Ur-Leica Contax Camera Comparison
Leica 1600mm Soligor Exif data
A potelyt.com – Photography & Imaging Resources
ad
PW

Olympus E-620 vs TG-4

The Olympus E-620 and the Olympus Tough TG-4 are two digital cameras that were officially introduced, respectively, in February 2009 and April 2015. The E-620 is a DSLR, while the TG-4 is a fixed lens compact. The cameras are based on a Four Thirds (E-620) and a 1/2.3-inch (TG-4) sensor. The E-620 has a resolution of 12.2 megapixels, whereas the TG-4 provides 15.9 MP.

Below is an overview of the main specs of the two cameras as a starting point for the comparison.

Headline Specifications
Olympus E-620 versus Olympus TG-4
Olympus E-620 Olympus TG-4
Digital single lens reflex Fixed lens compact camera
Four Thirds lenses 25-100mm f/2.0-4.9
12.2 MP, Four Thirds Sensor 15.9 MP, 1/2.3" Sensor
no Video 1080/30p Video
ISO 100-3,200 ISO 100-6,400
Optical viewfinder No viewfinder, LCD framing
2.7 LCD, 230k dots 3.0 LCD, 460k dots
Swivel screen (not touch-sensitive) Fixed screen (not touch-sensitive)
4 shutter flaps per second 5 shutter flaps per second
In-body stabilizationIn-body stabilization
not weather sealedWaterproof body (15m)
500 shots per battery charge380 shots per battery charge
130 x 94 x 60 mm, 521 g 112 x 66 x 31 mm, 247 g

Going beyond this snapshot of core features and characteristics, what are the differences between the Olympus E-620 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

An illustration of the physical size and weight of the Olympus E-620 and the Olympus TG-4 is provided in the side-by-side display below. The two cameras are presented according to their relative size. Three consecutive views from the front, the top, and the rear side are shown. All width, height and depth measures are rounded to the nearest millimeter.

The TG-4 can be obtained in two different colors (black, red), while the E-620 is only available in black.

Size Olympus E-620 vs Olympus TG-4
Compare E-620 versus TG-4 top
Comparison E-620 or TG-4 rear

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 (40 percent) than the Olympus E-620. It is noteworthy in this context that the TG-4 is splash and dust-proof, while the E-620 does not feature any corresponding weather-sealing. 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 E-620 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 E-620 and their specifications in the Four Thirds Lens Catalog.

Concerning battery life, the E-620 gets 500 shots out of its BLS-1 battery, while the TG-4 can take 380 images on a single charge of its 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. If you would like to visualize and compare a different camera combination, you can navigate to the CAM-parator app and make your selection from a broad list of cameras there.

scroll hint
Body Specifications
    Camera
Model
Camera
Width
Camera
Height
Camera
Depth
Camera
Weight
Battery
Life
Weather
Sealing
Camera
Launch
Launch
Price (USD)
Street
Price
1.
 
Olympus E-620 130 mm 94 mm 60 mm 521 g 500 n Feb 2009 699i
2.
 
Olympus TG-4 112 mm 66 mm 31 mm 247 g 380 Y Apr 2015 379i
3.
 
Fujifilm XP140 110 mm 71 mm 28 mm 207 g 240 Y Feb 2019 229 i
4.
 
Nikon W300 112 mm 66 mm 29 mm 231 g 280 Y May 2017 389 i
5.
 
Olympus TG-6 113 mm 66 mm 32 mm 253 g 340 Y May 2019 449 i
6.
 
Olympus TG-5 113 mm 66 mm 32 mm 250 g 340 Y May 2017 449i
7.
 
Olympus E-PL1 115 mm 72 mm 42 mm 334 g 290 n Feb 2010 599i
8.
 
Olympus E-450 130 mm 91 mm 53 mm 440 g 500 n Mar 2009 499i
9.
 
Olympus E-600 130 mm 94 mm 60 mm 535 g 500 n Aug 2009 449i
10.
 
Olympus E-P1 121 mm 70 mm 36 mm 355 g 300 n Jun 2009 799i
11.
 
Olympus E-P2 121 mm 70 mm 36 mm 355 g 300 n Nov 2009 799i
12.
 
Olympus E-30 142 mm 108 mm 75 mm 701 g 750 n Nov 2008 1,299i
13.
 
Olympus E-420 130 mm 91 mm 53 mm 440 g 500 n Mar 2008 599i
14.
 
Olympus E-520 136 mm 92 mm 68 mm 535 g 750 n May 2008 699i
15.
 
Olympus E-410 130 mm 91 mm 53 mm 435 g 500 n Mar 2007 699i
16.
 
Olympus E-510 136 mm 92 mm 68 mm 538 g 750 n Mar 2007 799i
17.
 
Sony HX80 102 mm 58 mm 36 mm 245 g 390 n Mar 2016 349 i
Notes: Measurements and pricing do not include easily detachable parts, such as add-on or interchangeable lenses or optional viewfinders.

Any camera decision will naturally be influenced heavily by the price. The listed launch prices provide an indication of the market segment that the manufacturer of the cameras have been targeting. The TG-4 was launched at a lower price than the E-620, despite having a lens built in. Normally, street prices remain initially close to the MSRP, but after a couple of months, the first discounts appear. 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.

ad

Sensor comparison

The size of the imaging sensor is a crucial determinant of image quality. A large sensor will generally have larger individual pixels that offer better low-light sensitivity, provide wider dynamic range, and have richer color-depth than smaller pixels in a sensor of the same technological generation. Furthermore, a large sensor camera will give the photographer more possibilities to use shallow depth-of-field in order to isolate a subject from the background. On the downside, larger sensors tend to be associated with larger, more expensive camera bodies and lenses.

Of the two cameras under consideration, the Olympus E-620 features a Four Thirds sensor and the Olympus TG-4 a 1/2.3-inch sensor. The sensor area in the TG-4 is 88 percent smaller. As a result of these sensor size differences, the cameras have a format factor of, respectively, 2.0 and 5.6. Both cameras feature a native aspect ratio (sensor width to sensor height) of 4:3.

Technology-wise, the TG-4 uses a more advanced image processing engine (TruePic VII) than the E-620 (TruePic III+), with benefits for noise reduction, color accuracy, and processing speed.

Olympus E-620 and Olympus TG-4 sensor measures

Despite having a smaller sensor, the TG-4 offers a higher resolution of 15.9 megapixels, compared with 12.2 MP of the E-620. This megapixels advantage comes at the cost of a higher pixel density and a smaller size of the individual pixel (with a pixel pitch of 1.33μm versus 4.29μm for the E-620). However, it should be noted that the TG-4 is much more recent (by 6 years and 1 month) than the E-620, and its sensor will have benefitted from technological advances during this time that make it possible to gather light more efficiently.

The resolution advantage of the Olympus TG-4 implies greater flexibility for cropping images or the possibility to print larger pictures. The maximum print size of the TG-4 for good quality output (200 dots per inch) amounts to 23 x 17.3 inches or 58.5 x 43.9 cm, for very good quality (250 dpi) 18.4 x 13.8 inches or 46.8 x 35.1 cm, and for excellent quality (300 dpi) 15.4 x 11.5 inches or 39 x 29.3 cm. The corresponding values for the Olympus E-620 are 20.2 x 15.1 inches or 51.2 x 38.4 cm for good quality, 16.1 x 12.1 inches or 41 x 30.7 cm for very good quality, and 13.4 x 10.1 inches or 34.1 x 25.6 cm for excellent quality prints.

The Olympus E-620 has a native sensitivity range from ISO 100 to ISO 3200. The corresponding ISO settings for the Olympus Tough TG-4 are ISO 100 to ISO 6400 (no boost).

E-620 versus TG-4 MP

Consistent information on actual sensor performance is available from DXO Mark for many cameras. This service determines an overall sensor rating, as well as sub-scores for low-light sensitivity ("DXO Sports"), dynamic range ("DXO Landscape"), and color depth ("DXO Portrait"). The adjacent table reports on the physical sensor characteristics and the outcomes of the DXO sensor quality tests for a sample of comparator-cameras.

scroll hint
Sensor Characteristics
    Camera
Model
Sensor
Class
Resolution
(MP)
Horiz.
Pixels
Vert.
Pixels
Video
Format
DXO
Portrait
DXO
Landscape
DXO
Sports
DXO
Overall
1.
 
Olympus E-620 Four Thirds 12.2 4032 3024none21.310.353655
2.
 
Olympus TG-4 1/2.3 15.9 4608 34561080/30p........
3.
 
Fujifilm XP140 1/2.3 15.9 4608 34564K/15p........
4.
 
Nikon W300 1/2.3 15.9 4608 34564K/30p........
5.
 
Olympus TG-6 1/2.3 12.0 4000 30004K/30p........
6.
 
Olympus TG-5 1/2.3 12.0 4000 30004K/30p........
7.
 
Olympus E-PL1 Four Thirds 12.2 4032 3024720/30p21.510.148754
8.
 
Olympus E-450 Four Thirds 10.0 3648 2736none21.510.551256
9.
 
Olympus E-600 Four Thirds 12.2 4032 3024none21.510.354155
10.
 
Olympus E-P1 Four Thirds 12.2 4032 3024720/30p21.410.453655
11.
 
Olympus E-P2 Four Thirds 12.2 4032 3024720/30p21.510.450556
12.
 
Olympus E-30 Four Thirds 12.2 4032 3024none21.310.453055
13.
 
Olympus E-420 Four Thirds 10.0 3648 2736none21.510.452756
14.
 
Olympus E-520 Four Thirds 10.0 3648 2736none21.410.454855
15.
 
Olympus E-410 Four Thirds 10.0 3648 2736none21.110.049451
16.
 
Olympus E-510 Four Thirds 10.0 3648 2736none21.210.044252
17.
 
Sony HX80 1/2.3 18.0 4896 36721080/60p........

Many modern cameras are not only capable of taking still images, but also of capturing video footage. The TG-4 indeed provides for movie recording, while the E-620 does not. The highest resolution format that the TG-4 can use is 1080/30p.

ad

Feature comparison

Beyond body and sensor, cameras can and do differ across a range of features. For example, the E-620 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 following table reports on some other key feature differences and similarities of the Olympus E-620, the Olympus TG-4, and comparable cameras.

scroll hint
Core Features
    Camera
Model
Viewfinder
(Type or
000 dots)
Control
Panel
(yes/no)
LCD
Size
(inch)
LCD
Resolution
(000 dots)
LCD
Attach-
ment
Touch
Screen
(yes/no)
Mech
Shutter
Speed
Shutter
Flaps
(1/sec)
Built-in
Flash
(yes/no)
Built-in
Image
Stab
1.
 
Olympus E-620optical n 2.7 230 swivel n 1/4000s 4.0 Y Y
2.
 
Olympus TG-4none n 3.0 460 fixed n 1/2000s 5.0 Y Y
3.
 
Fujifilm XP140none n 3.0 920 fixed n 1/2000s 10.0 Y Y
4.
 
Nikon W300none n 3.0 921 fixed n 1/4000s 7.0 Y Y
5.
 
Olympus TG-6none n 3.0 1040 fixed n 1/2000s 20.0 Y Y
6.
 
Olympus TG-5none n 3.0 460 fixed n 1/2000s 20.0 Y Y
7.
 
Olympus E-PL1optional n 2.7 230 fixed n 1/2000s 3.0 Y Y
8.
 
Olympus E-450optical n 2.7 215 fixed n 1/4000s 3.5 Y n
9.
 
Olympus E-600optical n 2.7 230 swivel n 1/4000s 4.0 Y Y
10.
 
Olympus E-P1none n 3.0 230 fixed n 1/4000s 3.0 n Y
11.
 
Olympus E-P2optional n 3.0 230 fixed n 1/4000s 3.0 n Y
12.
 
Olympus E-30optical Y 2.7 230 swivel n 1/8000s 5.0 Y Y
13.
 
Olympus E-420optical n 2.7 215 fixed n 1/4000s 3.5 Y n
14.
 
Olympus E-520optical n 2.7 215 fixed n 1/4000s 3.5 Y Y
15.
 
Olympus E-410optical n 2.5 215 fixed n 1/4000s 3.0 Y n
16.
 
Olympus E-510optical n 2.5 215 fixed n 1/4000s 3.0 Y Y
17.
 
Sony HX80638 n 3.0 922 tilting n 1/2000s 10.0 Y Y
The E-620 has an articulated LCD that can be turned to be front-facing. This characteristic will be appreciated by vloggers and photographers who are interested in snapping selfies. In contrast, the TG-4 does not have a selfie-screen.

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.

The E-620 writes its imaging data to Compact Flash or xD Picture cards, while the TG-4 uses SDXC cards. The E-620 features dual card slots, which can be very useful in case a memory card fails. In contrast, the TG-4 only has one slot.

ad

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 Olympus E-620 and Olympus Tough TG-4 and, in particular, the interfaces the cameras (and selected comparators) provide for accessory control and data transfer.

scroll hint
Input-Output Connections
    Camera
Model
Hotshoe
Port
Internal
Microphone
Internal
Speaker
Microphone
Port
Headphone
Port
HDMI
Port
USB
Port
WiFi
Support
NFC
Support
Bluetooth
Support
1.
 
Olympus E-620Y-----2.0---
2.
 
Olympus TG-4-stereomono--micro2.0Y--
3.
 
Fujifilm XP140-monomono--micro2.0Y-Y
4.
 
Nikon W300-stereomono--micro2.0Y-Y
5.
 
Olympus TG-6-stereomono--micro2.0Y--
6.
 
Olympus TG-5-stereomono--micro2.0Y--
7.
 
Olympus E-PL1Ystereo---mini2.0---
8.
 
Olympus E-450Y-----2.0---
9.
 
Olympus E-600Y-----2.0---
10.
 
Olympus E-P1Ystereo---mini2.0---
11.
 
Olympus E-P2Ystereo---mini2.0---
12.
 
Olympus E-30Y-----2.0---
13.
 
Olympus E-420Y-----2.0---
14.
 
Olympus E-520Y-----2.0---
15.
 
Olympus E-410Y-----2.0---
16.
 
Olympus E-510Y-----2.0---
17.
 
Sony HX80-stereomono--micro2.0YY-

It is notable that the E-620 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 E-620 and the TG-4 have been discontinued, but can regularly be found used on eBay. The E-620 was replaced by the Olympus E-600, while the TG-4 was followed by the Olympus TG-5. Further information on the two cameras (e.g. user guides, manuals), as well as related accessories, can be found on the official Olympus website.

ad

Review summary

So what conclusions can be drawn? Is there a clear favorite between the Olympus E-620 and the Olympus TG-4? Which camera is better? Below is a summary of the relative strengths of each of the two contestants.


Reasons to prefer the Olympus E-620:

  • Better image quality: Features bigger pixels on a larger sensor for higher quality imaging.
  • Richer colors: The pixel size advantage translates into images with better, more accurate colors.
  • More dynamic range: Larger pixels capture a wider spectrum of light and dark details.
  • Better low-light sensitivity: Larger pixels means good image quality even under poor lighting.
  • Easier framing: Has an optical viewfinder for image composition and settings control.
  • More flexible LCD: Has a swivel screen for odd-angle shots in portrait or landscape orientation.
  • More selfie-friendly: Has an articulated screen that can be turned to be front-facing.
  • Faster shutter: Has higher mechanical shutter speed (1/4000s vs 1/2000s) to freeze action.
  • More flexible: Can take a variety of interchangeable lenses, including specialty optics.
  • Longer lasting: Can take more shots (500 versus 380) on a single battery charge.
  • Better lighting: Features a hotshoe and can thus hold and trigger an external flash gun.
  • Greater peace of mind: Features a second card slot as a backup in case of memory card failure.
  • More heavily discounted: Has been available for much longer (launched in February 2009).


Arguments in favor of the Olympus Tough TG-4:

  • More detail: Has more megapixels (15.9 vs 12.2MP), which boosts linear resolution by 14%.
  • Better jpgs: Has a more modern image processing engine (TruePic VII vs TruePic III+).
  • Broader imaging potential: Can capture not only stills but also 1080/30p video.
  • Larger screen: Has a bigger rear LCD (3.0" vs 2.7") for image review and settings control.
  • More detailed LCD: Has a higher resolution rear screen (460k vs 230k dots).
  • Faster burst: Shoots at higher frequency (5 vs 4 flaps/sec) to capture the decisive moment.
  • Easier time-lapse photography: Has an intervalometer built-in for low frequency shooting.
  • Ready to shoot: Comes with an integrated lens, while the E-620 requires a separate lens.
  • More compact: Is smaller (112x66mm vs 130x94mm) and will fit more readily into a bag.
  • Less heavy: Has a lower weight even though it has a lens built in (unlike the E-620).
  • Easier travel charging: Can be conveniently charged via its USB port.
  • Better sealing: Is splash and dust sealed for shooting in inclement weather conditions.
  • Water-proof: Is rugged and sealed and can thus be used for underwater photography (up to 15m).
  • 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 modern: Reflects 6 years and 1 month of technical progress since the E-620 launch.

If the number of relative strengths (bullet points above) is taken as a guide, the TG-4 is the clear winner of the contest (17 : 13 points). However, the relevance of individual strengths will vary across photographers, so that you might want to apply your own weighing scheme to the summary points when reflecting and deciding on a new camera. A professional wildlife photographer will view the differences between cameras in a way that diverges from the perspective of a family photog, and a person interested in architecture has distinct needs from a sports shooter. Hence, the decision which camera is best and worth buying is often a very personal one.

E-620 13:17 TG-4

How about other alternatives? Do the specifications of the Olympus E-620 and the Olympus TG-4 place the cameras among the top in their class? Find out in the latest Best DSLR Camera and Best Travel-Zoom Camera listings whether the two cameras rank among the cream of the crop.

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 E-620 or the TG-4 perform in practice. At times, user reviews, such as those published at amazon, address these issues in a useful manner, but such feedback is on many occasions incomplete, inconsistent, and unreliable.

Expert reviews

This is where reviews by experts come in. The adjacent summary-table relays the overall verdicts of several of the most popular camera review sites (amateurphotographer [AP], cameralabs [CL], 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.

scroll hint
Expert Camera Reviews
     Camera 
 Model 
 AP 
 score 
 CL 
 score 
 DPR 
 score 
 EPZ 
 score 
 PB 
 score 
Camera
Launch
Launch
Price (USD)
Street
Price
1.
 
Olympus E-6203/588/10072/1004.5/55/5 Feb 2009 699i
2.
 
Olympus TG-4..+79/1004/54/5 Apr 2015 379i
3.
 
Fujifilm XP140..+..3.5/54/5 Feb 2019 229 i
4.
 
Nikon W300..+..4/54/5 May 2017 389 i
5.
 
Olympus TG-6..+ +76/1004/54/5 May 2019 449 i
6.
 
Olympus TG-5..+ +..4/54/5 May 2017 449i
7.
 
Olympus E-PL1..86/10069/1004/54.5/5 Feb 2010 599i
8.
 
Olympus E-450......4/54/5 Mar 2009 499i
9.
 
Olympus E-600........4.5/5 Aug 2009 449i
10.
 
Olympus E-P1..+66/1004/54.5/5 Jun 2009 799i
11.
 
Olympus E-P23/5+69/1004/54.5/5 Nov 2009 799i
12.
 
Olympus E-30....71/1004.5/54/5 Nov 2008 1,299i
13.
 
Olympus E-420..85/100+ +4/54.5/5 Mar 2008 599i
14.
 
Olympus E-520..87/100+ +4.5/54.5/5 May 2008 699i
15.
 
Olympus E-410..86/100+ +4/54.5/5 Mar 2007 699i
16.
 
Olympus E-510..89/100+ +3.5/54.5/5 Mar 2007 799i
17.
 
Sony HX80.......... Mar 2016 349 i
Notes: (+ +) 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. Also, please note that some of the review sites have changed their methodology and reporting over time.

Olympus E-620:
Check Ebay offers
Olympus TG-4:
Check Ebay offers

Other camera comparisons

Did this review help to inform your camera decision process? In case you are interested in seeing how other cameras pair up, just make your choice using the following search menu. As an alternative, you can also directly jump to any one of the listed comparisons that were previously generated by the CAM-parator tool.

~
    loader

    Specifications: Olympus E-620 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 Specifications
    Camera Model Olympus E-620 Olympus TG-4
    Camera Type Digital single lens reflex Fixed lens compact camera
    Camera Lens Four Thirds lenses 25-100mm f/2.0-4.9
    Launch Date February 2009 April 2015
    Launch Price USD 699 USD 379
    Sensor Specs Olympus E-620 Olympus TG-4
    Sensor Technology CMOS BSI-CMOS
    Sensor Format Four Thirds Sensor 1/2.3" Sensor
    Sensor Size 17.3 x 13.0 mm 6.17 x 4.55 mm
    Sensor Area 224.9 mm2 28.0735 mm2
    Sensor Diagonal 21.6 mm 7.7 mm
    Crop Factor 2.0x 5.6x
    Sensor Resolution 12.2 Megapixels 15.9 Megapixels
    Image Resolution 4032 x 3024 pixels 4608 x 3456 pixels
    Pixel Pitch 4.29 μm 1.33 μm
    Pixel Density 5.42 MP/cm2 56.73 MP/cm2
    Moiré control Anti-Alias filter Anti-Alias filter
    Movie Capability no Video 1080/30p Video
    ISO Setting 100 - 3,200 ISO 100 - 6,400 ISO
    Image Processor TruePic III+ TruePic VII
    DXO Sensor Quality (score) 55 ..
    DXO Color Depth (bits) 21.3 ..
    DXO Dynamic Range (EV) 10.3 ..
    DXO Low Light (ISO) 536 ..
    Screen Specs Olympus E-620 Olympus TG-4
    Viewfinder Type Optical viewfinder no viewfinder
    Viewfinder Field of View 95%
    Viewfinder Magnification 0.48x
    LCD Framing Live View Live View
    Rear LCD Size 2.7inch 3.0inch
    LCD Resolution 230k dots 460k dots
    LCD Attachment Swivel screen Fixed screen
    Shooting Specs Olympus E-620 Olympus TG-4
    Focus System Phase-detect AF Contrast-detect AF
    Continuous Shooting 4 shutter flaps/s 5 shutter flaps/s
    Time-Lapse Photographyno IntervalometerIntervalometer built-in
    Image StabilizationIn-body stabilizationIn-body stabilization
    Fill Flash Build-in Flash Build-in Flash
    Storage Medium CF or XD cards SDXC cards
    Second Storage Option Dual card slots Single card slot
    Connectivity Specs Olympus E-620 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 Olympus E-620 Olympus TG-4
    Environmental Sealingnot weather sealedWaterproof body (15m)
    Battery Type BLS-1 LI-92B
    Battery Life (CIPA)500 shots per charge380 shots per charge
    In-Camera Charging no USB charging USB charging
    Body Dimensions 130 x 94 x 60 mm
    (5.1 x 3.7 x 2.4 in)
    112 x 66 x 31 mm
    (4.4 x 2.6 x 1.2 in)
    Camera Weight 521 g (18.4 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.

    You are here Home  »  CAM-parator  »  Olympus E-620 vs Olympus TG-4

    Thanks for your vote!

    You rated this page 4 out of 5.


    Rating

    Any additional comment or suggestion for improvement would be welcome.


    If you like it, make sure you share it:

    • Mention this page to your Facebook friends and Twitter followers.
    • Bookmark it in your browser for future reference by pressing "Crtl" + "D".
    • Create a hyperlink by copying the text below into your web-project or discussion forum entry.

    Once again, thanks for taking the time to provide feedback. I appreciate it.