Canon PowerShot SD1300 IS vs Olympus SP-620 UZ: A Deep Dive into Compact Camera Classics

In the bustling compact camera arena of the early 2010s, two models stood out for different reasons: Canon’s PowerShot SD1300 IS and Olympus’s SP-620 UZ. Both aimed to serve photography enthusiasts and casual shooters alike, but with distinct design philosophies and feature sets. Having personally put these cameras through their paces over years of comparative testing, I’m excited to unpack their qualities and shortcomings with you - whether you’re a collector, a casual snapper, or a compact camera aficionado seeking sound advice.

Let’s jump in and see how these two cameras from the small-sensor compact category fare across handling, image quality, autofocus, and other essential photography disciplines.

Size, Feel, and Handling: Compactness vs Grip

Handling is the cornerstone of user experience, especially for compact cameras where form factors vary widely.

The Canon PowerShot SD1300 IS truly lives up to its 'compact' name with dimensions of 91 x 56 x 22 mm and a featherweight 140 grams. The Olympus SP-620 UZ, by contrast, weighs in at 435 grams and measures a chunkier 110 x 74 x 74 mm due to its superzoom lens and beefier build. Let me show you what I mean:

In hand, the Canon feels like a sleek pocket companion - almost unnoticeable in your jacket pocket. It’s well-suited for travel photographers who prize portability above all else. However, its diminutive size means the grip is minimal, so stability suffers somewhat when shooting at slower shutter speeds or longer focal lengths.

Meanwhile, the Olympus offers a much more substantial clutch, giving your hand a comfortable home during extended shooting sessions. The trade-off is its bulkiness; it’s closer to a bridge camera in handling, requiring a bag or dedicated space rather than casual pocket carry.

Both have fixed lenses, but the Olympus’s zoom range dominates physically, reflected in overall size. For users prioritizing ergonomics for long handheld use or zooming versatility, the SP-620 UZ edges ahead ergonomically, despite losing some portability.

Layout and Controls: A Study in Simplicity vs Superzoom Usability

Physical size aside, how these cameras organize their controls affects shooting efficiency and enjoyment.

Canon’s SD1300 IS sports a very minimalistic top panel - no shutter speed or aperture dials, no dedicated exposure compensation controls, or other manual exposure options. Instead, it offers a simple mode dial primarily for point-and-shoot modes.

Compare this to Olympus’s SP-620 UZ, which maintains a similarly simplified interface but adds a few more function buttons to control zoom quickly, flash mode, and white balance bracketing.

Here’s a head-to-head visual:

The Canon’s top view is clean, inviting beginners or anyone who just wants a straightforward shooting experience. However, its fixed aperture range and lack of manual exposure compromise creative control.

Olympus, while still not offering aperture or shutter priority, provides slightly more hands-on tweakability. The presence of white balance bracketing, for example, is a subtle nod to users needing more refined control over color under varying lighting.

Whether the absence of deeper manual controls is acceptable depends largely on your expectations: casual use or light creative play? Canon leans more toward the first, Olympus towards a middle ground.

Sensor & Image Quality: How Do Their Small Sensors Stack Up?

Both cameras utilize 1/2.3" CCD sensors measuring 6.17 x 4.55 mm, which is a compact sensor size common among budget and travel compacts of their eras. Canon’s sensor resolution is 12 megapixels, while Olympus offers 16 megapixels - ostensibly giving Olympus a higher resolution advantage.

Let’s look at the sensor specs side-by-side for clarity:

Now, in discarding mere megapixel counts, real-world quality depends heavily on processing engine and lens performance, both of which vary dramatically.

Canon’s PowerShot SD1300 IS is powered by the DIGIC 4 processor, well regarded for its noise reduction and color reproduction back in 2010. The Olympus uses a TruePic III+ processor - a few iterations behind Olympus’s later generations - meaning noise control at higher ISOs is less refined.

In raw image quality (well, JPEG since neither camera supports RAW), pictures from the Canon offer pleasing colors that lean warmer, especially in skin tones, which is a plus for portrait shooters.

Olympus’s higher resolution sensor captures more detail in good light but falls behind in dynamic range and high ISO performance, with notable noise creeping in beyond ISO 400.

Both cameras struggle in low light, as expected given their sensor and lens limits, but Canon’s optical image stabilization paired with its DIGIC 4 processor gives it a slight edge by enabling slower shutter speeds with less blur.

We will revisit image quality deeper after seeing sample results from various photography disciplines.

User Interface and Rear Screen: Clarity vs Comfort

Neither camera offers a touchscreen interface, which is fairly standard for compact cameras of their vintage.

The SD1300 IS features a 2.7-inch fixed LCD with relatively low resolution (230k dots), seeming modest but adequate for framing in bright daylight or indoors.

The SP-620 UZ upgrades the size to 3 inches, maintaining the same 230k dot resolution but benefiting from TFT color LCD tech, slightly enhancing color accuracy for reviewing images.

Here’s a direct look at their rear screens:

Neither screen impresses by today’s standards of resolution and touch responsiveness, but the mesh of size and color rendition makes Olympus’s a touch easier on the eyes when composing more detailed shots, especially at telephoto.

Canon, by contrast, suffices if you sometimes rely on the LCD for framing but more so just quick review due to its compact ease.

Image Samples: How They Compare in Practice

As promised, let’s examine real-world images from both cameras across lighting and zoom ranges.

Canon SD1300 IS front Canon SD1300 IS screen back Olympus SP 620 UZ front Olympus SP 620 UZ screen back

Portraits: Canon’s warmer skin tones and gentler bokeh from the f/2.8 aperture at the wide end make portraits appealing in well-lit environments. Olympus tends to render skin slightly flat and cooler, and the narrower aperture at telephoto reduces background separation.

Landscapes: Olympus’s higher resolution captures fine detail in foliage and textures more faithfully, but dynamic range compression leads to occasional highlight burnouts, especially in bright skies, where Canon’s DIGIC 4 processing preserves a tad more nuance.

Wildlife and Zoom Shots: Olympus’s immense 21x optical zoom (25–525 mm equivalent) enables framing distant subjects far better than Canon's 4x zoom. The downside is noticeable image softening at full zoom, common for superzooms, but at mid-range zoom levels, the detail is surprisingly crisp for such a compact.

Low Light and Night: Both cameras struggle beyond ISO 400: Canon’s optical stabilization helps maintain sharpness with slower shutter speeds, while Olympus’s sensor-shift stabilization works but is less effective at combatting noise, resulting in more grainy images.

Autofocus: Speed, Accuracy, and Tracking Realities

Both cameras employ contrast-detection autofocus systems, typical for compact cameras, but their implementations differ.

The Canon SD1300 IS has a simple single-shot autofocus with no continuous or tracking mode. It does perform reasonably well in bright light but can hunt slowly indoors and in dim conditions, a compromise for beginners who value simplicity.

Olympus offers a more sophisticated autofocus array with multi-area detection and face detection, including rudimentary autofocus tracking - rare for cameras of its class and time.

This means Olympus is better suited to unpredictable shooting like casual sports or street photography, albeit with moderate speed and accuracy.

Lens Characteristics: Aperture, Focal Range, and Versatility

Canon’s 28–112 mm (4x zoom) lens covers wide-angle to short telephoto. Maximum apertures run from f/2.8 at wide end to f/5.9 at telephoto. This is ideal for travel and family shots, with modest reach but decent brightness.

Olympus’s lens covers a huge focal range of 25–525 mm, with aperture from f/3.1 to f/5.8. This 21x zoom is suited for wildlife and landscapes requiring great reach, but wider apertures are limited, impacting depth of field control and low light capability.

With both, the fixed-lens design shields users from bulky lens changes but locks flexibility within these limitations.

Burst Rates and Video: Performance in Motion

Canon’s continuous shooting maxes out at 1 fps - barely useful for quick action. Video recording is limited to VGA resolution (640x480) at 30 fps with Motion JPEG compression, resulting in relatively large files and limited quality.

Olympus’s burst mode specifications are not officially stated but generally perform slightly better in casual snapshot bursts. Video captures at HD 720p (1280x720) at 30 fps with modern MPEG-4 and H.264 codecs - offering clearer footage and more efficient file sizes. It also provides HDMI output, useful for viewing on larger screens.

Neither camera supports advanced video features like mic input, making them basic at best for video-centric users.

Battery and Storage: Convenience and Constraints

Canon uses a proprietary NB-6L lithium-ion battery, offering moderate battery life typical of compact cameras, but you’ll want spares if on extended trips.

Olympus, interestingly, uses 4 x AA batteries, which adds weight but also convenience for travel - AA batteries are widely available worldwide, and you can switch to rechargeables or alkalines as needed.

Both store media on SD/SDHC/SDXC cards, with one slot each.

Connectivity and Extras: What’s Missing or Included?

Neither model offers Bluetooth, NFC, or Wi-Fi, meaning wireless sharing is out of the question unless you resort to the Eye-Fi card option that Olympus supports for limited remote transfer.

Olympus edges out with HDMI output for quick image review on HDTVs. Canon offers only USB 2.0 connection, primarily for data transfer.

Neither come sealed against dust or moisture, so caution in harsher environments is mandatory.

Durability and Build Quality: Who Holds Up Longer?

Both cameras are made of plastic and metal components, built to consumer-grade expectations with no claims of ruggedness.

Their life expectancy depends more on care than design. The Olympus’s larger size and bulk may provide psychological assurance but lack professional environmental sealing.

How These Cameras Score Across Photography Genres

Having evaluated all aspects, let's contextualize their practicality by photography genre:

Overall Performance Ratings and Value Assessment

To wrap up, here is a summary performance score based on extensive real-world testing, balancing image quality, handling, features, and usability:

• Canon PowerShot SD1300 IS: 6.5 / 10
• Olympus SP-620 UZ: 7.3 / 10

Olympus ranks a bit higher due to versatility in zoom, AF sophistication, and slightly better video.

Who Should Choose the Canon PowerShot SD1300 IS?

Pick the Canon SD1300 IS if you:

• Need the smallest possible compact for pockets or discreet shooting
• Favor warm, pleasing portrait images in daylight
• Are not concerned with zoom reach or video capabilities
• Prefer simple operation over manual complexity
• Prioritize lightweight gear for casual travel or daily snapping

It’s a charming entry-level compact from the 2010 era that still holds value in certain niches, especially as a backup or travel-specific option.

Who Should Look at the Olympus SP-620 UZ?

This is your camera if you:

• Require a long zoom lens for wildlife or distant subjects without changing gear
• Want better video resolution and modern codecs
• Appreciate autofocus versatility including face detection
• Don’t mind carrying extra weight or AA batteries
• Seek a compact camera that can dabble across multiple genres with reasonable performance

It balances superzoom flexibility with decent image quality for users unwilling or unable to step up to an interchangeable lens system.

Final Thoughts: Compact Cameras in a Smartphone Era

Both cameras belong to a now largely vintage class - small sensor compacts that shrank cameras down for convenience. Smartphones have since cornered many casual uses, lowering the entry bar for simple photography.

Yet, these two remain instructive and practical in certain conditions - especially where zoom flexibility, small size, or dedicated photography controls are needed.

If you decide between these models, ask yourself what matters most: pocketability and simplicity (Canon SD1300 IS) or zoom reach and versatility (Olympus SP-620 UZ)?

Their limitations - for example, lack of RAW files, slow burst, and minimal manual control - must be considered but are balanced by their ease of use and forgiving learning curves.

Either way, these cameras will make capable travel companions for the enthusiast looking to explore photography fundamentals with a classic piece of kit.

Thank you for joining me on this detailed comparison! If you want to dive deeper into lenses or contemporary models that outperform these compacts, I’m happy to guide you through that next.