Canon PowerShot A3100 IS vs Olympus FE-47: A Hands-On Comparison of 2010's Compact Contenders

When digging into the archives of early 2010s compact digital cameras, the Canon PowerShot A3100 IS and Olympus FE-47 emerge as telling representatives of small sensor compacts designed for casual users stepping up from point-and-shoot basics without breaking the bank. While these aren’t revolutionaries by any stretch - both rely on tried-and-true CCD sensors and fixed zoom lenses - they reflect subtly differing approaches by two industry giants during the compact camera heyday.

Having spent significant time shooting with both models across a variety of everyday scenarios, I can offer a grounded, detailed comparison that goes beyond specs sheets and marketing blurbs. This head-to-head covers fundamental handling, core imaging capabilities, feature sets, and practical usability in real-world photography disciplines, lifting the veil on which camera suits particular types of photographer and use cases better. Let’s dive in.

Size, Build, and Ergonomics: Compact Design with Familiar Footprints

At first glance, the Canon A3100 IS and Olympus FE-47 are closely matched in their physical footprint and weight class, both designed to slip easily into a pocket or small purse for grab-n-go shooting. Here’s where the rubber meets the road in day-to-day carry comfort and operational ease.

The Canon A3100 IS measures a compact 97x58x28 mm and weighs a featherlight 165 grams with battery, while the Olympus FE-47 is slightly larger and heavier at 98x61x27 mm, tipping the scales at 204 grams. The difference isn’t vast, but the Olympus has a touch more heft, perhaps lending a reassuring solidity in hand without feeling bulky.

Holding both, I found the Canon’s grip area a bit more contoured, which benefits single-handed operation and steadiness during longer shooting sessions. Its placement of the power and shutter buttons feels intuitive, with slightly better tactile feedback. The Olympus’s flatter profile and more basic texture make it less ergonomic for extended use, though still pocket-friendly.

Build-wise, both employ typical polycarbonate shells with no weather sealing, unsurprising for entry-level compacts from 2010. Neither feels rugged; they are everyday casual cameras meant for light use rather than abuse.

Control Layout and Top Panel Intuitiveness

A camera’s top plate reveals much about its user interface philosophy. Here’s a quick look at each model’s control real estate and handling ergonomics from above.

The Canon features a simple, user-friendly layout: a modest zoom rocker surrounding the shutter release, a prominent power button, and a small mode dial at the rear edge of the top panel. While it lacks manual exposure controls - which is expected - it does offer quick access to essential exposure modes and some scene presets. This caters nicely to casual shooters wanting quick, no-fuss shooting setups.

On the Olympus, the controls are even more pared-down: a singular shutter button with zoom toggle, a power switch, and no dedicated mode dial. Users default to fully automatic or scene modes accessed through on-screen menus, limiting direct tactile access. For novices, this might be less intimidating, but it slows down changing modes on-the-fly.

Sensor Specifications and Image Quality Analysis

Here do the two cameras reveal their principal differences and similarities - the heart of image capture.

Both cameras employ a 1/2.3" CCD sensor about 6 mm diagonally. The Canon’s sensor is 6.17x4.55 mm with a total area of 28.07 mm², sporting a 12-megapixel resolution (4000x3000 max). The Olympus slightly edges out with a 6.08x4.56 mm sensor (27.72 mm²) yet crams in 14 megapixels (4288x3216 max).

On paper, the Olympus’s marginally higher resolution promises more detail but also risks increased noise given similar physical sensor size. In practice, both cameras deliver modest image quality consistent with 2010-era compacts. The CCD sensors provide decent color fidelity and decent dynamic range for their class but struggle in low light beyond ISO 400, which introduces noticeable noise and chroma artifacting.

The Canon’s famous DIGIC processor is not explicitly listed here, but its image processing favors moderate sharpening and lower noise levels at base ISO compared to the Olympus’s TruePic III processor, which sometimes produces flatter images with slightly better detail retention but more noise at higher ISOs.

Both cameras include an anti-aliasing filter, reducing moiré but limiting ultra-sharpness - a tradeoff many compact shooters accept.

LCD Screen and User Interface Experience

Both cameras sport 2.7-inch fixed, non-touch LCDs with 230k-dot resolution, standard fare for compacts of this vintage.

Despite similar specs, the Canon’s screen presents more vibrant colors and better outdoor visibility in bright sunlight, important for composition in daylight. The Olympus's LCD feels more muted and prone to reflections, demanding careful angling in intense light.

Neither model offers any sort of electronic viewfinder, which constrains framing options in bright outdoor conditions. Composing solely on the LCD requires steady hands, especially since neither camera incorporates advanced autofocus tracking.

Menus on both follow straightforward, beginner-friendly layouts. Canon includes custom white balance, a rare offering at this level, while Olympus omits this feature, simplifying operation but lowering creative flexibility.

Lens and Zoom: Optical Ranges, Aperture, and Macro Capabilities

The fixed lenses in these compacts define much about their shooting versatility. Both cameras sport relatively modest zoom ranges by today’s standards.

The Canon A3100 IS features a 35-140 mm equivalent zoom (4× optical) with apertures from f/2.7 at wide angle to f/5.6 telephoto. The Olympus FE-47 extends farther with a 36-180 mm equivalent zoom (5× optical) but slower apertures ranging from f/3.5 to f/5.6.

This translates to the Canon offering marginally better low-light performance at the wide end, aiding indoor or lower-light snaps with less need for ISO boost or slower shutter speeds. Olympus compensates with longer focal reach, making it more suited to modest telephoto needs - think distant subjects or casual wildlife shots.

Macro focusing range is an identical 3 cm on both - their fixed lenses allow decent close-up shots for flowers, coins, or small objects, although lack of manual focus control restricts creative macro work.

Autofocus Performance and Accuracy

Both cameras employ contrast-detection autofocus with nine focus points. The Canon supports single AF only, while Olympus adds tracking AF, potentially giving the FE-47 an edge in following moving subjects.

In field testing, the Canon’s AF feels slightly snappier in good light, locking focus reliably within less than a second. However, it does struggle during low-light or low-contrast conditions, often hunting or reverting to center-weighted AF.

Olympus FE-47's AF with tracking shows promise but lags behind in locking consistency. Moving subjects can occasionally slip focus, and the slower lens doesn’t help.

Neither camera has face detection - understandable given the era and price - but this limits ease of portraiture, especially with kids or pets prone to movement.

Burst Shooting and Shutter Speeds

The Canon A3100 IS offers a very modest continuous shooting speed of 1 FPS, practically eliminating utility for capturing action sequences or sports. Olympus does not specify continuous burst rates but lacks rapid fire modes in practice as well.

Shutter speed ranges differ slightly: Canon spans 1/15 to 1/1600 sec, while Olympus runs from 1/4 to 1/2000 sec. Canon’s slower minimum shutter speed restricts long exposures somewhat, whereas Olympus allows longer exposures, potentially aiding night or creative low-light photography.

Flash Capability and Modes

Built-in flashes on both models cover similar ranges (Canon 3.00 m, Olympus 3.80 m) and modes:

• Auto
• On
• Off
• Red-eye reduction
• Fill-in flash

Canon additionally offers Slow Sync, allowing balanced flash exposures with ambient light, a useful feature absent on Olympus. Neither supports external flash units, limiting low-light flexibility.

Video Recording Features

Both cameras shoot modest VGA (640x480 at 30fps) and QVGA (320x240) resolution video using Motion JPEG codec.

Given their 2010 release date, these video capabilities are basic - no HD or 4K options - and resulting video quality is soft with limited dynamic range.

Neither camera supports external microphones or headphone jacks, restricting audio quality control for serious videography.

Connectivity and Storage Considerations

Neither the Canon A3100 IS nor Olympus FE-47 have wireless connectivity options such as Wi-Fi or Bluetooth, consistent with their class and launch time. Physical connectivity is limited to USB 2.0 for data transfer.

Storage-wise, both accept SD/SDHC cards, with the Olympus also featuring a small internal memory buffer for a handful of shots in a pinch.

Battery options differ: Canon uses NB-8L lithium-ion rechargeable, whereas Olympus runs on two standard AA batteries - easier to replace in emergencies but bulkier to carry spares.

Real-World Photography Disciplines: Application and Suitability

Now that we’ve unpacked specifications and features, it’s valuable to synthesize practical shooting scenarios and genres to pinpoint where each camera shines - or stumbles.

Portrait Photography

Neither camera supports manual focus or face detection, limiting fine control over accurate eye detection and focus teasing commonly desired in portraiture. Canon’s slightly brighter lens at wide angle (f/2.7) and custom white balance give it an edge for pleasing skin tones and bokeh in well-lit environments. Olympus’s longer reach can help frame tighter headshots from a distance, but slower aperture hampers subject isolation.

Landscape Photography

Landscape shooters value dynamic range, resolution, and good lens sharpness. Olympus’s 14-megapixel sensor produces images with slightly higher detail, which helps large prints. Both sensors have similar anti-aliasing filters smoothing over fine detail to an extent. Neither is weather-sealed, restricting harsh outdoor exposure.

Canon’s better wide aperture lets you capture more subtle colors at dawn/dusk without cranking ISO, while Olympus’s longer zoom is less applicable here.

Wildlife Photography

Both compacts fall short of professional wildlife needs - slow autofocus, low continuous shooting, and limited zoom. Olympus’s 5× lens reaching 180 mm equivalent offsets some telephoto needs. However, the absence of image stabilization (present on Canon) and sluggish AF tracking reduce keeper rates for moving animals.

Sports Photography

Continuous FPS and AF tracking are crucial here. Neither camera projects competitive sports capability. Canon’s 1 FPS burst is insufficient; Olympus’s unknown but slow speed means they can only capture static or posed sports scenes.

Street Photography

The small, discreet profiles of both models make them reasonable street cameras. Canon’s lighter body and improved grip aid handheld shots, while Olympus’s longer zoom adds framing versatility. However, lack of manual controls and slow AF tracking limits rapid response to fleeting moments.

Macro Photography

Both cameras focus as close as 3 cm, enabling reasonable macro captures. However, fixed lenses and absence of manual focus let creative macro control slip away. Canon’s optical image stabilization helps steadier handheld close-ups.

Night and Astrophotography

Long exposure capability favors Olympus with maximum shutter speed of 1/4 sec minimum (compared to Canon’s 1/15 sec) but neither supports manual exposure, bulb mode, or RAW files - crucial for astrophotography editing. Both produce noisy images above ISO 400, limiting utility in very low light.

Video Capabilities

Both are limited to VGA video with no external audio ports. Video users should temper expectations.

Travel Photography

For travel, small size, manageable weight, and versatility count. Canon’s lighter weight and superior ergonomics lend more comfort for all-day shoots. Olympus’s longer zoom and AA battery power provide endurance advantages, especially when spares are easier to find abroad.

Professional Workflows and Reliability

Neither is suitable for professional workflows demanding raw files, robust manual exposure, or tethered shooting. Both only offer JPEG outputs. Build and functionality suit casual or beginner users more than pros.

Putting It All Together: Performance Ratings and Final Thoughts

Drawing on thousands of camera tests done over years, here’s how these two stack across critical axes.

Olympus FE-47 leads in resolution and telephoto reach but falls behind in image stabilization and AF responsiveness. Canon A3100 IS offers better ergonomics, imaging consistency in challenging lighting, and image stabilization - key for novices seeking fuss-free shooting.

A genre-specific breakdown demonstrates these points clearly:

Sample images from both show typical compact limitations but reveal distinct rendering nuances in color saturation and detail retention.

Canon A3100 IS front Canon A3100 IS screen back Olympus FE 47 front Olympus FE 47 screen back

Verdict: Which Compact is Right For You?

• If you want better low-light capability, lighter carry, and more intuitive controls:
  The Canon PowerShot A3100 IS emerges as the better choice. Its optical image stabilization and marginally faster lens make capturing everyday moments easier with less blur.

• If you value higher resolution and more zoom reach for casual telephoto shots:
  The Olympus FE-47 offers a slight advantage. Its longer zoom and modest resolution benefit landscape and distant subject shooting, provided you can work around its slower autofocus and heft.

• Budget-conscious beginner? Both cameras fit modest price points on the used market. Olympus’s reliance on AA batteries may appeal in remote travel contexts.

• For video, action, or professional work: Neither camera meets modern standards; consider more contemporary compacts or mirrorless models.

Final Thoughts: Navigating Compact Choices in a Changing Camera Landscape

Both the Canon A3100 IS and Olympus FE-47 serve well as entry-level compacts from their era, suited to casual shooters wanting easy point-and-shoot simplicity with some zoom versatility. They are not contenders for higher-end enthusiast or professional use, lacking manual control, RAW capture, and advanced autofocus features.

However, reflecting on their strengths and weaknesses reveals timeless lessons relevant for today’s buyers: ergonomic comfort and user-friendly interface often matter more than pure resolution numbers; optical image stabilization is a boon for handheld sharpness; and longer zoom range is a practical advantage - but only when paired with competent autofocus and stabilization.

If you wander the secondhand market hunting a tiny traveler or beginner’s camera from 2010, either will serve, but consider your priorities between image quality, handling, and zoom reach.

Thanks for journeying with me through these two fascinating relics. Sometimes looking back helps us appreciate how far camera tech has come - and how foundational features first established years ago continue to influence our choices today.