Olympus TG-860 vs Samsung HZ35W
91 Imaging
40 Features
42 Overall
40
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/042ab/042ab9bda5359b24c15525e105c8dbb85792e213" alt="Olympus Stylus Tough TG-860 front Olympus Stylus Tough TG-860 front"
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/47f7d/47f7d7b1e27877de843384ed6303648cfc08aee4" alt="Samsung HZ35W front Samsung HZ35W front"
91 Imaging
35 Features
42 Overall
37
Olympus TG-860 vs Samsung HZ35W Key Specs
(Full Review)
- 16MP - 1/2.3" Sensor
- 3" Tilting Display
- ISO 125 - 6400
- Optical Image Stabilization
- 1920 x 1080 video
- 21-105mm (F3.5-5.7) lens
- 224g - 110 x 64 x 28mm
- Introduced February 2015
- Later Model is Olympus TG-870
(Full Review)
- 12MP - 1/2.3" Sensor
- 3" Fixed Display
- ISO 80 - 3200
- Optical Image Stabilization
- 1280 x 720 video
- 24-360mm (F3.2-5.8) lens
- 245g - 107 x 61 x 28mm
- Released June 2010
- Additionally Known as WB650
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/85299/85299aa0d77ee8b6a2d3435fdb68ab0ccaabf584" alt=""
Olympus TG-860 vs Samsung HZ35W Overview
Its time to take a deeper look at the Olympus TG-860 and Samsung HZ35W, former being a Waterproof while the other is a Small Sensor Superzoom by manufacturers Olympus and Samsung. There exists a considerable gap between the resolutions of the TG-860 (16MP) and HZ35W (12MP) but they possess the exact same sensor size (1/2.3").
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/8876b/8876ba1234536f7f948b3ad54614ecbba59fd0b6" alt=""
The TG-860 was introduced 4 years later than the HZ35W and that is quite a large difference as far as technology is concerned. Each of the cameras come with different body type with the Olympus TG-860 being a Ultracompact camera and the Samsung HZ35W being a Compact camera.
Before going straight into a full comparison, below is a short highlight of how the TG-860 grades vs the HZ35W in relation to portability, imaging, features and an overall rating.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/40b17/40b178b2c2a7887c950c5d80f9aa0bc017ad9376" alt=""
Olympus TG-860 vs Samsung HZ35W Gallery
Below is a sample of the gallery pictures for Olympus Stylus Tough TG-860 & Samsung HZ35W. The whole galleries are provided at Olympus TG-860 Gallery & Samsung HZ35W Gallery.
Reasons to pick Olympus TG-860 over the Samsung HZ35W
TG-860 | HZ35W | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
Released | February 2015 | ![]() | June 2010 | Fresher by 57 months |
Display type | Tilting | ![]() | Fixed | Tilting display |
Reasons to pick Samsung HZ35W over the Olympus TG-860
HZ35W | TG-860 | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
Manual focus | ![]() | Dial precise focus | ||
Display resolution | 614k | ![]() | 460k | Clearer display (+154k dot) |
Common features in the Olympus TG-860 and Samsung HZ35W
TG-860 | HZ35W | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
Display dimension | 3" | ![]() | 3" | Identical display size |
Selfie screen | ![]() | Neither has selfie screen | ||
Touch display | ![]() | Neither has Touch display |
Olympus TG-860 vs Samsung HZ35W Physical Comparison
For anybody who is looking to carry your camera often, you will need to factor its weight and size. The Olympus TG-860 has physical measurements of 110mm x 64mm x 28mm (4.3" x 2.5" x 1.1") accompanied by a weight of 224 grams (0.49 lbs) while the Samsung HZ35W has specifications of 107mm x 61mm x 28mm (4.2" x 2.4" x 1.1") accompanied by a weight of 245 grams (0.54 lbs).
Check the Olympus TG-860 and Samsung HZ35W in our brand new Camera plus Lens Size Comparison Tool.data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/a6ef8/a6ef8f16e8deba30cb986caafd44d83681e96a75" alt="Camera Size Comparison with Lenses Camera Size Comparison with Lenses"
Remember, the weight of an ILC will differ dependant on the lens you select during that time. Following is the front view dimension comparison of the TG-860 compared to the HZ35W.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/612cc/612cce4b29fb0c5ad11dc062e76806fbfcb4d64f" alt="Olympus TG-860 vs Samsung HZ35W size comparison Olympus TG-860 vs Samsung HZ35W size comparison"
Looking at dimensions and weight, the portability grade of the TG-860 and HZ35W is 91 and 91 respectively.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/a2923/a292301a471373ca6126622f471b829fcffa734f" alt="Olympus TG-860 vs Samsung HZ35W top view buttons comparison Olympus TG-860 vs Samsung HZ35W top view buttons comparison"
Olympus TG-860 vs Samsung HZ35W Sensor Comparison
Typically, it can be difficult to see the contrast between sensor sizing simply by going over specifications. The graphic underneath may offer you a stronger sense of the sensor measurements in the TG-860 and HZ35W.
Plainly, both of the cameras posses the exact same sensor measurements but not the same megapixels. You can anticipate the Olympus TG-860 to offer you extra detail using its extra 4 Megapixels. Greater resolution can also enable you to crop images somewhat more aggressively. The more recent TG-860 is going to have an advantage with regard to sensor innovation.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/b11bf/b11bf76a6c482bdf6513b8b8cb6a088dac37c758" alt="Olympus TG-860 vs Samsung HZ35W sensor size comparison Olympus TG-860 vs Samsung HZ35W sensor size comparison"
Olympus TG-860 vs Samsung HZ35W Screen and ViewFinder
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/c0b79/c0b7924c90e65d988714528fde405ff7b02f6374" alt="Olympus TG-860 vs Samsung HZ35W Screen and Viewfinder comparison Olympus TG-860 vs Samsung HZ35W Screen and Viewfinder comparison"
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/6d588/6d5886e45f6ed46a44c58516180e79dc4c09297f" alt=""
Photography Type Scores
Portrait Comparison
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/427ef/427ef51d855b8f8d8523699aa2b0465afb765511" alt=""
Street Comparison
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/bfda9/bfda97b4ea42610c4d033bdc3102b7af07982c04" alt=""
Sports Comparison
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/09f89/09f89c6b5dc0c8e793ce323afb658e7f43d45612" alt=""
Travel Comparison
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/c3338/c3338e925c8d47c26e739e490d039a1411046530" alt=""
Landscape Comparison
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/9df93/9df93b830615ba08ba0f7e31492fca23710a884c" alt=""
Vlogging Comparison
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/4fad8/4fad8be6e5d8cb84d21f21424f73546c57bfca20" alt=""
Olympus TG-860 vs Samsung HZ35W Specifications
Olympus Stylus Tough TG-860 | Samsung HZ35W | |
---|---|---|
General Information | ||
Brand | Olympus | Samsung |
Model type | Olympus Stylus Tough TG-860 | Samsung HZ35W |
Alternative name | - | WB650 |
Category | Waterproof | Small Sensor Superzoom |
Introduced | 2015-02-06 | 2010-06-16 |
Body design | Ultracompact | Compact |
Sensor Information | ||
Powered by | TruePic VII | - |
Sensor type | CMOS | CCD |
Sensor size | 1/2.3" | 1/2.3" |
Sensor measurements | 6.17 x 4.55mm | 6.17 x 4.55mm |
Sensor area | 28.1mm² | 28.1mm² |
Sensor resolution | 16 megapixel | 12 megapixel |
Anti alias filter | ||
Aspect ratio | 1:1, 4:3, 3:2 and 16:9 | 4:3 and 16:9 |
Highest resolution | 4608 x 3456 | 4000 x 3000 |
Highest native ISO | 6400 | 3200 |
Lowest native ISO | 125 | 80 |
RAW data | ||
Autofocusing | ||
Manual focusing | ||
Touch focus | ||
Autofocus continuous | ||
Single autofocus | ||
Autofocus tracking | ||
Selective autofocus | ||
Center weighted autofocus | ||
Multi area autofocus | ||
Autofocus live view | ||
Face detect autofocus | ||
Contract detect autofocus | ||
Phase detect autofocus | ||
Lens | ||
Lens mount type | fixed lens | fixed lens |
Lens zoom range | 21-105mm (5.0x) | 24-360mm (15.0x) |
Maximal aperture | f/3.5-5.7 | f/3.2-5.8 |
Macro focusing range | 1cm | 3cm |
Crop factor | 5.8 | 5.8 |
Screen | ||
Range of display | Tilting | Fixed Type |
Display diagonal | 3 inch | 3 inch |
Resolution of display | 460 thousand dot | 614 thousand dot |
Selfie friendly | ||
Liveview | ||
Touch function | ||
Viewfinder Information | ||
Viewfinder | None | None |
Features | ||
Lowest shutter speed | 4s | 16s |
Highest shutter speed | 1/2000s | 1/2000s |
Continuous shooting speed | 7.0 frames/s | - |
Shutter priority | ||
Aperture priority | ||
Manual exposure | ||
Exposure compensation | - | Yes |
Custom white balance | ||
Image stabilization | ||
Integrated flash | ||
Flash distance | 4.00 m (at ISO 1600) | 5.00 m |
Flash options | Auto, redeye reduction, fill flash, off, LED illuminator | Auto, On, Off, Red-Eye, Fill-in, Slow Sync |
External flash | ||
Auto exposure 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 (60p), 1280 x 720 (60p), 640 x 480 (60p) | 1280 x 720 (30, 15 fps), 640 x 480 (30, 15 fps), 320 x 240 (60, 30 fps) |
Highest video resolution | 1920x1080 | 1280x720 |
Video file format | H.264 | Motion JPEG |
Microphone input | ||
Headphone input | ||
Connectivity | ||
Wireless | Built-In | None |
Bluetooth | ||
NFC | ||
HDMI | ||
USB | USB 2.0 (480 Mbit/sec) | USB 2.0 (480 Mbit/sec) |
GPS | Yes | BuiltIn |
Physical | ||
Environment seal | ||
Water proofing | ||
Dust proofing | ||
Shock proofing | ||
Crush proofing | ||
Freeze proofing | ||
Weight | 224 grams (0.49 lb) | 245 grams (0.54 lb) |
Dimensions | 110 x 64 x 28mm (4.3" x 2.5" x 1.1") | 107 x 61 x 28mm (4.2" x 2.4" x 1.1") |
DXO scores | ||
DXO All around rating | not tested | not tested |
DXO Color Depth rating | not tested | not tested |
DXO Dynamic range rating | not tested | not tested |
DXO Low light rating | not tested | not tested |
Other | ||
Battery life | 300 pictures | - |
Battery format | Battery Pack | - |
Battery ID | Li-50B | SLB-11A |
Self timer | Yes (2 or 10 sec, custom) | Yes (2 or 10 sec, Double, Motion) |
Time lapse recording | ||
Storage media | SD/SDHC/SDXC, Internal | SD/SDHC/SDXC, Internal |
Storage slots | One | One |
Price at launch | $279 | $300 |