Casio EX-FC150 vs Olympus SP-565UZ: A Hands-On Comparison of Two Compact Powerhouses

If you've been prowling the compact superzoom market in the late 2000s, these two contenders – the Casio EX-FC150 and the Olympus SP-565UZ – might have caught your eye. Both were aimed at photographers who wanted a lot of zoom in a handheld package without breaking the bank. But how do these tiny titans stack up when you dig deep beyond their spec sheets? Having spent extensive hands-on time with both, plus running the kind of tests that expose real-world strengths and quirks, I’m here to give you a no-nonsense, thorough rundown.

Whether you’re a budget-conscious enthusiast, a casual shooter curious about long zooms, or a pro needing a reliable backup, this comparison covers everything from sensor chops to ergonomics, and portrait to wildlife, so you can decide which one deserves a spot in your camera bag.

Let’s dive in.

Size, Ergonomics, and Handling: Feel the Difference Before You Shoot

You don’t always give enough thought to size and feel until you’re lugging a camera all day - or clutching it for a tricky wildlife shot at dawn. The Casio EX-FC150 weighs in at a featherlight 173 grams with a compact footprint of 99 x 58 x 28 mm, while the Olympus SP-565UZ is a chunkier fellow at 413 grams and considerably larger at 116 x 84 x 81 mm.

That difference isn’t trivial. The EX-FC150 slides easily into a jacket pocket, making it superb for travel or street shooters who crave discretion and minimal bulk. However, its small frame means the grip feels a bit skimpy - if you have big hands or plan extended shooting sessions, this camera may feel a little fiddly or less stable handheld.

On the other hand, the Olympus’s heft and more substantial grip provide nerves of steel stability, especially when using that huge 20x zoom. Also, the well-placed controls and thumb clubs make it comfortable for manual settings tweaks - important if you like to actively shape exposure.

One thing they share: no articulating or touchscreens (standard fare at the time), but the Olympus wins mildly on button layout and overall tactile feedback, which I appreciated during quick wildlife shoots where fumbling controls can lose shots.

In short: For lightweight portability and casual strolls, the Casio nails it. For steady heft and more serious handling, Olympus takes the win.

Design Details and Control Layout: Where You Put Your Hands Matters

Both cameras went for fixed lenses and typical compact designs for their categories, but their control schemes differ.

The Casio opts for simplicity - fewer dials and buttons, with basic exposure modes but limited manual control. This means novices or shooters used to point-and-shoot operation won’t feel overwhelmed but advanced users may find the lack of shutter or aperture priority restrictive.

Conversely, Olympus offers fully manual exposure modes, aperture priority, shutter priority, and exposure compensation, giving you creative flexibility that’s rare at this price point. There’s also an electronic viewfinder (EVF) in the Olympus, absent on the Casio, which for me is a massive advantage under bright daylight shooting or when composing telephoto shots with shaky hands.

While the Casio’s menus and buttons are responsive, they lean toward the minimalist side. Olympus’s more complex layout rewards learning the controls but pays off if you want fine exposure control and faster access to features.

Sensor and Image Quality Head-to-Head: Pixel Peeping the 10MP Race

Both cameras sport small 1/2.3-inch sensors measuring roughly 28 mm², but differences in sensor tech and processing lead to diverging results.

The Casio EX-FC150 uses a BSI-CMOS sensor - a technology that tends to improve low-light gain by capturing more light per pixel. However, the Casio’s maximum native ISO caps at 1600, limiting its low-light headroom. Also, the camera lacked support for RAW files, which is a sore point for professionals who want ultimate control in post-processing.

Olympus’s SP-565UZ incorporates a CCD sensor, an older but still capable technology, with ISO sensitivity reaching up to 6400 (native max), and RAW support. DXOmark data rates the Olympus at an overall 30 points - respectable for a small-sensor compact, with good color depth (~18.7 bits) and a dynamic range maxing out around 10.1 EV at base ISO. This translates into richer tones and better shadow detail retention than the Casio.

In practice, the smaller sensor size of both models means noise does ramp up at higher ISO, but the Olympus handles grain better at ISO 400-800, giving cleaner results in dim conditions.

Resolution wise, both deliver 10MP images at 3648 x 2736 pixels, ample for prints up to A4 and for cropping flexibility.

If image quality is your main criterion and you want the ability to bulk-edit or push your images creatively, the Olympus SP-565UZ’s sensor, plus RAW support, provides a clear advantage here.

LCDs and Viewfinders: Seeing Your Shot in All Conditions

Both cameras come with fixed LCD screens - Casio’s is a 2.7-inch with 230k dots, while Olympus sports a slightly smaller 2.5-inch, also at 230k dots.

Neither camera has a touch interface, which today feels archaic but was standard then. The Casio’s screen feels slightly brighter and has better viewing angles, useful when shooting at odd positions. The Olympus compensates by including an EVF. For me, the Olympus EVF was invaluable when shooting bright outdoor scenes or when stabilizing long telephoto compositions - not always a strong suit of compact gigapan zoomers.

So for pure LCD clarity, Casio just edges out; for overall compositional flexibility, Olympus has the edge thanks to the EVF.

Shooting Speeds and Autofocus: How Fast Can They Go?

In advanced photography scenarios - wildlife, sports, or fast action - continuous shooting rates and autofocus performance can make or break the shot.

Casio EX-FC150 boasts a blazing 40 frames per second continuous shoot mode, albeit at low resolution and with limited autofocus. In reality, this speed comes at the expense of focus and exposure recalculation - more gadget flash than practical burst speed for serious action shooters.

Olympus settles at 1 frame per second continuous (substantially slower), but with a sophisticated autofocus system boasting 143 focus points and contrast detection. It also supports selective and multi-area AF modes, making it far more precise and flexible for composition.

Both cameras lack phase-detection autofocus, common on DSLRs, but the Olympus’s AF system is snappier and has better accuracy, especially in varied lighting, critical for capturing moving subjects.

If wildlife or sports is your game, Olympus’s AF system, though slow in burst, offers dependable focused images. Casio’s insane 40fps burst is fun but practically limited, better for novelty than pro use.

Lens Reach and Optical Prospects: Zooming in on Flexibility

The Casio EX-FC150 features a 37-185mm equivalent lens with a 5x zoom range, max aperture of f/3.6-4.5. Meanwhile, the Olympus SP-565UZ sports a monster 26-520mm equivalent zoom with 20x reach and a comparatively bright f/2.8-4.5 max aperture.

For general shooting, Olympus’s wider range offers far more versatility - from moderate wide angle to serious telephoto - making it a strong candidate for wildlife, sports, and travel photography. The brighter aperture at the wide end (f/2.8 vs f/3.6) means improved low light performance and shallower depth of field capabilities, helpful for portraiture.

What about macro? The Olympus also tackles close focus better, with a minimum focus distance of just 1cm, compared to Casio’s 5cm, enabling much tighter close-ups with better detail. Both cameras have optical image stabilization - Olympus uses optical IS, Casio sensor-shift tech; in real use, Olympus is more effective during telephoto handheld shots.

Bottom line: Olympus wins for sheer zoom flexibility and low light versatility; Casio offers simpler optics more suited to casual shooting.

Genre-by-Genre Performance: Which Camera Shines Where?

Photography is diverse, so it’s key to break down these cameras by use case.

Portrait Photography

The Olympus’s brighter lens and manual exposure modes make it easier to craft flattering portraits with good background separation. Skin tones render warmer and more natural due to better color depth. However, neither camera has face or eye detection AF, so focus precision depends on your skill.

Casio’s smaller lens aperture and fixed modes limit bokeh and creative control, so it’s more of a snapshot camera here.

Winner: Olympus

Landscape Photography

Wide zoom range (26mm) and RAW support make Olympus superb for landscapes. It delivers better dynamic range and detail, allowing post-processing latitude to lift shadows or tame highlights.

Casio’s narrower zoom range and JPEG-only output limit flexibility, though sensor-shift IS helps handheld landscape shots less than an ideal tripod.

Note: Neither camera offers weather sealing, so outdoor use requires care.

Winner: Olympus

Wildlife and Sports Photography

Olympus’s huge 520mm zoom is outstanding for distant subjects, though its slow 1fps burst rate and modest AF speed constrain capturing fast action.

Casio’s 40fps burst speed sounds tempting, but due to limited AF and resolution at the high speed, it’s ill-suited for serious action.

Winner: Olympus for reach and AF precision, Casio for casual.

Street Photography

Here Casio’s pocketability and quiet operation shine. Olympus’s bigger size and longer lens make it more conspicuous.

Winner: Casio

Macro Photography

Olympus’s 1cm focusing distance and brighter lens here clearly beat Casio’s 5cm minimum, enabling finely detailed close-ups.

Winner: Olympus

Night and Astrophotography

Neither model excels here due to small sensors and limited ISO ranges. However, Olympus’s ISO 6400 capability and RAW support offer the best chance at workable low-light images.

Winner: Olympus

Video Capabilities

Both limited: Casio tops out at 640x480 resolution video, while Olympus maxes at similar VGA quality. No HD or 4K recording, no microphone ports.

Winner: Tie; neither built for serious video.

Travel Photography

Casio’s light weight, slim profile, and robust image stabilization suit travel well. Olympus offers more creative controls and zoom versatility but is heavier and less pocketable.

Winner: Depends on your travel style - Casio for minimalists, Olympus for versatility hunters.

Professional Work

Both cameras suffer limitations for professional demands: small sensors, limited RAW support (only Olympus), fragile build, no weather sealing.

Winner: Olympus marginally for RAW, exposure control, but overall neither is professional-grade.

Build, Battery, and Connectivity: Reliability for Daily Use

Neither camera offers weather sealing, waterproofing, or shock resistance - common sacrifices in compacts. Casio is a tad more compact and lightweight, but Olympus provides more robust construction.

Battery: Casio runs on proprietary NP-40 battery, while Olympus uses 4x AA batteries - meaning field replacements are easier but batteries add weight.

Storage: Casio uses SD and SDHC cards; Olympus relies on xD Picture Card format, now archaic and harder to find, potentially a dealbreaker.

Connectivity: Casio supports Eye-Fi wireless cards for Wi-Fi transfer (novel at the time), Olympus has no wireless option.

Price and Value Analysis: How Much Bang for Your Buck?

At launch, Casio priced near $350 and Olympus near $400. Given Olympus’s significantly broader capabilities - raw shooting, superior lens, EVF - its premium is justified for enthusiasts wanting flexibility.

For cheapskate point-and-shooters who prize pocketability and simple operation, Casio gives decent value, especially for casual photography or street use.

Casio EX FC150 front Casio EX FC150 screen back Olympus SP 565UZ front Olympus SP 565UZ screen back

Real-World Image Examples

• Olympus’s images sport richer colors, better clarity, and cleaner shadows, especially at low ISO.
• Casio’s pictures are softer but acceptable for social media use.
• In telephoto extremes, Olympus brings distant subjects closer and clearer.

This final overall score breakdown reflects the Olympus’s edge in exposure control, zoom range, and image quality, while acknowledging Casio’s strengths in burst speed and pocketability.

Pros and Cons Overview

Final Verdict: Who Should Buy Which?

Choose the Casio EX-FC150 if:

• You want a truly pocketable camera for casual, walk-around photography.
• You value high-speed burst shooting for fun, low-commitment action shots.
• You shoot mainly in good light and prefer simple controls.
• You dislike carrying more weight, prefer simple SD cards, and want wireless transfer support.

Choose the Olympus SP-565UZ if:

• You want a flexible zoom range (from wide angle to super telephoto) for wildlife, travel, and landscapes.
• You appreciate manual exposure controls, RAW capture, and better autofocus systems.
• You don’t mind some extra bulk and managing an older storage format.
• You want an electronic viewfinder to help compose in bright light or long zoom situations.

Wrapping it all up

Both cameras have their charms, but the Olympus SP-565UZ is clearly the more capable and versatile shooter, especially if image quality and zoom range matter most to you. The Casio EX-FC150, meanwhile, remains an appealing lightweight sidekick for casual use and street photography - perfect for photographers who want good reach without the bulk or complexity.

In the world of budget-friendly superzoom compacts, understanding these trade-offs helps avoid disappointment. I hope this detailed hands-on comparison guides you to the camera that fits your shooting style and needs.

Happy shooting!