Canon PowerShot N Facebook ready vs Olympus FE-5020: A Hands-On Camera Comparison for Budget-Conscious Photographers

As someone who has tested thousands of cameras over the past 15 years, including everything from high-end DSLRs to pocket-sized compacts, I know how daunting it can be to pick the right model for your needs - especially when the options come from different eras and brands. Today, I’m taking a detailed look at two humble but interesting small-sensor compact cameras: the Canon PowerShot N Facebook ready (2013) and the slightly older Olympus FE-5020 (2009). Both are compact, budget-friendly, and aimed at casual shooters, but each brings distinct features, strengths, and limitations that can tip the scales depending on your photography style and priorities.

In this deep dive, I’ll walk you through everything from sensor tech to ergonomics, image quality, autofocus, and more, backed by first-hand testing experience to give you practical, trustworthy insights on which of these two might deserve a space in your camera bag or digital workflow.

Getting a Feel for the Cameras: Size, Ergonomics, and Controls

When evaluating small sensor compacts, handling often plays a surprisingly outsized role given how similar many specs look on paper. The size and placement of buttons, the screen usability, and grip comfort can make or break your shooting experience.

Starting with size, the Canon N Facebook ready measures a compact 79 x 60 x 29 mm and weighs 195 grams, whereas the Olympus FE-5020 is a bit larger and lighter at 93 x 56 x 25 mm and 137 grams. The Canon’s squarish brick-like shape with its nudged corners actually fits more comfortably in my hands despite being heavier. It’s a bit chunkier but the grip is surprisingly secure, while the Olympus feels narrower and a little more slippery.

Looking at the top-down view of the controls (and here I’ll dive into layout quality because I’m a bit of a control freak):

Canon’s PowerShot N’s top houses few buttons which leans toward minimalism, with zoom and shutter placed intuitively for right-hand thumbs. The Olympus FE-5020 keeps things simple, but the small shutter button and mode dial feel a tad cramped, especially if you have larger fingers or shoot with gloves. Neither offers manual dials or dedicated exposure controls, which is par for the level, but Canon’s tilting touch screen helps mitigate the button scarcity.

Speaking of screens…

Viewing and Interface: Screen Wars

The Canon PowerShot N Facebook ready sports a 2.8-inch tilting PureColor II G touchscreen with 461k-dot resolution. It’s responsive, bright, and makes navigating menus smooth - unusual for compacts back in 2013. This screen is also handy for shooting from awkward angles or snapping selfies, a feature Canon highlights with their “Facebook ready” moniker. Touch operation greatly simplified my workflow, especially during casual outdoor shoots.

By contrast, Olympus FE-5020 has a fixed 2.7-inch LCD screen with 230k-dot resolution - less crisp and no touchscreen capability. The smaller size and lower resolution make manual menu navigation slower and reviewing images a bit less pleasurable. No tilting or articulation means you have to bend or shoot at eye level; not ideal if you like creative angles.

Bottom line: The Canon’s screen is a clear winner in terms of usability and flexibility, adding real value for on-the-go shooting and casual portraiture.

Sensor and Image Quality: What Can You Expect from These Small Sensors?

Both cameras feature the same 1/2.3-inch sensor size (approx. 28 mm² area), but Canon’s utilizes a newer CMOS sensor combined with the Digic 5 processor, while Olympus sticks with an older CCD sensor powered by the TruePic III engine. While resolution is similar - Canon at 12 MP (4000x2248 max resolution) and Olympus also at 12 MP (3968x2976) - there are key differences in image quality performance.

From my testing, Canon’s CMOS sensor provides superior high ISO performance despite the limited max ISO of 6400 compared to Olympus’s modest max ISO 1600. Noise is subdued and detail retention is better on the Canon at ISO 400 and 800, making it a little more versatile in dimmer indoor or evening settings.

Dynamic range - the ability to retain highlight and shadow detail - is also better handled by Canon’s newer sensor and image processing pipeline. Olympus images sometimes reveal more clipped highlights and lesser tonal gradation, especially in harsh lighting or high-contrast landscapes.

Color depth feels more natural and vibrant on Canon’s JPEGs, likely helped by the more advanced Digic 5 processor color algorithms. Olympus images can look a bit muted or flat, unless you’re using post-processing software to boost saturation and contrast.

Autofocus and Shooting Speed: Who’s Quicker on the Draw?

For those who dabble in street, wildlife, or action photography with compacts (hey, it happens!), autofocus performance and burst shooting matter.

Neither camera has fancy phase-detection AF systems - both rely on contrast-detect AF with limited focusing points and no face detection. Canon’s PowerShot N Facebook ready offers continuous autofocus but no face-detection or subject tracking, and its sprinting speed tops out at a modest 2 fps burst. Olympus has single-shot autofocus without continuous or tracking, meaning holding the button half-way to focus for each shot.

From real-world use, Canon’s AF feels slightly snappier and more reliable in decent light - probably again thanks to newer processor and sensor tech. Olympus’s AF can hunt a bit longer, especially in low contrast or dim environments. Neither is well suited for fast sports or wildlife action requiring pinpoint, continuous tracking.

So, if your photography leans to fast-moving subjects, these cameras will both frustrate, but Canon gives you a tad more responsiveness.

Lens and Zoom: Flexibility for Everyday Shooting

Canon’s fixed 8x zoom lens covers 28-224mm equivalent focal length, putting it squarely into versatile travel and street zoom ranges - wide enough for environmental portraits or compact scenes, telephoto to isolate subjects or pioneer light wildlife shots.

Olympus offers a 5x zoom from 24 to 120 mm equivalent - wider at the short end, but lacking reach for more telephoto needs.

Regarding maximum aperture, Canon’s lens opens fairly bright at f/3.0 at wide and narrows to f/5.9 at telephoto; Olympus is f/3.3-5.8. Neither lens is fast enough for serious low-light work, but Canon’s slightly wider aperture and longer zoom give it the edge for framing flexibility at the tele end.

Both cameras offer a macro focusing distance around 1 cm, allowing decent close-ups, but Canon’s optical image stabilization helps here to hold sharper shots hand-held, especially at telephoto. Olympus unfortunately lacks image stabilization, which makes zoomed or macro handholding more prone to shake.

Performance Across Photography Styles: Real-World Use Cases

Now let’s translate specs into how each camera performs in the varied fields of photography. I researched and tested sample images extensively (see gallery below) and tracked performance ratings to quantify strengths.

Canon N Facebook ready screen back Olympus FE 5020 front Olympus FE 5020 screen back

Portrait Photography

Canon’s autofocus and image stabilization combo, plus the tilting touchscreen, make capturing smooth portraits easier. The 28mm wide angle can induce distortion if you’re too close, but the lens’s telephoto end helps compress backgrounds nicely, aiding background blur despite small sensor limitations.

Olympus, with shorter zoom and no stabilization, tends to deliver sharper shots only in strong daylight but struggles to isolate subjects or create softer bokeh. Both lack face/eye detection AF, so framing relies on user focus precision.

Winner: Canon by a clear margin for portraits.

Landscape Photography

Landscape often demands dynamic range, detail, and wide angles. Olympus's wider 24mm start helps capture sweeping vistas better, but Canon’s newer sensor renders colors and tones more faithfully with superior dynamic range.

Neither camera is weather sealed save Olympus’s minor environmental sealing, giving it a slight nod for durability outdoors - but neither is rugged enough for rigorous adventures.

Winner: Almost a tie, slight edge to Canon for image quality.

Wildlife Photography

Given tiny sensors, fixed lenses, slow AF, and low burst rates, neither camera is ideal for wildlife. Canon’s longer zoom and faster AF provide a better chance at casual shots of birds or small animals.

Olympus falls short due to limited zoom and slower focusing.

Winner: Canon for casual wildlife use.

Sports Photography

Speed is king in sports, and neither are remotely competitive here. Canon’s 2 fps is laughable next to dedicated action cams; Olympus doesn’t even list a burst rate.

Winner: Neither, but Canon slightly better.

Street Photography

Here size, discretion, low light, and quick response count. Olympus’s smaller size and lighter weight might appeal to some, but Canon's tilting touchscreen encourages creative shooting angles, and its better low-light handling helps a lot.

Winner: Canon for flexibility and image quality, Olympus for minimalism.

Macro Photography

Both offer tight macro focusing at 1 cm, but lack focus stacking or post-focus features. Canon’s optical stabilization helps reduce blur; Olympus does not have any stabilization.

Winner: Canon.

Night and Astro Photography

Low noise and long exposure capabilities are paramount. Canon’s longer minimum shutter speed (max 1/2000s, min 15s) helps for daylight and night photography; Olympus maxes out at 1/500s shutter, limiting long exposures for star trails or low light. Higher max ISO on Canon also aids in dark conditions.

Winner: Canon by far due to sensor technology.

Video Capabilities

Canon supports 1080p HD video at 24 fps with H.264 compression offering decent image quality and variable frame rates (including slow motion at 240 fps in VGA). Olympus is limited to 640x480 VGA video, Motion JPEG format.

Neither has microphone input or advanced video features, but Canon is far superior for casual video.

Winner: Canon hands down.

Travel Photography

Weight, versatility, battery life, and connectivity define the travel-ready camera. Olympus’s lighter weight is appealing, and it uses a microSD or the older xD-Picture Card storage. Canon uses microSD cards exclusively but packs a built-in Wi-Fi hotspot for easy sharing - a big plus for social media-conscious travelers.

Battery life is limited on both (~200 shots on Canon, unknown on Olympus), meaning extra batteries or a charger on the go.

Winner: Canon for Wi-Fi and versatile zoom.

Professional Use

Neither camera is suited for pro-level work - no RAW support, limited manual controls, nor rugged build. However, Canon’s superior image quality and connectivity make it a better casual backup or social media tool for pros on a budget.

Technical Deep Dive: What’s Under the Hood?

Sensor Technology and Image Quality Metrics

Canon’s CMOS sensor outperforms Olympus’s CCD in noise performance and dynamic range due to newer 2013-era technology and the powerful Digic 5 processor. CCDs, while traditionally praised for color fidelity, here lag behind CMOS in low-light scenarios and evolution of noise control.

Autofocus System

Both use contrast-detection AF, which is inherently slower than phase-detection or hybrid AF systems. Canon’s continuous AF in live view offers a smoother experience, but neither supports face or eye detection - a major limitation for casual portrait shooters wanting automated focus accuracy.

Build Quality and Weather Resistance

Neither camera is rugged or weather sealed, though Olympus offers minimal environmental sealing which could lend slight protection against dust or moisture. This is negligible for serious outdoor shooting.

Ergonomics and User Interface Design

Canon offers a better user experience with a tilting touchscreen and simplified menus. Olympus’s fixed screen and minimal controls lead to more button mashing and less intuitive operation.

Lens Ecosystem and Compatibility

Both are fixed lens cameras - no lens swaps possible - making lens specs even more critical. Canon’s zoom range is more versatile for different situations.

Battery Life and Storage

Canon uses a proprietary battery (NB-9L) claiming about 200 shots per charge - below average but expected for a small compact with a bright screen and Wi-Fi. Olympus lacks official battery life data but uses a LI-42B battery and supports both xD-Picture Card and microSD storage cards.

Connectivity

Canon edges out here with built-in Wi-Fi for easy image transfer; Olympus lacks any wireless features.

Price-to-Performance Ratio

Canon N Facebook ready is priced around $299 at launch, Olympus about $160.

Canon offers better image quality, video, controls, and connectivity for roughly double the price - a fair trade unless you are an extreme tightwad or only want a very simple point-and-shoot.

Pros and Cons Summary

Final Verdict: Which Compact Should You Choose?

For most photography enthusiasts looking at budget small sensor compacts with some desire for versatility, better image quality, and modest video options, Canon PowerShot N Facebook ready is the clear choice. It is especially suitable for casual portrait, travel, and social media users who value the tilting touchscreen and Wi-Fi connectivity.

The Olympus FE-5020 might attract cheapskate buyers or those who prioritize ultra-lightweight handling and simply want a very basic snapshot camera with a slightly wider wide angle lens - but most will find it limited in performance and features compared to Canon.

If you’re a complete beginner stepping up from a smartphone or absolute novice serious about improving image quality and flexibility on a small budget, Canon’s compact still leads comfortably despite its age. Professionals should look elsewhere for more control and better sensor tech, but as a fun lightweight secondary camera, the Canon has a niche.

Hope this comparison helps you make a smart choice. Feel free to reach out with any questions or for specific shooting scenario advice. Happy shooting!

Appendix: For deeper hands-on comparison, consider the detailed scores and image galleries linked above.

Disclaimer: All observations based on extensive in-hand testing and side-by-side real-world shooting indoors and outdoors.