Casio EX-Z29 vs Olympus Stylus 5010: A Thorough Comparison of Two Ultracompact Digital Cameras

In the realm of ultracompact digital cameras, the late 2000s and early 2010s were a fascinating time, as manufacturers balanced shrinking form factors with increasingly capable sensors and optics. Today, I’m putting two such models under the microscope: the Casio EX-Z29, announced in early 2009, and the Olympus Stylus 5010, released about a year later in 2010. Both are pocket-friendly, fixed-lens CCD cameras aimed at casual shooters, yet they differ significantly in features, image quality, and performance.

Having spent thousands of hours testing cameras from entry-level compacts to professional beasts, I’ll leverage my experience running these cameras through industry-standard and real-world shooting scenarios. This detailed comparison spans technical specs, ergonomics, image quality, autofocus behavior, and usage across various photographic disciplines - from portrait and landscape to wildlife and video. Alongside insightful metrics, I’ll show sample shots and offer practical buying recommendations. So grab your metaphorical camera bag and join me for this deep dive.

Size Matters: Handling and Ergonomics in the Ultra-Compact Class

Size and feel are critical when it comes to point-and-shoot cameras. A compact body means portability but often involves compromises in handling comfort and control layout.

At first glance, both the Casio EX-Z29 and Olympus 5010 are true pocket rockets, with dimensions hovering around 100x55x20mm and roughly 125g body weight. The EX-Z29 measures 101x57x23mm and weighs 125g, while the Olympus is slightly more svelte at 95x56x20mm and 126g. These slight differences translate to a somewhat more pocketable feel for the Olympus, especially its thinner profile.

In hand, the Casio feels a touch chunkier, but its squared-off body offers a reassuring grip that benefits casual shooters who want a secure hold without bulk. The Olympus, on the other hand, sports sleeker curves that fit nicely in the palm, offering a minimalist aesthetic but a slightly less grippy feel during active shooting.

As seen from above, button placement diverges somewhat. The Olympus boasts a dedicated zoom lever that is smoother and more tactile than the Casio’s smaller rocker. Both cameras lack advanced control dials or extensive customizable buttons, but the Olympus’s design integrates flash, self-timer, and mode controls in a more logically grouped manner. Neither camera features a viewfinder, which is typical for this class and era, but that puts more importance on the rear LCD screen for composing shots.

This brings us naturally to the screen and interface discussion.

Screen Technology and User Interface: Composing with Confidence

A clear, bright screen is essential, especially given the lack of an optical or electronic viewfinder on these ultracompacts.

Both cameras have fixed 2.7-inch rear LCDs, but the Olympus edges ahead with a resolution of 230k pixels versus the Casio’s notably lower 115k pixels. In practical terms, the Olympus screen renders images with greater sharpness and clarity, which assists precise framing and reviewing details on the fly.

I field-tested them in bright sunlight - a known challenge for compact LCDs - and while neither is brilliant outdoors, the Olympus’s higher pixel count combined with slightly better anti-reflective coating made it more usable. The Casio’s screen tended to wash out in strong light, making subtle focus confirmation or exposure checks difficult.

Interface-wise, both cameras rely on straightforward menus with minimal complexity, befitting casual users. The Casio offers manual focus but no exposure controls like aperture priority or shutter priority, while the Olympus simplifies shooting with automation and sensor-shift image stabilization to assist shaky hands.

That stabilization gives the Olympus a considerable edge in usability, particularly for handheld shots at slower shutter speeds.

Sensor and Image Quality: The Heart of the Capture

Both cameras utilize CCD sensors, still popular in the era for their color rendition and low noise, though now largely replaced by CMOS in newer compacts. The Casio has a 10MP, 1/2.5" sensor (approx. 24.74mm²), while the Olympus sports a slightly larger 14MP, 1/2.3" sensor (around 27.72mm²).

The Olympus’s higher resolution and larger sensor surface area theoretically allow better detail resolution and dynamic range, albeit with some trade-offs in noise at higher ISO. Indeed, my controlled lab tests showed the Olympus produces cleaner images at base ISO 64 and handles shadows more gracefully with less banding or posterization.

Of course, sensor is only part of the story - the image processor and lens quality matter tremendously. The Olympus’s TruePic III processor delivers visibly improved color accuracy and noise reduction compared to the Casio’s older framework. Also, the Olympus’s lens covers a broader zoom range (26-130mm equivalent) with a brighter maximum aperture starting at f/2.8 for wide-angle, allowing more light in and better subject isolation.

Sample images from real-world shooting at varying light levels reveal the Olympus’s advantage in color depth, sharpness, and less chromatic aberration. The Casio’s photos have a softer look with less pop, and noise emerges more aggressively above ISO 400.

Let's look closer at images to visualize these points:

Casio EX Z29 front Casio EX Z29 screen back Olympus 5010 front Olympus 5010 screen back

Autofocus and Performance: Stay Sharp When the Action Moves

In ultracompact cameras, autofocus systems generally lag behind their DSLR and mirrorless counterparts, but responsiveness and accuracy remain critical, especially for dynamic or low-light shooting.

The Casio EX-Z29 features contrast-detection autofocus with only single AF mode and no tracking or face detection. It supports manual focus but lacks continuous autofocus or any eye/face priority. In my real-world experience, autofocus was sluggish and less reliable in dimmer conditions, occasionally hunting noticeably before locking.

The Olympus 5010, while also reliant on contrast detection, introduces multi-area AF and face detection with limited AF tracking capabilities. Although not blazing fast, the Olympus locks focus more swiftly and consistently, particularly in good light. Its macro capability down to 7cm outperforms the Casio's lack of any specified macro focus range, offering better close-up performance.

Burst shooting is limited on both, with the Olympus only providing 1 fps continuous shooting and the Casio lacking a defined continuous mode. This limits sports or fast-action usability but is expected at this price and class.

Versatility in Photography Genres

Now, let’s break down how these cameras fare when applied to various popular photographic disciplines.

Portrait Photography

Portrait work demands accurate skin tones, effective bokeh, and ideally, eye-detection AF.

• Casio EX-Z29: The lens’ narrower zoom range (38-113mm equivalent) means moderate portrait framing options; however, its relatively small aperture and no image stabilization reduce background separation capabilities. Without face or eye detection AF, focus can miss subtle eye details. Skin tones are acceptable but tend towards cooler colorcasts, requiring post-processing tweaks.

• Olympus Stylus 5010: The wider zoom range starting at 26mm provides more compositional flexibility. Its lens, albeit variable aperture (f/2.8–6.5), allows some background blur at longer focal lengths, enhanced by sensor-shift IS reducing shake. Face detection aids in locking focus on subjects. Skin tones are more natural out-of-the-box due to better image processing.

Verdict: Olympus is the more effective portrait tool - more flexible, with better focus assistance and color rendition.

Landscape Photography

Key features include sensor resolution, dynamic range, and build robustness.

• Both cameras have modest CCD sensors. The Olympus’s 14MP sensor delivers higher resolution files (up to 4288x3216 pixels) versus Casio’s 10MP (3648x2736). This extra resolution enables larger prints and more cropping flexibility.

• Neither camera boasts weather sealing or ruggedized bodies, so they aren’t suited for harsh outdoor use.

• Exposure latitude is better on the Olympus, capturing more highlight and shadow nuance, which is essential for landscapes.

• The Casio’s fixed aperture and narrower zoom range limit wide-angle capture.

Conclusion: Olympus is more suitable for landscapes, but neither camera excels for professionals needing robust environmental sealing or exceptional dynamic range.

Wildlife and Sports Photography

These genres rely heavily on autofocus speed, burst rate, and telephoto reach.

• Casio’s 3x optical zoom maxes at 113mm equivalent, while Olympus offers up to 130mm. Neither provides the super-telephoto focal lengths that wildlife shooters prefer.

• AF systems in both models are basic - Casio’s quite sluggish, Olympus’s slightly more responsive but still limited.

• Low frame rates (1 fps max on Olympus, no burst on Casio) preclude capturing fast-moving action effectively.

For casual snapshots of pets or kids, the Olympus’s IS and focus tracking offer some help, but serious wildlife or sports photographers should look elsewhere.

Street Photography

Here, discretion, quick focusing, and portability reign.

• Both cameras are pocket-friendly, with Olympus being marginally more compact.

• Silent operation is non-existent on either, though the Casio tends to have quieter shutter sounds.

• Without viewfinders, shooting in bright light can be challenging; again, Olympus’s superior LCD helps.

• Low-light sensitivity is slightly better in the Olympus, thanks to higher ISO range and sensor IS.

Street photogs who prize snapshot convenience might lean toward the Olympus, but dedicated enthusiasts often prefer rangefinders or mirrorless models.

Macro Photography

Only the Olympus offers a macro mode focusing as close as 7cm, with image stabilization assisting handheld shots. The Casio provides no official macro focus range, limiting it to standard close-ups with minimum focusing distances farther away.

If macro shooting plays a central role, Olympus clearly wins.

Night and Astro Photography

Low-light performance depends on sensor sensitivity and exposure options.

• Both models max out at ISO 1600 (Casio) and 3200 (Olympus), but noise rises quickly above ISO 400.

• Neither supports raw shooting, limiting post-processing latitude.

• Long shutter speeds down to 4 seconds are available but lack bulb mode, and no exposure bracketing features are present.

• Olympus’s sensor-shift stabilization can help reduce shake in handheld night shots.

Neither camera is ideal for advanced astro work, but Olympus offers a slightly better starting point for casual low-light landscapes.

Video Capabilities

Video shooting remains a secondary feature here.

• Casio records up to 848x480 at 30fps, whereas Olympus jumps to HD 1280x720 at 30fps with Motion JPEG compression.

• Neither camera includes microphone or headphone jacks, limiting audio quality control.

• Olympus offers HDMI output, enabling better playback options.

Neither offers advanced video features like 4K or slow-motion, but Olympus’s superior resolution and connectivity give it a slight edge for casual video.

Travel Photography

Considerations here include versatility, battery life, size, and storage.

• Both cameras are lightweight and pocketable, with Olympus slightly more compact.

• Olympus’s wider zoom range (26-130mm) covers a broader variety of shooting scenarios than Casio’s 38-113mm.

• Battery specifications are similar; Casio uses NP-60, Olympus employs Li-50B. Real-world usage time is roughly comparable but Olympus may edge out slightly due to more energy-efficient sensor and processor.

• Storage media differ slightly: Casio uses SDHC/SD memory cards, Olympus compatibles include SC and SDHC cards plus internal memory - a minor convenience.

For travelers seeking an all-rounder with decent image quality and zoom, Olympus is the more versatile choice.

Professional Workflows

Neither camera targets professional photographers, but let’s see how they stack up:

• Neither supports RAW capture, placing them firmly outside professional imaging workflows that require extensive post-processing flexibility.

• File formats are JPEG-only with basic in-camera processing.

• Lack of external flash support, hotshoes, or advanced tethering limits studio or controlled environment usability.

• No GPS or advanced wireless connectivity to assist image tagging or rapid transfer.

In professional contexts, these cameras serve only as simple backup or social snapshot tools.

Build Quality and Durability

Neither model offers environmental sealing, dustproofing, or waterproofing. Both cameras would require protective cases in rugged conditions. For day-to-day casual uses around town or home, their build quality is adequate.

Lens Ecosystem and Compatibility

Both cameras have fixed lenses and no option for interchangeable optics - a hallmark of basic compacts. This limits long-term versatility but keeps the form factor slim.

Connectivity and Storage

• Casio offers USB 2.0 and Eye-Fi card compatibility for wireless image transfer, a distinctive feature for the time.

• Olympus includes USB 2.0 and HDMI output but no wireless options.

Both support SDHC storage cards; Olympus’s internal storage is a minor plus.

Price-to-Performance Ratio

Coming from their launch prices - about $79 for the Casio EX-Z29 and roughly double that for the Olympus 5010 at $149.95 - the Olympus justifies its premium with better sensor resolution, broader zoom, image stabilization, superior AF, and HD video.

However, as these models now mostly circulate in used or budget markets, their respective values should be weighed based on cost versus features and image quality.

Summarizing the Scores

While this graphic does not represent official DxOMark scores (neither camera tested by them), it summarizes relative performance metrics across key domains.

The Olympus 5010 consistently outperforms the Casio EX-Z29, especially in still imaging and video applications.

Final Thoughts and Recommendations

After careful comparative testing and analysis, here is my distilled perspective:

• Choose the Casio EX-Z29 if:

  • You want a simple, affordable compact with basic point-and-shoot functionality.
  • Ultra-minimalist shooting without concern for zoom range or image quality improvements is acceptable.
  • Budget constraints dominate, and a secondary camera for casual snapshots suffices.

• Choose the Olympus Stylus 5010 if:

  • You need more versatile zoom ranging from wide-angle to telephoto.
  • Image quality, especially resolution and color accuracy, is important to you.
  • You appreciate image stabilization for sharper handheld shots.
  • Video recording in HD and better screen usability matter.
  • You want macro capability and improved autofocus performance.

Both cameras make compelling entries in the ultracompact arena but represent different compromises. The Olympus 5010 delivers far more well-rounded performance suitable for enthusiasts stepping up from basic compacts, while the Casio EX-Z29 remains ultra-budget-friendly with essential features for point-and-shoot simplicity.

If your photography spans portraiture, landscape, casual macro, or travel, and you favor a more enjoyable shooting experience backed by better hardware, the Olympus is the smarter buy. Conversely, for absolute budget constraints or minimal fuss, the Casio remains a viable option.

I hope this hands-on comparison helps you understand these cameras better and guides your choice in this niche. Remember that ultracompacts serve as convenient companions and casual shooters; matching your expectations to their limitations is key.

Happy shooting!