Canon SX620 HS vs Olympus SP-600 UZ: A Hands-On Comparison of Two Small Sensor Superzoom Compacts

Choosing the right compact superzoom camera often means balancing zoom reach, image quality, size, and feature set. Today, I’m diving deep into two interesting contenders from slightly different eras: the Canon PowerShot SX620 HS from 2016 and the Olympus SP-600 UZ from 2010. Both cameras cater to enthusiasts seeking versatile focal ranges in small, pocketable bodies, but their technical makeups and user experiences differ substantially. After extensive testing across multiple photography genres and real-world scenarios, I offer you a thorough assessment grounded in firsthand experience.

Feels in Hand and Build Quality: Size vs Comfort

First off, how a camera feels in your hand matters just as much as its sensor specs or zoom reach. The Canon SX620 HS is a true compact - weighing just 182 grams with dimensions of 97x57x28 mm, it’s remarkably pocket-friendly and unobtrusive, a quality appreciated for candid street or travel photography. In contrast, the Olympus SP-600 UZ is much chunkier at 455 grams and measuring 110x90x91 mm. You’ll definitely notice the heft and bulk when carrying it around, which some may find reassuringly solid but others may find cumbersome.

Ergonomically, both cameras sport minimalistic layouts (see the top view below), but the SX620 HS feels more modern with neatly arranged buttons and a logical grip design that suits smaller hands well. Olympus, albeit bulkier, offers a longer lens cylinder and a more pronounced handgrip, making it comfortable for extended handheld use despite the weight. Still, if portability is a deal-breaker for you, Canon’s compactness wins out.

Sensor and Image Quality: Modern Sensor Tech vs Older CCD

One of the biggest leaps between these two cameras lies in their sensors and image processors. The Canon SX620 HS utilizes a 20-megapixel BSI-CMOS sensor sized 1/2.3" with a total area of about 28.07 mm². This sensor, combined with Canon’s DIGIC 4+ image processor, offers improved light gathering and noise reduction compared to earlier generations.

The Olympus SP-600 UZ relies on a 12-megapixel CCD sensor of similar size (approx. 27.72 mm²). While CCDs were once lauded for color fidelity, this one shows its age, especially in low-light scenarios.

Through my testing, the Canon SX620 HS delivers crisper images with better detail rendition at low ISO settings, thanks to its higher resolution and back-illuminated sensor design. Colors are vibrant without oversaturation, and noise remains subdued up to ISO 800, making it suitable for indoor or shadowed scenes.

The Olympus, despite its respectable 12MP count, generates noisier, softer images when the light dims. Its native ISO maxes at 1600, but usable image quality plateaus far earlier, around ISO 400. So for landscape or even street photographers often working in changing light, Canon holds a clear edge.

Screen and Interface: Clarity and Usability

Both cameras lack fancy articulating or touchscreen capabilities, but their rear LCD displays differ noticeably. The Canon SX620 HS features a 3” fixed LCD with 922k-dot resolution, providing a bright and sharp preview with decent color accuracy - vital when composing in bright daylight.

In comparison, the Olympus SPI-600’s 2.7” screen has a paltry 230k-dot resolution, making fine focus or highlight/shadow details harder to assess in the field.

I found the SX620’s interface more intuitive, with logically grouped menus and tactile buttons that provide confident feedback. Olympus’s interface feels dated and sluggish, and I missed shortcuts or programmable buttons to speed operation.

Zoom Range and Lens Performance: Reach and Aperture Tradeoffs

The crown jewel of these “superzoom compacts” is their incredible focal length versatility. The Canon SX620 HS boasts a mind-boggling 25-625 mm equivalent zoom range (25x), while the Olympus SP-600 UZ has a still-impressive 28-420 mm (15x).

That means you can go from wide-angle landscapes to reach distant wildlife or sports action. Optically, both lenses start around f/3.2-3.5 at wide angle and close down toward f/5.4-6.6 at telephoto.

During testing, the Canon’s longer zoom required careful stabilization to avoid motion blur at max focal length, but thankfully its optical image stabilization works well to steady shots up to about 400 mm equivalent. The Olympus lacks optical stabilization completely - surprisingly rare for its class - meaning handheld telephoto shots at 420 mm needed faster shutter speeds or higher ISO, reducing image quality.

While the Olympus lens showed slightly less field distortion and decent sharpness in its mid-zoom range, the Canon’s zoom sharpness held up impressively well across focal lengths. For macro enthusiasts, both cameras can focus down to about 1 cm, but Canon’s sharper lens and better autofocus made for more satisfying close-up results.

Autofocus Performance: Speed, Accuracy, and Flexibility

AF speed and accuracy can make or break a camera’s usability, especially for wildlife, sports, or street photographers.

The Canon SX620 HS uses a contrast-detection AF system with 9 points and includes face detection plus multi-area autofocus modes. Though not blazing fast, the AF locked quickly under decent light and was consistent in maintaining focus even during slight subject motion. Continuous AF mode supports tracking, making it suitable for casual wildlife or sports photography.

By contrast, despite featuring 143 contrast-detection focus points, the Olympus SP-600 UZ’s single AF mode is sluggish and prone to hunting, especially in low light or telephoto. It lacks face detection, which is a downside for portrait or street shooters hoping for quick focus acquisition.

In my real-world usage, the Canon’s AF system gave me more confidence in unpredictable situations. Olympus’s AF performance relegates it mostly to static subject shooting.

Continuous Shooting and Video Capabilities

Burst shooting at decent frame rates is crucial for sports or wildlife photographers. The Olympus SP-600 outperforms the Canon here, boasting 10 fps continuous shooting versus the SX620’s very leisurely 2.5 fps. However, neither camera offers RAW capture, limiting flexibility in post-processing.

Video-wise, Canon supports Full HD 1080p at 30 fps, delivering smooth, usable footage with decent color reproduction. Olympus lags with a max video resolution of 720p at 24 fps, which feels outdated now. Neither camera offers microphone inputs or in-body stabilization for video, so your handheld results will vary.

Battery Life and Storage Considerations

The Canon SX620 HS manages a respectable 295 shots per charge - typical for compacts with rechargeable lithium-ion packs - while Olympus leaves the battery life unspecified but is known to be less efficient due to its heavier CCD sensor and older processor.

Both cameras take single SD/SDHC/SDXC cards, but Olympus adds internal storage, which can be handy in a pinch. The Canon’s wireless connectivity, including built-in Wi-Fi and NFC, greatly enhances sharing capabilities, a stark contrast to the Olympus’s complete lack of wireless features.

Specialized Use Cases: Who Shines Where?

Let’s examine strengths and weaknesses in key photographic disciplines:

• Portraits: Canon’s face detection AF, better color handling, and 20MP sensor give it the advantage for skin tones and eye detection. Olympus’s lack of face AF and lower resolution drop the ball here.

• Landscapes: Canon’s higher resolution and dynamic range support more detailed, vibrant landscape shots. Olympus’s smaller screen and sensor shortcomings hinder composing and detail capture.

• Wildlife and Sports: Olympus’s 10 fps burst rate and numerous AF points sound promising, but in practice, slow AF limits tracking fast subjects. Canon’s slower burst but faster and more reliable AF gives better keeper rates.

• Street Photography: Canon’s small form factor, superior AF face detection, and Wi-Fi make it better suited for discreet street shooting. Olympus’s bulk and slower operations are less ideal.

• Macro: Both can focus close (about 1 cm), but Canon’s autofocus precision and sharper lens deliver better macro results.

• Night/Astro: Canon’s higher base ISO and better noise control translate to cleaner night images. Olympus struggles with noise and lacks exposure modes tailored to low light.

• Video: Canon 1080p video with IS wins over Olympus’s limited 720p at 24 fps.

• Travel: Canon’s light weight, long zoom, Wi-Fi, and battery life make it the obvious travel companion.

• Professional Use: Neither supports RAW or advanced workflows, so both are limited for professional output, but Canon’s image quality and user interface edge it ahead.

Canon SX620 HS front Canon SX620 HS screen back Olympus SP 600 UZ front Olympus SP 600 UZ screen back

Real-World Sample Gallery

You can see from the sample images above that Canon’s photos retain fine detail and sharpness even at telephoto, with natural colors and decent handling of bright highlights and shadows. Olympus shots are softer, less detailed, and less versatile in ISO tolerance, though fine in bright, simple scenes.

Final Scores and Value Analysis

Let’s sum it up with overall scoring based on hands-on tests and technical benchmarks:

Canon SX620 HS scores consistently higher on sensor performance, autofocus accuracy, ergonomics, and video capabilities, while Olympus SP-600 UZ’s main asset is rapid burst shooting.

Here is a genre-by-genre breakdown to clarify suitability:

Closing Thoughts: Which Camera Should You Choose?

Both cameras are niche superzoom compacts, but their use cases have diverged due to technology improvements and design philosophies.

• The Canon PowerShot SX620 HS stands out for everyday photography, travel, portraiture, night shooting, and casual wildlife thanks to its high-res backlit CMOS sensor, modern autofocus with face detection, compact size, and Wi-Fi connectivity. If you prefer a simple, reliable camera capable in most situations and easy sharing, this is my recommendation.

• The Olympus SP-600 UZ may appeal to those who prioritize burst shooting speed and a longer zoom than earlier compacts, yet it feels dated in image quality, AF, and video. Its bulk and lack of image stabilization make handheld telephoto shots tricky. I’d only suggest the Olympus for very budget-conscious buyers or collectors curious about a robust zoom from the early 2010s.

A Few Final Words

Dear Canon, please keep improving your compact superzooms with stabilized lenses and touchscreen interfaces - you’re on the right track with the SX620 HS’s balance of features and size. Olympus, your SP-600 UZ was a notable step in zoom reach but misses the agility and IQ to compete today.

For enthusiasts and pros seeking a bridge between pocket portability and extensive zoom versatility with decent all-around quality, the Canon SX620 HS remains a strong choice even years after its introduction.

If you want more exploration into superzoom compacts or comparisons with mirrorless zooms, stay tuned. Meanwhile, happy shooting, and I hope this comparison helps you decide which camera fits your photo adventures best!