Canon A810 vs Olympus VR-340: A Veteran’s Take on Two Small-Sensor Compacts

In the ever-evolving landscape of digital photography, compact cameras with small sensors - often overlooked in favor of mirrorless or DSLR systems - still hold a unique place. They offer portability, simplicity, and affordability. Here, I’m dissecting two contemporaries from early 2012: the Canon PowerShot A810 and the Olympus VR-340. Both sit comfortably in the “small sensor compact” category, sport 16MP CCD sensors, and aim to serve casual shooters seeking easy operation with decent zooms.

Having personally logged countless hours testing cameras across the spectrum, I appreciate that such compacts aren’t meant to replace pro gear but serve as accessible tools for everyday photography, travel, and those who prefer minimal fuss. Let’s dive deep into their technical DNA, real-world performance, and usability to see which might find a place in your camera bag - or which might beg you to look elsewhere.

Size and Handling: Ergonomics in the Palm of Your Hand

Let’s start with the tactile side, since the feel of a camera often decides whether you reach for it or leave it on the shelf. The Canon A810 measures 95x62x30 mm and weighs around 171 g, powered by a pair of AA batteries. Olympus VR-340 is a bit slimmer and lighter at 96x57x19 mm and 125 g, running on a proprietary Li-ion battery.

The Canon’s slightly chunkier body offers a modest grip bulge, making it somewhat easier to hold securely in extended shooting sessions, especially for larger hands. The Olympus’ slimmer profile is sleek and pocket-friendly but can feel a little insubstantial, particularly if you like a confident grip.

Button layouts also hint at their design philosophies. Canon keeps it straightforward with reasonably spaced controls and a dedicated zoom lever. Olympus shrinks the body footprint but also reduces button real estate, which might challenge users with larger fingers. Neither sports touchscreen interfaces, so reliance is on physical controls - typical for cameras this era.

In short: if you prioritize compactness and pocketability, Olympus edges ahead. For better grip comfort and handling familiarity, Canon’s A810 wins the day.

Design Language and Control Layout: Practicality Under the Hood

Moving past sheer size, how do these cameras organize the important controls you’ll use dozens of times per shoot?

From my hands-on experience, Canon sticks to a more conventional PowerShot layout - zoom toggle centered around the shutter button, with a mode dial on top that allows quick toggling between auto, scene modes, and basic exposure presets. The rear sports a four-way pad and a few function buttons.

Olympus seems to embrace minimalism - a cleaner top plate with basic shooting modes accessed via an on-screen interface. Zoom is a rocker behind the shutter, but the absence of a mode dial means you'll click through menus more frequently. This can slow down action-chasing or spontaneous shooting.

From a professional’s point of view, the Canon’s physical dials make one-handed operation and quick adjustments more intuitive under pressure.

The Sensor Battle: Identical Specs but Divergent Performance?

Both cameras house a 1/2.3” CCD sensor with 16 Megapixels resolution, measuring 6.17 x 4.55 mm for an area of roughly 28.07 mm². This dimension and sensor tech were standard in the early 2010s compact category.

At first glance, sensor specs are evenly matched. But subtle differences in image processor and ISO capabilities set them apart.

• Max ISO: Canon tops at 1600 ISO, Olympus doubles that to 3200 ISO.
• Image stabilization: Canon features optical IS while Olympus uses sensor-shift stabilization.
• Raw support: Neither camera offers RAW output, which is never ideal for post-processing flexibility.

In real-world use, the Canon produces slightly warmer skin tones with more saturated colors, favoring snapshots and portraiture. Olympus tends toward neutral colors but shines in higher ISO scenarios thanks to the extended ISO range, though noise becomes a notable factor beyond 800 ISO.

Both cameras suffer the typical small CCD sensor limits - visible noise creeping in quickly under low light and a dynamic range that struggles with bright highlights and deep shadows.

Ultimately, if you are shooting mostly in good lighting, expect fairly similar PNG or JPEG results, but Olympus might eke out more usable images when pushing ISO in dimmer scenes.

Screens and Interfaces: The User’s Window

LCD size and quality often dictate how easily you compose or review shots in the field.

Canon’s 2.7-inch screen, with 230k dot resolution, is adequate but starts to feel dated - grainy and hard to inspect fine focus or detail. Olympus ups the ante here with a 3-inch, 460k dot TFT display, offering brighter images and richer color reproduction.

Neither touchscreen nor articulating displays are present, so fixed rear LCDs mean you’ll need to adjust your body posture to nail awkward angles. For those accustomed to crisp displays, Olympus’ screen gives a more pleasant preview and playback experience.

This difference, although seemingly minor, impacts usability significantly if you often shoot in bright outdoor conditions or rely on LCD zooming to check focus.

The Lens Zoom Wars: Quality and Versatility in the Optics

One of the key selling points of comps is the optical zoom range packed into their small bodies.

• Canon A810: 28-140mm equivalent (5x zoom), max aperture F2.8-6.9
• Olympus VR-340: 24-240mm equivalent (10x zoom), max aperture F3.0-5.7

Olympus offers a broader reach, enabling photographers to get closer to distant subjects without changing lenses - a tempting advantage for travel or casual wildlife shots.

However, longer zoom ranges often come at the expense of sharpness, especially at telephoto ends. Through side-by-side shooting tests, the Canon lens exhibits more consistent sharpness, especially wide open, with better corner-to-corner resolution. Olympus shows noticeable softness at full zoom partly due to the more complex lens design.

In bright conditions, Canon’s slightly wider aperture base helps produce better subject isolation and softer bokeh, which is valuable for casual portrait work - although don’t expect creamy, professional-level background blur from either camera given the sensor size and f/number constraints.

Autofocus, Speed, and Shooting Experience: How Fast Can They Lock?

Autofocus performance is a significant aspect even for point-and-shoots. Canon uses 9 contrast detection points, Olympus’ exact count is unspecified but includes center and multiple-area modes.

Canon supports continuous AF, Olympus only single AF, which means Canon better handles tracking moving subjects during continuous shooting modes.

On burst shooting, Canon is limited to a sluggish 1 fps, whereas Olympus doesn't specify burst rates, but it’s safe to assume no high-speed shooting here given the compact sensor and processor generation.

In my experience, Canon’s AF is more reliable in decent lighting, though slower in low light where hunting becomes apparent on both. Olympus tends to struggle to lock focus in darker scenarios, occasionally hunting longer and missing fast-moving subjects.

Neither is tailored for high-performance sports or wildlife photography, but Canon’s slightly more responsive AF gives a slight edge for general shooting.

Flash and Low-Light Performance: Pushing Pixel Limits

Both cameras include built-in flash units:

• Canon’s flash range is modest at 3 meters
• Olympus extends flash coverage to 4.8 meters

Canon offers more flash modes including slow sync useful for balanced night portraits. Olympus adds Fill-in flash as a mode for subtly lighting shadow areas on bright sunny days.

For ambient low-light shooting, both cameras max out at ISO 1600/3200 but with pronounced noise and diminished detail. Optical and sensor-shift stabilization do help, but long exposures remain challenging without tripod aid.

If you often shoot indoors or in dim light, Olympus might edge you ahead simply due to its broader ISO range and longer flash reach, but prepare for image noise trade-offs.

Video Capabilities: Basic but Functional

Neither camera targets videographers, but let’s look at their video specs.

• Canon records at 720p at 25 fps (H.264 format)
• Olympus also at 720p but with 30 fps and in Motion JPEG format

The Canon codec is more compressed and efficient, giving smaller file sizes; Olympus’ MJPEG leads to bloated files and faster card consumption.

Neither camera offers microphone inputs or headphone outputs, limiting audio control. No 4K or frame rate versatility, so video is strictly casual grab shots rather than production quality.

If video is a casual add-on, both suffice, with Olympus providing slightly smoother frame rates. Serious video creators will want to look elsewhere.

Battery, Storage, and Connectivity: The Logistics of Everyday Use

Canon runs on two AA batteries, providing around 220 shots per charge - a convenience for travelers who can grab replacements easily anywhere, albeit with slightly heavier camera weight.

Olympus uses the proprietary LI-50B Li-ion battery, with unspecified battery life, but typically these outperform AAs in shot count per charge and are eco-friendlier.

Both feature single SD/SDHC/SDXC storage slots. The Olympus supports Eye-Fi wireless card connectivity - a sign of early wireless innovations for easy image transfer. Canon has no wireless capabilities whatsoever.

Neither supports Bluetooth, NFC, or GPS. Olympus offers an HDMI output; Canon lacks this port altogether.

Taken as a whole, Olympus provides more modern connectivity options and better storage flexibility, enhancing workflow for casual social sharing.

Build Quality and Weather Resistance: Robustness in the Field

Neither camera is weather sealed, shockproof, or freezeproof. Both are typical early-2010s plastics shells designed for light duty and sheltered environments.

Canon’s slightly heavier body feels more solid but neither inspires confidence in demanding outdoor conditions such as rain or dust.

If durability under rough outdoor conditions is a priority, neither camera fits the bill. You’d best look at ruggedized models or modern compacts with explicit environmental sealing.

Practical Shooting Performance Across Photography Genres

Let’s map these cameras to common photographic disciplines based on their specs, ergonomics, and observed behavior.

Portrait Photography: Skin Tones and Bokeh

Canon’s warmer color science and slightly wider aperture help produce pleasing skin tones and mild background separation. Olympus tends to produce flatter color, less impact in subject isolation.

Neither camera supports face/eye priority focus robustly; contrast-detect AF limits eye-tracking abilities. Small sensor and fixed lens optics heavily limit true portrait bokeh.

Winner: Canon A810 for portraits.

Landscape Photography: Resolution and Dynamic Range

Both produce 4608x3456 images, good enough for moderate print sizes. Small sensor CCD’s modest dynamic range means blown highlights and crushed shadows are risks in high-contrast scenes.

Neither camera offers raw files, limiting post-processing latitude critical in landscape editing.

Build-wise, no weather sealing or tripod mounts prominent.

Draw: Similar output; neither ideal for demanding landscape work.

Wildlife Photography: Autofocus and Zoom Reach

Olympus VR-340’s 10x zoom (24-240mm equiv) clearly wins for reach. But AF speed and burst limitations curtail candid nature shots.

Canon’s lens is sharper but shorter, better for casual urban wildlife rather than distant animals.

Neither approaches native DSLR or mirrorless telephoto AF systems in speed or accuracy.

Winner: Olympus for zoom, Canon for AF reliability; yet neither optimized for serious wildlife work.

Sports Photography: Tracking and Frame Rate

Sluggish 1 fps continuous shooting (Canon) and unspecified burst rates (Olympus) eliminate these from serious sports use.

AF tracking on Canon is continuous but slow; Olympus provides only single AF.

In low light, both cameras struggle with AF locking and noise.

No winner; both unsuitable for sports photography.

Street Photography: Discreet, Portable, and Fast

Olympus’ slimmer, lighter body gives more casual stealth. Canon’s bulkier form and slower AF speed reduce spontaneity.

Low light noise challenges evening street shots on both.

Flash on Olympus reaches farther, useful for fill-in in urban scenes.

Winner: Olympus for street walk-and-shoot ease.

Macro Photography: Magnification and Focusing

Canon advertises 3cm macro focusing capability, pretty decent on a compact. Olympus lacks macro spec (not specified).

Manual focus disabled on both, limiting precise focusing on small subjects.

Stabilization in both helps handheld macro shots but magnification limited by physical optics.

Winner: Canon for macro enthusiasts.

Night/Astro Photography: High ISO and Exposure Modes

ISO topping at 1600 (Canon) and 3200 (Olympus) offers some flexibility. Neither has bulb mode or extensive manual exposure controls (no shutter/aperture priority).

Long shutter speeds max out at 15 seconds on Canon, 4 seconds on Olympus - limiting star trails and astro work.

Image noise pronounced, limiting astrophotography quality.

No clear winner; neither optimized for advanced night shooting.

Video Capabilities

Already discussed: Canon’s H.264 codec at 25 fps vs Olympus’ MJPEG at 30 fps.

No external mic or headphone jacks.

Both fine for casual family vids but limited otherwise.

Slight edge: Olympus for smoother 30fps capture.

Travel Photography: Versatility and Battery Life

Olympus’ lighter body, longer zoom range, and HDMI output favor travel compactness.

Canon’s AA batteries add logistical ease - no need for chargers when traveling long.

Battery life margins favor Olympus typical of Li-ion but exact numbers unavailable.

Winner: Tie - Olympus for optics and weight; Canon for power convenience.

Professional Work: Reliability and Workflow Integration

Neither supports raw, limiting professional post-processing flexibility.

No advanced exposure modes or high-speed performance.

No environmental sealing or tethering features.

Neither suitable for professional workflows, better as casual shooters or back-up cams.

Performance Summary at a Glance

When we distill tests down across characteristics - handling, image quality, features, and speed - the Canon A810 ranks solidly for amateur photographers valuing simple operation with dependable image quality. Olympus VR-340 impresses on zoom versatility, screen quality, and lightweight design but suffers in autofocus and image sharpness.

Genre-Specific Performance Breakdown

• Portrait: Canon clear advantage
• Landscape: Tie, but limited by sensor tech
• Wildlife: Olympus zoom favored, but AF weak
• Sports: No standouts
• Street: Olympus advantages in size/discretion
• Macro: Canon leads with close focusing
• Night: Both hampered by sensor limits
• Travel: Balanced, depends on priorities
• Professional work: Neither recommended

Final Thoughts and Recommendations

The Canon PowerShot A810 and Olympus VR-340 exemplify early 2010s small sensor compacts: affordable, portable, and aimed at casual users wanting grab-and-go options without demanding complex settings.

If you prioritize easy handling, pleasing skin tones, and modest macro potential, Canon A810 is your buddy. Its rugged-ish feel and AA battery convenience remain attractive for travel shoots where chargers and specialized accessories are impractical.

If, instead, you want longer zoom reach, crisper LCD viewing, and lighter travel credentials, Olympus VR-340 holds sway, despite its autofocus shortcomings and less consistent image sharpness.

For any enthusiast craving manual controls, raw capture, environmental robustness, or serious video features, neither camera hits the mark - newer compacts, mirrorless, or entry DSLRs serve that niche better.

In today’s market, both cameras are budget-friendly secondary options, appealing mostly to beginner photographers, casual travelers, or those who need a reliable point-and-shoot with better zoom than a smartphone.

This dog is a good boy - but it’s worth remembering these are decade-old tech marvels showing their age in the face of current mirrorless innovations. Still, they offer nostalgic charm and straightforward photography for those stepping back into the hobby or needing no-nonsense simplicity.

Happy shooting!

Image Gallery: Real-World Capture Comparisons

Here’s a quick peek at sample shots from both cameras in typical environments - note the color rendering, sharpness, and lens behavior discussed earlier.