Ricoh WG-M1 vs Samsung TL225
91 Imaging
39 Features
22 Overall
32
![Ricoh WG-M1 front Ricoh WG-M1 front](https://pxlmag.com/db/images/cameras/gallery/medium/Ricoh-WG-M1/Ricoh-WG-M1-front.jpg)
![Samsung TL225 front Samsung TL225 front](https://pxlmag.com/db/images/cameras/w300/fronton/Samsung-TL225.jpg)
94 Imaging
35 Features
33 Overall
34
Ricoh WG-M1 vs Samsung TL225 Key Specs
(Full Review)
- 14MP - 1/2.3" Sensor
- 1.5" Fixed Screen
- ISO 100 - 800
- 1920 x 1080 video
- (1×)mm (F2.8) lens
- 190g - 66 x 43 x 89mm
- Announced September 2014
(Full Review)
- 12MP - 1/2.3" Sensor
- 3.5" Fixed Screen
- ISO 80 - 3200
- Optical Image Stabilization
- 1280 x 720 video
- 27-124mm (F3.5-5.9) lens
- 187g - 100 x 60 x 19mm
- Announced August 2009
- Also referred to as ST550
![](https://pxlmag.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Approach-to-AI-Generated-Content-218x150.jpg)
Ricoh WG-M1 vs Samsung TL225 Overview
The following is a extended overview of the Ricoh WG-M1 versus Samsung TL225, one is a Waterproof and the latter is a Ultracompact by rivals Ricoh and Samsung. The sensor resolution of the WG-M1 (14MP) and the TL225 (12MP) is pretty close and both cameras boast the identical sensor dimensions (1/2.3").
![](https://pxlmag.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/photography-glossary-218x150.jpg)
The WG-M1 was unveiled 5 years after the TL225 which is a fairly significant gap as far as camera technology is concerned. Both cameras feature different body design with the Ricoh WG-M1 being a Compact camera and the Samsung TL225 being a Ultracompact camera.
Before going straight to a complete comparison, here is a brief introduction of how the WG-M1 scores against the TL225 when considering portability, imaging, features and an overall mark.
![](https://pxlmag.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/tiktok-218x150.jpg)
Ricoh WG-M1 vs Samsung TL225 Gallery
The following is a preview of the gallery images for Ricoh WG-M1 and Samsung TL225. The full galleries are available at Ricoh WG-M1 Gallery and Samsung TL225 Gallery.
Reasons to pick Ricoh WG-M1 over the Samsung TL225
WG-M1 | TL225 | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
Announced | September 2014 | ![]() | August 2009 | Newer by 62 months |
Reasons to pick Samsung TL225 over the Ricoh WG-M1
TL225 | WG-M1 | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
Screen size | 3.5" | ![]() | 1.5" | Bigger screen (+2") |
Screen resolution | 1152k | ![]() | 115k | Crisper screen (+1037k dot) |
Touch friendly screen | ![]() | Quickly navigate |
Common features in the Ricoh WG-M1 and Samsung TL225
WG-M1 | TL225 | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
Focus manually | ![]() | No manual focus | ||
Screen type | Fixed | ![]() | Fixed | Fixed screen |
Selfie screen | ![]() | Neither provides selfie screen |
Ricoh WG-M1 vs Samsung TL225 Physical Comparison
For anyone who is looking to travel with your camera, you are going to need to take into account its weight and dimensions. The Ricoh WG-M1 provides external measurements of 66mm x 43mm x 89mm (2.6" x 1.7" x 3.5") with a weight of 190 grams (0.42 lbs) while the Samsung TL225 has dimensions of 100mm x 60mm x 19mm (3.9" x 2.4" x 0.7") and a weight of 187 grams (0.41 lbs).
Look at the Ricoh WG-M1 versus Samsung TL225 in the new Camera and Lens Size Comparison Tool.![Camera Size Comparison with Lenses Camera Size Comparison with Lenses](https://pxlmag.com/db/assets/camera-size-comparison-animation.gif)
Remember, the weight of an Interchangeable Lens Camera will differ based on the lens you are working with at the time. Underneath is a front view measurement comparison of the WG-M1 vs the TL225.
![Ricoh WG-M1 vs Samsung TL225 size comparison Ricoh WG-M1 vs Samsung TL225 size comparison](https://pxlmag.com/db/images/camera-compare/Ricoh-WG-M1-vs-Samsung-TL225-size-comparison.jpg)
Taking into consideration dimensions and weight, the portability rating of the WG-M1 and TL225 is 91 and 94 respectively.
![Ricoh WG-M1 vs Samsung TL225 top view buttons comparison Ricoh WG-M1 vs Samsung TL225 top view buttons comparison](https://pxlmag.com/db/images/camera-compare/Ricoh-WG-M1-vs-Samsung-TL225-top-view-buttons-comparison.jpg)
Ricoh WG-M1 vs Samsung TL225 Sensor Comparison
Quite often, it is very tough to visualise the contrast in sensor dimensions merely by looking through specs. The pic underneath will provide you a greater sense of the sensor measurements in the WG-M1 and TL225.
All in all, both cameras feature the identical sensor size albeit not the same MP. You should expect the Ricoh WG-M1 to render greater detail having an extra 2MP. Higher resolution can also let you crop shots way more aggressively. The newer WG-M1 will have a benefit with regard to sensor technology.
![Ricoh WG-M1 vs Samsung TL225 sensor size comparison Ricoh WG-M1 vs Samsung TL225 sensor size comparison](https://pxlmag.com/db/images/sensor-compare/Ricoh-WG-M1-vs-Samsung-TL225-sensor-size-comparison.png)
Ricoh WG-M1 vs Samsung TL225 Screen and ViewFinder
![Ricoh WG-M1 vs Samsung TL225 Screen and Viewfinder comparison Ricoh WG-M1 vs Samsung TL225 Screen and Viewfinder comparison](https://pxlmag.com/db/images/camera-compare/Ricoh-WG-M1-vs-Samsung-TL225-screen-back-comparison.jpg)
![](https://pxlmag.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/ai-licence-218x150.jpg)
Photography Type Scores
Portrait Comparison
![](https://pxlmag.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/snapchat-218x150.jpg)
Street Comparison
![](https://pxlmag.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/iphone-optical-stabilization-218x150.jpg)
Sports Comparison
![](https://pxlmag.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/maxresdefault-218x150.jpg)
Travel Comparison
![](https://pxlmag.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/samsung-evo-microsd-cards-featur-218x150.jpg)
Landscape Comparison
![](https://pxlmag.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/No-Surprise-Pentax-17-Pre-Orders-218x150.jpg)
Vlogging Comparison
![](https://pxlmag.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/LP3_cut_13f_0212-218x150.jpg)
Ricoh WG-M1 vs Samsung TL225 Specifications
Ricoh WG-M1 | Samsung TL225 | |
---|---|---|
General Information | ||
Brand | Ricoh | Samsung |
Model type | Ricoh WG-M1 | Samsung TL225 |
Other name | - | ST550 |
Category | Waterproof | Ultracompact |
Announced | 2014-09-12 | 2009-08-13 |
Physical type | Compact | Ultracompact |
Sensor Information | ||
Sensor type | CMOS | CCD |
Sensor size | 1/2.3" | 1/2.3" |
Sensor measurements | 6.17 x 4.55mm | 6.08 x 4.56mm |
Sensor area | 28.1mm² | 27.7mm² |
Sensor resolution | 14 megapixels | 12 megapixels |
Anti alias filter | ||
Aspect ratio | 4:3 and 16:9 | 4:3, 3:2 and 16:9 |
Full resolution | 4320 x 3240 | 4000 x 3000 |
Max native ISO | 800 | 3200 |
Lowest native ISO | 100 | 80 |
RAW support | ||
Autofocusing | ||
Manual focusing | ||
AF touch | ||
Continuous AF | ||
AF single | ||
AF tracking | ||
Selective AF | ||
Center weighted AF | ||
AF multi area | ||
AF live view | ||
Face detection focusing | ||
Contract detection focusing | ||
Phase detection focusing | ||
Lens | ||
Lens mount type | fixed lens | fixed lens |
Lens zoom range | (1×) | 27-124mm (4.6x) |
Highest aperture | f/2.8 | f/3.5-5.9 |
Macro focusing range | - | 5cm |
Focal length multiplier | 5.8 | 5.9 |
Screen | ||
Screen type | Fixed Type | Fixed Type |
Screen sizing | 1.5 inches | 3.5 inches |
Screen resolution | 115k dots | 1,152k dots |
Selfie friendly | ||
Liveview | ||
Touch functionality | ||
Viewfinder Information | ||
Viewfinder | None | None |
Features | ||
Slowest shutter speed | - | 8 secs |
Maximum shutter speed | - | 1/2000 secs |
Continuous shooting rate | 10.0 frames/s | - |
Shutter priority | ||
Aperture priority | ||
Manual mode | ||
Change WB | ||
Image stabilization | ||
Integrated flash | ||
Flash distance | no built-in flash | 3.40 m |
Flash settings | no built-in flash | Auto, On, Off, Red-eye, Fill-in, Slow sync, Manual |
External flash | ||
AE bracketing | ||
White balance bracketing | ||
Exposure | ||
Multisegment metering | ||
Average metering | ||
Spot metering | ||
Partial metering | ||
AF area metering | ||
Center weighted metering | ||
Video features | ||
Supported video resolutions | 1920 x 1080 (30p), 1280 x 960 (50p), 1280 x 720 (60p, 30p), 848 x 480 (60p, 120p) | 1280 x 720 (30, 15 fps), 640 x 480 (30, 15 fps), 320 x 240 (60, 30, 15 fps) |
Max video resolution | 1920x1080 | 1280x720 |
Video format | H.264 | Motion JPEG |
Microphone support | ||
Headphone support | ||
Connectivity | ||
Wireless | Built-In | None |
Bluetooth | ||
NFC | ||
HDMI | ||
USB | USB 2.0 (480 Mbit/sec) | USB 2.0 (480 Mbit/sec) |
GPS | None | None |
Physical | ||
Environmental sealing | ||
Water proofing | ||
Dust proofing | ||
Shock proofing | ||
Crush proofing | ||
Freeze proofing | ||
Weight | 190 gr (0.42 lb) | 187 gr (0.41 lb) |
Physical dimensions | 66 x 43 x 89mm (2.6" x 1.7" x 3.5") | 100 x 60 x 19mm (3.9" x 2.4" x 0.7") |
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 | 350 photos | - |
Battery style | Battery Pack | - |
Battery ID | DB-65 | SLB-07A |
Self timer | - | Yes (10 sec, 2 sec, Double, Motion Timer) |
Time lapse recording | ||
Storage type | microSD/microSDHC, internal | MicroSD/ MicroSDHC, Internal |
Card slots | Single | Single |
Launch pricing | $2,000 | $488 |