Olympus E-PM1 vs Ricoh WG-6

The Olympus PEN E-PM1 and the Ricoh WG-6 are two digital cameras that were revealed to the public, respectively, in June 2011 and February 2019. The E-PM1 is a mirrorless interchangeable lens camera, while the WG-6 is a fixed lens compact. The cameras are based on a Four Thirds (E-PM1) and a 1/2.3-inch (WG-6) sensor. The Olympus has a resolution of 12.2 megapixels, whereas the Ricoh provides 20.2 MP.

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

Headline Specifications

Olympus E-PM1		Ricoh WG-6
Mirrorless system camera		Fixed lens compact camera
Micro Four Thirds lenses		28-140mm f/3.5-5.5
12.2 MP – Four Thirds sensor		20.2 MP – 1/2.3" sensor
1080/60i Video		4K/30p Video
ISO 100-12,800		ISO 125-6,400
Viewfinder optional		No viewfinder, LCD framing
3.0" LCD – 460k dots		3.0" LCD – 1040k dots
Fixed screen (not touch-sensitive)		Fixed screen (not touch-sensitive)
5.5 shutter flaps per second		1 shutter flaps per second
In-body stabilization		no shake reduction
not weather sealed		Waterproof body (20m)
330 shots per battery charge		340 shots per battery charge
110 x 64 x 34 mm, 265 g		118 x 66 x 33 mm, 246 g

Check E-PM1 offers at
ebay.com
Check WG-6 price at
amazon.com

Going beyond this snapshot of core features and characteristics, what are the differences between the Olympus PEN E-PM1 and the Ricoh WG-6? 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 physical size and weight of the Olympus E-PM1 and the Ricoh WG-6 are illustrated in the side-by-side display below. The two cameras are presented according to their relative size. Three consecutive perspectives from the front, the top, and the back are available. All width, height and depth dimensions are rounded to the nearest millimeter.

The E-PM1 can be obtained in six different colors (black, silver, brown, pink, purple, white), while the WG-6 is available in two color-versions (black, orange).

If the front view area (width x height) of the cameras is taken as an aggregate measure of their size, the Ricoh WG-6 is notably larger (11 percent) than the Olympus E-PM1. It is noteworthy in this context that the WG-6 is splash and dust-proof, while the E-PM1 does not feature any corresponding weather-sealing. More than that, the WG-6 is water-proof up to 20m and can, thus, be used for underwater photography.

The above size and weight comparisons are to some extent incomplete and possibly misleading, as the WG-6 has a lens built in, whereas the E-PM1 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-PM1 and their specifications in the Micro Four Thirds Lens Catalog.

Concerning battery life, the E-PM1 gets 330 shots out of its Olympus BLS-5 battery, while the WG-6 can take 340 images on a single charge of its Ricoh DB-110 power pack. The power pack in the WG-6 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.

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-PM1	110 mm	64 mm	34 mm	265 g	330	n	Jun 2011	499	ebay.com
2.		Ricoh WG-6	118 mm	66 mm	33 mm	246 g	340	Y	Feb 2019	399	amazon.com
3.		Canon SX740	110 mm	64 mm	40 mm	299 g	265	n	Jul 2018	399	amazon.com
4.		Olympus E-PM2	110 mm	64 mm	34 mm	269 g	360	n	Sep 2012	499	ebay.com
5.		Olympus XZ-2	113 mm	65 mm	48 mm	346 g	340	n	Sep 2012	599	ebay.com
6.		Olympus E-P3	122 mm	69 mm	34 mm	369 g	330	n	Jun 2011	799	ebay.com
7.		Olympus E-PL2	114 mm	72 mm	42 mm	362 g	280	n	Jan 2011	599	ebay.com
8.		Olympus E-PL3	110 mm	64 mm	37 mm	313 g	300	n	Jun 2011	599	ebay.com
9.		Olympus XZ-1	111 mm	65 mm	42 mm	275 g	320	n	Jan 2011	499	ebay.com
10.		Olympus E-PL1	115 mm	72 mm	42 mm	334 g	290	n	Feb 2010	599	ebay.com
11.		Panasonic FT7	117 mm	76 mm	37 mm	319 g	300	Y	May 2018	449	ebay.com
12.		Panasonic GF5	108 mm	67 mm	37 mm	267 g	360	n	Apr 2012	499	ebay.com
13.		Panasonic GF3	108 mm	67 mm	32 mm	264 g	300	n	Jun 2011	549	ebay.com
14.		Panasonic GF2	113 mm	68 mm	33 mm	310 g	300	n	Nov 2010	549	ebay.com
15.		Sony HX99	102 mm	58 mm	36 mm	242 g	370	n	Aug 2018	449	ebay.com
16.		Sony HX95	102 mm	58 mm	36 mm	242 g	370	n	Aug 2018	429	ebay.com
17.		Sony WX800	102 mm	58 mm	36 mm	233 g	370	n	Oct 2018	399	ebay.com
Note: Measurements and pricing do not include easily detachable parts, such as add-on or interchangeable lenses or optional viewfinders.
Convert to Imperial

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 WG-6 was launched at a lower price than the E-PM1, 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. Then, after the new model is out, very good deals can frequently be found on the pre-owned market.

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-PM1 features a Four Thirds sensor and the Ricoh WG-6 a 1/2.3-inch sensor. The sensor area in the WG-6 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.

Despite having a smaller sensor, the WG-6 offers a higher resolution of 20.2 megapixels, compared with 12.2 MP of the E-PM1. 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 1.18μm versus 4.29μm for the E-PM1). However, it should be noted that the WG-6 is much more recent (by 7 years and 7 months) than the E-PM1, and its sensor will have benefitted from technological advances during this time that make it possible to gather light more efficiently. Coming back to sensor resolution, it should be mentioned that the WG-6 has no anti-alias filter installed, so that it can capture all the detail its sensor resolves.

The resolution advantage of the Ricoh WG-6 implies greater flexibility for cropping images or the possibility to print larger pictures. The maximum print size of the WG-6 for good quality output (200 dots per inch) amounts to 25.9 x 19.4 inches or 65.8 x 49.4 cm, for very good quality (250 dpi) 20.7 x 15.6 inches or 52.7 x 39.5 cm, and for excellent quality (300 dpi) 17.3 x 13 inches or 43.9 x 32.9 cm. The corresponding values for the Olympus E-PM1 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 PEN E-PM1 has a native sensitivity range from ISO 100 to ISO 12800. The corresponding ISO settings for the Ricoh WG-6 are ISO 125 to ISO 6400 (no boost).

In terms of underlying technology, the E-PM1 is build around a CMOS sensor, while the WG-6 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.

Since 2007, DXO Mark has published sensor performance measurements that have been derived using a consistent methodology. This service is based on lab testing and assigns an overall score to each camera sensor, as well as ratings for dynamic range ("DXO Landscape"), color depth ("DXO Portrait"), and low-light sensitivity ("DXO Sports"). The table below summarizes the physical sensor characteristics and sensor quality findings and compares them across a set of similar cameras.

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-PM1	Four Thirds	12.2	4032	3024	1080/60i	21.0	10.3	499	52
2.		Ricoh WG-6	1/2.3	20.2	5184	3888	4K/30p	20.7	12.2	1104	52
3.		Canon SX740	1/2.3	20.2	5184	3888	4K/30p	20.6	12.1	1050	51
4.		Olympus E-PM2	Four Thirds	15.9	4608	3456	1080/30p	22.7	12.2	932	72
5.		Olympus XZ-2	1/1.7	11.8	3968	2976	1080/30p	20.4	11.3	216	49
6.		Olympus E-P3	Four Thirds	12.2	4032	3024	1080/60i	20.8	10.1	536	51
7.		Olympus E-PL2	Four Thirds	12.2	4032	3024	720/30p	21.4	10.2	573	55
8.		Olympus E-PL3	Four Thirds	12.2	4032	3024	1080/60i	20.9	10.3	499	52
9.		Olympus XZ-1	1/1.7	10.1	3664	2752	720/30p	18.8	10.4	117	34
10.		Olympus E-PL1	Four Thirds	12.2	4032	3024	720/30p	21.5	10.1	487	54
11.		Panasonic FT7	1/2.3	20.2	5184	3888	4K/30p	20.6	12.1	1028	51
12.		Panasonic GF5	Four Thirds	12.0	4000	3000	1080/60i	20.5	10.0	573	50
13.		Panasonic GF3	Four Thirds	12.0	4000	3000	1080/60i	20.6	10.1	459	50
14.		Panasonic GF2	Four Thirds	12.0	4000	3000	1080/60i	21.2	10.3	506	54
15.		Sony HX99	1/2.3	18.0	4896	3672	4K/30p	20.6	12.1	1058	51
16.		Sony HX95	1/2.3	18.0	4896	3672	4K/30p	20.6	12.1	1057	51
17.		Sony WX800	1/2.3	18.0	4896	3672	4K/30p	20.6	12.2	1070	51
Note: DXO values in italics represent estimates based on sensor size and age.

Many modern cameras are not only capable of taking still images, but also of capturing video footage. Both cameras under consideration are equipped with sensors that have a sufficiently high read-out speed for moving images, but the WG-6 provides a better video resolution than the E-PM1. It can shoot movie footage at 4K/30p, while the Olympus is limited to 1080/60i.

Feature comparison

Beyond body and sensor, cameras can and do differ across a range of features. The E-PM1 and the WG-6 are similar in the sense that neither of the two has a viewfinder. The images are, thus, framed using live view on the rear LCD. That said, the E-PM1 can be equipped with an optional viewfinder – the VF-2. The following table reports on some other key feature differences and similarities of the Olympus E-PM1, the Ricoh WG-6, and comparable cameras.

Core Features

#		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.		Olympus E-PM1	optional	n	3.0 / 460	fixed	n	1/4000s	5.5/s	n	Y
2.		Ricoh WG-6	none	n	3.0 / 1040	fixed	n	1/4000s	1.0/s	Y	n
3.		Canon SX740	none	n	3.0 / 922	tilting	n	1/3200s	10.0/s	Y	Y
4.		Olympus E-PM2	optional	n	3.0 / 460	fixed	Y	1/4000s	8.0/s	n	Y
5.		Olympus XZ-2	optional	n	3.0 / 920	tilting	Y	1/2000s	5.0/s	Y	Y
6.		Olympus E-P3	optional	n	3.0 / 614	fixed	Y	1/4000s	3.0/s	Y	Y
7.		Olympus E-PL2	optional	n	3.0 / 460	fixed	n	1/4000s	3.0/s	Y	Y
8.		Olympus E-PL3	optional	n	3.0 / 460	tilting	n	1/4000s	5.5/s	n	Y
9.		Olympus XZ-1	optional	n	3.0 / 614	fixed	n	1/2000s	2.0/s	Y	Y
10.		Olympus E-PL1	optional	n	2.7 / 230	fixed	n	1/2000s	3.0/s	Y	Y
11.		Panasonic FT7	1170	n	3.0 / 1040	fixed	n	1/1300s	10.0/s	Y	Y
12.		Panasonic GF5	none	n	3.0 / 920	fixed	Y	1/4000s	4.0/s	Y	n
13.		Panasonic GF3	none	n	3.0 / 460	fixed	Y	1/4000s	3.2/s	Y	n
14.		Panasonic GF2	optional	n	3.0 / 460	fixed	Y	1/4000s	2.6/s	Y	n
15.		Sony HX99	638	n	3.0 / 922	tilting	Y	1/2000s	10.0/s	Y	Y
16.		Sony HX95	638	n	3.0 / 922	tilting	n	1/2000s	10.0/s	Y	Y
17.		Sony WX800	none	n	3.0 / 922	tilting	Y	1/2000s	10.0/s	Y	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 WG-6 has one, while the E-PM1 does not. While the built-in flash of the WG-6 is not very powerful, it can at times be useful as a fill-in light.

The Ricoh WG-6 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 E-PM1 and the WG-6 write their files to SDXC cards.

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 PEN E-PM1 and Ricoh WG-6 and, in particular, the interfaces the cameras (and selected comparators) provide for accessory control and data transfer.

Input-Output Connections

#		Camera Model	Hotshoe Port	Internal Mic / Speaker	Microphone Port	Headphone Port	HDMI Port	USB Port	WiFi Support	NFC Support	Bluetooth Support
1.		Olympus E-PM1	Y	stereo / mono	-	-	mini	2.0	-	-	-
2.		Ricoh WG-6	-	mono / mono	-	-	micro	3.0	-	-	-
3.		Canon SX740	-	stereo / mono	-	-	micro	2.0	Y	-	Y
4.		Olympus E-PM2	Y	stereo / mono	-	-	mini	2.0	-	-	-
5.		Olympus XZ-2	Y	stereo / mono	-	-	mini	2.0	-	-	-
6.		Olympus E-P3	Y	stereo / -	-	-	mini	2.0	-	-	-
7.		Olympus E-PL2	Y	stereo / -	-	-	mini	2.0	-	-	-
8.		Olympus E-PL3	Y	stereo / -	-	-	mini	2.0	-	-	-
9.		Olympus XZ-1	Y	mono / -	-	-	mini	2.0	-	-	-
10.		Olympus E-PL1	Y	stereo / -	-	-	mini	2.0	-	-	-
11.		Panasonic FT7	-	stereo / mono	-	-	micro	2.0	Y	-	-
12.		Panasonic GF5	-	stereo / mono	-	-	mini	2.0	-	-	-
13.		Panasonic GF3	-	stereo / mono	-	-	mini	2.0	-	-	-
14.		Panasonic GF2	Y	stereo / mono	-	-	mini	2.0	-	-	-
15.		Sony HX99	-	stereo / mono	-	-	micro	2.0	Y	Y	Y
16.		Sony HX95	-	stereo / mono	-	-	micro	2.0	Y	Y	Y
17.		Sony WX800	-	stereo / mono	-	-	micro	2.0	Y	Y	-

It is notable that the E-PM1 has a hotshoe, while the WG-6 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 WG-6 has an internal geolocalization sensor and can record GPS coordinates in its EXIF data.

The WG-6 is a recent model that features in the current product line-up of Ricoh. In contrast, the E-PM1 has been discontinued (but can be found pre-owned on ebay). As a replacement in the same line of cameras, the E-PM1 was succeeded by the Olympus E-PM2. Further information on the features and operation of the E-PM1 and WG-6 can be found, respectively, in the Olympus E-PM1 Manual (free pdf) or the online Ricoh WG-6 Manual.

Review summary

So how do things add up? Which of the two cameras – the Olympus E-PM1 or the Ricoh WG-6 – has the upper hand? Is one clearly better than the other? A synthesis of the relative strong points of each of the models is listed below.

Arguments in favor of the Olympus PEN E-PM1:

• Better moiré control: Has an anti-alias filter to avoid artificial patterns to appear in images.
• 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.
• More framing options: Can be equipped with a hotshoe-mounted accessory-viewfinder.
• Faster burst: Shoots at higher frequency (5.5 vs 1 flaps/sec) to capture the decisive moment.
• More flexible: Accepts interchangeable lenses, so that lens characteristics can be altered.
• Sharper images: Has hand-shake reducing image stabilization built-in.
• Better lighting: Features a hotshoe and can thus hold and trigger an external flash gun.
• More heavily discounted: Has been available for much longer (launched in June 2011).

Reasons to prefer the Ricoh WG-6:

• More detail: Has more megapixels (20.2 vs 12.2MP), which boosts linear resolution by 29%.
• Maximized detail: Lacks an anti-alias filter to exploit the sensor's full resolution potential.
• Better video: Provides higher definition movie capture (4K/30p vs 1080/60i).
• More detailed LCD: Has a higher resolution rear screen (1040k vs 460k dots).
• Easier time-lapse photography: Has an intervalometer built-in for low frequency shooting.
• Ready to shoot: Has an integrated lens, whereas the E-PM1 necessitates an extra lens.
• Less heavy: Has a lower weight even though it has a lens built in (unlike the E-PM1).
• 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 20m).
• 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.
• Faster data transfer: Supports a more advanced USB protocol (3.0 vs 2.0).
• More affordable: Was introduced at a lower price, despite coming with a built-in lens.
• More modern: Reflects 7 years and 7 months of technical progress since the E-PM1 launch.

If the count of individual advantages (bullet points above) is taken as a guide, the WG-6 is the clear winner of the contest (15 : 11 points). However, the pertinence of the various camera strengths will differ across photographers, so that you might want to weigh individual camera traits according to their importance for your own imaging needs before making a camera decision. 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.

How about other alternatives? Do the specifications of the Olympus E-PM1 and the Ricoh WG-6 place the cameras among the top in their class? Find out in the latest Best Mirrorless Interchangeable Lens Camera and Best Travel-Zoom Camera listings whether the two cameras rank among the cream of the crop.

In any case, while the specs-based evaluation of cameras can be instructive in revealing their potential as photographic tools, it remains partial and cannot reveal, for example, the shooting experience and imaging performance when actually working with the E-PM1 or the WG-6. 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], 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.

Expert Camera Reviews

#		Camera   Model	AP   score	CL   score	DCW   score	DPR   score	EPZ   score	PB   score	Camera Launch	Launch Price (USD)	Street Price
1.		Olympus E-PM1	..	86/100	..	71/100	4.5/5	4.5/5	Jun 2011	499	ebay.com
2.		Ricoh WG-6	..	..	..	..	3.5/5	3.5/5	Feb 2019	399	amazon.com
3.		Canon SX740	..	+	3.5/5	..	4/5	4/5	Jul 2018	399	amazon.com
4.		Olympus E-PM2	3/5	..	..	77/100	5/5	4.5/5	Sep 2012	499	ebay.com
5.		Olympus XZ-2	4/5	+	..	..	4.5/5	4.5/5	Sep 2012	599	ebay.com
6.		Olympus E-P3	..	83/100	..	74/100	4.5/5	4.5/5	Jun 2011	799	ebay.com
7.		Olympus E-PL2	3/5	83/100	..	71/100	4.5/5	4.5/5	Jan 2011	599	ebay.com
8.		Olympus E-PL3	3/5	+ +	..	72/100	4.5/5	4/5	Jun 2011	599	ebay.com
9.		Olympus XZ-1	4/5	..	..	74/100	4.5/5	4.5/5	Jan 2011	499	ebay.com
10.		Olympus E-PL1	..	86/100	..	69/100	4/5	4.5/5	Feb 2010	599	ebay.com
11.		Panasonic FT7	..	+	..	..	3.5/5	3.5/5	May 2018	449	ebay.com
12.		Panasonic GF5	3/5	..	..	..	4.5/5	4.5/5	Apr 2012	499	ebay.com
13.		Panasonic GF3	3/5	82/100	..	71/100	4.5/5	4/5	Jun 2011	549	ebay.com
14.		Panasonic GF2	3/5	82/100	..	70/100	4.5/5	4.5/5	Nov 2010	549	ebay.com
15.		Sony HX99	..	..	..	..	4/5	4.5/5	Aug 2018	449	ebay.com
16.		Sony HX95	..	..	..	..	..	..	Aug 2018	429	ebay.com
17.		Sony WX800	..	..	..	..	..	..	Oct 2018	399	ebay.com
Note: (+ +) highly recommended; (+) recommended; (o) reviewed; (..) not available.

Care should be taken when interpreting the review scores above, though. The ratings were established in reference to similarly priced cameras that were available in the market at the time of the review. Thus, a score needs to be put into the context of the launch date and the launch price of the camera, and rating-comparisons among cameras that span long time periods or concern very differently equipped models make little sense. Also, please note that some of the review sites have changed their methodology and reporting over time.

Check E-PM1 offers at
ebay.com
Check WG-6 price at
amazon.com

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. As an alternative, you can also directly jump to any one of the listed comparisons that were previously generated by the CAM-parator tool.

~

Check E-PM1 offers at
ebay.com
Check WG-6 price at
amazon.com

Did you notice an error on this page? If so, please get in touch, so that we can correct the information.