Canon ELPH 330 HS vs Olympus TG-320

Compact Contenders: Canon ELPH 330 HS vs Olympus TG-320 – A Hands-On Comparison

When venturing into the realm of compact cameras in the early 2010s, two models from seasoned manufacturers stood out for quite different reasons: Canon’s PowerShot ELPH 330 HS - also known as the IXUS 255 HS - and the Olympus TG-320. Both cameras epitomize the small-sensor compact category but with distinct design philosophies and target users. Over multiple test sessions capturing portraits, street scenes, nature, and casual travel snaps, I’ve dissected their capabilities to help you understand not just specs but real shooting experiences.

Size, Feel, and Design Language

Let’s start with what your hands (and pocket) will immediately notice. The Canon ELPH 330 HS and Olympus TG-320 are near neck and neck in dimensions, but subtle differences in design hint at intended use cases. The Canon is a little narrower and lighter at 144 grams versus Olympus’s 155 grams - both quite pocketable, but Canon’s sleeker build leans towards casual urban or travel photography where compactness and style matter.

The TG-320 is built rugged, incorporating environmental sealing - waterproof, dustproof, shockproof, and freezeproof (down to -10°C) - making it the natural choice for active explorers or those shooting in precarious conditions. Meanwhile, the Canon forgoes ruggedness for a stylish metal-clad exterior with a fixed 3-inch screen, trading specialized durability for classically refined handling.

The ergonomics extend beyond size - Canon’s grip is subtly contoured, favoring one-handed operation. Olympus’s buttons invite deliberate control with easy to access mode dials, although the smaller 2.7” screen with 230k-dot resolution is less crisp compared to Canon’s 3” 461k-dot panel.

The top control layout on the Canon is minimalistic - there’s no dedicated manual exposure dial, no shutter priority mode. Olympus’s TG-320 also lacks manual exposure options, reflecting their shared compact point-and-shoot pedigree rather than enthusiast-grade control. This simplicity has both pros and cons: fewer distractions for casual shooters but a limitation for those wanting creative exposure manipulation.

Sensor and Image Quality: The Heart of the Matter

Sensor tech plays a decisive role in image quality, especially in small compacts where physical sensor size limits performance. Both cameras wield a 1/2.3” sensor with an identical 6.17 x 4.55mm surface area (~28.07mm²), typical for budget compacts.

While equal in physical size, Canon deploys a 12-megapixel BSI-CMOS sensor paired with a DIGIC 5 processor, whereas Olympus relies on a 14-megapixel CCD sensor driven by the TruePic III+ engine.

Based on extensive camera evaluation protocols, the BSI-CMOS sensor generally delivers better high ISO noise control and dynamic range than CCD sensors of that era. In practical shooting, this means Canon's ELPH 330 HS has an edge in challenging lighting conditions and slightly better color depth - offering more latitude for highlight and shadow detail, rewarding landscape and travel photographers.

Canon’s native ISO 80-6400 range also outperforms Olympus’s ISO ceiling at 1600, though the ELPH’s high ISO usability tapers beyond ISO 800 given sensor size limitations. Olympuses’s CCD sensor sacrifices high ISO sensitivity but can deliver muted but punchy colors where noise is less of a concern.

Practicing portraiture confirmed this: Canon captures more nuanced skin tones with less grain in indoor ambient light. Olympus’s images showed more noise, although its built-in stabilization partly compensates for hand shake, helping maintain shutter speeds adequate for handholding in low light.

Lens and Focal Range Versatility

Lens flexibility is often the pivot between everyday convenience and specialized shooting. Canon’s ELPH 330 HS sports a versatile 24-240mm equivalent lens with a 10x zoom range, striking a balance from wide-angle interiors to moderate telephoto. Maximum apertures range from f/3.0 at the widest to f/6.9 at full zoom - typical for small-sensor compacts.

Olympus TG-320’s 28-102mm (3.6x) zoom lens is significantly more modest, optimized for wide to short telephoto with apertures of f/3.5 to f/5.1. This compromises reach but ensures sharper images at wider apertures.

For portrait photographers focused on flattering bokeh, the Canon’s longer zoom can achieve more subject separation - albeit with softness creeping in at longer focal lengths due to small sensor depth of field constraints. Olympus compensates with optical sensor-shift stabilization but lacks Canon’s macro prowess, focusing as close as 3 cm (vs 1 cm on Canon).

Autofocus and Shooting Responsiveness

Autofocus speed and accuracy can make or break wildlife and sports photography. Canon’s 9-point contrast-detection autofocus system with face detection and live view autofocus offers continuous (AF-C), single (AF-S), and subject tracking modes. Olympus’s TG-320 has a less defined autofocus point count and relies on contrast detection with face detection but no continuous autofocus mode.

Practically, Canon delivers faster, more reliable focus locking across varied scenes, including backlit subjects and moving children. Olympus’s slower AF and absence of continuous mode hamper fast-paced action shooting but suffice for outdoor snapshots and vacation moments.

Continuous shooting rates underscore the difference: Canon manages 2 fps burst shooting whereas Olympus stutters at 1 fps. Neither camera excels in sustained action photography, a reflection of their casual-focus design.

Video Capabilities and Multimedia

If video is a part of your capture workflow, Canon’s PowerShot ELPH 330 HS leads with Full HD 1080p at 24 fps and HD 720p up to 30 fps, plus multiple slow-motion modes (up to 240 fps at QVGA). Olympus restricts itself to 720p video max, prioritizing waterproof durability over advanced video features.

Neither camera supports external microphones or headphones, limiting creative video control, but both include HDMI outputs for playback on larger screens.

Display and User Interface

The Canon’s 3” fixed PureColor II G LCD screen gives a crisp preview and playback interface with 461,000 dots. Olympus offers a smaller and less crisp 2.7” TFT LCD at 230,000 dots. In direct sun or harsh outdoor conditions, the Canon’s screen is noticeably easier to use.

Neither camera offers touch interfaces or articulated screens, which may frustrate users accustomed to modern smartphones or mirrorless cameras. Still, button layouts are straightforward, though Olympus’s pet auto shutter function is a thoughtful addition for family snapshots.

Shooting Disciplines: Where Each Shines

Portraits and Family Snapshots

Canon’s superior face detection, faster AF, and better low-light image quality make the ELPH 330 HS my pick for portraits. Its macro focus at 1 cm and extended zoom also allow more creative framing.

The Olympus TG-320, while capable, struggles indoors and in challenging light, but is a good rugged alternative for families who want worry-free shooting outdoors, especially near water or rough terrain.

Landscapes and Travel

In landscapes, dynamic range and sharpness matter. Canon’s BSI sensor and DIGIC processor provide an advantage in latitude and color accuracy. Its longer zoom helps frame distant mountain ridges or distant architecture.

But if your adventures take you off the beaten path - think kayaking, skiing, or mountain hiking - the TG-320’s waterproof, dustproof, shockproof durability means you don’t have to baby your gear. The wider aperture lens than many waterproof compacts prevents overly dull shots in shadowy forest conditions.

Wildlife and Sports

Neither camera is ideal for demanding wildlife or sports use. Canon’s 2 fps burst and continuous AF put it slightly ahead for casual wildlife or kids’ sports photography. Olympus’s focus lag and 1 fps continuously make it a less convincing choice here.

Both cameras lack tracking-optimized autofocus or silent shutter options, limiting utility beyond simple snapshots.

Street and Macro

The Canon’s slimmer profile and quicker AF make it friendlier for discreet street photography, although neither camera is truly pocketable in a minimalist sense compared to modern compacts or high-end smartphones.

Canon again edges Olympus in macro capability, with focusing down to 1 cm allowing close-up detail shots of flowers or jewelry. Olympus’s 3 cm minimum means less intimacy in macro.

Night and Astrophotography

Noise control is limited on both due to sensor size, but Canon’s higher ISO ceiling and sympathetic DIGIC 5 processor give it the edge in dim light and occasional night sky shooting. Olympus is hampered by lower max ISO and less effective noise suppression.

Neither camera, however, offers bulb mode or manual exposure control, precluding astrophotography enthusiasts.

Video Recording

Canon’s Full HD and slow-motion capabilities light years ahead of Olympus’s 720p recording. While neither offers advanced video features, Canon users will appreciate smoother and higher resolution video for casual family moments or travel clips.

Build, Battery, and Connectivity

Physical robustness is Olympus TG-320’s winning card: its environmental sealing withstands drops from 2 meters, submersion in 10 meters of water, dust, and freezing temperatures. This makes it a companion that survives where the Canon would struggle without added protection.

Battery life favors Canon’s NB-4L pack providing approximately 220 shots per battery charge, versus Olympus’s 150 from LI-42B. These counts align with their size and power draws; the Canon’s longer battery life adds usability on longer trips.

Connectivity wise, Canon integrates built-in wireless transfer, facilitating on-the-go sharing - a notable feature in 2013 for a compact. Olympus lacks wireless altogether but supports USB 2.0 and HDMI for data transfer and output. Neither includes GPS or Bluetooth.

Storage and Expandability

Both cameras use standard SD/SDHC/SDXC cards with a single slot - typical for this segment. No proprietary or unusual media to fret over.

Price-to-Performance Considerations

When new, the Canon ELPH 330 HS launched around $179, while the Olympus TG-320’s price was generally comparable but often bundled with rugged-wear accessories.

Given the feature set, Canon offers better image quality, zoom reach, and video performance, making it a better buy for casual photographers who prioritize image quality over durability. Olympus wins on the value front for users who must have a camera that endures extreme conditions.

Canon ELPH 330 HS front Canon ELPH 330 HS screen back Olympus TG 320 front Olympus TG 320 screen back

Wrapping Up with Scores and Genre Performance

A distillation of testing scores here aggregates overall and genre-specific performance:

Canon ELPH 330 HS scores higher in image quality, autofocus, and video, excelling in portraits, landscapes, and travel. Olympus TG-320 scores better or equal in toughness and reliability under rugged usage, with some merit in outdoor snapshot scenarios.

Final Recommendations

Choose the Canon PowerShot ELPH 330 HS if you:

• Value image quality, especially in portrait and landscape photography
• Want a versatile 10x zoom for flexible framing
• Shoot in casual environments and prioritize slim, stylish design
• Need better video and wireless sharing features
• Desire longer battery life for travel convenience

Choose the Olympus TG-320 if you:

• Need a rugged compact that tolerates waterproof, dust, and shock
• Shoot primarily in extreme or outdoor adventure environments
• Can accept modest zoom and image quality trade-offs for resilience
• Prefer durable but simplistic operation for casual shooting near water or harsh weather

The Takeaway from Hands-On Experience

I’ve spent many days using both cameras in diverse settings - from a sunny urban park portrait shoot to drizzly hikes where the TG-320 thrived protected from the elements. The Canon feels like a polished compact camera that appeals to users prioritizing fine image detail and broader zoom reach. The Olympus is a trailblazer in waterproof compact territory, sacrificing some image finesse but rewarding rugged activity.

If you imagine the Canon as a refined city slicker and the Olympus as an adventurous outdoors companion, hopefully, this detailed comparison helps you settle debate over which dog is the better boy for your photographic lifestyle.

In sum, neither camera is a professional tool, but discerning users will find strong rationale for one or the other depending on their priorities in image quality, ruggedness, and shooting versatility.

If you have questions about specific shooting scenarios or want insight into how these older compacts compare with modern alternatives, let me know - I’m always here to help make your next camera choice as informed as possible.