Olympus TG-310 vs Ricoh WG-20: Tough Compact Showdown for Adventure Photography

Choosing a rugged compact camera that can keep up with your lifestyle - whether it’s scaling mountains, diving into lakes, or just capturing everyday exploration moments - means weighing durability alongside image quality, ergonomics, and feature set. Today I’m diving deep into a hands-on comparison between two weather-sealed, waterproof offerings aimed at adventure seekers: the Olympus TG-310 announced in early 2011, and the somewhat newer Ricoh WG-20, launched in 2014. Both models fall into the category of rugged pocket cameras, combining waterproof and shockproof build qualities with still modest imaging prowess.

Over countless shoots, field tests, and image analyses spanning multiple genres, I’ve gathered insights that go beyond spec sheets - highlighting how these cameras perform in real-world conditions across a swath of photography disciplines. Whether you’re a casual hiker or a shooting pro needing a solid backup, here’s everything you need to know.

Compact and Tough: Handling Size and Ergonomics First

Starting with something tactile: how these cameras feel in the hand and their portability. When shooting in unpredictable environments, a compact, ergonomic body that’s easy to control while wearing gloves or wrangling wet gear makes a surprisingly big difference.

Physically, the Olympus TG-310 (96x63x23mm, 155 grams) is notably smaller and lighter than the Ricoh WG-20 (114x58x28mm, 164 grams). Olympus’s design philosophy leans towards a solid but streamlined shape that tucks neatly into a pocket or vest. The WG-20 is somewhat chunkier, especially in thickness, with a flat, elongated profile that some may find less pocketable but easier to grip vertically.

I found the TG-310’s grip area a touch more intuitive for one-handed shooting - key when you’re scrambling over rocks or managing ropes - with well-placed rubberized surfaces aiding stability. The WG-20’s controls, while slightly bigger and spaced apart, felt comfortable but in a less natural way, perhaps due to its greater depth. Either way, these aren’t DSLR-sized beasts, but you’ll feel the difference in extended hikes.

Top-Down: Controls and Interface Layout

I dug deeper into the user interface and layout. When quick adjustments are needed in the field - say swapping flash modes or exposure compensation - button positions and dial feedback matter greatly.

Physically, both cameras adopt the straightforward, no-nonsense tough camera approach. The Olympus TG-310 sports a minimalistic button set with a mode dial tucked at the top right, adjacent to a shutter release that delivers decent travel but lacks the tactile snap of higher-end compacts. The WG-20’s layout is similar, though its dials feel firmer with a more deliberate click, perhaps owing to Ricoh’s refinement in this newer model.

Notably, the WG-20 incorporates a dedicated macro focus button and a timelapse function easily accessible from the menus. Olympus’s setup is slightly more basic, geared towards point-and-shoot simplicity and rugged reliability, foregoing some finer manual adjustments.

In practical use, I preferred the WG-20’s tactile feedback in rapidly changing light but appreciated Olympus’s ergonomic form factor, showing a classic trade-off between compactness and control depth.

Sensor and Image Quality: The Heart of the Matter

Both cameras house 1/2.3-inch CCD sensors with 14-megapixel resolution - standard fare in rugged compacts of their era. However, raw specs only tell part of the story. The Olympus TG-310 integrates the TruePic III+ processing engine, while Ricoh’s exact processor isn’t specified but supports a slightly broader native ISO range.

Testing RAW is not an option here - both lack raw capture, restricting post-processing latitude. So, JPEG output fidelity becomes critical. The sensors deliver sharpness sufficient for online sharing and moderate prints but fall short against recent CMOS sensors in dynamic range and noise control.

Importantly, the Ricoh WG-20 can push ISO up to 6400 natively, contrasting with the Olympus’s maximum of ISO 1600. This potentially provides Ricoh an edge in low-light situations, although image quality degrades rapidly above ISO 400 on both cameras.

Color rendering and noise patterns differ: Olympus’s TruePic III+ tends to produce warmer skin tones, slightly more pleasing for portraits, whereas Ricoh’s output is cooler but with harsher noise at higher ISOs. I’d advise sticking to ISO 80-200 on either for optimal results.

These compact CCDs aren’t about resolution but about robustness and day-to-day shooting convenience in tough environments.

Screen and Viewing Experience

Both sport 2.7-inch fixed TFT LCDs with identical 230k-dot resolutions - adequate, but no match for contemporary higher-res displays. The Achilles’ heel here is image review and manual focus assistance.

The Olympus screen has slightly better color vibrancy and contrast, making it easier to judge exposure and composition in bright daylight. The Ricoh’s LCD is decent but fares worse under intense outdoor lighting, reflecting notably more.

No electronic viewfinders on either, and no touch interface, which means framing and shooting rely heavily on LCD visibility and button controls. For outdoor use, Olympus’s screen visibility feels a bit more usable, which is crucial since both cameras lack built-in eye-level viewfinders.

Seeing Both Cameras in Action: Sample Image Gallery

To contextualize their photographic capabilities, here are direct sample comparisons from each camera across various scenarios.

Olympus TG 310 front Olympus TG 310 screen back Ricoh WG 20 front Ricoh WG 20 screen back

Looking at landscape shots, Olympus renders colors with warmer tones and a slight tendency towards saturation, making green foliage pop pleasingly. Ricoh edges in visible sharpness, partly due to its slightly longer zoom but with more aggressive noise reduction.

Macro images taken at their closest focusing distances show Ricoh’s 1cm macro focusing range offers greater subject presence, ideal for detailed flower textures and insect portraits. Olympus’s 3cm minimum is a bit less intimate but still serviceable.

In low-light and indoor portraits, Olympus’s advantages in skin tone reproduction become clear - less harsh, more natural. Ricoh’s higher max ISO helps maintain exposure but at increased noise cost.

Shooting Across Genres: Strengths and Weaknesses Profiled

Both cameras are niche in use but understanding their prowess across photography types clarifies who they serve best.

Portrait Photography

• TG-310: Warmer skin tones, effective face detection, reasonable background blur at telephoto range (max aperture F5.9 limits it). Good for casual snapshots.
• WG-20: Cooler color rendition, better manual focus, slightly tighter zoom for headshots, but noisier in low light.

Landscape Photography

• TG-310: Vivid colors, respectable dynamic range for sensor size, excellent weather sealing including freezeproof rating.
• WG-20: Longer zoom for framing distant scenery, but less dustproof. Slightly better resolution crispness noted in daylight.

Wildlife Photography

• Neither are truly wildlife-focused with modest burst rates (1 fps), slow autofocus. WG-20’s continuous AF offers minor advantage in tracking slow-moving subjects.

Sports Photography

• Both limited here due to slow max shutter sync and low frames per second.

Street Photography

• Olympus’s smaller body is more discreet. Both suffer in low light, but TG-310’s warmer tones favor skin rendering for candid portraits.

Macro Photography

• WG-20’s 1cm macro range and manual focus give it the edge in close-up versatility.

Night and Astrophotography

• Neither perform optimally due to small sensor and limited high-ISO control. However, WG-20’s higher ISO ceiling provides more exposure latitude.

Video Capabilities

• Both limited to 720p HD recording at 30 fps in Motion JPEG - dated by modern standards, with no external mic inputs or advanced stabilization.

Travel Photography

• Olympus TG-310’s smaller size, weight, and more durable environmental sealing benefit travelers seeking a do-it-all rugged camera.

Professional Use

• Neither suitable as a primary workhorse camera; lack of RAW, limited manual control, and sensor constraints restrict professional viability.

Autofocus and Stabilization Systems: Practical Performance Deconstructed

Autofocus systems in these rugged compacts are basic - contrast-detection only, with face detection included. The Olympus TG-310 offers face detection and face tracking but no continuous autofocus. Ricoh WG-20 supports single, continuous, and tracking AF modes, supplemented with 9 selectable focus points.

In trials, WG-20’s continuous AF tracked moderately slow movements more effectively, aiding in shooting kids or pets on the move. TG-310’s focus system felt slower but reliable in stable subjects.

Both feature image stabilization - Olympus uses sensor-shift (optical principle), while Ricoh relies on digital stabilization. In practice, Olympus’s approach yields cleaner images and steadier video, as digital IS can introduce crop or artifacts.

Overall, Olympus leads in image stabilization quality; Ricoh edges slightly in autofocus flexibility.

Build Quality and Environmental Resistance: Weatherproof Warriors

Both cameras boast waterproof, shockproof, and freezeproof certifications with nuanced differences:

• Olympus TG-310: Waterproof up to 10m, dustproof and shockproof from drops up to 1.5m, freezeproof to -10°C, plus crushproof (not rated). Truly a tough companion for harsh conditions.

• Ricoh WG-20: Waterproof to 10m, shockproof to 1.5m, freezeproof to -10°C, but lacks dustproof certification.

These specs mean the TG-310 slightly outperforms in dust resistance, important for desert or dusty trails, giving it an edge for all-condition durability.

Lens Focal Range and Optical Quality

Olympus TG-310 offers a 28-102mm equivalent zoom (3.6x), max apertures f/3.9-5.9. Ricoh WG-20 stretches a bit further with 28-140mm (5x), f/3.5-5.5.

The WG-20’s longer reach is useful for wildlife or distant subjects but comes with slightly slower apertures at telephoto, impacting low-light capabilities.

Image sharpness across focal range on both cameras is modest, with center sharpness good and edge softness at widest apertures. Slight chromatic aberration was evident on Ricoh at full zoom; Olympus performs a bit cleaner optically.

Battery Life and Storage

Ricoh WG-20 shines on battery life, rated at 260 shots per charge versus Olympus TG-310’s 150. In the field, that translates to fewer battery swaps on multi-day treks.

Both store images on SD/SDHC/SDXC cards, but Ricoh WG-20 additionally offers internal storage, a minor bonus if cards run out.

Connectivity and Wireless Convenience

The Olympus TG-310 adopts Eye-Fi card compatibility (WiFi via SD card), allowing wireless image transfer, which helps field workflows.

Ricoh WG-20 lacks wireless features altogether, requiring USB or HDMI for transfers.

Price and Value: What Will It Cost You?

At launch, Ricoh WG-20 commanded about $370 USD, while Olympus TG-310’s initial pricing varied but generally was more affordable.

Today, both cameras are more likely to be found used or discounted, with the TG-310 especially appealing for budget-conscious buyers who prioritize durability over features.

Overall Performance Ratings and Genre-Specific Scorecard

Based on extensive testing, I score these cameras along several axes:

Final Thoughts and Recommendations

The Olympus TG-310 is a rugged and compact waterproof option, excelling in ergonomic feel, environmental sealing (including dustproof), and image stabilization quality. Its slightly warmer, pleasing color science benefits portrait and landscape shooters wanting a durable companion on tough adventures. However, its shorter zoom and limited ISO range hold it back in more specialized photography.

On the other hand, the Ricoh WG-20 offers a longer zoom, better low-light ISO ceiling, more advanced autofocus modes, and notably longer battery endurance. Its macro capability is a boon for close-up shooters, though the lack of dustproofing and more cumbersome body may frustrate some users. Image sharpness barely edges the Olympus, but color rendition and noise require workarounds.

Who should choose which?

• If compactness, durability, ease-of-use, and consistent image stabilization are paramount - especially for hiking and travel in dusty or icy environments - go TG-310.
• If you want greater zoom reach, enhanced low-light shooting, flexible autofocus, and longer battery life, and are less concerned about dust or minimal bulk, the Ricoh WG-20 fits better.

Neither is a perfect professional tool, but both fill valuable niches for enthusiasts needing rugged, waterproof cameras that can survive the elements and still capture decent images. My approach in testing these models reinforces the importance of balancing specs with hands-on performance - because what feels right on paper doesn’t always translate outside.

Choosing between rugged compacts often boils down to the specific adventures you tackle and the features you prioritize. Hopefully, this thorough comparison arms you with enough insight to select the right hardened partner for your photographic journeys. Happy shooting!