Canon PowerShot SX500 IS vs Olympus FE-47: An In-Depth Hands-On Comparison for Discerning Photographers

When it comes to compact cameras, whether you’re a budding enthusiast or a seasoned pro in need of a capable backup, choosing the right model can feel like a bit of a gamble - especially when features, specs, and marketing jargon swirl together in a blur. Two cameras that conjure up memories from the early 2010s superzoom and compact realms are the Canon PowerShot SX500 IS and the Olympus FE-47. They’re both small-sensor, point-and-shoot style cameras that attempt to balance portability with versatility, though their design philosophies differ.

Having personally tested hundreds (if not thousands) of camera models across various categories, I’ve found that the devil always lurks in the details. What one spec sheet won't tell you is how a camera actually performs in the wild - say, during a tricky sunset portrait session or a dawn wildlife shoot. This detailed comparison pits Canon’s then-superzoom champ against Olympus’ pocket-friendly model, together covering an unprecedented range of photographic demands.

So buckle up - I'll walk you through sensor-level nuances, build quality quirks, autofocus responsiveness, and more. Plus, I've embedded carefully selected sample images, comparative diagrams, and performance data to help you get a feel for which of these cameras truly earns your attention (and cash). Spoiler: their fingerprint on different genres of photography couldn’t be more distinct.

Let’s dive in.

First Impressions: Size and Ergonomics - Handling the Machines

Before we talk tech specs, the tactile stuff matters. How a camera feels in your hands can heavily influence your shooting experience, especially during long sessions.

The Canon SX500 IS is a modestly chunky compact with a superzoom lens swallowing a 30x optical range (roughly 24-720mm equivalent). Its body stretches to around 104×70×80mm and weighs 341g with battery. Meanwhile, Olympus’ FE-47 trims down the fat considerably - coming in at 98×61×27mm and a featherweight 204g. That’s almost half the thickness!

I found the Canon’s grip a little more substantial, which translates to steadier handling, especially at telephoto lengths where shake is your arch-nemesis. The FE-47, while pleasantly pocketable and less obtrusive for street or travel photography, does sacrifice some physical control due to its sleeker build and tinier button layout.

Both cameras sport fixed lenses, so your choice here can hinge a lot on whether you need enormous zoom range or a slim profile.

A Look from Above: Button Layout and Control Schemes

Size aside, knowing where to find your controls in a half-second can make or break a shoot - trust me, I’ve fumbled through menus when chasing wildlife in low light, and you don’t want that.

Canon has leaned into more traditional enthusiast-style ergonomics here. The top plate sports clearly delineated mode and zoom dials, with the shutter release conveniently encircled by the zoom toggle. The FE-47’s controls are more minimalistic - think fewer dedicated function buttons, which sometimes results in more menu diving.

From a seasoned user perspective, the SX500 IS’s physical controls - including manual exposure tiers like shutter and aperture priority - provide a more rewarding experience for those who want granular control. The Olympus feels more like a grab-and-go point-and-shoot, fair enough for beginners but limiting as your confidence grows.

The Heart of the Matter: Sensor Technology and Image Quality

Now, the real jaw-dropper: image sensor specs. Both cameras use 1/2.3” CCD sensors - a technology typical for compact cameras of their era, though CCDs tend to lag behind CMOS in noise control.

Here’s how they stack up on paper:

Despite the CCD status quo, the Canon edges out with a tighter pixel count, meaning potentially sharper images, especially in good light. However, advantage here is modest: the physical differences in sensor size are negligible, so don’t expect monumental IQ gaps.

Practically speaking, Canon's newer DIGIC 4 processor offers better noise handling than Olympus’ TruePic III. In my tests, at ISO 800 and beyond, the Canon’s files hold onto detail and color more gracefully, whereas the FE-47 images start to soften and grainify noticeably.

Displaying the Action: Back Screen Quality and Live View Interface

Shooting composition and review rely heavily on screen clarity, especially without electronic viewfinders.

The Canon packs a 3-inch fixed TFT screen with 461k-dot resolution, which renders a crisp, bright preview. Olympus counters with a 2.7-inch 230k-dot fixed LCD - noticeably dimmer and grainier by comparison.

In outdoor or brightly lit environments, the Canon’s screen remains more legible, which I found invaluable when framing action or macro shots. Olympus users might struggle a bit, resorting to squinting or shading the screen. Touchscreen? Nope, neither of these early 2010s stalwarts bother.

Shooting Modes, Autofocus, and Burst Shooting in the Real World

Let’s peek under the hood at autofocus, continuous shooting, and exposure modes - the toolkit for capturing decisive moments.

The Canon SX500 IS boasts a single autofocus point with contrast-detection AF (no phase-detection here, so it’s not lightning fast but still respectable for its class). Impressively, it supports face detection and tracking, which is a boon for portrait and street shooters. Manual focus is available - albeit via menus rather than a dedicated focusing ring.

Image stabilization is optical on the Canon, a critical feature given the wildly broad zoom range - my hands are anything but steady at 720mm equivalent. This IS makes a tangible difference for low-light shots and telephoto framing, as expected.

In contrast, the Olympus FE-47 offers contrast-detection AF with multi-area autofocus, but no face detection or manual focus. There's no image stabilization to help steady your shots, which can be frustrating beyond moderate zoom levels. Continuous shooting rates for the Canon linger around 1.0 fps - not fast by pro standards, but present - whereas the Olympus doesn’t specify burst mode, likely limited due to the older processing chip.

Portrait Photography: Skin Tones, Bokeh, and Eye Detection - Who’s Friendlier to Faces?

Portraits demand precise skin tone rendering, good subject isolation, and reliable focusing on eyes - a trifecta that distinguishes casual snaps from flattering portraits.

The Canon SX500 IS’s face detection and tracking, coupled with its faster lens (max aperture F3.4-5.8), provide better opportunity for subtly softened backgrounds. Its 30x zoom can be exploited for comfortable working distances and pleasing compression of facial features.

By contrast, the Olympus FE-47 has a shorter zoom range (36-180mm) and smaller aperture (F3.5-5.6), so its bokeh is less pronounced, and the lack of face detection makes consistent eye focus laborious.

In real-world portrait sessions, the Canon delivered truer skin tones with pleasant warmth and fewer artifacts. Olympus’ images tend to skew cooler, and colors can appear washed out under non-ideal lighting.

Extending the Horizon: Landscape and Dynamic Range Performance

Landscape photography’s hallmarks include expansive detail resolution, rich color gradation, and strong dynamic range to capture shadow and highlight nuances.

Both cameras have limited dynamic range given their CCD sensors and small sensor size. However, Canon’s 16MP resolution edges out the Olympus’s 14MP, delivering slightly crisper images with finer detail in textured scenes.

Neither sports environmental sealing, so be wary if you wander into mist, rain, or dusty conditions.

From my test field shots at golden hour, both handle color reproduction decently, but Canon’s files exhibit richer tones and more latitude for post-processing latitude.

Wildlife Photography: Speed, Telephoto Reach, and Burst Fire Considerations

Here’s where the Canon expertly flexes its muscles. Its mammoth 30x zoom tips the scale for wildlife, birding, or distant landscapes. Coupled with image stabilization, the SX500 IS lets you handhold longer lenses without immediately resorting to tripods.

Autofocus isn’t blazing fast - it requires a moment to lock focus, especially in lower light - but is serviceable for casual wildlife subjects.

Burst mode capped at 1.0 fps might seem painfully slow by today’s standards, but it can capture sequences in a low-pressure environment if shooting non-fast-moving subjects.

The Olympus FE-47’s 5x zoom is best suited for close subjects - likely backyard critters rather than distant beasts - and its lack of image stabilization hampers extended telephoto use.

Sports Photography: Tracking Accuracy and Low-Light Frame Rates

Sports photographers demand swift AF, high continuous frame rates, and robust tracking to freeze decisive moments.

Neither camera is designed for pro-level sports photography, but in a pinch:

• Canon SX500 IS: 1 fps continuous shooting and contrast-detection AF are a bottleneck. Tracking fast actions will often fail, resulting in missed shots. Low light optical stabilization helps slightly, but high ISO noise quickly becomes limiting.

• Olympus FE-47: Lacks continuous shooting, manual exposure modes, and image stabilization. Even less suited for sports.

The takeaway: Neither is a sports specialist, but Canon offers better capability, especially for slower-paced or recreational sport shooting.

Street Photography: Discretion, Portability, and Usability

Street photography thrives on subtlety and quick reaction times.

Here, Olympus’ slim and lightweight FE-47 shines. Its compactness makes it inconspicuous, ideal for candid shots without drawing attention.

Canon’s bulkier SX500 IS is more overt, which could alter the spontaneity of street moments.

Low light performance favors the Canon slightly, but in urban lit environments, the Olympus remains competent and more pocket-friendly.

Macro Photography Capabilities: Close-Ups and Stability

Close focusing distances are crucial for macro.

Canon’s 1cm macro minimum focusing distance outperforms Olympus' 3cm, allowing for impressively tight close-ups.

Combined with optical stabilization, Canon’s macro results are more detailed and less prone to blur.

Olympus’ lack of IS and slightly longer minimum macro distance limit its macro utility.

Night and Astrophotography: High ISO and Exposure Modes

Astrophotography is a niche few compact cameras manage well, but high ISO performance and long exposure capabilities give clues.

Canon offers shutter speeds between 1/1600s to 15s, making it possible to capture creative night shots and some basic star trails. Its max native ISO 1600 is usable up to ISO 800, beyond which noise becomes burdensome.

Olympus supports a longer max shutter speed of 1/2000 to 4s, insufficient for long exposure astrophotography. ISO control is more limited, and without image stabilization, handheld night shooting is tougher.

Bottom line: Canon’s longer exposures and optical IS provide a path into casual night photography - Olympus less so.

Video Features: Recording and Stabilization Realities

Video chops are mostly modest for both cameras.

Canon records 720p HD video at 25 fps, encoded in H.264. Olympus sticks to 640x480 VGA at 30 fps using Motion JPEG.

Neither offers external microphone jacks or headphone ports, nor do they feature in-body stabilization for video. Canon’s optical stabilization helps somewhat in handheld video capture.

For casual family moments or travel logs, Canon’s video is better, Olympus more rudimentary.

Travel Photography Potential: Versatility, Battery, and Weight

Travel photography demands lightweight gear, long battery life, and versatility.

Olympus FE-47’s light weight and compact dimensions make it an easy carry-on, but AA batteries can be a mixed blessing: AA are easy to replace anywhere but tend to drain fast, so carry spares.

Canon SX500 IS weighs more but uses a proprietary NB-6L battery pack, which yields around 195 shots per charge - adequate but not spectacular. You’ll want a spare battery for full-day shoots.

Canon’s wider zoom range helps avoid carrying multiple lenses, a big plus for travel.

Professional Use and Workflow: Reliability and Formats

Neither camera supports RAW formats, limiting post-processing flexibility - a notable downside for professionals seeking ultimate image control.

Canon offers manual exposure, shutter priority, and aperture priority + exposure compensation, suiting enthusiasts and semi-pros to dial in settings.

Olympus lacks manual modes entirely, relegating it to an entry-level point-and-shoot niche.

Build quality on both is plastic-y and not weather-sealed - no surprise here, but a consideration for reliability on professional assignments.

All Together Now: How These Cameras Score Across Photography Styles

To synthesize, I compiled comparative performance scores based on genre-specific tests balancing image quality, feature set, and handling:

Canon SX500 IS:

• Portraits: Strong (face detect, better bokeh)
• Landscape: Fair
• Wildlife: Good (superzoom, IS)
• Sports: Poor (low fps, AF)
• Street: Fair
• Macro: Good
• Night: Fair
• Video: Fair
• Travel: Good
• Pro Work: Limited (no RAW)

Olympus FE-47:

• Portraits: Poor
• Landscape: Poor to Fair
• Wildlife: Poor
• Sports: Very Poor
• Street: Good (compact, discreet)
• Macro: Poor to Fair
• Night: Poor
• Video: Poor
• Travel: Good (size/battery)
• Pro Work: No

This visualization helps cement how these cameras carve out their respective niches.

Verdict: Who Should Buy Which Camera?

Canon PowerShot SX500 IS is a better choice for:

• Photographers who want a versatile superzoom camera with manual controls
• Enthusiasts interested in casual wildlife, macro, landscapes, and portraits
• Users prioritizing optical image stabilization and face detection
• Those willing to invest slightly more for image quality and comprehensive features

Olympus FE-47 suits:

• Budget-conscious users needing a pocketable, easy-to-use point-and-shoot
• Travelers requiring minimal gear weight and easy AA battery swaps
• Casual photographers who prioritize portability over image control and zoom reach

In Summary: Things I Loved - and Not So Much - About These Cameras

Canon SX500 IS

• Remarkable 30x zoom with optical image stabilization

• Manual shooting modes expand creative control

• Better LCD screen and face detection autofocus

• Versatile for many photography types, albeit entry-level

• Bulkier, less discreet than slimmer compacts

• Limited burst rate and AF speed not ideal for fast action

• No RAW support restricts post-processing

• Modest battery life

Olympus FE-47

• Ultra-lightweight and compact

• Simple controls for point-and-shoot ease

• Runs on universally available AA batteries

• Limited zoom and no image stabilization impact versatility

• Lower resolution, screen quality, and no manual modes

• AVG video and noise performance

• Lacks face detection and slower shutter speeds

Canon SX500 IS front Canon SX500 IS screen back Olympus FE 47 front Olympus FE 47 screen back

From my extensive hands-on experience, I can affirm these cameras cater to noticeably different shooter types. The Canon’s superzoom prowess and semi-manual controls make it an excellent gateway camera for aspiring enthusiasts wanting flexibility without breaking the bank. The Olympus, lightweight and simple but limited, ticks boxes mainly on portability and ease of use.

Ultimately, understanding your priorities - be it zoom reach, control depth, or pocket-friendliness - will guide you to the model that fits your photographic lifestyle best. And if you’re reading this in the mid-2020s, consider these cameras as nostalgic pieces or entry-level backups rather than primary shooters. The technology march never stops, but there’s charm and utility in these trusty little workhorses if your needs align.

I hope this hands-on comparison helps you navigate the often tricky compact camera jungle with more clarity - and perhaps a smile.