.0 / 1040 | fixed | Y | 1/2000s | 10.0/s | n | Y | |
11. | Leica SL | 4400 | Y | 3.0 / 1040 | fixed | Y | 1/8000s | 11.0/s | n | n | |
12. | Leica M Typ 240 | optical | n | 3.0 / 920 | fixed | n | 1/4000s | 3.0/s | n | n | |
13. | Nikon W300 | none | n | 3.0 / 921 | fixed | n | 1/4000s | 7.0/s | Y | Y | |
14. | Nikon D7200 | optical | Y | 3.2 / 1229 | fixed | n | 1/8000s | 6.0/s | Y | n | |
15. | Olympus TG-6 | none | n | 3.0 / 1040 | fixed | n | 1/2000s | 20.0/s | Y | Y | |
16. | Olympus TG-5 | none | n | 3.0 / 460 | fixed | n | 1/2000s | 20.0/s | Y | Y | |
17. | Olympus E-M5 II | 2360 | n | 3.0 / 1037 | swivel | Y | 1/8000s | 10.0/s | n | Y | |
Note: *) Information refers to the mechanical shutter, unless the camera only has an electronic one. |
One difference between the cameras concerns the presence of an on-board flash. The TG-4 has one, while the M Typ 262 does not. While the built-in flash of the TG-4 is not very powerful, it can at times be useful as a fill-in light.
The Olympus TG-4 has an intervalometer built-in. This enables the photographer to capture time lapse sequences, such as flower blooming, a sunset or moon rise, without purchasing an external camera trigger and related software.
Concerning the storage of imaging data, both the M Typ 262 and the TG-4 write their files to SDXC cards. Both cameras can use UHS-I cards, which provide for Ultra High Speed data transfer of up to 104 MB/s.
Connectivity comparison
For some imaging applications, the extent to which a camera can communicate with its environment can be an important aspect in the camera decision process. The table below provides an overview of the connectivity of the Leica M (Typ 262) and Olympus Tough TG-4 and, in particular, the interfaces the cameras (and selected comparators) provide for accessory control and data transfer.
# | Camera Model |
Hotshoe Port |
Internal Mic / Speaker |
Microphone Port |
Headphone Port |
HDMI Port |
USB Port |
WiFi Support |
NFC Support |
Bluetooth Support |
|
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1. | Leica M Typ 262 | Y | - / - | - | - | - | 2.0 | - | - | - | |
2. | Olympus TG-4 | - | stereo / mono | - | - | micro | 2.0 | Y | - | - | |
3. | Canon 1D X Mark II | Y | mono / mono | Y | Y | mini | 3.0 | - | - | - | |
4. | Canon 80D | Y | stereo / mono | Y | Y | mini | 2.0 | Y | Y | - | |
5. | Canon G3 X | Y | stereo / mono | Y | Y | mini | 2.0 | Y | Y | - | |
6. | Fujifilm XP130 | - | mono / mono | - | - | micro | 2.0 | Y | - | Y | |
7. | Leica M-E Typ 240 | Y | mono / - | - | - | - | 2.0 | - | - | - | |
8. | Leica M10-P | Y | - / - | - | - | - | - | Y | - | - | |
9. | Leica M10 | Y | - / - | - | - | - | - | Y | - | - | |
10. | Leica Q Typ 116 | Y | stereo / mono | - | - | micro | 2.0 | Y | Y | - | |
11. | Leica SL | Y | stereo / mono | Y | Y | full | 3.0 | Y | - | - | |
12. | Leica M Typ 240 | Y | stereo / mono | - | - | - | 2.0 | - | - | - | |
13. | Nikon W300 | - | stereo / mono | - | - | micro | 2.0 | Y | - | Y | |
14. | Nikon D7200 | Y | stereo / mono | Y | Y | mini | 2.0 | Y | Y | - | |
15. | Olympus TG-6 | - | stereo / mono | - | - | micro | 2.0 | Y | - | - | |
16. | Olympus TG-5 | - | stereo / mono | - | - | micro | 2.0 | Y | - | - | |
17. | Olympus E-M5 II | Y | stereo / mono | Y | - | micro | 2.0 | Y | - | - |
It is notable that the M Typ 262 has a hotshoe, while the TG-4 does not. This socket makes it possible to easily attach optional accessories, such as an external flash gun.
Travel and landscape photographers will find it useful that the TG-4 has an internal geolocalization sensor and can record GPS coordinates in its EXIF data.
Both the M Typ 262 and the TG-4 have been discontinued, but can regularly be found used on ebay. The TG-4 was replaced by the Olympus TG-5, while the M Typ 262 was followed by the Leica M10. Further information on the features and operation of the M Typ 262 and TG-4 can be found, respectively, in the Leica M Typ 262 Manual (free pdf) or the online Olympus TG-4 Manual.
Review summary
So what conclusions can be drawn? Is the Leica M Typ 262 better than the Olympus TG-4 or vice versa? The listing below highlights the relative strengths of the two models.
Advantages of the Leica M (Typ 262):
- More detail: Offers more megapixels (23.7 vs 15.9MP) with a 24% higher linear resolution.
- Maximized detail: Lacks an anti-alias filter to exploit the sensor's full resolution potential.
- Better image quality: Features a larger and more technologically advanced imaging sensor.
- Richer colors: The sensor size advantage translates into images with better, more accurate colors.
- More dynamic range: Larger sensor captures a wider spectrum of light and dark details.
- Better low-light sensitivity: Larger sensor produces good images even in poorly lit environments.
- Easier framing: Has an optical viewfinder for image composition and settings control.
- More detailed LCD: Has a higher resolution rear screen (921k vs 460k dots).
- Faster shutter: Has higher mechanical shutter speed (1/4000s vs 1/2000s) to freeze action.
- More flexible: Accepts interchangeable lenses, so that lens characteristics can be altered.
- Better lighting: Features a hotshoe and can thus hold and trigger an external flash gun.
- More prestigious: Has the Leica luxury appeal, which ensures a high resale price.
- More modern: Is somewhat more recent (announced 7 months after the TG-4).
Reasons to prefer the Olympus Tough TG-4:
- Better moiré control: Has an anti-alias filter to avoid artificial patterns to appear in images.
- Broader imaging potential: Can capture not only stills but also 1080/30p video.
- Faster burst: Shoots at higher frequency (5 vs 3 flaps/sec) to capture the decisive moment.
- Easier time-lapse photography: Has an intervalometer built-in for low frequency shooting.
- Ready to shoot: Has an integrated lens, whereas the M Typ 262 necessitates an extra lens.
- More compact: Is smaller (112x66mm vs 139x80mm) and will fit more readily into a bag.
- Less heavy: Has a lower weight even though it has a lens built in (unlike the M Typ 262).
- Easier travel charging: Can be conveniently charged via its USB port.
- Sharper images: Has stabilization technology built-in to reduce the impact of hand-shake.
- Water-proof: Is rugged and sealed and can thus be used for underwater photography (up to 15m).
- Easier fill-in: Has a small integrated flash to brighten shadows of backlit subjects.
- Easier geotagging: Features an internal GPS sensor to log localization data.
- Easier file upload: Has wifi built in for automatic backup or image transfer to the web.
- More affordable: Was introduced at a lower price, despite coming with a built-in lens.
- More heavily discounted: Has been on the market for longer (launched in April 2015).
If the number of relative strengths (bullet points above) is taken as a guide, the TG-4 emerges as the winner of the match-up (15 : 13 points). However, the relative importance of the various individual camera aspects will vary according to personal preferences and needs, so that you might like to apply corresponding weights to the particular features before making a decision on a new camera. A professional wedding photographer will view the differences between cameras in a way that diverges from the perspective of a travel photog, and a person interested in cityscapes has distinct needs from a macro shooter. Hence, the decision which camera is best and worth buying is often a very personal one.
In any case, while the comparison of technical specifications can provide a useful overview of the capabilities of different cameras, it remains incomplete and does no justice, for example, to the way the M Typ 262 or the TG-4 perform in practice. User reviews, such as those found at amazon, can sometimes inform about these issues, but such feedback is often incomplete, inconsistent, and biased.
Expert reviews
This is why hands-on reviews by experts are important. The following table reports the overall ratings of the cameras as published by some of the major camera review sites (amateurphotographer [AP], cameralabs [CL], digitalcameraworld [DCW], dpreview [DPR], ephotozine [EPZ], photographyblog [PB]). As can be seen, the professional reviewers agree in many cases on the quality of different cameras, but sometimes their assessments diverge, reinforcing the earlier point that a camera decision is often a very personal choice.
# | Camera Model |
AP score |
CL score |
DCW score |
DPR score |
EPZ score |
PB score |
Camera Launch |
Launch Price (USD) |
Street Price |
|
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1. | Leica M Typ 262 | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | Nov 2015 | 5,195 | ebay.com | |
2. | Olympus TG-4 | .. | + | .. | 79/100 | 4/5 | 4/5 | Apr 2015 | 379 | ebay.com | |
3. | Canon 1D X Mark II | .. | .. | 4.5/5 | 89/100 | 4.5/5 | 4.5/5 | Feb 2016 | 5,999 | ebay.com | |
4. | Canon 80D | 4/5 | + + | 4.5/5 | 84/100 | 4.5/5 | 4.5/5 | Feb 2016 | 1,199 | ebay.com | |
5. | Canon G3 X | 3.5/5 | + | .. | .. | 4.5/5 | 4/5 | Jun 2015 | 999 | ebay.com | |
6. | Fujifilm XP130 | .. | o | .. | .. | 3.5/5 | 4/5 | Jan 2018 | 229 | ebay.com | |
7. | Leica M-E Typ 240 | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | Jun 2019 | 3,999 | ebay.com | |
8. | Leica M10-P | .. | .. | 3/5 | .. | .. | 4/5 | Aug 2018 | 7,995 | ebay.com | |
9. | Leica M10 | 4.5/5 | .. | .. | .. | 4/5 | 4.5/5 | Jan 2017 | 6,595 | ebay.com | |
10. | Leica Q Typ 116 | 5/5 | .. | .. | 80/100 | 4.5/5 | 4.5/5 | Jun 2015 | 4,249 | ebay.com | |
11. | Leica SL | 4/5 | .. | 4/5 | 84/100 | 4.5/5 | 4/5 | Oct 2015 | 7,450 | ebay.com | |
12. | Leica M Typ 240 | 4/5 | .. | .. | .. | 4/5 | .. | Sep 2012 | 6,950 | ebay.com | |
13. | Nikon W300 | .. | + | .. | .. | 4/5 | 4/5 | May 2017 | 389 | ebay.com | |
14. | Nikon D7200 | 4/5 | + + | .. | 84/100 | 4.5/5 | 4.5/5 | Mar 2015 | 1,199 | ebay.com | |
15. | Olympus TG-6 | 4/5 | + + | 4.5/5 | 76/100 | 4/5 | 4/5 | May 2019 | 449 | ebay.com | |
16. | Olympus TG-5 | .. | + + | 4.5/5 | .. | 4/5 | 4/5 | May 2017 | 449 | ebay.com | |
17. | Olympus E-M5 II | 5/5 | + + | 4.5/5 | 81/100 | 5/5 | 5/5 | Feb 2015 | 1,099 | ebay.com | |
Note: (+ +) highly recommended; (+) recommended; (o) reviewed; (..) not available. |
The above review scores should be interpreted with care, though. The ratings are only valid when referring to cameras in the same category and of the same age. A score, therefore, has to be seen in close connection to the price and market introduction time of the camera, and comparisons of ratings among very different cameras or across long time periods have little meaning. It should also be noted that some of the review sites have over time altered the way they render their verdicts.
Other camera comparisons
Did this review help to inform your camera decision process? If you would like to see a different side-by-side camera review, just use the search menu below. There is also a set of direct links to comparison reviews that other users of the CAM-parator app explored.
- Canon 1D C vs Olympus TG-4
- Canon 70D vs Leica M Typ 262
- Canon Rebel vs Olympus TG-4
- Canon SX540 vs Leica M Typ 262
- Fujifilm X-E3 vs Olympus TG-4
- Fujifilm X-Pro1 vs Olympus TG-4
- Fujifilm X-S10 vs Leica M Typ 262
- Hasselblad X1D vs Olympus TG-4
- Leica M Typ 262 vs Leica T
- Leica M Typ 262 vs Olympus E-M1
- Leica M Typ 262 vs Olympus E-PM2
- Leica M8 vs Olympus TG-4
Specifications: Leica M Typ 262 vs Olympus TG-4
Below is a side-by-side comparison of the specs of the two cameras to facilitate a quick review of their differences and common features.
Camera Model | Leica M Typ 262 | Olympus TG-4 |
---|---|---|
Camera Type | Rangefinder camera | Fixed lens compact camera |
Camera Lens | Leica M mount lenses | 25-100mm f/2.0-4.9 |
Launch Date | November 2015 | April 2015 |
Launch Price | USD 5,195 | USD 379 |
Sensor Specs | Leica M Typ 262 | Olympus TG-4 |
Sensor Technology | CMOS | BSI-CMOS |
Sensor Format | Full Frame Sensor | 1/2.3" Sensor |
Sensor Size | 35.8 x 23.9 mm | 6.17 x 4.55 mm |
Sensor Area | 855.62 mm2 | 28.0735 mm2 |
Sensor Diagonal | 43 mm | 7.7 mm |
Crop Factor | 1.0x | 5.6x |
Sensor Resolution | 23.7 Megapixels | 15.9 Megapixels |
Image Resolution | 5952 x 3976 pixels | 4608 x 3456 pixels |
Pixel Pitch | 6.01 μm | 1.33 μm |
Pixel Density | 2.77 MP/cm2 | 56.73 MP/cm2 |
Moiré control | no AA filter | Anti-Alias filter |
Movie Capability | no Video | 1080/30p Video |
ISO Setting | 200 - 6,400 ISO | 100 - 6,400 ISO |
ISO Boost | 100 - 6,400 ISO | no Enhancement |
Image Processor | Maestro | TruePic VII |
Screen Specs | Leica M Typ 262 | Olympus TG-4 |
Viewfinder Type | Optical viewfinder | no viewfinder |
Viewfinder Field of View | 100% | |
Viewfinder Magnification | 0.68x | |
LCD Framing | Live View | |
Rear LCD Size | 3.0inch | 3.0inch |
LCD Resolution | 921k dots | 460k dots |
LCD Attachment | Fixed screen | Fixed screen |
Shooting Specs | Leica M Typ 262 | Olympus TG-4 |
Focus System | Manual Focus | Contrast-detect AF |
Manual Focusing Aid | Focus Peaking | no Peaking Feature |
Continuous Shooting | 3 shutter flaps/s | 5 shutter flaps/s |
Time-Lapse Photography | no Intervalometer | Intervalometer built-in |
Image Stabilization | no shake reduction | In-body stabilization |
Fill Flash | no On-Board Flash | Built-in Flash |
Storage Medium | SDXC cards | SDXC cards |
Single or Dual Card Slots | Single card slot | Single card slot |
UHS card support | UHS-I | UHS-I |
Connectivity Specs | Leica M Typ 262 | Olympus TG-4 |
External Flash | Hotshoe | no Hotshoe |
USB Connector | USB 2.0 | USB 2.0 |
HDMI Port | no HDMI | micro HDMI |
Wifi Support | no Wifi | Wifi built-in |
Geotagging | no internal GPS | GPS built-in |
Body Specs | Leica M Typ 262 | Olympus TG-4 |
Environmental Sealing | Weathersealed body | Waterproof body (15m) |
Battery Type | Leica BP-SCL2 | Olympus LI-92B |
Battery Life (CIPA) | 400 shots per charge | 380 shots per charge |
In-Camera Charging | no USB charging | USB charging |
Body Dimensions |
139 x 80 x 42 mm (5.5 x 3.1 x 1.7 in) |
112 x 66 x 31 mm (4.4 x 2.6 x 1.2 in) |
Camera Weight | 680 g (24.0 oz) | 247 g (8.7 oz) |
Did you notice an error on this page? If so, please get in touch, so that we can correct the information.