Olympus E-300 vs Olympus XZ-2 iHS
67 Imaging
41 Features
31 Overall
37
85 Imaging
36 Features
67 Overall
48
Olympus E-300 vs Olympus XZ-2 iHS Key Specs
(Full Review)
- 8MP - Four Thirds Sensor
- 1.8" Fixed Screen
- ISO 100 - 400 (Increase to 1600)
- No Video
- Micro Four Thirds Mount
- 624g - 147 x 85 x 64mm
- Revealed January 2005
- Additionally Known as EVOLT E-300
- Replacement is Olympus E-330
(Full Review)
- 12MP - 1/1.7" Sensor
- 3" Tilting Screen
- ISO 100 - 12800
- Sensor-shift Image Stabilization
- 1920 x 1080 video
- 28-112mm (F1.8-2.5) lens
- 346g - 113 x 65 x 48mm
- Launched December 2012
Photography Glossary Olympus E-300 vs Olympus XZ-2 iHS Overview
Its time to look a bit more closely at the Olympus E-300 versus Olympus XZ-2 iHS, former is a Advanced DSLR while the latter is a Small Sensor Compact and they are both produced by Olympus. There is a substantial difference between the sensor resolutions of the E-300 (8MP) and XZ-2 iHS (12MP) and the E-300 (Four Thirds) and XZ-2 iHS (1/1.7") posses totally different sensor size.
Apple Innovates by Creating Next-Level Optical Stabilization for iPhoneThe E-300 was brought out 9 years prior to the XZ-2 iHS which is quite a big difference as far as tech is concerned. Both the cameras have different body design with the Olympus E-300 being a Mid-size SLR camera and the Olympus XZ-2 iHS being a Compact camera.
Before going into a in depth comparison, here is a short summary of how the E-300 scores vs the XZ-2 iHS for portability, imaging, features and an overall score.
President Biden pushes bill mandating TikTok sale or ban Olympus E-300 vs Olympus XZ-2 iHS Gallery
Below is a preview of the gallery images for Olympus E-300 & Olympus XZ-2 iHS. The entire galleries are viewable at Olympus E-300 Gallery & Olympus XZ-2 iHS Gallery.
Reasons to pick Olympus E-300 over the Olympus XZ-2 iHS
| E-300 | XZ-2 iHS |
|---|
Reasons to pick Olympus XZ-2 iHS over the Olympus E-300
| XZ-2 iHS | E-300 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Launched | December 2012 | January 2005 | More modern by 96 months | |
| Screen type | Tilting | Fixed | Tilting screen | |
| Screen dimensions | 3" | 1.8" | Bigger screen (+1.2") | |
| Screen resolution | 920k | 134k | Crisper screen (+786k dot) | |
| Touch screen | Quickly navigate |
Common features in the Olympus E-300 and Olympus XZ-2 iHS
| E-300 | XZ-2 iHS | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Manually focus | Dial precise focusing | |||
| Selfie screen | Neither provides selfie screen |
Olympus E-300 vs Olympus XZ-2 iHS Physical Comparison
If you are aiming to carry around your camera, you are going to need to factor its weight and dimensions. The Olympus E-300 provides outside dimensions of 147mm x 85mm x 64mm (5.8" x 3.3" x 2.5") having a weight of 624 grams (1.38 lbs) whilst the Olympus XZ-2 iHS has dimensions of 113mm x 65mm x 48mm (4.4" x 2.6" x 1.9") accompanied by a weight of 346 grams (0.76 lbs).
Examine the Olympus E-300 versus Olympus XZ-2 iHS in our completely new Camera & Lens Size Comparison Tool.
Bear in mind, the weight of an ILC will differ dependant on the lens you are utilising at that moment. Underneath is a front view measurements comparison of the E-300 compared to the XZ-2 iHS.

Looking at size and weight, the portability grade of the E-300 and XZ-2 iHS is 67 and 85 respectively.
Olympus E-300 vs Olympus XZ-2 iHS Sensor Comparison
Often, its hard to visualise the contrast between sensor sizes purely by going over specifications. The pic below might give you a better sense of the sensor sizes in the E-300 and XZ-2 iHS.
To sum up, both of these cameras have different resolutions and different sensor sizes. The E-300 featuring a bigger sensor will make getting bokeh less difficult and the Olympus XZ-2 iHS will offer you more detail having its extra 4 Megapixels. Higher resolution will also let you crop shots a bit more aggressively. The more aged E-300 is going to be disadvantaged in sensor tech.
Olympus E-300 vs Olympus XZ-2 iHS Screen and ViewFinder
Snapchat Adds Watermarks to AI-Created Images Photography Type Scores
Portrait Comparison
Photobucket discusses licensing 13 billion images with AI firmsStreet Comparison
Sora from OpenAI releases its first ever music videoSports Comparison
Meta to Introduce 'AI-Generated' Labels for Media starting next monthTravel Comparison
Japan-exclusive Leica Leitz Phone 3 features big sensor and new modesLandscape Comparison
Pentax 17 Pre-Orders Outperform Expectations by a LandslideVlogging Comparison
Samsung Releases Faster Versions of EVO MicroSD Cards
Olympus E-300 vs Olympus XZ-2 iHS Specifications
| Olympus E-300 | Olympus XZ-2 iHS | |
|---|---|---|
| General Information | ||
| Company | Olympus | Olympus |
| Model type | Olympus E-300 | Olympus XZ-2 iHS |
| Also Known as | EVOLT E-300 | - |
| Class | Advanced DSLR | Small Sensor Compact |
| Revealed | 2005-01-10 | 2012-12-18 |
| Physical type | Mid-size SLR | Compact |
| Sensor Information | ||
| Sensor type | CCD | CMOS |
| Sensor size | Four Thirds | 1/1.7" |
| Sensor measurements | 17.3 x 13mm | 7.44 x 5.58mm |
| Sensor surface area | 224.9mm² | 41.5mm² |
| Sensor resolution | 8 megapixels | 12 megapixels |
| Anti alias filter | ||
| Aspect ratio | 4:3 | 4:3 |
| Full resolution | 3264 x 2448 | 3968 x 2976 |
| Max native ISO | 400 | 12800 |
| Max boosted ISO | 1600 | - |
| Minimum native ISO | 100 | 100 |
| RAW support | ||
| Autofocusing | ||
| Manual focusing | ||
| AF touch | ||
| AF continuous | ||
| AF single | ||
| AF tracking | ||
| AF selectice | ||
| AF center weighted | ||
| Multi area AF | ||
| Live view AF | ||
| Face detection focusing | ||
| Contract detection focusing | ||
| Phase detection focusing | ||
| Total focus points | 3 | 35 |
| Lens | ||
| Lens support | Micro Four Thirds | fixed lens |
| Lens zoom range | - | 28-112mm (4.0x) |
| Max aperture | - | f/1.8-2.5 |
| Macro focusing range | - | 1cm |
| Amount of lenses | 45 | - |
| Focal length multiplier | 2.1 | 4.8 |
| Screen | ||
| Screen type | Fixed Type | Tilting |
| Screen diagonal | 1.8 inches | 3 inches |
| Resolution of screen | 134 thousand dots | 920 thousand dots |
| Selfie friendly | ||
| Liveview | ||
| Touch function | ||
| Viewfinder Information | ||
| Viewfinder | Optical (pentamirror) | Electronic (optional) |
| Features | ||
| Lowest shutter speed | 60 secs | 60 secs |
| Highest shutter speed | 1/4000 secs | 1/2000 secs |
| Continuous shooting rate | 3.0fps | - |
| Shutter priority | ||
| Aperture priority | ||
| Expose Manually | ||
| Exposure compensation | Yes | Yes |
| Change WB | ||
| Image stabilization | ||
| Integrated flash | ||
| Flash distance | - | 8.60 m (ISO 800) |
| Flash settings | Auto, Auto FP, Manual, Red-Eye | Auto, On, Off, Red-Eye, Fill-in, Wireless |
| External flash | ||
| AEB | ||
| WB bracketing | ||
| Highest flash synchronize | 1/180 secs | - |
| Exposure | ||
| Multisegment | ||
| Average | ||
| Spot | ||
| Partial | ||
| AF area | ||
| Center weighted | ||
| Video features | ||
| Supported video resolutions | - | 1920 x 1080 (30 fps), 1280 x 720 (30 fps), 640 x 480 (30 fps) |
| Max video resolution | None | 1920x1080 |
| Video file format | - | MPEG-4, H.264 |
| Microphone support | ||
| Headphone support | ||
| Connectivity | ||
| Wireless | None | Eye-Fi Connected |
| Bluetooth | ||
| NFC | ||
| HDMI | ||
| USB | USB 1.0 (1.5 Mbit/sec) | USB 2.0 (480 Mbit/sec) |
| GPS | None | None |
| Physical | ||
| Environmental sealing | ||
| Water proofing | ||
| Dust proofing | ||
| Shock proofing | ||
| Crush proofing | ||
| Freeze proofing | ||
| Weight | 624g (1.38 lbs) | 346g (0.76 lbs) |
| Physical dimensions | 147 x 85 x 64mm (5.8" x 3.3" x 2.5") | 113 x 65 x 48mm (4.4" x 2.6" x 1.9") |
| DXO scores | ||
| DXO All around rating | not tested | 49 |
| DXO Color Depth rating | not tested | 20.4 |
| DXO Dynamic range rating | not tested | 11.3 |
| DXO Low light rating | not tested | 216 |
| Other | ||
| Battery life | - | 340 images |
| Battery style | - | Battery Pack |
| Battery ID | - | Li-90B |
| Self timer | Yes (2 or 12 sec) | Yes (2 or 12 sec) |
| Time lapse feature | ||
| Storage type | Compact Flash (Type I or II) | SD/SDHC/SDXC |
| Card slots | 1 | 1 |
| Launch cost | $800 | $450 |