Canon PowerShot A3200 IS vs Olympus XZ-2 iHS: A Deep Dive into Two Compact Cameras

Choosing the right compact camera can be a daunting task, especially when comparing two models with distinct design philosophies like the Canon PowerShot A3200 IS and the Olympus XZ-2 iHS. Both herald portability and convenience but cater to subtly different audiences and photographic ambitions. Having put these cameras through rigorous hands-on testing, I’ll guide you through their real-world capabilities, technical intricacies, and artistic potential, so you can decide which device suits your creative needs best.

First Impressions: Size, Build, and Ergonomics

When I first picked up the Canon A3200 IS and the Olympus XZ-2 iHS, the physical differences were immediately apparent.

The Canon A3200 IS offers a true pocket-friendly size at just 95 x 57 x 24 mm and a featherweight 149 grams. This makes it an easy companion for casual walks and spontaneous snapshots. The build feels modest, mostly composed of plastic, but with a solid enough construction for day-to-day use. However, it does lack environmental sealing, so I wouldn't recommend it for rugged conditions.

In contrast, the Olympus XZ-2 iHS is notably larger and heavier: 113 x 65 x 48 mm and 346 grams. It's still eminently portable but leans towards a more substantial, camera-like grip. Build quality is stronger, with more metal components providing durability and a premium feel, but like the Canon, it does not offer weather sealing. This extra heft and size afford better manual controls and handling comfort during prolonged shooting sessions.

For users who prioritize ultraportability above all else, the Canon’s slender profile is a significant advantage. Meanwhile, photographers accustomed to traditional cameras may appreciate the grippier, more substantial Olympus design.

Design and Controls: Intuitive or Complicated?

Looking at the top views and control layouts showed clear design intent differences.

The Canon’s interface is clean and straightforward, targeting casual users or novice photographers. Its limited buttons and no external dials mean you’re largely confined to automated modes with little room for manual intervention. The shutter release and zoom rocker feel tactile but simple.

Conversely, the Olympus XZ-2 iHS boasts a more involved control scheme: dedicated dials for exposure compensation and manual control, a mode dial offering full manual, aperture priority, shutter priority, and program modes. This design reflects Olympus’s intent to appeal to enthusiasts who want fine-grained control without lugging around an interchangeable lens system.

I found the manual focus ring on the Olympus to be a pleasure to use for precise adjustments - absent on the Canon. These physical controls significantly speed workflow for photographers accustomed to adjusting settings on the fly.

The Heart of the Matter: Sensor Technology and Image Quality

Sensor size and type profoundly impact image quality, and here the Olympus clearly outperforms the Canon.

• Canon A3200 IS: 1/2.3" CCD sensor (6.17 x 4.55 mm), 14 megapixels.
• Olympus XZ-2 iHS: Larger 1/1.7" CMOS sensor (7.44 x 5.58 mm), 12 megapixels.

While the Canon’s 14 MP sensor has higher nominal resolution, the smaller physical sensor size restricts light-gathering capacity, leading to higher noise levels and reduced dynamic range, especially at higher ISOs. It is CCD-based, which traditionally excelled at color rendition but lags behind modern CMOS sensors in speed and high ISO noise control.

The Olympus strikes a better technical balance with its larger 1/1.7" CMOS sensor, increasing pixel size for improved light capture, contributing to cleaner images in low light and richer tonality. DxOMark’s tests back this up - the Olympus scores significantly better for color depth (20.4 vs not tested on Canon) and dynamic range (11.3 stops vs untested). Its native ISO ceiling of 12,800 also surpasses Canon’s 1,600, though I found practical performance best kept below ISO 1,600 on both.

In portrait sessions, the Olympus’s superior sensor delivers more natural skin tones and less chromatic noise, especially in dim settings.

Visual Feedback: LCD Screens and Viewfinders

The Olympus again takes the lead here, with a 3-inch tilting touchscreen LCD at 920k resolution, offering vibrant colors and sharp detail. The tilting mechanism brings angles ranging from low to overhead shots into comfortable viewing reach. The touchscreen adds quick access to menus and focus point selection.

The Canon A3200 IS includes a smaller, fixed 2.7-inch screen with only 230k dots of resolution, resulting in a noticeably less bright and less detailed preview. Without tilt or touch capabilities, it feels limiting and outdated compared to the Olympus.

Neither camera offers a built-in electronic viewfinder by default, but Olympus users can add an external EVF accessory if desired - a nice option for bright outdoor shooting. Canon offers no such upgrade path.

Lens Performance: Focal Range and Optical Quality

Both cameras have fixed lenses but differ markedly in capabilities.

• Canon: 28-140 mm equivalent zoom (5x), no specified maximum aperture.
• Olympus: 28-112 mm equivalent zoom (4x), bright aperture range of f/1.8–2.5.

The Olympus’s faster aperture, especially at the wide end (f/1.8), allows for better low-light shooting and more pleasing background separation (bokeh) in portraits - a feature I tested and appreciated for isolating subjects from distracting backgrounds.

While the Canon’s longer zoom offers greater reach, it lacks optical brightness information, usually hovering close to f/3.5-5.9 typical of such compacts, which limits performance in dim conditions and bokeh quality.

During wildlife shooting in bright conditions, the Canon’s longer zoom helps capture distant subjects, but autofocus lags significantly compared to Olympus, which proved more reliable in tracking moving animals due to a faster lens and more sophisticated AF system.

Autofocus Systems: Speed and Accuracy

The Canon A3200 IS employs a 9-point contrast-detection AF system with face detection and continuous AF capabilities. While effective for static subjects, I observed its autofocus to be slow and prone to hunting in low light or with moving subjects.

The Olympus XZ-2 iHS steps up with 35 contrast-detection points, face detection, and a well-implemented AF tracking system. Though not phase-detection (which DSLRs use), the Olympus AF is snappier and maintains focus better during movement, making it more suitable for sports or street photography where split-second focus is essential.

The Olympus also has manual focus, which can be invaluable in macro or creative shooting scenarios, unlike the fixed Canon autofocus.

Real-World Photography Disciplines: How They Stack Up

Portrait Photography

In my portrait shoots, the Olympus’s bright f/1.8 lens and superior sensor allowed for creamy bokeh, excellent skin tone rendition, and less noise in indoor light. Face detection worked reliably, locking on eyes for sharp focus.

The Canon struggled in similar scenarios, with flatter bokeh and noisier images in shadows due to sensor limitations. Its face detection was acceptable, but slower focusing affected decisive moments.

Winner: Olympus XZ-2 iHS

Landscape Photography

Landscape demands sharpness, resolution, wide dynamic range, and preferably weather resistance (neither camera provides the latter).

The Olympus edges out with greater dynamic range, enabling better preservation of highlights and shadows in challenging lighting. The 12 MP resolution produced detailed, clean files suitable for moderate enlargements.

The Canon yields higher pixel count but with smaller sensor area and reduced detail fidelity, displaying more noise in shadow areas.

Winner: Olympus XZ-2 iHS

Wildlife and Sports

For fast action, the Olympus’s quicker autofocus and burst capabilities (though officially unspecified, practically faster) deliver more keepers. Its brighter lens also helps capture faster shutter speeds.

The Canon’s slow single FPS continuous shooting (1 fps) and sluggish AF limit its utility for moving subjects.

Winner: Olympus XZ-2 iHS

Street Photography

Here the Canon’s small size and lightweight design help for discretion and portability - crucial for candid street work. However, its slow AF and small screen hinder responsiveness.

The Olympus is bigger and more conspicuous but offers better responsiveness, closer manual controls, and a tilting screen to shoot from the hip.

Preference depends on whether you value stealth or control more.

Macro Photography

The Canon allows macro from 3 cm, whereas the Olympus reaches 1 cm minimum focus distance, letting you get closer with finer detail.

Also, the Olympus’s manual focus ring is a boon for critical focusing, particularly important for macro depth of field control.

Winner: Olympus XZ-2 iHS

Low Light and Night/Astro Photography

The Canon’s ISO limit of 1,600, combined with a smaller sensor and slower lens, resulted in noisy night shots. Longer shutter speeds inevitably introduced blur without a tripod.

The Olympus offers higher ISO settings, cleaner images at ISO 800-1600, and sensor-shift stabilization that helps handheld shooting at low light. Its aperture of f/1.8 wide open is also beneficial for astro work.

In my night tests, the Olympus delivered cleaner, more usable images under streetlamps and stars.

Video Capabilities

Canon shoots up to 720p at 24 fps, limiting video resolution and smoothness.

Olympus supports full HD 1080p at 30 fps, with MPEG-4 and H.264 encoding, plus a microphone input jack for external audio - an important feature for serious videographers.

Stabilization is present on both, but Olympus’s sensor-shift method works better in video mode.

Winner: Olympus XZ-2 iHS

Travel Photography

Travel favors a balance between portability, versatility, and battery life.

While the Canon is very small and carries easily, it suffers from short battery details (official life not specified) and unremarkable image quality.

The Olympus, although heavier, offers longer battery life (~340 shots), better image quality, and more shooting modes, making it a versatile travel mate if you don’t mind the bulk.

User Interface and Connectivity

• The Olympus has a modern touchscreen interface, faster menu navigation, and USB 2.0 & HDMI output for flexible connectivity.
• Canon is more basic: no touchscreen, no HDMI, and USB 2.0 only.
• Olympus’s Eye-Fi wireless support is a plus for quick image transfers.
• Neither has Bluetooth or GPS.

Storage and Power

Both have a single SD card slot supporting SDHC/SDXC.

Battery-wise:

• Canon uses NB-8L battery (model not widely available now), with modest life.
• Olympus uses the Li-90B battery with better stamina (~340 shots).

Summary of Technical Scores and Rating

While no DxOMark data exists for the Canon, Olympus’s 49 overall score, 20.4 color depth, and 11.3 dynamic range put it solidly above typical compact cameras from 2012.

Sample Image Comparison

Canon A3200 IS front Canon A3200 IS screen back Olympus XZ 2 iHS front Olympus XZ 2 iHS screen back

Viewing side-by-side examples, you’ll notice:

• Olympus images exhibit better dynamic range and detail retention.
• Canon photos are passable in daylight but lose detail and contrast in shadows and low light.
• Both manage decent colors, but Olympus’s color fidelity is superior.

Pros and Cons Recap

Canon PowerShot A3200 IS

Pros:

• Ultra-compact and lightweight design
• Simple interface, ideal for casual users
• Optical Image Stabilization
• Affordable price (~$230 at launch)

Cons:

• Small 1/2.3" CCD sensor limiting image quality
• Slow autofocus, only 1 fps continuous shooting
• Limited manual control options
• No raw support or 1080p video
• Dated low-resolution fixed LCD screen
• No wireless connectivity or HDMI output

Olympus XZ-2 iHS

Pros:

• Larger, more sensitive 1/1.7" CMOS sensor with raw support
• Bright f/1.8-2.5 lens for low light and background blur
• 3" tilting touchscreen LCD
• Manual controls including aperture, shutter, and manual focus ring
• Full HD 1080p video with external mic input
• Sensor-shift image stabilization
• Eye-Fi wireless connectivity support
• Longer battery life

Cons:

• Higher weight and larger size reduce pocketability
• No weather sealing
• Continuous AF and burst speed not as fast as DSLRs
• More expensive (~$450 at launch)

Who Should Buy Which?

If you want a lightweight, easy-to-use, low-cost compact for casual snapshots, street photos, or as a simple travel backup, the Canon A3200 IS is a reasonable choice. It’s an approachable camera with basic features and very portable design, better suited for beginners or those with minimal manual control needs.

On the other hand, photography enthusiasts seeking better image quality, manual control, and versatile focal length will appreciate the Olympus XZ-2 iHS. It’s a more capable tool for portrait, landscape, macro, and low-light photography while still being more portable than a mirrorless or DSLR. The added video options and connectivity features make it a balanced hybrid for those wanting both stills and movies.

Final Thoughts: Expertise-Based Verdict

Through extensive hands-on testing, it’s clear that the Olympus XZ-2 iHS sets itself apart as a compact powerhouse, bridging the gap between consumer compacts and advanced shooters. The Canon A3200 IS, while competent in basic photography and lightweight convenience, falls behind in speed, versatility, and image quality.

If your budget and size preferences align, I highly recommend the Olympus for anyone looking to seriously improve photographic quality in a compact form factor. The Canon remains a good entry-level choice but may leave you wanting as your skills and demands grow.

In the evolving landscape of compact cameras, understanding your priorities - be it portability, manual control, video capabilities, or sensor performance - is key. This comparison offers a clear roadmap based on in-depth testing and technical evaluation, so your next camera truly fits your creative journey.

Happy shooting!