Olympus SH-50 vs Ricoh WG-M1
88 Imaging
40 Features
48 Overall
43
![Olympus SH-50 front Olympus SH-50 front](https://pxlmag.com/db/images/cameras/gallery/medium/Olympus-SH-50/Olympus-SH-50-front.jpg)
![Ricoh WG-M1 front Ricoh WG-M1 front](https://pxlmag.com/db/images/cameras/gallery/medium/Ricoh-WG-M1/Ricoh-WG-M1-front.jpg)
91 Imaging
39 Features
22 Overall
32
Olympus SH-50 vs Ricoh WG-M1 Key Specs
(Full Review)
- 16MP - 1/2.3" Sensor
- 3" Fixed Screen
- ISO 125 - 6400
- Optical Image Stabilization
- 1920 x 1080 video
- 25-600mm (F3.0-6.9) lens
- 269g - 112 x 63 x 42mm
- Introduced January 2013
(Full Review)
- 14MP - 1/2.3" Sensor
- 1.5" Fixed Display
- ISO 100 - 800
- 1920 x 1080 video
- (1×)mm (F2.8) lens
- 190g - 66 x 43 x 89mm
- Revealed September 2014
![](https://pxlmag.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/iphone-optical-stabilization-218x150.jpg)
Olympus SH-50 vs Ricoh WG-M1 Overview
Following is a detailed overview of the Olympus SH-50 vs Ricoh WG-M1, former is a Small Sensor Superzoom while the other is a Waterproof by manufacturers Olympus and Ricoh. The sensor resolution of the SH-50 (16MP) and the WG-M1 (14MP) is very comparable and both cameras posses the same sensor sizing (1/2.3").
![](https://pxlmag.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/LP3_cut_13f_0212-218x150.jpg)
The SH-50 was launched 20 months earlier than the WG-M1 making them a generation away from one another. The two cameras have the same body design (Compact).
Before going straight to a comprehensive comparison, here is a brief summary of how the SH-50 matches up versus the WG-M1 with respect to portability, imaging, features and an overall score.
![](https://pxlmag.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/tiktok-218x150.jpg)
Olympus SH-50 vs Ricoh WG-M1 Gallery
Below is a sample of the gallery pics for Olympus SH-50 & Ricoh WG-M1. The complete galleries are provided at Olympus SH-50 Gallery & Ricoh WG-M1 Gallery.
Reasons to pick Olympus SH-50 over the Ricoh WG-M1
SH-50 | WG-M1 | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
Focus manually | ![]() | More exact focusing | ||
Display dimensions | 3" | ![]() | 1.5" | Larger display (+1.5") |
Display resolution | 460k | ![]() | 115k | Crisper display (+345k dot) |
Touch display | ![]() | Easily navigate |
Reasons to pick Ricoh WG-M1 over the Olympus SH-50
WG-M1 | SH-50 | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
Revealed | September 2014 | ![]() | January 2013 | More modern by 20 months |
Common features in the Olympus SH-50 and Ricoh WG-M1
SH-50 | WG-M1 | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
Display type | Fixed | ![]() | Fixed | Fixed display |
Selfie screen | ![]() | Neither offers selfie screen |
Olympus SH-50 vs Ricoh WG-M1 Physical Comparison
In case you're intending to carry around your camera often, you'll need to take into account its weight and proportions. The Olympus SH-50 offers outside dimensions of 112mm x 63mm x 42mm (4.4" x 2.5" x 1.7") with a weight of 269 grams (0.59 lbs) and the Ricoh WG-M1 has measurements of 66mm x 43mm x 89mm (2.6" x 1.7" x 3.5") having a weight of 190 grams (0.42 lbs).
Contrast the Olympus SH-50 vs Ricoh WG-M1 in our completely new Camera plus Lens Size Comparison Tool.![Camera Size Comparison with Lenses Camera Size Comparison with Lenses](https://pxlmag.com/db/assets/camera-size-comparison-animation.gif)
Don't forget, the weight of an ILC will change dependant on the lens you select at that time. Below is a front view scale comparison of the SH-50 and the WG-M1.
![Olympus SH-50 vs Ricoh WG-M1 size comparison Olympus SH-50 vs Ricoh WG-M1 size comparison](https://pxlmag.com/db/images/camera-compare/Olympus-SH-50-vs-Ricoh-WG-M1-size-comparison.jpg)
Factoring in dimensions and weight, the portability score of the SH-50 and WG-M1 is 88 and 91 respectively.
![Olympus SH-50 vs Ricoh WG-M1 top view buttons comparison Olympus SH-50 vs Ricoh WG-M1 top view buttons comparison](https://pxlmag.com/db/images/camera-compare/Olympus-SH-50-vs-Ricoh-WG-M1-top-view-buttons-comparison.jpg)
Olympus SH-50 vs Ricoh WG-M1 Sensor Comparison
Sometimes, it is very difficult to visualize the difference in sensor sizes just by checking out specifications. The pic below might provide you a greater sense of the sensor sizes in the SH-50 and WG-M1.
To sum up, both of the cameras have the same sensor dimensions but different resolution. You can expect to see the Olympus SH-50 to provide extra detail utilizing its extra 2 Megapixels. Greater resolution will also enable you to crop photos a bit more aggressively. The more aged SH-50 will be disadvantaged with regard to sensor technology.
![Olympus SH-50 vs Ricoh WG-M1 sensor size comparison Olympus SH-50 vs Ricoh WG-M1 sensor size comparison](https://pxlmag.com/db/images/sensor-compare/Olympus-SH-50-vs-Ricoh-WG-M1-sensor-size-comparison.png)
Olympus SH-50 vs Ricoh WG-M1 Screen and ViewFinder
![Olympus SH-50 vs Ricoh WG-M1 Screen and Viewfinder comparison Olympus SH-50 vs Ricoh WG-M1 Screen and Viewfinder comparison](https://pxlmag.com/db/images/camera-compare/Olympus-SH-50-vs-Ricoh-WG-M1-screen-back-comparison.jpg)
![](https://pxlmag.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/snapchat-218x150.jpg)
Photography Type Scores
Portrait Comparison
![](https://pxlmag.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/samsung-evo-microsd-cards-featur-218x150.jpg)
Street Comparison
![](https://pxlmag.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/No-Surprise-Pentax-17-Pre-Orders-218x150.jpg)
Sports Comparison
![](https://pxlmag.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/photography-glossary-218x150.jpg)
Travel Comparison
![](https://pxlmag.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/ai-licence-218x150.jpg)
Landscape Comparison
![](https://pxlmag.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Approach-to-AI-Generated-Content-218x150.jpg)
Vlogging Comparison
![](https://pxlmag.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/maxresdefault-218x150.jpg)
Olympus SH-50 vs Ricoh WG-M1 Specifications
Olympus SH-50 | Ricoh WG-M1 | |
---|---|---|
General Information | ||
Brand Name | Olympus | Ricoh |
Model | Olympus SH-50 | Ricoh WG-M1 |
Category | Small Sensor Superzoom | Waterproof |
Introduced | 2013-01-08 | 2014-09-12 |
Body design | Compact | Compact |
Sensor Information | ||
Chip | TruePic VI | - |
Sensor type | BSI-CMOS | CMOS |
Sensor size | 1/2.3" | 1/2.3" |
Sensor dimensions | 6.17 x 4.55mm | 6.17 x 4.55mm |
Sensor area | 28.1mm² | 28.1mm² |
Sensor resolution | 16 megapixels | 14 megapixels |
Anti aliasing filter | ||
Aspect ratio | 1:1, 4:3, 3:2 and 16:9 | 4:3 and 16:9 |
Max resolution | 4608 x 3456 | 4320 x 3240 |
Max native ISO | 6400 | 800 |
Min native ISO | 125 | 100 |
RAW pictures | ||
Autofocusing | ||
Manual focus | ||
Touch focus | ||
Continuous AF | ||
AF single | ||
Tracking AF | ||
Selective AF | ||
AF center weighted | ||
AF multi area | ||
AF live view | ||
Face detection AF | ||
Contract detection AF | ||
Phase detection AF | ||
Lens | ||
Lens mounting type | fixed lens | fixed lens |
Lens focal range | 25-600mm (24.0x) | (1×) |
Max aperture | f/3.0-6.9 | f/2.8 |
Macro focus distance | 5cm | - |
Crop factor | 5.8 | 5.8 |
Screen | ||
Range of screen | Fixed Type | Fixed Type |
Screen diagonal | 3 inches | 1.5 inches |
Resolution of screen | 460k dot | 115k dot |
Selfie friendly | ||
Liveview | ||
Touch friendly | ||
Viewfinder Information | ||
Viewfinder | None | None |
Features | ||
Min shutter speed | 15 seconds | - |
Max shutter speed | 1/2000 seconds | - |
Continuous shutter speed | 12.0 frames per sec | 10.0 frames per sec |
Shutter priority | ||
Aperture priority | ||
Manually set exposure | ||
Exposure compensation | Yes | - |
Set WB | ||
Image stabilization | ||
Integrated flash | ||
Flash range | 4.00 m | no built-in flash |
Flash modes | Auto, On, Off, Red-Eye, Fill-in, Slow Sync | no built-in flash |
Hot shoe | ||
AE bracketing | ||
White balance bracketing | ||
Exposure | ||
Multisegment exposure | ||
Average exposure | ||
Spot exposure | ||
Partial exposure | ||
AF area exposure | ||
Center weighted exposure | ||
Video features | ||
Supported video resolutions | 1920 x 1080 (60fps), 1280 x 720 (30 fps), 640 x 480 (30 fps), 480fps (176 x 128), 240fps (384 x 288) | 1920 x 1080 (30p), 1280 x 960 (50p), 1280 x 720 (60p, 30p), 848 x 480 (60p, 120p) |
Max video resolution | 1920x1080 | 1920x1080 |
Video file format | MPEG-4, H.264 | H.264 |
Mic jack | ||
Headphone jack | ||
Connectivity | ||
Wireless | Built-In | Built-In |
Bluetooth | ||
NFC | ||
HDMI | ||
USB | USB 2.0 (480 Mbit/sec) | USB 2.0 (480 Mbit/sec) |
GPS | None | None |
Physical | ||
Environment seal | ||
Water proof | ||
Dust proof | ||
Shock proof | ||
Crush proof | ||
Freeze proof | ||
Weight | 269 grams (0.59 lbs) | 190 grams (0.42 lbs) |
Physical dimensions | 112 x 63 x 42mm (4.4" x 2.5" x 1.7") | 66 x 43 x 89mm (2.6" x 1.7" x 3.5") |
DXO scores | ||
DXO Overall score | not tested | not tested |
DXO Color Depth score | not tested | not tested |
DXO Dynamic range score | not tested | not tested |
DXO Low light score | not tested | not tested |
Other | ||
Battery life | - | 350 photographs |
Form of battery | - | Battery Pack |
Battery model | SLB-10A | DB-65 |
Self timer | Yes (2 or 12 sec, Pet Auto Shutter) | - |
Time lapse recording | ||
Storage media | SD/SDHC/SDXC | microSD/microSDHC, internal |
Storage slots | 1 | 1 |
Price at release | $300 | $2,000 |