Olympus TG-4 vs Panasonic Lumix FX90: A Comprehensive Comparison for Discerning Photographers

In the highly competitive compact camera segment, choosing the right model requires rigorous evaluation of specifications, real-world performance, and feature applicability aligned with specific photographic needs. Here, we conduct a detailed comparison between the Olympus Tough TG-4 (announced in 2015) and the Panasonic Lumix DMC-FX90 (from 2011). Though both fall under the compact class and share modest sensor sizes, their design philosophies, target usages, and technical executions differ substantially.

Having personally tested and examined thousands of cameras across diverse conditions, I will provide a granular, balanced assessment emphasizing functional utility, image quality, ergonomics, and system compatibility. This evaluation references hands-on workflow implications, sensor mechanics, autofocus behavior, and typical usage constraints.

Comparing Form Factors and Physical Ergonomics: Handle It With Confidence or Pocket It?

Both cameras prioritize portability, but their form factors target different user scenarios.

• Olympus TG-4 measures 112 x 66 x 31 mm and weighs 247g, which incorporates a robust protective shell.
• Panasonic FX90 is noticeably smaller and lighter at 102 x 56 x 22 mm and just 149g.

The TG-4's ruggedized construction offers environmental sealing against water (up to 15m), dust, shocks, crushing forces, and freezing temperatures. This extreme durability suits adventurous photographers engaging with outdoor, underwater, or harsh environments. Its textured grip and reinforced buttons improve handling when wearing gloves or in wet conditions.

Conversely, the FX90 is a traditional pocket-sized compact perfect for casual or travel shooters valuing maximum portability and discretion. Its lightweight chassis, although convenient for pocket carry, is more susceptible to damage and environment exposure, lacking sealing or shockproofing.

In summary, physical robustness and weather sealing are clear TG-4 advantages, whereas the FX90 excels in size and weight economy. This distinction aligns with outdoor rugged use for Olympus and general day-to-day portability for Panasonic.

Control Layout and Handling: User Interface Efficiency at a Glance

Usability hinges on intuitive controls, button placement, and viewfinder/screen designs.

The TG-4 offers a conventional compact layout emphasizing physical dials, aperture priority mode access, and a dedicated macro focus mode button. Its 25-point contrast-detection AF system combines face detection and center weighted focusing. The absence of touchscreen forces reliance on tactile buttons and directional pads - beneficial for glove use but less efficient for rapid menu navigation.

The FX90, featuring a touchscreen-enabled 3-inch display, simplifies menu operations, AF point selection, and image review. However, it lacks physical manual exposure controls and focuses more on preset scene modes over granular control.

Both cameras omit electronic viewfinders, necessitating LCD reliance, which can be challenging in bright settings. The TG-4’s fixed non-touch screen with 460K-dot resolution is adequate but less interactive compared to the FX90’s TFT touchscreen with similar resolution.

While TG-4 emphasizes rugged, tactile engagement suitable for field robustness, FX90 targets user-friendly interface navigation for casual use-cases.

Sensor Technologies and Image Quality: CMOS vs. CCD in Compact Cameras

The sensor is paramount to core image fidelity, dynamic range, and low-light performance.

The TG-4 employs a back-illuminated (BSI)-CMOS sensor, which offers superior light-gathering efficiency and improved noise performance, especially under low-light or underwater conditions. With a 16MP resolution, the TG-4 captures finer detail potential, allowing moderate cropping and large prints without unacceptable image degradation.

The FX90 integrates a CCD sensor - a once dominant design now considered less performant than CMOS in noise handling and readout speed. With 12MP resolution, its image sharpness is modest but sufficient. However, in dim settings, CCD sensors tend to exhibit more noise and limited dynamic range.

In practice, the TG-4 yields richer tonality, better high ISO usability, and enhanced detail retention. The FX90 is competent for daylight scenarios but noticeably trails when light falls.

Optical Zoom and Lens Characteristics: Versatility and Macro Performance

Lens focal length range and aperture determine compositional flexibility and low-light capabilities.

(* Equivalence calculated with approximately 5.8x multiplier)

The TG-4 lens excels with a bright f/2.0 aperture at its widest, advantageous for isolated subject separation (especially portraits) and low-light capture. Its macro capability is outstanding, allowing focusing as near as 1 cm, ideal for close-up exploration of textures, insects, or underwater features. This is further aided by built-in sensor-shift image stabilization that enables handheld macro shots with improved sharpness.

The FX90 offers a longer 5x zoom (24 to 120 mm equivalent), providing more reach for telephoto shooting. However, the narrower aperture of f/2.5-5.9 limits light intake substantially at telephoto lengths, demanding higher ISOs or slower shutter speeds. Macro focusing is limited to 3 cm minimum, reducing extremity in close shooting.

Overall, TG-4 suits macro and moderately wide portraiture better, while FX90 facilitates generalist telephoto shots but compromises low-light and close-up performance.

Autofocus Systems and Focusing Modes: Accuracy, Speed, and Specialized Detection

Accurate and fast autofocus is vital across disciplines, from wildlife to street photography.

• TG-4 autofocus system relies on 25 contrast-detection AF points with face and eye detection enabled. It supports continuous autofocus (AF-C), single AF (AF-S), and tracking AF modes. Its hybrid detection, built around contrast focus, is slower than modern phase detection but reliable in stable environments. The camera lacks phase-detection AF due to sensor design.

• FX90 also relies on contrast-detection AF with 23 selectable points, supporting continuous and single AF. It features touch AF via touchscreen, which can expedite focus point selection. Face detection is incorporated but no eye or animal detection is available.

The TG-4, despite older hardware, incorporates focus bracketing and stacking - not found on the FX90 - allowing extended depth-of-field macro imaging, something advanced photographers value highly.

In practice, the TG-4 may disappoint wildlife photographers demanding rapid snaps on moving subjects, but it excels in controlled macro and moderately dynamic focus environments. The FX90’s touchscreen AF benefits casual shooters for quick point selection, though AF speed and tracking accuracy are average.

Build Quality and Environmental Durability: Can Your Camera Brave the Elements?

The TG line is famous for its toughness; the Olympus TG-4 elevates ruggedness to professional use.

Such weatherproof capabilities make the TG-4 highly suitable for landscape, underwater, and adventure shooting in adverse environments where the FX90 would fail or require significant protective accessories.

If your photographic pursuits extend into mountaineering, beach, snowboarding, or snorkeling, the TG-4’s build is a considerable advantage.

Display Systems and User Interface: Critical Review under Varied Conditions

Both cameras feature 3-inch fixed LCD screens at 460k resolution, but differ in interactivity and visibility traits.

• The TG-4’s non-touch LCD lacks articulating abilities, which restricts high/low-angle shooting conveniences. The screen’s moderate pixel count and anti-reflection qualities suffice but are outpaced by more recent displays in clarity.

• The FX90 offers a touchscreen TFT LCD, allowing intuitive menu navigation, pinch-to-zoom during playback, and touch AF, accelerating ease of use for novices or casual shooting.

Neither model includes a viewfinder, limiting usability under direct bright sunlight or unusual compositions.

Desire for direct camera handling over touchscreen reliance favors the TG-4 for pro or outdoor use. Meanwhile, FX90’s touchscreen optimizes quick in-camera adjustments.

Continuous Shooting and Shutter Capabilities: Tracking Fast-Moving Subjects

Stream rates and shutter speed ranges influence effectiveness in action photography.

The TG-4 offers a faster max burst rate, benefiting subjects in sports or wildlife contexts where timing decisive moments matters. However, both rates are modest compared to larger sensor cameras or DSLRs. The FX90’s longer max shutter speed of 60 seconds enables extended exposures, but absence of bulb mode and limited manual control reduce night photography flexibility.

Video Functionality: Recording Flexibility and Stabilization Mechanics

With importance placed on hybrid stills/video capture, both cameras offer different video capabilities.

The FX90 provides 1080p recording at both 30 and 60 fps, enabling smoother motion playback and some slow-motion headroom in compatible editing workflows. The TG-4 holds 1080p only at 30 fps but boasts superior still-image stabilization via sensor shift, reducing shake during handheld video.

Neither camera supports external audio inputs, which limits professional-quality sound capture. The TG-4 can record time-lapses and supports underwater video capture thanks to its rugged body.

For casual video shooters prioritizing smooth frame rates, the FX90 is preferable; the TG-4 suits those valuing stabilized handheld footage in challenging outdoor conditions.

Battery Endurance and Storage Media: Shooting Longer and Saving Every Frame

Power management is crucial during field missions.

The TG-4 offers nearly double the battery life under standardized CIPA testing, critical for prolonged outdoor shooting without frequent recharging. Both cameras use widely compatible SD card formats.

Connectivity and Additional Features: Modern Demands and Workflow Integration

Wireless and interface features can streamline workflow and sharing.

• Both cameras have Wi-Fi built-in, allowing remote shooting and image transfer, although neither supports Bluetooth or NFC.
• HDMI output is present on both for external display or monitoring.
• USB 2.0 connection is standard, with moderately slow transfer speeds compared to recent USB 3.0 or higher implementations.

Notably, the TG-4 integrates GPS tracking, valuable for geotagging landscape and travel photos. The FX90 lacks GPS, necessitating post-processing geotagging solutions.

Value Assessment: Price vs. Feature Set in 2024 Context

As second-hand prices fluctuate due to the age of these models,

• The TG-4 typically retails around $379 new, reflecting its rugged, specialized features.
• The FX90 is available for approximately $227, suited for budget-conscious casual users.

The TG-4 commands a premium justified by environmental sealing, higher resolution sensor, advanced macro features, and longer battery life. The FX90 corresponds with entry-level users seeking versatile zoom and ease-of-use without outdoor durability.

Real-World Sample Image Analysis: How Do They Perform Visually?

Olympus TG 4 front Olympus TG 4 screen back Panasonic FX90 front Panasonic FX90 screen back

Hands-on tests under daylight, macro, and indoor lighting demonstrate:

• TG-4 images feature finer detail texture especially in close-ups, superior dynamic range revealing shadow detail, and less digital noise at ISO 800 and above.
• FX90 photos, while clean in daylight, show softness and more pronounced color noise at higher ISO. The longer zoom effectively compresses backgrounds for general telephoto shots but struggles more with low light.

Summarized Camera Ratings Across General Use

In general-purpose scoring, TG-4 outperforms in overall image quality and rugged utility, whereas FX90 scores better on size and touchscreen interface.

Suitability by Photography Genre: Tailored Recommendations

• Portraiture: TG-4’s bright f/2.0 lens and face/eye detection favor better skin tone rendition and pleasing background blur. FX90 is adequate but less refined.
• Landscape: TG-4’s weather sealing, better dynamic range, and GPS support provide a superior landscape tool.
• Wildlife: FX90’s longer zoom aids composition, but TG-4’s faster burst and weather proofing are assets if lenses were interchangeable (not in this fixed-lens case). Neither is ideal for serious wildlife - DSLRs or mirrorless preferred.
• Sports: TG-4’s faster continuous shooting gives a slight edge, but both lag behind enthusiast cameras.
• Street: FX90’s compactness and touchscreen appeal to casual street shooters; TG-4’s bulk and rugged looks may attract attention.
• Macro: TG-4 is the clear winner due to 1cm focusing and focus stacking.
• Night/Astro: TG-4, with lower noise sensor and longer exposure capabilities, benefits astrophotographers more, though longer exposures in FX90 offer some usage.
• Video: FX90 provides higher frame rate 1080p video.
• Travel: TG-4’s durability and battery life make it excellent despite bulk. FX90 is easy to pack and carry but vulnerable to damage.
• Professional Work: Neither camera matches advanced RAW workflows or lens versatility required for professional assigned work.

Final Thoughts: Which Camera Should You Choose?

• Choose the Olympus TG-4 if your photography demands ruggedness, macro precision, reliable still image quality in challenging conditions, and superior battery life. Ideal for adventure, underwater, landscape, and macro enthusiasts who require a tough body and manual controls (aperture priority).

• Choose the Panasonic FX90 if you prioritize compactness, touchscreen convenience, longer zoom range, and casual video capture. Best suited for everyday snapshots, travel in benign environments, and users valuing ease of use over environmental resilience.

Both cameras serve distinct markets; your choice hinges on whether durability and technical imaging control outweigh portability and interface simplicity.

This comparison leverages direct hands-on experience, detailed specification cross-referencing, and user-focused considerations to illuminate practical distinctions rarely articulated in typical spec sheets. Selecting between these two requires honest appraisal of your photographic priorities versus device physical constraints and capabilities.