Home / Cameras / Camera / Olympus mju-Tough 6020 / Test Shots - ISO Performance

Olympus mju-Tough 6020 - Test Shots - ISO Performance

By Cliff Smith



Our Score:


User Score:

Over the next few pages we show a range of test shots. On this page the full size image at the minimum and maximum ISO settings have been reduced to let you see the full image, and a series of full resolution crops have taken from original images at a range of ISO settings to show the overall image quality. These pictures were taken indoors using shaded natural light.


This is the full frame at minimum ISO.


At 80 ISO the picture quality is excellent, with no visible noise.


Quality is still very good at 100 ISO.


Some slight reduction in detail at 200 ISO, but the quality is still very good.


Noise reduction has reduced detail still further, but noise is being kept at bay.


The image is getting a bit fuzzy at 800 ISO, but colour is still good.


Detail is greatly reduced at the maximum 1600 ISO, but colour is still acceptable for small image sizes.


This is the full frame at 1600 ISO.



August 6, 2010, 10:35 am

Glad to see Olympus finally abandoned the xD card. Name was a bit ... XDDD for the internet age.

Just one question. Is there a waterproof-shockproof camera with normal lens? I don't care for underwater shooting. I like taking normal photos with a camera that doesn't fear water and hard treatment without distorted pictures.

Martin Daler

August 6, 2010, 1:32 pm

am I being thick - what is not 'normal' about the lens on this camera?

Cliff Smith

August 6, 2010, 2:38 pm

I presume by "normal" you mean an extending front-mounted lens? It would be very difficult to make a lens like that waterproof, but the closest would probably be the Canon D10, although the Pentax W90 and Ricoh G600 also have front-mounted lenses. Next week I'll be reviewing a new dive case from Seashell - waterproof to 40m - which can be adapted to fit most current small compact cameras, so watch this space...


August 6, 2010, 2:40 pm

Oups, sorry. I didn't see the camera shots in the review. I was in a hurry.

They look good. Previous years models had some problems with "overwater" shots. Had lens better suited for underwater.

Seems like technology has advanced and i have some lag.

comments powered by Disqus