Canon SX740 HS vs Olympus SP-590 UZ: A Hands-On Superzoom Showdown

When your quest is for a superzoom compact camera, things can get complicated fast. The promise of bridge cameras and compact superzooms - those handy little beasts packing monstrous focal lengths into portable bodies - has attracted legions of enthusiasts and casual shooters alike. Today, I’m digging deep into two representatives of this lineage from two very different eras and brands: the Canon PowerShot SX740 HS (a late-2018 release) and the Olympus SP-590 UZ (from early 2009). What can a decade of tech progress do? Are older cameras still worth considering? Which camera fits whom and why? Buckle up; I’ve put both rigs through their paces across multiple photographic disciplines. Here’s the lowdown based on thousands of hours testing cameras and lenses over the years.

First Impressions and Design DNA: Compact vs. Bridge

Let’s start by sizing up the two contenders side-by-side.

On one hand, the Canon SX740 HS is a compact-style superzoom perfect for pocketing. At just 110x64x40mm and 299 grams, it feels light and discreet - ideal for travel and street shooters who don’t want a hulking rig dragging them down.

The Olympus SP-590 UZ, meanwhile, is a bona fide bridge camera, dubbing its body “SLR-like” which it kind of is, but with fewer buttons and a fixed lens. It’s chunkier at 116x84x81mm and weighs 413 grams - substantial but still manageable if you want something that feels more DSLR-ish in your hands.

Looking down from above, Canon embraces simplicity with a straightforward layout, limited external controls, and a tilting screen for creative angles or selfies (yep, it’s selfie-friendly). Olympus packs its bridge body with an electronic viewfinder (EVF) but settles for a fixed non-touch 2.7-inch screen - more “traditional” but a little lower resolution for live-view framing.

Ergonomically, I found the Canon’s compact size excellent for snapshooting without fuss, but the Olympus’s larger grip offers slightly better handling on longer shoots or when using heavier telephotos. Personal preference will dictate what feels better - the Canon invites quick pocket access; Olympus feels a bit more “camera-y.”

Sensor, Image Quality, and Processor: Modern vs. Vintage Tech

Before we jump into specific use cases, let’s dissect their image cores at the heart of any camera’s performance.

Both cameras utilize the same sensor size (1/2.3-inch) with quite similar surface areas (Canon's 28.07 mm² vs Olympus's 27.72 mm²), which is to say - small by modern standards but typical for superzoom compacts and bridge models.

The Canon packs a 21-megapixel backside-illuminated CMOS sensor paired with the DIGIC 8 processor - technology that was pretty cutting-edge in 2018, giving it wider ISO capability (native up to 3200) and improved noise handling. Olympus, in contrast, uses a 12-megapixel CCD sensor, an older tech standard even in 2009, inherently less sensitive to low light and generally slower.

What does this mean practically? The Canon renders more resolution for larger prints or cropping flexibility, plus better high ISO performance with less noise. The Olympus shines in daylight, offering punchy colors typical of CCDs, but quickly loses ground as light drops.

Of note: the Olympus supports raw capture files (a rare boon among older superzooms), a feature the Canon sorely lacks. So if you like pushing your images in post, Olympus wins that round.

Live View and Viewfinders: Framing in the Field

Without good framing options, even the best sensor’s capabilities are limited.

The Olympus offers a basic EVF - albeit low-resolution and laggy by modern standards. Decent for bright light and longer focal lengths where you want stable composing, but not much fun for fast action or low light.

Canon SX740 HS opts out of any viewfinder, relying on its bright, 3-inch, tilting LCD screen with 922K dots resolution - far sharper than the Olympus’s fixed 2.7-inch/230K screen.

The Canon’s screen excels in direct sunlight and artistic flexibility (for low or high angle shots) - a big plus especially when the camera fits in your pocket for spontaneous shooting. However, no touchscreen means you get traditional button navigation, which isn’t as sprightly as modern touch-enabled cameras, but manageable once you’re familiar.

Olympus’s lack of tilt or touch limits framing flexibility, a definite drawback in outdoor uneven terrain. The presence of an EVF somewhat compensates in bright conditions but lags behind modern EVF standards.

Autofocus Performance: Tracking, Accuracy, and Use Cases

Let’s talk sharpness and speed - critical in portrait, wildlife, sports, and street shooting.

The Canon SX740 HS sports contrast-detection AF with face detection and tracking for up to 10fps burst mode - useful for grabbing fleeting moments. During testing, I found its autofocus reliable for portraits and casual wildlife shoots with static or slow-moving subjects. Eye detection improves subject isolation in portraits but isn’t the latest generation so can struggle in tricky light.

The Olympus SP-590 UZ clusters around contrast detection only, no sophisticated tracking or face/eye detection. Its continuous AF is absent, limiting fast-moving subjects. Burst shooting is capped at 6fps, respectable but hampered by slower focusing.

For sports or wildlife photography, Canon pulls ahead due to faster AF and tracking. Olympus lags but can be fine for deliberate, composed shots.

Lens, Zoom Range, and Aperture: Reach vs Brightness

Canon’s lens boasts an enormous 40x optical zoom from 24mm wide-angle all the way to 960mm equivalent - brilliant for long-distance photography ranging from sweeping landscapes to distant wildlife.

Olympus offers a 26-676mm equivalent (approx 26x zoom), which is still substantial but falls well short of Canon's reach.

The Canon’s aperture range is f/3.3-6.9, which means it gets moderately dimmer (slower) at the tele end, as usual, while the Olympus’s lens is a bit faster at the wide end at f/2.8 tapering to f/5.0.

Here’s the practical takeaway: Canon wins if you want max reach and versatility. Olympus may perform better in bright wide-angle scenes with its slightly faster max aperture and lower zoom multiplier, but field results skew strongly in Canon’s favor.

Burst Shooting and Shutter Speed: Action Ready?

For capturing fast-moving action:

• Canon SX740 HS offers 10fps continuous shooting (at full resolution), and shutter speeds from 15 sec to 1/3200 sec.
• Olympus SP-590 UZ manages 6fps (top burst frame rate), with shutter maxed at 1/2000 sec.

This makes Canon more capable for freezing fast action or shooting at longer focal lengths without background blur from shake. Olympus’s shutter speed ceiling and lower burst rate limit action photography prowess, which is unsurprising for an older camera with different design priorities.

Video Capabilities: 4K vs VGA

In 2018, 4K video was becoming mainstream, and Canon dives right in with 4K UHD at 30p, recording in MP4 with H.264 encoding. Crisp, sharp footage with good stabilization makes it a valuable hybrid shooter for casual video projects.

Olympus holds firm in 2009 territory: max video resolution is a mere 640x480 (VGA), in Motion JPEG format. In other words, video is pretty much a novelty here - not suitable for high-quality recording.

If video is a priority, Canon is the better fit by miles.

Build Quality, Weather Sealing, and Durability

Neither camera is ruggedized for the outdoors. But Olympus notably offers environmental sealing (no waterproofing or shockproofing though), potentially providing some dust resistance appreciated when trekking in dry dusty areas.

Canon lacks formal sealing but with its compact design and simpler build, it feels less prone to accidental bumps.

Weight and size-wise:

• Olympus’s 413g body with bigger dimensions is heavier and less pocketable.
• Canon’s 299g/frame hugs the compact camp comfortably.

For travel and stealthy shooting, Canon’s size and reduced weight win hands-down.

Battery Life and Storage Options: Practical Considerations

Canon delivers around 265 shots per charge using its proprietary battery - modest but typical for compact cameras with bright LCDs and zoom lenses. Olympus specs are less clear, but generally older bridge cameras tend to have similar or slightly worse endurance.

Storage wise:

• Canon uses standard SD/SDHC/SDXC cards (UHS-I compatible), which are fast and ubiquitous.
• Olympus uses the now-obsolete xD Picture Card (plus microSD and internal storage), a real downside today given the rarity and cost of xD cards.

Connectivity on Canon is modern with Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, and NFC for easy sharing and remote control. Olympus offers none.

Practical Photography Scenarios

Let’s dive into how each camera fares across different photographic genres, based on real-world use:

Portrait Photography: Skin Tones and Bokeh

Canon’s high-res sensor and DIGIC 8 processor produce faithful skin tones and decent subject separation with face detection autofocus helping nail focus on eyes. The lens’s variable aperture and sensor size limit creamy bokeh, yet at 960mm equivalent you can isolate subjects somewhat.

Olympus’s 12MP CCD delivers punchy colors but no eye detection and limited AF flexibility make portraits hit-or-miss. Bokeh quality is similarly limited by sensor size and lens design.

Verdict: Canon best for casual portraits; Olympus good for snapshots but less refined in this area.

Landscape Photography: Dynamic Range and Detail

Canon’s 21MP sensor yields higher resolution landscapes with better dynamic range and detail retention across shadows and highlights. The small sensor size limits DR compared to DSLRs, but DIGIC 8’s processing goes a long way.

Olympus’s older CCD pushes lower resolution and narrower dynamic range, though the faster wide aperture on the Olympus can aid in tricky light.

Environmental sealing gives Olympus a little edge in dusty or misty conditions but Canon’s broad focal range lets you frame vast vistas or zoom tight on details with ease.

Wildlife Photography: Autofocus and Zoom Reach

With 40x zoom, Canon really shines capturing elusive wildlife at distance. AF tracking and 10fps burst ensure you’re ready for action shots, though slow autofocus under low light slightly hampers results.

Olympus’s shorter 26x zoom clips the wings off your range and slower burst plus no subject tracking makes it tough for anything but the most static wildlife.

Sports Photography: Tracking and Low Light

Canon’s higher frame rate and AF tracking equal better chance at freezing moments on the field, especially in good light. Max ISO 3200 is workable but will introduce noise - don’t expect DSLR-low-light magic.

Olympus’s slower AF and max shutter speed limits efficacy here.

Street Photography: Discretion and Portability

Canon’s smaller size and quiet operation make it a natural for street snaps. Tilting screen helps framing discreetly.

Olympus’s chunkier bridge style stands out more, less ideal for stealth.

Macro Photography: Magnification and Precision

Both offer close focusing down to 1cm macro modes, with optical image stabilization. Canon’s newer stabilization feels slightly more effective in controlling handshake.

Neither camera delivers true macro magnification like dedicated macro lenses, but casual close-ups are doable.

Night and Astro Photography: High ISO and Long Exposure

Canon’s max exposure speed of 15 sec coupled with ISO up to 3200 (native) and slight noise advantages make it preferable for low-light attempts.

Olympus maxes at 15 sec shutter too but shows more noise at higher ISOs - also CCD sensors historically suffer from hot pixels in long exposures.

Video for Vloggers and Casual Use

Canon’s 4K video with image stabilization is a big leap forward, yielding usable footage with good color and detail. No mic or headphone jacks limit pro use, but overall well-suited for casual content creators.

Olympus’s VGA video is ancient by comparison and better left for rare nostalgic moments.

Travel Photography: Versatility and Battery

Canon’s compact size, incredible zoom range, and connectivity make it a solid travel companion. Memory cards are easy to source, battery life decent.

Olympus’s environmental sealing is attractive but bulky design and outdated storage format make it trickier for modern travelers.

Professional Work: Reliability and Workflow

Neither camera caters to high-end professional needs. Canon’s lack of raw support and smaller sensor limit image quality ambitions.

Olympus raw shooting allows more post-processing latitude, but the sensor’s age and performance handicap limit output quality.

Summary of Strengths and Weaknesses

Canon SX740 HS front Canon SX740 HS screen back Olympus SP 590 UZ front Olympus SP 590 UZ screen back

My Recommendations: Who Should Pick What?

• Casual Travelers and Street Photographers: The Canon SX740 HS is a no-brainer here, with its pocketable size, long zoom, flexible screen, and connectivity. Great for capturing everything from landscapes to candid street moments without fuss or bulk.

• Budget-Conscious Hobbyists on a Tight Budget: If raw shooting is a must and price is a big deal, the Olympus SP-590 UZ remains a worthwhile (if aged) option. Its environmental sealing gives peace of mind outdoors. However, be prepared for dated video and slower AF.

• Wildlife and Sports Novices: Canon’s advanced autofocus and longer zoom make it the better choice to capture fleeting action and details at range.

• Portrait Photographers on the Go: The Canon has the edge with face/eye detection and color rendition. Olympus lags behind here.

• Video Content Creators: Canon for sure, given the 4K capability. Olympus video is an outdated afterthought.

• Professional Photographers: Neither camera is targeted at demanding professional use. Professionals should look at mirrorless or DSLR solutions with larger sensors, advanced autofocus, and raw workflows.

Final Thoughts: The March of Time and Tech

The Canon PowerShot SX740 HS stands as a very capable, modern superzoom compact camera optimized for versatility, portability, and 4K video. It benefits from improvements in sensor design, image processing, and connectivity that the Olympus SP-590 UZ - over nine years older - is simply unable to match.

That said, Olympus offers a unique proposition with raw support, slightly faster aperture at the wide end, and environmental sealing. For collectors or budget shooters wanting raw files and are okay with slower, bulkier gear, it remains usable if you can cope with its limitations.

Ultimately, if you want a compact, travel-friendly zoomer with competent modern features and will mostly shoot JPEGs and HD or 4K video, Canon’s the way to go. The Olympus serves niche needs and holds nostalgic charm but is outclassed by today's standards.

The superzoom segment has been evolving rapidly, and these two cameras bracket an era of exciting technological shifts - from CCDs to BSI CMOS, VGA to 4K, and bridge bulk to pocket-sized convenience.

If you feel inspired to pick one or both up at bargain prices, just remember that the best camera is the one that fits your style, ambitions, and workflow day-to-day. Hope this comparison helps you zoom in on your perfect match.

Happy shooting - may your images be sharply focused and your adventures long!