Canon SD1200 IS vs Olympus SP-600 UZ: An Expert Comparison for Photographers in 2024

Choosing the right compact camera can be surprisingly nuanced, especially when comparing models like the Canon PowerShot SD1200 IS and the Olympus SP-600 UZ that hail from the late 2000s to early 2010s. Both appear modest on paper, sharing the small 1/2.3-inch sensor size, but they cater to two distinct photographer personalities and use cases - the pocketable everyday shooter versus the superzoom enthusiast.

Having tested thousands of cameras across genres and generations, I dug deep into what these two cameras really offer, not just in terms of specs, but real-world handling, image quality, and overall value for today's photography enthusiast. Let’s unpack how they measure up - from sensor performance to ergonomics, autofocus, and most importantly, what kind of images you can expect to capture.

Seeing Them Side by Side: Physical Design and Handling

At first glance, the Canon SD1200 IS lives up to its reputation as a compact powerhouse. Its slender, sleek body fits snugly into a jacket or small purse. The Olympus SP-600 UZ, however, definitely leans into the “superzoom” aesthetic with a bulkier, heftier frame.

From my hands-on experience, the Canon’s 160-gram weight and dimensions of 86x55x22 mm cater to photographers craving discretion and portability - think street or travel photography where unassuming gear and lightness are a boon. The Olympus, nearly three times the weight (455 grams) and with physical dimensions over 110x90x91 mm, is less about pocket convenience and more about ambitious reach, the kind of camera you want for capturing faraway subjects at the expense of portability.

Ergonomically, the Canon feels like a casual companion. Buttons are modestly sized, and while there’s no illuminated control, the layout is straightforward enough for beginners or anyone who wants minimal fuss.

Meanwhile, the Olympus’s handgrip is pronounced but somewhat chunky. It doesn’t fit as naturally in small hands but gives a secure grasp for shooting longer telephoto scenes. The top control layout, as seen below, shows Olympus’s intention to provide more direct functionality despite no manual exposure modes.

In this sense, the Olympus appeals more to those willing to forego ultra-compact convenience for greater zoom flexibility. The Canon stays true to being an everyday shooter.

Sensor and Image Quality: Where the Pixels Count

Both cameras share a small 1/2.3-inch CCD sensor but differ in resolution - 10MP for the Canon versus 12MP for the Olympus - and subtle sensor dimension differences (Canon’s 6.17x4.55 mm vs Olympus’s 6.08x4.56 mm).

While megapixels are often the headline feature, I’ve found that sensor size and processing pipelines significantly impact image fidelity. These sensors capture decent detail in broad daylight but sacrifice high-ISO noise control - CCD sensors tend to generate more noise compared to newer CMOS sensors, which is something to consider if you like shooting indoors or at night.

The Canon’s 10MP delivers a maximum resolution of 3648x2736 pixels, which is more than enough for high-quality prints up to 8x10 inches or sharing online. The Olympus’s 12MP resolution (3968x2976 pixels) does provide slightly more cropping room and detail, but in my side-by-side shooting tests, that advantage narrows when factoring noise and dynamic range.

Both cameras feature an anti-aliasing filter, which slightly softens images to prevent moiré patterns but reduces micro-detail. Neither supports RAW output, so you’re limited to JPEG files, which restricts post-processing flexibility - a significant limitation for professionals or serious hobbyists who like to fine-tune images.

In real-world landscape scenarios, the Olympus’s extra resolution and better stabilization-free zoom handling shine when framing distant subjects, though it struggles with chromatic aberration at full telephoto. The Canon’s sensor provides a bit better color fidelity and consistently pleasing skin tones in portraits, thanks to Canon’s proven color science at the time.

Viewing and Composing Your Shots

Neither model includes an electronic viewfinder (EVF); the Canon includes a basic optical tunnel viewfinder, while the Olympus relies solely on its LCD.

Both utilize fixed rear LCD screens with similar 230k-dot resolution. The Canon’s 2.5-inch display is smaller but offers bright, vibrant previews. The Olympus gains a slight edge with a 2.7-inch screen that’s marginally easier to compose with, especially at telephoto focal lengths requiring precision framing.

Performance in bright daylight is a little challenging for both, a common trait among small sensor compacts of their era. I often found myself squinting or seeking shade to confirm focus and exposure accuracy. No touchscreen here means navigation through menus is button-based - it’s functional but never fast. Canon’s limited controls streamline operations slightly, while Olympus’s more extensive autofocus options require some patience to master.

Autofocus Capabilities: Speed and Precision

Here's where these two cameras offer very different user experiences.

The Canon SD1200 IS employs a relatively modest autofocus system: 9 contrast-detection points with face detection. Without continuous or tracking autofocus, it operates best on static subjects where you can patiently lock and shoot.

By comparison, the Olympus SP-600 UZ boasts an impressive 143 autofocus points and includes AF tracking. It’s capable of following moving subjects better and offers manual focus for those who prefer hands-on control - a rarity for cameras in this price and era category. Its contrast detection system manages to deliver reasonable speed in decent lighting but can struggle in low light or complex scenes.

I tested both for wildlife and sports-like scenarios. While the Canon’s single-shot AF is dependable for portraits or landscapes, it falls short for active subjects. The Olympus can shoot bursts at 10 frames per second, far surpassing Canon’s 1 fps continuous shooting - ideal for chasing unpredictable movement.

If fast, reliable autofocus is your priority for action photography, the SP-600 UZ is the clear winner.

Lens and Zoom Range: Versatility Defined

Lens-wise, these fixed-lens compacts stand poles apart.

The Canon offers a 3x optical zoom ranging from 35mm to 105mm (35mm equivalent), aperture varying from f/2.8 at wide to f/4.9 telephoto. It’s no surprise the Canon leans towards a standard zoom suited for portraits, street, and casual travel shots - sharper images and better low-light performance at the wide end.

Canon SD1200 IS screen back Olympus SP 600 UZ front Olympus SP 600 UZ screen back

The Olympus SP-600 UZ’s headline feature is its hulking 15x zoom spanning 28mm ultra-wide to 420mm telephoto. Aperture ranges from f/3.5 to f/5.4. This superzoom ambitiously targets users wanting a one-lens-does-all solution, especially wildlife and sports enthusiasts who need reach without swapping lenses.

However, all that zoom comes at a cost - as you pan to the long end, image sharpness drops off, and you encounter heavier distortion and chromatic aberrations, not uncommon in compact superzoom lenses. Optical image stabilization is absent on the Olympus, increasing the risk of blur at high zoom and slow shutter speeds. The Canon’s optical IS is a useful advantage here, especially for handheld shooting.

Flash Performance and Low-Light Capability

Both cameras include built-in flashes with comparable ranges - Canon’s peaks at 3.5 meters, Olympus around 3.1 meters. Each offers basic flash modes: Auto, Fill-in (Canon), and Red-eye reduction. Unfortunately, neither camera supports external flash units or advanced flash control.

Neither would be my choice for demanding low-light or night photography. ISO tops out at 1600 on each, but in my practical testing, noise becomes quickly intrusive past ISO 400. The Canon edges out slightly in noise control and color retention at higher ISOs, possibly benefiting from its slightly faster lens at the wide end.

For night photography involving longer exposures, Canon’s shutter range (up to 15 seconds) offers more flexibility compared to Olympus’s maximum shutter time of 2 seconds, limiting the potential for astrophotography or creative long exposures.

Video Features: Basic to Moderate

Video remains a secondary function in these cameras.

The Canon records VGA resolution at 640x480 pixels at 30 frames per second and uses the older Motion JPEG codec, which results in large file sizes and modest video quality.

The Olympus improves upon this with HD recording capabilities: 1280x720 at 24 fps compressed with H.264, more efficient and better suited for casual HD footage. You’ll appreciate this if you want decent handheld video or family moments captured in HD.

Neither camera features microphone inputs, headphone jacks, nor in-body stabilization for video, so don’t expect professional-grade video performance - shaky or noisy results are common in challenging lighting.

Battery Life and Storage

Battery life affects how long you can comfortably shoot on the go.

The Canon SD1200 IS uses an NB-6L rechargeable battery rated for around 260 shots per charge. It’s decent for a compact but somewhat limited if you plan extended shooting sessions without spares.

The Olympus SP-600 UZ doesn’t have detailed battery specs provided but historically, superzoom compacts with larger sensors and brighter LCDs tend to consume more power, often offering fewer shots per full charge. Plan on carrying extra batteries for serious outings.

Both cameras accept SD/SDHC cards - common and convenient. Olympus adds support for internal memory but you’ll want the card for serious storage.

Durability and Weather Considerations

Neither model boasts environmental sealing, weatherproof, dustproof, shockproof, or freezeproof certifications. Lightweight compacts generally shy away from rugged builds, emphasizing portability over protection. Use in careful, everyday conditions is best.

Who Should Buy Each Camera?

Now let’s distill this technical analysis down to actionable advice.

• Canon SD1200 IS: The Compact Everyday Companion

  If you prioritize an ultra-slim, lightweight camera for casual portraits, street, and travel photography, the Canon shines. Its straightforward operation, pleasing color science, and soft bokeh capabilities at f/2.8 make it ideal for ambient light portraits and candid walking shots. Additionally, optical image stabilization helps reduce blur indoors or at slower shutter speeds.

  However, don’t expect speedy autofocus or extended zoom range; the SD1200 IS caters to intentional, composed shooting at moderate focal lengths.

• Olympus SP-600 UZ: The Budget Superzoom Enthusiast

  If you want a versatile superzoom with manual focus, extensive zoom range, and faster continuous shooting, Olympus delivers far more reach and flexibility. This camera suits beginners or hobbyists interested in wildlife, sports, or outdoor adventures needing to frame distant subjects without changing lenses.

  However, the bulkier body, lack of optical stabilization, and limited low light performance may frustrate those who value pocketability or night shooting.

Scoring the Cameras at a Glance

For those who prefer scorecards as quick references, here’s a summary reflecting comprehensive testing metrics.

Unsurprisingly, the Olympus leads in versatility and autofocus speed, while the Canon excels in portability and image quality in good lighting.

Investigating genre-specific strengths:

• Portrait: Canon stronger due to better skin tones and aperture
• Landscape: Olympus benefits from higher resolution, zoom range
• Wildlife & Sports: Olympus clearly superior autofocus and burst speeds
• Street & Travel: Canon’s compactness wins favor
• Macro: Olympus’s 1cm macro focus works better
• Night & Astro: Both limited, though Canon’s longer shutter helps slightly
• Video: Olympus’s HD makes it marginally better for casual video
• Professional Use: Neither appeals strongly due to lack of RAW and controls

Wrapping Up: Which Camera Is Right for You?

While the Canon PowerShot SD1200 IS and Olympus SP-600 UZ both belong to an earlier generation of small sensor compacts, they uniquely serve differing photographic ambitions.

If your priority is a discreet, pleasant-to-carry camera focused on portraits, street photography, and simple travel snapshots with decent image quality, the Canon fits the bill neatly.

Conversely, if you crave sheer optical reach, greater shooting flexibility, and plan to photograph wildlife or sports on a budget, Olympus’s SP-600 UZ offers compelling capabilities, albeit with the trade-off of size and some image quality compromises.

Dear Canon, I’d love to see a successor combining your color fidelity and IS with more zoom and faster AF - here’s hoping.

For now, decide whether portability or zoom is your passion, then use this analysis and gallery samples to confirm the best fit.

Whether you go Canon or Olympus, these cameras remind us that even compact devices can unleash creativity when matched thoughtfully to your photographic needs. Happy shooting!

All images used in this article are based on direct side-by-side testing by the author.