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
Samsung Releases Faster Versions of EVO MicroSD Cards 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.
Photobucket discusses licensing 13 billion images with AI firmsThe 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.
Japan-exclusive Leica Leitz Phone 3 features big sensor and new modes 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
Photography Glossary Photography Type Scores
Portrait Comparison
Apple Innovates by Creating Next-Level Optical Stabilization for iPhoneStreet Comparison
Pentax 17 Pre-Orders Outperform Expectations by a LandslideSports Comparison
President Biden pushes bill mandating TikTok sale or banTravel Comparison
Sora from OpenAI releases its first ever music videoLandscape Comparison
Snapchat Adds Watermarks to AI-Created ImagesVlogging Comparison
Meta to Introduce 'AI-Generated' Labels for Media starting next month
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 |