Olympus XZ-1 vs Ricoh WG-60
The Olympus XZ-1 and the Ricoh WG-60 are two digital cameras that were officially introduced, respectively, in January 2011 and October 2018. Both the XZ-1 and the WG-60 are fixed lens compact cameras that are based on a 1/1.7-inch (XZ-1) and a 1/2.3-inch (WG-60) sensor. The Olympus has a resolution of 10.1 megapixels, whereas the Ricoh provides 15.9 MP.
Below is an overview of the main specs of the two cameras as a starting point for the comparison.
|Olympus XZ-1||Ricoh WG-60|
|Fixed lens compact camera||Fixed lens compact camera|
|28-112mm f/1.8-2.5||28-140mm f/3.5-5.5|
|10.1 MP, 1/1.7" Sensor||15.9 MP, 1/2.3" Sensor|
|720/30p Video||1080/60p Video|
|ISO 100-6,400||ISO 125-6,400|
|Viewfinder optional||No viewfinder, LCD framing|
|3.0 LCD, 614k dots||2.7 LCD, 230k dots|
|Fixed screen (not touch-sensitive)||Fixed screen (not touch-sensitive)|
|2 shutter flaps per second||8 shutter flaps per second|
|In-body stabilization||no shake reduction|
|not weather sealed||Waterproof body (14m)|
|320 shots per battery charge||300 shots per battery charge|
|111 x 65 x 42 mm, 275 g||123 x 62 x 30 mm, 193 g|
Going beyond this snapshot of core features and characteristics, what are the differences between the Olympus XZ-1 and the Ricoh WG-60? 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.
An illustration of the physical size and weight of the Olympus XZ-1 and the Ricoh WG-60 is provided in the side-by-side display below. The two cameras are presented according to their relative size. Three successive views from the front, the top, and the rear are shown. All width, height and depth measures are rounded to the nearest millimeter.
The XZ-1 can be obtained in two different colors (black, white), while the WG-60 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 Ricoh WG-60 is notably larger (6 percent) than the Olympus XZ-1. However, the WG-60 is markedly lighter (30 percent) than the XZ-1. It is noteworthy in this context that the WG-60 is splash and dust-proof, while the XZ-1 does not feature any corresponding weather-sealing. More than that, the WG-60 is water-proof up to 14m and can, thus, be used for underwater photography.
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, just use the right or left arrows in the table to switch to the respective camera. Alternatively, you can also navigate to the CAM-parator app and make your selection from the full list of cameras there.
|Olympus XZ-1||4.4 in||2.6 in||1.7 in||9.7 oz||320||n||Jan 2011||499|
|Ricoh WG-60||4.8 in||2.4 in||1.2 in||6.8 oz||300||Y||Oct 2018||279|
|Fujifilm XP140||4.3 in||2.8 in||1.1 in||7.3 oz||240||Y||Feb 2019||229|
|Fujifilm XP130||4.3 in||2.8 in||1.1 in||7.3 oz||240||n||Jan 2018||229|
|Fujifilm XP120||4.3 in||2.8 in||1.1 in||7.2 oz||210||Y||Jan 2017||229|
|Nikon W300||4.4 in||2.6 in||1.1 in||8.1 oz||280||Y||May 2017||389|
|Olympus TG-5||4.4 in||2.6 in||1.3 in||8.8 oz||340||Y||May 2017||449|
|Olympus E-PM2||4.3 in||2.5 in||1.3 in||9.5 oz||360||n||Sep 2012||499|
|Olympus XZ-2||4.4 in||2.6 in||1.9 in||12.2 oz||340||n||Sep 2012||599|
|Olympus E-PL3||4.3 in||2.5 in||1.5 in||11.0 oz||300||n||Jun 2011||599|
|Olympus E-PM1||4.3 in||2.5 in||1.3 in||9.3 oz||330||n||Jun 2011||499|
|Olympus E-PL1||4.5 in||2.8 in||1.7 in||11.8 oz||290||n||Feb 2010||599|
|Panasonic FZ200||4.9 in||3.4 in||4.3 in||20.7 oz||540||n||Jul 2012||599|
|Panasonic LX7||4.4 in||2.7 in||1.8 in||10.5 oz||330||n||Jul 2012||499|
|Panasonic FZ150||4.9 in||3.2 in||3.6 in||18.6 oz||410||n||Aug 2011||499|
|Panasonic LX5||4.3 in||2.6 in||1.7 in||9.6 oz||400||n||Jul 2010||499|
|Sony WX800||4.0 in||2.3 in||1.4 in||8.2 oz||370||n||Oct 2018||399|
Notes: Measurements and pricing do not include easily detachable parts, such as add-on or interchangeable lenses or optional viewfinders.
(1) Number of images that can be taken on a full battery charge according to the CIPA-standard; (2) Official announcement.
Any camera decision will obviously take relative prices into account. 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-60 was launched at a markedly lower price (by 44 percent) than the XZ-1, which puts it into a different market segment. 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. Then, after the new model is out, very good deals can frequently be found on the pre-owned market.
The size of the sensor inside a digital camera is one of the key determinants 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. 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 are more costly to manufacture and tend to lead to bigger and heavier cameras and lenses.
Of the two cameras under consideration, the Olympus XZ-1 features a 1/1.7-inch sensor and the Ricoh WG-60 a 1/2.3-inch sensor. The sensor area in the WG-60 is 39 percent smaller. As a result of these sensor size differences, the cameras have a format factor of, respectively, 4.4 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-60 offers a higher resolution of 15.9 megapixels, compared with 10.1 MP of the XZ-1. 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 2.13μm for the XZ-1). However, it should be noted that the WG-60 is much more recent (by 7 years and 9 months) than the XZ-1, 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-60 has no anti-alias filter installed, so that it can capture all the detail its sensor resolves.
The resolution advantage of the Ricoh WG-60 implies greater flexibility for cropping images or the possibility to print larger pictures. The maximum print size of the WG-60 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 XZ-1 are 18.3 x 13.8 inches or 46.5 x 35 cm for good quality, 14.7 x 11 inches or 37.2 x 28 cm for very good quality, and 12.2 x 9.2 inches or 31 x 23.3 cm for excellent quality prints.
The Olympus XZ-1 has a native sensitivity range from ISO 100 to ISO 6400. The corresponding ISO settings for the Ricoh WG-60 are ISO 125 to ISO 6400 (no boost).
For many cameras, data on sensor performance has been reported by DXO Mark. 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 adjacent table reports on the physical sensor characteristics and the outcomes of the DXO sensor quality tests for a sample of comparator-cameras.
|Olympus E-PM2||Four Thirds||15.9||4608||3456||1080/30p||22.7||12.2||932||72|
|Olympus E-PL3||Four Thirds||12.2||4032||3024||1080/60i||20.9||10.3||499||52|
|Olympus E-PM1||Four Thirds||12.2||4032||3024||1080/60i||21.0||10.3||499||52|
|Olympus E-PL1||Four Thirds||12.2||4032||3024||720/30p||21.5||10.1||487||54|
Many modern cameras are not only capable of taking still images, but can also record movies. The two cameras under consideration both have sensors whose read-out speed is fast enough to capture moving pictures, but the WG-60 provides a better video resolution than the XZ-1. It can shoot movie footage at 1080/60p, while the Olympus is limited to 720/30p.
Apart from body and sensor, cameras can and do differ across a range of features. The XZ-1 and the WG-60 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 XZ-1 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 XZ-1, the Ricoh WG-60, and comparable cameras.
The Olympus XZ-1 and the Ricoh WG-60 both have 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.
Both the XZ-1 and the WG-60 have zoom lenses built in. The XZ-1 has a 28-112mm f/1.8-2.5 optic and the WG-60 offers a 28-140mm f/3.5-5.5 (focal lengths in full frame equivalent terms). Hence, the Olympus and Ricoh provide the same view at the wide-angle end, but the Ricoh has more tele-photo reach at the long end. The XZ-1 offers the faster maximum aperture.
Concerning the storage of imaging data, both the XZ-1 and the WG-60 write their files to SDXC cards.
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 XZ-1 and Ricoh WG-60 and, in particular, the interfaces the cameras (and selected comparators) provide for accessory control and data transfer.
| WiFi |
It is notable that the XZ-1 has a hotshoe, while the WG-60 does not. This socket makes it possible to easily attach optional accessories, such as an external flash gun.
The WG-60 is a recent model that features in the current product line-up of Ricoh. In contrast, the XZ-1 has been discontinued (but can be found pre-owned on eBay). As a replacement in the same line of cameras, the XZ-1 was succeeded by the Olympus XZ-2. Further information on the two cameras (e.g. user guides, manuals), as well as related accessories, can be found on the official Olympus and Ricoh websites.
So what conclusions can be drawn? Is there a clear favorite between the Olympus XZ-1 and the Ricoh WG-60? Which camera is better? The listing below highlights the relative strengths of the two models.
Arguments in favor of the Olympus XZ-1:
- Better moiré control: Has an anti-alias filter to avoid artificial patterns to appear in images.
- More framing options: Can be equipped with a hotshoe-mounted accessory-viewfinder.
- 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 (614k vs 230k dots).
- Better light gathering: Has a lens with a wider maximum aperture (f/1.8 vs f/3.5).
- 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 January 2011).
Reasons to prefer the Ricoh WG-60:
- More detail: Has more megapixels (15.9 vs 10.1MP), which boosts linear resolution by 26%.
- Maximized detail: Lacks an anti-alias filter to exploit the sensor's full resolution potential.
- Better video: Provides higher definition movie capture (1080/60p vs 720/30p).
- Faster shutter: Has higher mechanical shutter speed (1/4000s vs 1/2000s) to freeze action.
- Faster burst: Shoots at higher frequency (8 vs 2 flaps/sec) to capture the decisive moment.
- More tele-reach: Has a longer tele-lens for perspective compression and subject magnification.
- Less heavy: Has a lower weight (by 82g or 30 percent) and is thus easier to take along.
- 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 14m).
- More affordable: Was introduced into a lower priced category (44 percent cheaper at launch).
- More modern: Reflects 7 years and 9 months of technical progress since the XZ-1 launch.
If the count of relative strengths (bullet points above) is taken as a measure, the WG-60 emerges as the winner of the match-up (11 : 8 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 XZ-1 and the Ricoh WG-60 place the cameras among the top in their class? Find out in the latest Best Travel-Zoom Camera listing 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 says little about, for example, the shooting experience and imaging performance of the XZ-1 and the WG-60 in practical situations. 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.
This is why hands-on reviews by experts are important. The adjacent summary-table relays the overall verdicts of several of the most popular camera review sites (cameralabs, dpreview, ephotozine, imaging-resource, and photographyblog). 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.
|Olympus XZ-1||..||74/100||4.5/5||4.5/5||4.5/5||Jan 2011||499|
|Ricoh WG-60||..||..||..||..||..||Oct 2018||279|
|Fujifilm XP140||+||..||3.5/5||..||4/5||Feb 2019||229|
|Fujifilm XP130||o||..||3.5/5||..||4/5||Jan 2018||229|
|Fujifilm XP120||o||..||3.5/5||..||4/5||Jan 2017||229|
|Nikon W300||+||..||4/5||..||4/5||May 2017||389|
|Olympus TG-5||+ +||..||4/5||o||4/5||May 2017||449|
|Olympus E-PM2||..||77/100||5/5||4.5/5||4.5/5||Sep 2012||499|
|Olympus XZ-2||+||..||4.5/5||4/5||4.5/5||Sep 2012||599|
|Olympus E-PL3||+ +||72/100||4.5/5||..||4/5||Jun 2011||599|
|Olympus E-PM1||86/100||71/100||4.5/5||..||4.5/5||Jun 2011||499|
|Olympus E-PL1||86/100||69/100||4/5||4.5/5||4.5/5||Feb 2010||599|
|Panasonic FZ200||+ +||80/100||4.5/5||4.5/5||4.5/5||Jul 2012||599|
|Panasonic LX7||+ +||75/100||4/5||5/5||4.5/5||Jul 2012||499|
|Panasonic FZ150||+ +||76/100||4/5||5/5||4.5/5||Aug 2011||499|
|Panasonic LX5||+||73/100||4.5/5||5/5||4.5/5||Jul 2010||499|
|Sony WX800||..||..||..||..||..||Oct 2018||399|
|Notes: (+ +) highly recommended; (+) recommended; (o) reviewed; (..) not available.|
Care should be taken when interpreting the review scores above, though. The assessments were made in relation to similar cameras of the same technological generation. A score, therefore, has to be seen in close connection to the price and market introduction time of the camera, and rating-comparisons among cameras that span long time periods or concern very differently equipped models make little sense. Also, kindly note that some of the listed sites have over time developped their review approaches and their reporting style.
Other camera comparisons
Did this review help to inform your camera decision process? In case you would like to check on the differences and similarities of other camera models, 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.
- Canon 750D vs Olympus XZ-1
- Canon G7 X Mark III vs Olympus XZ-1
- Canon M10 vs Olympus XZ-1
- Canon RP vs Ricoh WG-60
- Leica X2 vs Olympus XZ-1
- Nikon D5200 vs Ricoh WG-60
- Nikon W300 vs Olympus XZ-1
- Nikon Z6 vs Olympus XZ-1
- Olympus E-450 vs Ricoh WG-60
- Olympus XZ-1 vs Panasonic FT7
- Olympus XZ-1 vs Sony A7 III
- Ricoh WG-60 vs Sony RX100 V
Specifications: Olympus XZ-1 vs Ricoh WG-60
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||Olympus XZ-1||Ricoh WG-60|
|Camera Type||Fixed lens compact camera||Fixed lens compact camera|
|Camera Lens||28-112mm f/1.8-2.5||28-140mm f/3.5-5.5|
|Launch Date||January 2011||October 2018|
|Launch Price||USD 499||USD 279|
|Sensor Specs||Olympus XZ-1||Ricoh WG-60|
|Sensor Format||1/1.7" Sensor||1/2.3" Sensor|
|Sensor Size||7.85 x 5.89 mm||6.17 x 4.55 mm|
|Sensor Area||46.2365 mm2||28.0735 mm2|
|Sensor Diagonal||9.8 mm||7.7 mm|
|Sensor Resolution||10.1 Megapixels||15.9 Megapixels|
|Image Resolution||3664 x 2752 pixels||4608 x 3456 pixels|
|Pixel Pitch||2.13 μm||1.33 μm|
|Pixel Density||21.81 MP/cm2||56.73 MP/cm2|
|Moiré control||Anti-Alias filter||no AA filter|
|Movie Capability||720/30p Video||1080/60p Video|
|ISO Setting||100 - 6,400 ISO||125 - 6,400 ISO|
|DXO Sensor Quality (score)||34||..|
|DXO Color Depth (bits)||18.8||..|
|DXO Dynamic Range (EV)||10.4||..|
|DXO Low Light (ISO)||117||..|
|Screen Specs||Olympus XZ-1||Ricoh WG-60|
|Viewfinder Type||Viewfinder optional||no viewfinder|
|LCD Framing||Live View||Live View|
|Rear LCD Size||3.0inch||2.7inch|
|LCD Resolution||614k dots||230k dots|
|LCD Attachment||Fixed screen||Fixed screen|
|Shooting Specs||Olympus XZ-1||Ricoh WG-60|
|Focus System||Contrast-detect AF||Contrast-detect AF|
|Continuous Shooting||2 shutter flaps/s||8 shutter flaps/s|
|Time-Lapse Photography||Intervalometer built-in||Intervalometer built-in|
|Image Stabilization||In-body stabilization||no handshake reduction|
|Fill Flash||Build-in Flash||Build-in Flash|
|Storage Medium||SDXC cards||SDXC cards|
|Second Storage Option||Single card slot||Single card slot|
|UHS card support||no||no|
|Connectivity Specs||Olympus XZ-1||Ricoh WG-60|
|External Flash||Hotshoe||no Hotshoe|
|USB Connector||USB 2.0||USB 2.0|
|HDMI Port||mini HDMI||micro HDMI|
|Wifi Support||no Wifi||no Wifi|
|Body Specs||Olympus XZ-1||Ricoh WG-60|
|Environmental Sealing||not weather sealed||Waterproof body (14m)|
|Battery Life (CIPA)||320 shots per charge||300 shots per charge|
111 x 65 x 42 mm
(4.4 x 2.6 x 1.7 in)
123 x 62 x 30 mm
(4.8 x 2.4 x 1.2 in)
|Camera Weight||275 g (9.7 oz)||193 g (6.8 oz)|
Did you notice an error on this page? If so, please get in touch, so that we can correct the information.