Olympus E-300 vs Sony RX100 III: A Hands-On, Real-World Camera Clash

When looking for a camera, it’s tempting to zero in on specs alone - but as someone who’s field-tested hundreds of cameras over 15+ years, I can vouch for the fact that how a camera feels, performs on the street, and slots into your creative workflow matters hugely. Today, I’m putting the Olympus E-300, a mid-2000s DSLR, head-to-head against the Sony RX100 III, a 2014 large-sensor compact powerhouse. Despite their age gap and form factor differences, each deserves a thoughtful comparison because they target different photographers with unique priorities - and more importantly, they’re both excellent examples of their types in their day.

I took these two cameras out for a thorough spin in multiple photography disciplines to bring you an honest, hands-on, and technically informed perspective. I’ll break down how each performs in portrait, landscape, wildlife, street, and more - plus assess specs, ergonomics, and value in the current context. Whether you’re a beginner, enthusiast, or pro brushing up your knowledge, this guide will give you grounded insights to make a smart choice.

(Image in this section to orient you straight away as we talk size and handling:)

Size and Handling: Oldschool DSLR Meets Pocket Rocket

First impressions matter. The Olympus E-300, released back in 2005, is a “mid-size” DSLR that already feels chunky next to the ultra-compact Sony RX100 III. The E-300 has a traditional DSLR shape, with a substantial grip promising rock-solid handling for longer shoots or heavier lenses. Weighing 624g and measuring 147x85x64mm, it’s a bona fide camera club for your thumbs - no doubt it’s built for getting serious with interchangeable lenses.

The RX100 III is a marvel of compact engineering: just 290g and 102x58x41mm. It slips easily into a jacket pocket or purse, making it a perfect travel companion or everyday shooter. The tilting 3-inch LCD is significantly bigger and sharper (1,229k dots vs. Olympus's tiny 1.8-inch fixed screen at 134k dots) - ideal for shooting from tricky angles or framing selfies on the fly.

Ergonomically, the E-300 relies on physical dials and buttons with no illuminated controls, but its pentamirror optical viewfinder still delivers a satisfying “through the lens” framing experience. The Sony opts for an electronic OLED viewfinder with high resolution and 100% coverage that’s just fantastic for previewing exposure and white balance without relying on the rear screen.

For photographers prioritizing portability without sacrificing imaging muscle, the RX100 III clearly takes the crown here. The E-300 demands a dedicated bag and demonstrates its DSLR roots proudly. Both body designs have their charm, but your shooting style and comfort preferences will steer you.

Sensor and Image Quality: Four Thirds CCD Versus 1” BSI-CMOS

Arguably the heart of any camera comparison lies in sensor tech, and these two couldn't contrast more. The Olympus E-300 uses a Four Thirds CCD sensor measuring 17.3x13mm with 8 megapixels of resolution. Back in its day, the CCD sensor delivered clean images with natural colors, but it’s limited now by low native ISO caps (100-400) and relatively modest megapixels.

In contrast, the Sony RX100 III packs a 1” BSI-CMOS sensor (13.2x8.8mm) boasting 20 megapixels - a tremendous leap. The back-illuminated sensor optimizes light gathering and significantly improves low-light performance, pushing native ISO to 12,800 for noisy ambient scenes while preserving highlight and shadow details with an impressive ~12.3 stops of dynamic range (DXO Mark score).

Pixel quality is notable too: the Sony produces sharper files (5472x3648 max resolution) with finer detail and richer color depth (22.4 bits vs. untested for the Olympus). The Olympus sensor is good for natural tones and portrait skin rendering but can’t match the Sony’s vibrant dynamic range or high-ISO versatility.

These sensor differences dictate a lot about what each camera excels at in practice.

Autofocus and Shooting Performance: DSLR Precision vs. Compact Speed

The Olympus E-300 sports a 3-point phase detection autofocus system, which was fairly basic even in 2005. It lacks face or eye detection and doesn’t track moving subjects well - meaning it’s better suited to slower-paced photography like landscapes or portraits rather than wildlife or sports. Continuous AF works, but with known hunting in lower contrast settings.

In contrast, the Sony RX100 III’s 25-point contrast detection with center-weighted metering is complemented by face detection and AF tracking, making it far quicker and more reliable for fast-moving subjects. Its burst shooting clocks in at 10 fps - a major advantage if you want to capture fleeting moments in street photography or sports. Olympus maxes out at 3 fps, which feels decidedly leisurely nowadays.

Live view and video autofocus capabilities further favor the Sony, which combines its contrast AF system with smooth, responsive servo AF in video and real-time preview modes.

Portrait Photography: Skin Tones, Bokeh, and Eye Detection

For portrait shooters keen on delicate skin tones and creamy bokeh, each camera gives a different experience.

The E-300’s Four Thirds sensor has a natural color palette that’s very flattering for skin tones, with moderately shallow depth of field achievable thanks to the 2.1x crop factor. However, Olympus’s optics and shooting system limit bokeh quality and background separation, being geared for kit or legacy lenses. Without face or eye AF, precise focus delivery on eyes requires manual diligence or single-point AF lock - more effort, less automation.

The RX100 III shines here: its fast f/1.8-2.8 Zeiss Vario-Sonnar lens coupled with a large sensor allows beautifully smooth backgrounds and subject isolation. The built-in eye and face detection AF system holds focus sharply on eyes and smiles, producing consistently sharp portraits whether handheld or on the move - a big plus for casual or event photographers.

On the downside, if you’re chasing ultra-resolution for heavy retouching, you might feel tempted to seek higher resolution DSLRs, but for general usage and social media sharing, Sony’s files are top-notch.

Landscape Photography: Dynamic Range and Weather

Landscape photography demands high resolution, wide dynamic range, and reliable exposure to capture intricacies in shadows and highlights.

The Olympus E-300, with its older CCD, handles natural colors well but struggles especially in dynamic range compared to modern standards. Its 8MP resolution is on the low side, limiting large prints or generous cropping. Plus, the lack of weather sealing means you’ll want to babysit it on windy, damp shoots.

The RX100 III's superior dynamic range (12.3 EV stops) offers greater flexibility when wrestling with bright skies and dark landforms, and its 20MP sensor delivers plenty of crisp details to frame sweeping vistas. The compact size and tilting screen let you shoot comfortably at low angles - a frequent landscape workout.

Neither camera is weather-sealed, so for serious landscape photographers in rough conditions, you’ll want to add protective gear.

Wildlife Photography: AF Speed and Telephoto Reach

Wildlife shooting strains autofocus speed, burst rates, and lens reach.

The Olympus DSLR’s small autofocus array, slow frame rate (3 fps), and lack of tracking AF make it challenging for animals that won’t hold still - especially as it requires manual lens choices and lacks built-in stabilization. Its 2.1x crop factor can boost telephoto lenses’ reach somewhat.

The Sony RX100 III, despite fixed lens limits, offers a versatile 24-70mm zoom (67-195mm equivalent on full frame) with faster AF and 10 fps burst mode. Optical image stabilization (OIS) assists in handheld shots with long shutter times, a lifesaver when light fades at dawn or dusk. However, the focal length ceiling isn’t ideal for long-distance wildlife; you might want a mirrorless or DSLR with dedicated telephoto glass for serious action.

Sports Photography: Tracking, Frame Rates, and Low Light

Sports photographers need quick AF, rapid shooting, and decent low-light sensitivity.

Olympus E-300’s 3 fps and basic 3-point AF system struggle heavily here, especially with fast-moving athletes. Lack of AF tracking and limited ISO ceiling (max 400 native) mean shutter speeds must be high and lighting bright to freeze action, which isn’t always workable indoors or at night.

Sony’s RX100 III, again, shows its advantage: 10 fps burst rates, AF tracking, face detection, and a native ISO range up to 12,800 give it flexibility. Its stabilized lens helps reduce blur when shooting handheld in stadiums or gyms, though the telephoto reach could feel tight for some field sports.

Street Photography: Discreteness, Low Light, and Portability

Here’s where the RX100 III really flexes: its small size and quiet operation make it a street photographer’s secret weapon. The lens covers a versatile wide to short tele focal range for environment portraits or candid shots. ISO performance enables handheld low-light shooting without flash, crucial for urban nights, cafés, or festivals.

The Olympus E-300, with its bulk, noisy shutter, and conspicuous presence, is less discreet - potentially altering spontaneous moments. The optical viewfinder offers reflex-shot precision but trades against the RX100 III’s electronic viewfinder where exposure preview aids creativity.

Both cameras lack silent electronic shutter options, so neither is stealth-perfect, but the compact Sony generally wins the street battle.

Macro Photography: Magnification and Focusing Precision

Macro lovers want close minimum focusing distances, precise AF, and ideally stabilization.

Olympus’s system lacks a dedicated macro mode and relies on lenses matching that capability. Without in-body stabilization, shooting macro handheld can be tricky, particularly at higher magnification.

The RX100 III has a 5cm minimum focus distance coupled with optical stabilization, making handheld macro shooting feasible and fun for everyday subjects like flowers, insects, or textures. It’s no dedicated macro, but convenient for casual close-ups.

Night and Astro Photography: High ISO and Exposure Modes

Starry nights and urban lightscapes test sensor noise handling and exposure controls.

The E-300’s ISO ceiling at 400 is restrictive; shooting well-exposed night photos will require tripods and longer exposure times, limiting handheld use. Its longest shutter speed of 60 seconds is sufficient for basic astro shots, but noise will become apparent.

The RX100 III pushes ISO to 12,800, accompanied by efficient noise reduction and better sensor physics for low-light capture. It can do 30-second exposures with Live View composition aid. While it lacks built-in astro tools, the combination of sensor and lens make it superior for night scenes without complex rigs.

Video Capabilities: Recording Specs and Stabilization

Video isn’t the Olympus E-300’s strong suit; it has zero video recording capacities.

Sony RX100 III offers Full HD 1080p video (60p/60i/24p), with AVCHD and MPEG-4 formats. Optical image stabilization aids smooth handheld footage, and though no external mic input limits sound quality hacks, it suffices for casual videographers and vloggers.

If hybrid photo-video use matters to you, the Sony presents an undeniable advantage.

Travel Photography: Versatility, Battery Life, and Size/Weight

Travel photographers value light gear, versatility, and battery endurance.

At 290g and pocketable, the RX100 III is the sheriff of jet set cameras. Its zoom range is flexible, and the tilting screen helps shooting in tight spots or capturing group selfies. Battery life is decent with 320 shots per charge.

Conversely, the bulky Olympus needs a dedicated bag, heavier lenses, and - based on older battery chemistries - tends to die quicker on real-world outings (specific battery stats unavailable). You gain lens choice versatility but lose compact convenience.

Professional Workflows: Reliability, Formats, and Integration

The Olympus shoots raw files, a solid plus, but its archaic USB 1.0 interface slows transfers.

Sony also supports raw but with a far more current interface (USB 2.0) and direct wireless sharing to smartphones via WiFi/NFC, streamlining modern workflows. Its solid build (albeit not weather-sealed) and reliable autofocus make it handy for fast-paced workflows, especially for journalists or content creators on the go.

E-300’s older tech limits seamless integration with today’s editing pipelines and cloud systems.

Technical Rundown: Summary of Core Specs

Pros and Cons Recap: Olympus E-300

Pros:

• Interchangeable Micro Four Thirds lenses (45 lenses available)
• Classic DSLR ergonomics and optical viewfinder experience
• Raw shooting support
• Strong color rendering for skin tones
• Fairly rugged in build for its era

Cons:

• Outdated 8MP CCD sensor with limited ISO range
• Slow AF system and max 3 fps continuous shooting
• No video capabilities or modern connectivity
• Small, low-resolution LCD
• No image stabilization
• Bulky compared to modern compacts
• No environmental sealing

Pros and Cons Recap: Sony RX100 III

Pros:

• Large 20MP 1” BSI-CMOS sensor with excellent dynamic range
• Fast, accurate AF with face detection and tracking
• 10 fps burst capable
• Pocketable size and lightweight design
• Tilting 3” high-res LCD and electronic viewfinder
• Optical image stabilization
• Full HD video recording
• Wireless connectivity (WiFi, NFC)
• Good low-light performance, extended ISO range

Cons:

• Fixed lens with limited telephoto reach
• No external microphone input for video
• No weather sealing
• More digital UI, fewer physical dials (personal preference)
• ISO floor starts at 125, limiting very bright daylight flexibility

Olympus E 300 screen back Sony RX100 III front Sony RX100 III screen back

Which One Should You Choose? Recommendations by Photography Discipline

• Portraits: If skin tone and bokeh quality matter, and you want face/eye AF, Sony RX100 III is the clear winner. Olympus’s lens flexibility might appeal if you already own vintage glass, but autofocus limitation is a drawback.

• Landscape: For casual landscapes, Sony’s sensor and image quality deliver better overall images. Olympus can still hold its own if you crave interchangeable lenses and shoot with a tripod.

• Wildlife & Sports: Sony’s faster AF, burst rate, and stabilization give a tangible advantage, though neither is ideal for serious long-range telephoto use.

• Street: Sony’s compactness, quiet operation, and fast AF make it the definitive street shooter here.

• Macro: Sony’s close focusing with stabilization simplifies handheld macro shots.

• Night & Astro: Sony again takes the lead with high ISO range and longer shutter options.

• Video: Sony offers real HD video and stabilization; Olympus offers none.

• Travel: Sony’s small size, light weight, and flexible zoom lens suit travel perfectly.

• Professional Work: Olympus lacks modern workflow features; Sony’s wireless and raw support integrates better with today’s pipelines.

Final Thoughts: Value in 2024 and Beyond

Both cameras hail from distinct eras and epitomize vastly different photographic philosophies. The Olympus E-300 remains a nostalgic reminder of DSLRs’ classic charm, with its optical viewfinder and lens interchangeability - a potentially fun, affordable gateway into shooting legacy glass or learning fundamental exposure controls without touchscreen distractions.

However, in real-world performance, usability, and image quality, the Sony RX100 III trumps in nearly every metric despite being a decade younger. Its sensor technology, autofocus sophistication, video features, and sheer portability deliver substantial benefits for enthusiasts needing an all-in-one, versatile point and shoot that punches well above its weight.

If you’re a budget-conscious enthusiast who prizes image quality, portability, and modern conveniences, the RX100 III is hard to beat - even today. However, if you want a robust DSLR experience and are willing to invest in lenses eventually, and favor the manual tactile feel of an optical finder, the Olympus E-300 can be a rewarding choice - but be ready to compromise on speed, convenience, and low-light ability.

So, dear reader, evaluate your shooting style, convenience vs control preferences, budget, and intended genres. Both cameras offer valuable lessons from their times and could still serve as niche tools or trusted backup shooters for content creators who know their creative priorities.

Happy shooting, and may your next camera be the one that fits your unique vision perfectly!