Ricoh CX4 vs Ricoh WG-4: Compact Cameras Put to the Test for Today’s Photographer

Choosing the right camera can feel like navigating a maze of specs, features, and trade-offs. Having personally tested thousands of cameras over 15+ years, I’ve come to appreciate that the “best” choice is rarely about raw numbers alone. Instead, it’s about how a camera performs in real-world photography scenarios - and how it fits your unique style, needs, and yes, your budget.

Today, we’re digging into two intriguing yet very different Ricoh compacts: the Ricoh CX4, a 2010-era small sensor superzoom, and the Ricoh WG-4, a rugged, waterproof compact launched in 2014. Both pack a punch in their own right, but for whom, and for what, exactly? By the end of this, you’ll have a clear picture of how these cameras stack up and which one - if either - might deserve a spot in your bag.

A Tale of Two Compacts: Ergonomics and Size That Feel Good in Hand

First impressions matter, and in cameras, ergonomics can make or break the shooting experience. Coming from testing hundreds of compacts, I always start here.

The Ricoh CX4 is noticeably smaller and slimmer with classic compact proportions: 102x59x29 mm, weighing 205g. It’s almost pocketable, which is great for casual outings or slipping into a pocket of a travel vest. The grip is modest - adequate if you don’t have monster clubs for thumbs - but the lightweight body means less fatigue over a day’s shoot.

In contrast, the Ricoh WG-4 steps up in bulk and ruggedness at 124x64x33 mm and 230g. The WG-4 feels delightfully knobby and chunky in hand - by design - providing a solid grip that’s comfortable even with wet or gloved hands (a big plus for underwater or cold-weather work). You instantly sense the WG-4 means business with its toughened body.

Bottom line on feel: CX4 is for stealth and light carrying; WG-4 is for durability and handling in adverse conditions.

Control Layout and User Interface: How Quickly You Can Get the Shot

The best camera is the one you can operate intuitively without thinking too hard. Let’s peek at the top control surfaces to see what’s going on there.

Both cameras have fixed lenses and straightforward dial/button arrangements, but their philosophies diverge.

The CX4’s controls are minimalist - no aperture or shutter priority, no manual exposure modes - reflecting its entry-level superzoom stance. If you prefer a point-and-shoot style with some manual focus thrown in, it’ll work fine.

The WG-4, on the other hand, offers shutter priority mode - unusual for a rugged compact - and continuous autofocus. Its buttons are bigger, well spaced, and rubberized, making them easy to find without looking. The lack of touchscreen is expected for outdoor/rugged gear, prioritizing tactile feedback.

In use, I found the WG-4’s layout more confident and intuitive when shooting fast-paced activities or underwater. The CX4 feels more casual, good for stroll-around snapshots.

Sensor Size and Image Quality: Punching Above Their Weight?

Both cameras use a 1/2.3” sensor, a very common size in compact cameras but generally small compared to mirrorless or DSLRs.

Specifically, the CX4 has a 10MP BSI-CMOS sensor, while the WG-4 features a 16MP BSI-CMOS sensor on the same sized chip. The sensor dimensions are identical at approximately 6.17 x 4.55 mm, meaning both face the typical low-light and dynamic range limitations of this sensor format.

Despite the shared format, the resolution difference matters:

• CX4’s 10MP resolves a maximum 3648x2736 image.
• WG-4’s 16MP clocks in at 4608x3456 pixels.

Higher pixel count in the WG-4 edges out finer detail in daylight and distant landscape shots, provided you have steady hands or a tripod. That said, in low light, the denser pixels can sometimes increase noise - although Ricoh’s sensor stabilization and image processing compensate decently.

Speaking of stabilization, both implement sensor-shift image stabilization, crucial for handheld shooting at telephoto focal lengths and slower shutter speeds.

I tested RAW support - none on either camera. That’s a bummer for advanced editors but expected for their classes and ages. JPEGs are the final output, with in-camera processing defining final image quality.

Making Your Subject Pop: Autofocus, Face Detection, and Shooting Speed

Autofocus performance often separates a “fond memory maker” from a “serious tool.”

Here, the differences are stark:

• The Ricoh CX4 uses contrast-detection autofocus with no face or eye detection and no continuous AF tracking. It has variable-sized AF boxes but relies mostly on steady, deliberate shooting.

• The WG-4 ups the ante by adding face detection, continuous AF, seven or nine AF points (specs indicate 9 focus points), and a center weighted metering system. It also supports AF tracking and can shoot at 2 fps.

During real-world use, especially when photographing moving subjects (think kids or pets), the WG-4’s continuous autofocus and face detection really shined. The CX4 required more patience, best suited for static or slow-moving subjects.

Burst shooting is also a canyon between the two - CX4 manages 5 fps but with relatively slow buffer clearance and no AF tracking on the burst. WG-4’s 2 fps is slower, but accompanied by continuous AF and tracking making it more practical for wildlife and street photography.

Reliability Under the Elements: Build Quality and Environmental Resistance

This is where the WG-4 really stands out. The CX4 is a no-frills compact - great for indoor or fair-weather outdoor use - but offers:

• No weather sealing
• No dustproof or shock-resistance
• No waterproofing

The WG-4 is targeted squarely at adventure shooters:

• Fully waterproof to depths commonly used in snorkeling (about 14 meters or 46 feet)
• Shockproof to 2 meters drops
• Crushproof and freezeproof down to -10°C
• Dust resistance to an IP rating level (though officially, it’s not dustproof)

If you’re planning hikes, beach trips, or even wanting to shoot underwater in a casual way, WG-4’s ruggedness is a game changer.

What Do These Cameras Shoot Like Across Photography Genres?

To bring this to life, I scoured through genre-specific performance using industry-standard tests, personal field trials, and review community feedback.

Portraiture: Skin Tones and Background Blur

With landscapes and action in mind, portraiture might seem secondary here, but both cameras deserve a look.

• The CX4 has a much longer zoom range reaching 300mm equivalent, allowing nice headshots from a reasonable distance. It lacks face detection, so autofocus can sometimes struggle on eyes (due to contrast-only AF). Skin tone rendition is serviceable with average JPEG processing, though lacking nuance compared to modern cameras. Background blur is limited, as the lens maxes out at f/3.5-5.6 on a small sensor, making bokeh shallow but not prominent.

• The WG-4’s shorter zoom (25-100mm) limits tight headshots, but it offers face detection and autofocus precision. Its slightly faster aperture of f/2.0 at wide end lets in more light, rendering subjects a little better in dim conditions. Here, you get modest subject separation for casual portraits.

Verdict: Neither is ideal for professional portraiture (you want a larger sensor and faster glass), but WG-4’s face detection and wider aperture give it a slight edge for casual portraits.

Landscapes: Resolution, Dynamic Range, and Weatherproofing

Landscape shooters crave detail and dynamic range for dramatic skies and textures.

The WG-4 wins here in two critical ways:

• Higher 16MP resolution captures finer details in foliage and rock.
• Weather sealing allows shooting unfazed in mist, rain, or dusty trails.

The CX4 can produce decent landscapes on sunny days but lacks the ruggedness and stops down to 10MP, which might frustrate crop-heavy edits.

Wildlife and Sports: Autofocus Speed and Burst Shooting

If you’re after squirrels or soccer games, autofocus and burst rate are your critical metrics.

• The WG-4’s continuous autofocus and 2 fps burst with tracking serve modest wildlife and slow sports action well - provided you’re patient.
• CX4’s 5 fps burst is fast on paper but handicapped by single AF, making it tricky to nail moving subjects.

Neither camera is a pro-level sports shooter; the CX4 can be tempting for quick bursts but falls short without AF tracking. The WG-4’s tracking autofocus is more practical but slower frame rate holds it back for fast sports.

Street Photography: Discreteness, Low Light, and Portability

Street photography values low light performance, portability, and non-intrusive design.

• The CX4’s compact size and quiet operation make it less conspicuous than the bulky WG-4.
• The WG-4’s bulky, rugged design and louder shutter may draw unwanted attention.
• Both cameras struggle in low light due to small sensors - pitching ISO above 800 quickly degrades quality.
• WG-4’s f/2.0 lens wide aperture helps low-light somewhat.

For keeping a low profile, the CX4 is better. But if you expect to shoot at night or in dim cafes, the WG-4 has modest advantages.

Macro: Close-Up Capabilities and Focus Precision

Both cameras shine with a 1cm macro focus range - very close for big detail of flowers, insects, or textures.

• CX4’s manual focus assists in nailing focus precisely.
• WG-4 adds image stabilization which really helps handheld macro sharpness.

The WG-4’s stabilization and better autofocus tracking edge it out for macro enthusiasts.

Night and Astro: High ISO and Exposure Flexibility

Shooting stars or nighttime cityscapes demands excellent low-light sensitivity and long exposures.

Both cameras have limited low-light chops due to sensor size and max ISO:

• CX4 max ISO 3200 with limited noise control
• WG-4 max ISO 6400 with slightly improved noise though still heavy grain

Neither supports RAW or long bulb exposures. The WG-4’s shutter priority mode and longer max shutter (up to 4 sec) grant more control for night shots.

Neither replaces a dedicated astro camera, but between these two, the WG-4 is more suited for casual night scenes.

Video: Moving Images With Constraints

As video increasingly matters to all shooters, we check each cam’s chops:

• CX4 shoots HD 720p at 30 fps using Motion JPEG - a rather dated, large-file format limiting duration and editing ease.
• WG-4 delivers Full HD 1080p at 30/60 fps using efficient H.264 codec. It also offers 720p at 60 fps slow-motion clips.
• Neither has microphone or headphone ports - so audio is basic.

If video is important to you, the WG-4’s better codec and 1080p resolution provide more professional-feeling footage.

Travel Use: Size, Battery, and Versatility

Travel photography demands a balance of specs, size, and reliability.

The CX4’s slim, pocketable body and longer zoom might appeal to cheapskate travelers wanting coverage without bulk.

The WG-4, while larger, offers ruggedness and weather sealing, letting you venture to places where the CX4 fears to tread.

Battery life also favors the WG-4 with roughly 240 shots per charge versus the unspecified (likely less) CX4 battery life.

Pro Work: Workflow and Reliability

Neither camera supports RAW or advanced file formats - making them second-string work cameras at best.

For pro workflows requiring tethering, RAW files, or flash sync, both fall short.

The WG-4’s ruggedness and weather sealing might earn inclusion as a backup camera for adventure shoots where bigger rigs fear water or shock.

Visual Proof: Real-World Image Samples

To help you see the differences in action:

Ricoh CX4 front Ricoh CX4 screen back Ricoh WG 4 front Ricoh WG 4 screen back

Observe the sharper details and better color fidelity from the WG-4’s 16MP sensor in daylight scenes. The CX4’s longer zoom offers tight composition but softer detail.

Low-light indoor images show the WG-4 maintaining more color with less aggressive noise reduction.

Summing Up Their Scores and How They Rank

Based on extensive hands-on testing and community feedback, I’ve compiled overall and genre-specific performance scores to paint a quantified picture.

• WG-4 edges higher overall for image quality, autofocus, and durability.
• CX4 scores well for size, zoom range, and casual handling.

In The Clubs For Thumbs: Who Should Buy Which?

Let me break it down simply, based on your shooting style and priorities:

The CX4 might still appeal to budget-conscious users wanting a versatile compact superzoom for well-lit conditions.

The WG-4 is the better all-rounder if you don’t mind lugging a slightly bulkier camera and want extra security against the elements.

Technical Nuggets From My Testing Lab

• Both cameras’ BSI CMOS sensors perform predictably for their sizes: good daylight exposure latitude but limited dynamic range.
• WG-4’s contrast-detection AF with tracking and face detection is surprisingly agile for a rugged compact.
• CX4’s Smooth Imaging Engine IV processor handles noise moderately well but can over-smooth fine detail.
• Sensor-shift stabilization on both models aids handheld low-light shooting - much appreciated for telephoto and macro.
• The lack of RAW support on both limits post-processing flexibility - weigh that against their sub-$350 price tags.
• WG-4’s USB and HDMI ports provide modest connectivity; CX4 sticks to USB only.
• Battery endurance favors WG-4 but still requires spares for long days.

Final Verdict: Is Either a Good Buy in 2024?

Here’s my candid take after squinting through the viewfinders, juggling buttons, sprinting through fields, and dunking cameras in water:

• Both cameras are somewhat dated in tech but still valid choices within their niche.
• The Ricoh WG-4 is a rugged compact champion offering versatility, durability, and better image quality and video for photographers who don’t want to baby their gear.
• The Ricoh CX4 suits ultra-light travelers and casual snapshooters who crave zoom reach without bells and whistles.
• If you want more modern features like RAW, faster continuous AF, touchscreen, or higher resolutions with bigger sensors, you’ll want to look beyond these models.

At their current street prices ($210 for CX4 and $330 for WG-4), they represent decent value - but only if their strengths align with your shooting style.

If you’re a hobbyist who sometimes shoots landscapes, macros, or underwater adventures, the WG-4’s ruggedness and better versatility tip the scales.

If you’re a casual user or just want something small to carry daily without worry about knocks - plus maximum zoom - the CX4 is a handy buddy, although you’ll sacrifice some image quality and toughness.

Thanks for coming along on this deep-dive comparison. Hopefully, my hands-on insights help you sift through the specs and marketing buzz to find a compact Ricoh that will genuinely serve your needs - no matter your budget or shooting passion.

Happy shooting, and may your next camera fit you like a glove (or a club for your thumbs)!