Canon SX200 IS vs Olympus TG-310
90 Imaging
34 Features
37 Overall
35
94 Imaging
37 Features
33 Overall
35
Canon SX200 IS vs Olympus TG-310 Key Specs
(Full Review)
- 12MP - 1/2.3" Sensor
- 3" Fixed Screen
- ISO 80 - 1600
- Optical Image Stabilization
- 1280 x 720 video
- 28-336mm (F3.4-5.3) lens
- 247g - 103 x 61 x 38mm
- Released May 2009
- Replacement is Canon SX210 IS
(Full Review)
- 14MP - 1/2.3" Sensor
- 2.7" Fixed Screen
- ISO 80 - 1600
- Sensor-shift Image Stabilization
- 1280 x 720 video
- 28-102mm (F3.9-5.9) lens
- 155g - 96 x 63 x 23mm
- Introduced January 2011
Photography Glossary Canon SX200 IS vs Olympus TG-310 Overview
Below, we will be comparing the Canon SX200 IS versus Olympus TG-310, one is a Small Sensor Superzoom and the latter is a Waterproof by companies Canon and Olympus. The resolution of the SX200 IS (12MP) and the TG-310 (14MP) is pretty well matched and they come with the exact same sensor measurements (1/2.3").
Sora from OpenAI releases its first ever music videoThe SX200 IS was brought out 20 months before the TG-310 which makes the cameras a generation away from one another. The two cameras come with the identical body type (Compact).
Before diving through a thorough comparison, below is a quick view of how the SX200 IS matches up vs the TG-310 with regards to portability, imaging, features and an overall score.
Japan-exclusive Leica Leitz Phone 3 features big sensor and new modes Canon SX200 IS vs Olympus TG-310 Gallery
Below is a preview of the gallery images for Canon PowerShot SX200 IS and Olympus TG-310. The entire galleries are viewable at Canon SX200 IS Gallery and Olympus TG-310 Gallery.
Reasons to pick Canon SX200 IS over the Olympus TG-310
| SX200 IS | TG-310 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Focus manually |  | More accurate focusing | ||
| Screen dimension | 3" |  | 2.7" | Bigger screen (+0.3") |
Reasons to pick Olympus TG-310 over the Canon SX200 IS
| TG-310 | SX200 IS | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Introduced | January 2011 |  | May 2009 | More modern by 20 months |
Common features in the Canon SX200 IS and Olympus TG-310
| SX200 IS | TG-310 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Screen type | Fixed |  | Fixed | Fixed screen |
| Screen resolution | 230k |  | 230k | Equal screen resolution |
| Selfie screen |  | Neither offers selfie screen | ||
| Touch screen |  | Neither offers Touch screen |
Canon SX200 IS vs Olympus TG-310 Physical Comparison
For anybody who is aiming to carry around your camera often, you'll have to take into account its weight and proportions. The Canon SX200 IS offers outer measurements of 103mm x 61mm x 38mm (4.1" x 2.4" x 1.5") with a weight of 247 grams (0.54 lbs) and the Olympus TG-310 has measurements of 96mm x 63mm x 23mm (3.8" x 2.5" x 0.9") accompanied by a weight of 155 grams (0.34 lbs).
Analyze the Canon SX200 IS versus Olympus TG-310 in the all new Camera and Lens Size Comparison Tool.
Remember, the weight of an Interchangeable Lens Camera will vary dependant on the lens you have chosen at that time. The following is the front view dimension comparison of the SX200 IS versus the TG-310.
Using dimensions and weight, the portability grade of the SX200 IS and TG-310 is 90 and 94 respectively.
Canon SX200 IS vs Olympus TG-310 Sensor Comparison
More often than not, it is difficult to visualize the gap between sensor sizes purely by reading through specifications. The picture here should give you a greater sense of the sensor measurements in the SX200 IS and TG-310.
To sum up, the two cameras have got the exact same sensor measurements albeit different resolution. You should expect the Olympus TG-310 to give you greater detail having its extra 2MP. Higher resolution will also let you crop shots much more aggressively. The more aged SX200 IS is going to be disadvantaged in sensor technology.
Canon SX200 IS vs Olympus TG-310 Screen and ViewFinder
Pentax 17 Pre-Orders Outperform Expectations by a Landslide Photography Type Scores
Portrait Comparison
Snapchat Adds Watermarks to AI-Created ImagesStreet Comparison
President Biden pushes bill mandating TikTok sale or banSports Comparison
Photobucket discusses licensing 13 billion images with AI firmsTravel Comparison
Apple Innovates by Creating Next-Level Optical Stabilization for iPhoneLandscape Comparison
Meta to Introduce 'AI-Generated' Labels for Media starting next monthVlogging Comparison
Samsung Releases Faster Versions of EVO MicroSD Cards
Canon SX200 IS vs Olympus TG-310 Specifications
| Canon PowerShot SX200 IS | Olympus TG-310 | |
|---|---|---|
| General Information | ||
| Brand Name | Canon | Olympus |
| Model | Canon PowerShot SX200 IS | Olympus TG-310 |
| Class | Small Sensor Superzoom | Waterproof |
| Released | 2009-05-14 | 2011-01-06 |
| Physical type | Compact | Compact |
| Sensor Information | ||
| Chip | - | TruePic III+ |
| Sensor type | CCD | CCD |
| Sensor size | 1/2.3" | 1/2.3" |
| Sensor measurements | 6.17 x 4.55mm | 6.17 x 4.55mm |
| Sensor area | 28.1mm² | 28.1mm² |
| Sensor resolution | 12 megapixel | 14 megapixel |
| Anti aliasing filter | ||
| Aspect ratio | 4:3 and 16:9 | - |
| Max resolution | 4000 x 3000 | 4288 x 3216 |
| Max native ISO | 1600 | 1600 |
| Min native ISO | 80 | 80 |
| RAW data | ||
| Autofocusing | ||
| Manual focus | ||
| Autofocus touch | ||
| Continuous autofocus | ||
| Single autofocus | ||
| Tracking autofocus | ||
| Selective autofocus | ||
| Center weighted autofocus | ||
| Autofocus multi area | ||
| Autofocus live view | ||
| Face detection focus | ||
| Contract detection focus | ||
| Phase detection focus | ||
| Number of focus points | 9 | - |
| Cross focus points | - | - |
| Lens | ||
| Lens mounting type | fixed lens | fixed lens |
| Lens focal range | 28-336mm (12.0x) | 28-102mm (3.6x) |
| Max aperture | f/3.4-5.3 | f/3.9-5.9 |
| Macro focus range | 0cm | 3cm |
| Focal length multiplier | 5.8 | 5.8 |
| Screen | ||
| Type of screen | Fixed Type | Fixed Type |
| Screen size | 3 inches | 2.7 inches |
| Screen resolution | 230 thousand dots | 230 thousand dots |
| Selfie friendly | ||
| Liveview | ||
| Touch operation | ||
| Screen tech | - | TFT Color LCD |
| Viewfinder Information | ||
| Viewfinder | None | None |
| Features | ||
| Minimum shutter speed | 15 secs | 4 secs |
| Fastest shutter speed | 1/3200 secs | 1/2000 secs |
| Continuous shutter rate | 1.0 frames/s | 1.0 frames/s |
| Shutter priority | ||
| Aperture priority | ||
| Expose Manually | ||
| Exposure compensation | Yes | - |
| Set white balance | ||
| Image stabilization | ||
| Integrated flash | ||
| Flash range | 3.20 m | 4.20 m |
| Flash settings | Auto, On, Off, Red-eye, Fill-in, Slow Syncro, Manual | Auto, On, Off, Red-Eye, Fill-in |
| Hot shoe | ||
| Auto exposure bracketing | ||
| White balance bracketing | ||
| Exposure | ||
| Multisegment | ||
| Average | ||
| Spot | ||
| Partial | ||
| AF area | ||
| Center weighted | ||
| Video features | ||
| Supported video resolutions | 1280 x 720 (30 fps), 640 x 480 (30 fps), 320 x 240 (30 fps) | 1280 x 720 (30 fps), 640 x 480 (30 fps), 320 x 180 (30fps) |
| Max video resolution | 1280x720 | 1280x720 |
| Video data format | Motion JPEG | Motion JPEG |
| Microphone port | ||
| Headphone port | ||
| Connectivity | ||
| Wireless | None | Eye-Fi Connected |
| Bluetooth | ||
| NFC | ||
| HDMI | ||
| USB | USB 2.0 (480 Mbit/sec) | USB 2.0 (480 Mbit/sec) |
| GPS | None | None |
| Physical | ||
| Environmental sealing | ||
| Water proof | ||
| Dust proof | ||
| Shock proof | ||
| Crush proof | ||
| Freeze proof | ||
| Weight | 247 grams (0.54 lbs) | 155 grams (0.34 lbs) |
| Dimensions | 103 x 61 x 38mm (4.1" x 2.4" x 1.5") | 96 x 63 x 23mm (3.8" x 2.5" x 0.9") |
| DXO scores | ||
| DXO Overall score | not tested | not tested |
| DXO Color Depth score | not tested | not tested |
| DXO Dynamic range score | not tested | not tested |
| DXO Low light score | not tested | not tested |
| Other | ||
| Battery life | - | 150 photographs |
| Battery type | - | Battery Pack |
| Battery model | NB-5L | LI-42B |
| Self timer | Yes (2 sec or 10 sec, Custom) | Yes (2 or 12 sec) |
| Time lapse feature | ||
| Storage type | SD/SDHC/MMC/MMCplus/MMCplus HC | SD/SDHC/SDXC |
| Card slots | 1 | 1 |
| Launch cost | $329 | $0 |