Olympus Mju Tough-6010 seeks clumsy photographer to grow old with

The latest addition to the Olympus Mju (Stylus in the US) family of ruggedized cameras is the Tough-6010, which claims to be waterproof up to (or is it down to) 3 m (10 ft), freezeproof to -10°C (14°F), and capable of withstanding drops from 1.5 m (5 ft). It retains the TAP Control Mode from its elder sibling, which lets users access various functions by tapping the camera's top and sides. If you're going to be snorkeling on Greenland's north coast, there is perhaps no other camera for you -- but if you care about actual camera specs, this is a 12-megapixel shooter, equipped with 3.6x optical zoom, 2.7-inch LCD, dual image stabilization, ISO sensitivity up to 1600, and storage handled by your choice of xd-Picture Card or MicroSD. Should you be leaving for Greenland soon, fret not, as the UK will be getting the 6010 this month for £299, with continental Europe and the US probably not too far behind.

[bublik @ Jul 17th 2009 4:31AM]

it would be interesting to see the picture's taken with this point and shoot...

[cjo268 @ Jul 17th 2009 12:42PM]

My brother-in-law has one and it takes some pretty good pics, even the underwater pics are clear

[Lazarpandar @ Jul 17th 2009 5:00AM]

They stole uTorrent's classic "u" logo.

[Anticrawl @ Jul 17th 2009 5:20AM]

I don't think anyone can own the greek letter µ (pronounced /miː/).

For those of you without even a highschool education - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mu_(letter)

[Adderz @ Jul 17th 2009 4:42AM]

I do know that the more megapixels = bigger pictures but does more megapixels also equal better 6x4 prints? because lets be honest, nobody is going to be printing out posters with a point and shoot.

[Indefinite Implosion @ Jul 17th 2009 4:50AM]

the way I see it, is that you might only need 3MP for a 6x4 print, but if you shoot in 12MP you can zoom in and crop; making that 12MP image the same quality and size as a 3MP one but with far greater detail.
savvy?(if I'm actually right...)

[SoulinEther @ Jul 17th 2009 4:58AM]

Yeah, and if you have a printer that can print at high resolutions you can make higher resolution / more-detailed prints.

[bigcow05 @ Jul 17th 2009 5:47AM]

Photographers like to print at the 175-300dpi range since your eye can't really resolve any more detail than that. A 3MP camera can make a 7x5 print at 300dpi, or an 13x10 at 150dpi. Which is why I think megapixels are useless; people usually only view their pics on the computer or on prints under 8x10. Companies should focus more on dynamic range and noise performance; digital still lags behind film in terms of dynamic range and Fuji has tried to change that but was rewarded with low sales and customers who still judge the performance of a camera by how many megapixels it has.

I doubt this lens can resolve 12MP anyway.

[Wwhat @ Jul 17th 2009 5:54AM]

The resolving remark is silly most likely since in fact 12MP isn't THAT much optically, but the light sensitivity can't be that sterling with such a small lens, I mean you can only gather so much light with it.

[bigcow05 @ Jul 17th 2009 6:04AM]

My 6MP Pentax *istDS already outresolves all the lenses I have at max aperture. Including my SMC-M 50/1,7 at f/1,7. And this is on an APS-C sensor, which has a sensor area of 548.17mm^2. A 1/1.8 sensor typically used on compacts has a sensor area of 38.20mm^2. At double the resolution of the *istDS, the pixel density of a 12MP compact would be 28 times higher (!) than the *istDS, making the lenses that much harder to make. I really doubt that this camera can get the max resolution out of its lens at all apertures, especially since diffraction sets in so early due to the small dimensions of the lens.

[bigcow05 @ Jul 17th 2009 6:07AM]

"I really doubt that this camera can get the max resolution out of its lens at all apertures.."

Oops, obviously I meant that I don't think the lens can resolve the max resolution of the camera.

[solmar @ Jul 18th 2009 5:32AM]

If more megapixels=better pics, then companies would just stick in a 1mp sensor in there and rez it up to 100mp. It's easy enough. Of course, that's not the case, and there are many things that contribute to image quality: megapixels, sensor size, sensor quality, sensor type, lens size, lens quality, lens type, processing (how much, what type, quality), and of course, last but not least, the quality of the person taking the pics.

But really, the Olympus SW/Tough line have consistently produced the lowest image quality, so it's not a really good benchmark.

As for outresolving, you need to remember that most lenses produce their best quality at something in between largest and smallest aperture, not at the extremes. But really, a small sensor like this can't resolve anywhere near 12 megapixels... that's why something like the old, old Fuji 6mp digicams produce images superior to current 12megapixel compacts.

And... yay! Death to xD! About the only company still supporting it is Olympus (even Fuji dropped it), and it seems even they are letting it go. It's about time.

[Wwhat @ Jul 18th 2009 11:36AM]

You are seriously claiming that using a decent standard P&S lens you cannot produce a difference between a 12MP sensor and a 6MP sensor? That's interesting since many photographic review sites take photos of test cards and they show a definite difference in LPI captured, I guess there's some distortion field around your person that blurs sensors.

[bigcow05 @ Jul 23rd 2009 7:59AM]

No, I'm saying that at some apertures, resolution on a 12MP camera will be similar to that of a 6MP camera. Camera tests usually test the camera at its sharpest aperture, but that may not be wholly representative of actual use. In my example, since my istDS outresolves the lens at f/1.7, a K7d will do no better.

[Florin @ Jul 17th 2009 4:49AM]

Yaaay, microSD in an Olympus camera! Death to xD!! This actually makes them interesting for me all over again...

[hugh @ Jul 17th 2009 6:43AM]

my 8000 tough comes with a microsd->xd converter - you can probably pick one up on ebay to work on any olympus camera

it appears to the camera as the fastest type of xd card as well, so no probs recording unlimited video etc

[Kev @ Jul 17th 2009 4:57AM]

actually, on my olympus tough 1050 which has been around for over a year now, I can still use microsd through an adapter that was included with the camera. The speed, well, not so fast, because the card still has to go through the adapter. I don't know about this model, but let's hope that olympus has decided to fully support microsd. @_@

[Patriks7 @ Jul 17th 2009 6:02AM]

So since when is the UK not a part of Europe?

[10minutehobo @ Jul 17th 2009 6:52AM]

It should be "the rest of Europe"

[htd @ Jul 17th 2009 8:28AM]

lumix ts-1 still seems better with 720p video

[roosta.6 @ Jul 17th 2009 12:46PM]

great, so a tough camera that cant withstand a drop from head height? unless your 5 foot tall.

and i agree this megapixel competition is rediculous. however in strong daylight at iso 100 a point and shoot can take some nice pictures, and at 12mpx they can later be cropped on a computer, thereby getting around the problem of having no optical zoom.

[glennc @ Jul 27th 2009 1:41AM]

3.6x optical

[paul34 @ Jul 17th 2009 1:15PM]

I know that the effect is exponential, of course, but couldn't they have made it at least 6 ft, instead of 5? That way at least it'd cover the majority of people...

[ajfina @ Jul 17th 2009 2:00PM]

that U its from project MU brakes company...

[peter @ Jul 17th 2009 1:29PM]

ALT + M = µ
i expect more from engadget... wtf is mju?

[iKurt 7 @ Jul 17th 2009 3:14PM]

Death to Olympus. Long live Canon.

[gluino @ Jul 18th 2009 9:02AM]

The previous few mju toughs have shared one important (for me) weakness: video mode at 640x480@30fps has a max length of only 10 seconds, while the competition has long had limited-by memory-card video-recording. And even 720p @ 30fps.