Fujifilm F660EXR vs Olympus TG-820 iHS

Choosing between the Fujifilm FinePix F660EXR and Olympus TG-820 iHS might seem like a toss-up on paper - both compact cameras from early 2010s with respectable feature sets for their class. Yet, as someone who has spent years dissecting camera tech and pushing gear through real-world paces, I’ll tell you they cater to distinct users with unique demands. Let's dive deep into how these two stack up across a myriad of photographic disciplines, technical performance benchmarks, and practical usability factors. By the end, you’ll have a clear-eyed understanding of which model more closely aligns with your shooting style - whether you’re chasing wildlife, nailing portraits, or heading out on rugged adventures.

How Do They Feel in Hand? Ergonomics and Build Suitability

Before we peek through the lenses, the first question for any photographer is always: how does the camera feel ready to be deployed? Ergonomics can make or break your shooting experience, especially with compacts where space and control layout often compete.

Physically, the Fujifilm F660EXR sits slightly deeper and a bit taller than the Olympus TG-820 iHS at 104x59x33 mm compared to 101x65x26 mm, making the Fuji chunkier but arguably more robust feeling. Both weigh around the two-hundred-gram mark with batteries inserted, Fuji at 217g, Olympus 206g - fairly comparable but the TG-820’s slimmer, flatter build edges it toward easier portability in tighter pockets.

Handling-wise, the Fuji’s body leans a bit more traditional - with obvious grip contours and well-spaced buttons, it feels a little more ‘camera-ish’ than the TG-820. Olympus, designed to appeal to the rugged shooter, opts for a squarer profile with rubberized, sealed buttons for waterproofing, crucial if you plan to get it wet or dusty (more on that below).

This ergonomic trade-off highlights the Fuji’s tilt towards controlled shooting comfort, and the Olympus’ priority of durability and field readiness.

Layout and Controls: Speed in the Field

Switching from how it feels to how you control it, the top deck and buttons define how quickly you can adjust settings and react to changing scenes.

The Fuji F660EXR features dedicated dials and function buttons for aperture priority, shutter priority, and manual exposure modes - certainly a pleasant surprise in a compact, and a nod to enthusiast appeal. This makes it quicker to dial in creative exposure control compared to the TG-820, which omits such granular controls entirely.

Olympus TG-820 simplifies operation: no manual exposure or shutter priority, but it leans into preset modes, scene selections, and in-camera intelligent auto functions. For casual shooters or those focused on point-and-shoot versatility, this lowers the learning curve. But for photographers craving more direct control, the Fuji edges ahead.

Sensor and Image Quality: The Heart of the Matter

No matter how nice a camera feels or controls, its sensor defines its image’s baseline quality potential.

Here, Fuji’s F660EXR uses a specialized EXR CMOS sensor measuring 1/2”, cropping at 6.4 x 4.8 mm, packing 16 megapixels, while Olympus’ TG-820 has a slightly smaller but similar 1/2.3” CMOS sensor at 6.17 x 4.55 mm with 12 megapixels.

At first glance, the pixel count difference suggests Fuji might offer higher resolution output. Indeed, Fuji’s 4608 x 3456 max native resolution allows slightly larger prints and more cropping latitude. Both sensors employ anti-aliasing filters to minimize moiré at the expense of a slight softness.

In raw sensitivity, Fuji’s top ISO sits at 3200, boosted to 12800 in higher modes, whereas Olympus maxes at ISO 6400. Though ISO ceiling varies, Fuji’s EXR processor arguably extracts better noise control in low light, an advantage confirmed in side-by-side imaging tests. That said, neither sensor performs like modern APS-C or full-frame systems, and in challenging light both cameras show grain and softer detail retention.

If shooting landscapes or portraits where detail and cleaner output matter, I find Fuji’s sensor + EXR processing combo holds a mild edge. Olympus focuses more on rugged use than absolute image finesse here.

On-Screen Experience: Your Window to Composition

The rear LCD plays a major role in framing and reviewing shots, especially for compacts lacking electronic viewfinders.

Olympus sports a sharper, more vibrant HyperCrystal III TFT LCD with 1030K-dot resolution, noticeably out-resolving the Fujifilm’s 460K-dot conventional TFT screen. This translates to crisper live view images and better visibility under bright conditions.

Although Fuji’s screen is plenty adequate and offers exposure simulation benefits through exposure preview in manual modes, I found it tiring to peer into on sunny days - something street and travel photographers heavily consider.

Neither camera offers touchscreen capabilities or articulating screens, which is standard for their time and class. But Olympus’ brighter display significantly improves framing reliability outdoors.

Putting Them to the Test: Photographic Disciplines Breakdown

Okay, now onto the meaty part: how these cameras perform across various popular photography genres. My evaluations combine lab measurements with hands-on shooting, real-world scenarios, and effective use of sample images.

Portrait Photography: Skin Tones and Bokeh Nuance

Portraits demand accurate skin rendition, good eye detection, and pleasing background blur or bokeh.

• Fuji F660EXR: Despite lacking a dedicated eye-detection autofocus, its contrast-detection system works confidently to lock focus on central subjects. The 15x zoom lens (24-360 mm equivalent) allows compression for flattering portraits at telephoto ends. Aperture maxes at F3.5-5.3 - not class-leading but sufficient for some background defocus. Colors render warm and natural, especially Fuji’s excellent EXR processing tuning skin tones nicely. I particularly appreciated its manual exposure options here to finesse ambient light.

• Olympus TG-820: Lacking aperture priority or manual modes, Olympus primarily relies on program modes. Its 5x zoom range (28-140 mm equivalent) is less flexible for portraits, and its narrow max aperture (F3.9-5.9) limits bokeh ability. Nevertheless, Olympus’ autofocus captures faces well thanks to face detection, but bokeh comes off clinical and backgrounds poorly separated.

If portrait artistry and fine control matter, Fuji wins this one.

Landscape Photography: Dynamic Range and Resolution

Landscape shooters cherish resolution, dynamic range, and durability for outdoor conditions.

On pure resolution, Fuji’s 16MP sensor wins by a margin, delivering finely detailed RAW-equivalent JPEGs (though no RAW offered here). Olympus’ 12MP is respectable but less dense.

Dynamic range from both sensors is modest due to smaller sizes, but Fuji’s EXR tech enhances highlights retention somewhat, which helps in scenes with bright skies and shadows.

But here is where Olympus flexes: environmental sealing - waterproof to depths up to 10m, dustproof, shockproof (up to 2.1m drops), crushproof, and freezeproof. Fuji offers no such protection.

If you’re trekking, climbing, or shooting landscapes where gear risks are high, Olympus’ ruggedness tips the scales. Fuji aims for image finesse but lacks endurance miles.

Wildlife Photography: Autofocus Speed & Optical Reach

Wildlife demands speed - fast autofocus, high frame rates, and long lenses.

Fuji’s 15x zoom (24-360 mm) offers triple the reach of Olympus’ 5x (28-140 mm), which is a major boon to step back and get tight wildlife frames without intrusive proximity.

Autofocus-wise, both use contrast detection which can lag in fast action, but Fuji’s continuous AF and tracking modes feel marginally nimbler in tests. The F660EXR manages 11 fps burst shooting, which is unusually high for compacts, ideal for capturing fleeting moments.

Olympus peaks at 5 fps, sufficient for casual captures but you’ll miss the decisive shot more often in rapid sequences.

For wildlife shooters on a budget, Fuji outperforms for reach and speed but trades off Olympus’ weather resilience.

Sports Photography: Tracking and Low-Light IQ

Sports is all about responsiveness.

Fuji’s faster burst and continuous AF again hold advantages, especially under moderate light. Maximum shutter speed of 1/2000 sec enables freezing action fairly well.

Olympus’ limited continuous AF and slower burst reduce its effectiveness for fast sports. Plus, its weaker high-ISO performance (max ISO 6400 vs. Fuji’s extended 12800) handicaps low-light arenas.

Overall, Fuji leans better for the active shooter prioritizing frame rate and exposure flexibility, albeit cautiously given sensor size limits.

Street Photography: Portability and Discreteness

Street photographers value small, quiet gear with quick startup and discreet profiles.

Olympus TG-820’s compact, flatter silhouette and sleek exterior make it less conspicuous and easier to carry. Its quieter operation and waterproof design mean you need not worry about weather - or spilling coffee in a cafe hustle.

Fuji is chunkier and glossier, which may attract unwanted attention. Plus, no silent shutter modes limit subtlety.

If stealth and ease are priorities, Olympus grabs a point here - not necessarily in image quality, but in unobtrusiveness.

Macro Photography: Close Focus and Precision

Macro shooters need tight focusing and fine detail capture.

Olympus can focus astonishingly close, down to 1cm, enabling true macro-like captures without accessories. The TG-820’s lens lacks wide tele reach for tight magnification but compensates with close focusing distance.

Fuji’s macro limit is 5cm, which is decent but less impressive for true extreme close-ups and product shots.

If handheld macro snaps lure you, Olympus offers more tactile freedom.

Night and Astrophotography: ISO and Exposure

Low-light and astrophotography push cameras to their sensor’s edge.

Fuji’s EXR low-light optimization and max ISO 3200 (boosted to 12800) somewhat outpace Olympus’ ISO 6400 in practical quality terms. Noise suppression on Fuji retains subtle star fields and landscape detail better, vital for astrophotography.

However, neither camera offers bulb or very slow shutter modes, limiting exposure control for true night scenes.

Still, Fuji’s manual controls and better noise performance make it a more serviceable companion once you embrace the compact’s sensor limits.

Video Capabilities: Specs and Practical Use

Both can record Full HD 1080p at 30fps with H.264 codec, standard fare.

Neither supports external microphones, headphone jacks, or advanced video features like image stabilization tailored for video (only sensor-shift still image IS).

Fujifilm’s EXR processor might squeeze better dynamic range in video, but Olympus offers the brighter LCD for framing, a small advantage.

Frankly, neither is a motivated choice for serious videographers, but both suffice for casual clips.

Travel Photography: Versatility, Battery, and Weight

Travel often demands all-rounders: lightweight, reliable, long battery life, and adaptability.

The Fuji F660EXR offers a longer battery life (approximately 300 shots) vs. TG-820’s 220. Size-wise, despite Fuji’s bulkier depth, Olympus’ slim profile and lighter weight enhance portability.

Weather sealing on the TG-820 is invaluable for humid or wet climates, washing away installation worries and gear maintenance that would slow trips.

Lens versatility strongly favors Fuji’s 15x zoom for capturing everything from wide vistas to distant architecture.

Ultimately, Fuji suits travelers prioritizing image quality and focal reach, while Olympus caters better to adventure travelers demanding rugged reliability.

Professional Applications: Workflow and File Quality

Neither camera supports RAW format, a downside for professionals requiring maximum post-processing latitude.

Also, limited connectivity - no Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, or tethering - reduces workflows integrating directly with modern studios or cloud services.

Build quality is solid but neither manufacturer markets these as professional tools. Both cameras serve better as secondary or casual shooters rather than mainstays.

If professional image fidelity or workflow flexibility is critical, look further afield, but for lightweight backup use, Fuji edges slightly due to exposure controls.

Technical Summaries and Ratings

Bringing together all the data points and field notes, here is an overview of their performance verdicts.

Fujifilm F660EXR screen back Olympus TG 820 iHS front Olympus TG 820 iHS screen back

The above gallery shows sample shots from each - notice the finer detail and color saturation in Fuji’s images versus Olympus’s more contrasty, less resolved pictures.

Fujifilm F660EXR scores well on image quality, speed, and versatility, while Olympus TG-820 iHS excels on durability and screen quality.

This breakdown by photographic context reinforces the narrative: Fuji dominates portrait, wildlife, and landscape; Olympus shines in rugged travel, macro, and street environments.

Recommendations: Who Should Pick Which?

• Go for the Fujifilm F660EXR if you:

  • Value high resolution and zoom reach for nature and sports
  • Want manual exposure control modes for creative flexibility
  • Shoot portraits and landscapes indoors or outdoors with focus on quality
  • Prefer longer battery life and a ‘traditional’ camera feel

• Choose the Olympus TG-820 iHS if you:

  • Need a hardy, waterproof camera for adventures, diving, or rough conditions
  • Prioritize a high-resolution bright LCD for composition in varied light
  • Want macro capabilities without attachments
  • Prefer a lighter, less obtrusive camera for street or travel use

Final Thoughts: Your Next Compact Depends on Your Style

Both the Fujifilm FinePix F660EXR and Olympus TG-820 iHS represent solid offerings for early 2010s compact enthusiasts. Yet their editorial differences - control depth versus toughness, zoom reach versus portability - mean they serve different creative ambitions.

From my experience, Fuji’s finer output and granular controls appeal to shooters seeking quality and flexibility within a compact form, while Olympus aims for durability and ease in unpredictable outdoor contexts.

If compromises are part of your equation, consider which strengths align with your photography DNA. And remember, neither camera replaces current APS-C or full-frame systems but can be excellent companions in specific niches.

For practical hands-on insight, I’ve tested both extensively alongside newer models, and you can see the contrasting results reflected here and in my accompanying video breakdowns.

Happy shooting, whichever path you choose!

Note: Prices mentioned reflect typical historical values and may vary in the current market.