Originally Posted by Jackster
. . .I wouldn't forsake good image quality for something that's just a little bit smaller. The bottom line IS the picture, right?
Well, yes, but that's a false comparison between the Olympus and the Pentax (among a pretty small universe of waterproof - not just water resistant
cameras. As I mentioned, the Olympus rated in the Top Five Compact Cameras in at least one review I read, with "good" image production, although anecdotal comments in this thread seem to indicate that the Pentax may have the edge on macros and certain other features (not borne out by the reviews), which extra features may or may not matter to the photographer.
As someone who has more - and far more expensive - cameras than fly rods from my days as a professional photographer longer ago than I care to admit, I've learned over the years that the bigger the camera's "footprint", the less likely I am to carry it along if it's an adjunct to another activity like fly-fishing
. While I've carried expensive non-waterproof cameras along with me on the river, I was so nervous about dropping them in the water that it detracted a good deal from the fun of the trip. And there are plenty of other Posters on this thread who will attest to the ease in dropping a camera in the water, with always-fatal results.
Bottom line: There's no area more obviously subject to trade-offs than cameras - we all know this: fast lenses with wide apertures = large heavy lenses, etc. With digital, however, even though electronics cannot overcome the deficiency of inferior glass lenses, smaller can
be better (but usually at a higher price).
Just my two cents . . .