Olympus E-400 vs Panasonic Lumix FZ35: A Thorough Comparison for Discerning Photographers

Over the years, I’ve handled countless cameras spanning the full spectrum of photographic genres and budgets. Today, I’m turning back the clock a bit to compare two distinct beasts from the mid-2000s to early 2010s era: the Olympus E-400 entry-level DSLR and the Panasonic Lumix FZ35 superzoom bridge camera. Both represent unique design philosophies and technological approaches. While many contemporary readers might view these as vintage gear, understanding their capabilities through a fresh, analytical lens reveals timeless lessons relevant for photographers weighing sensor size, versatility, and usability - not to mention how ergonomic and technical design choices trickle down into real-world performance.

Let’s dive in with a hands-on, data-grounded exploration that navigates sensor tech, optics, handling, and their suitability for various photographic disciplines.

Getting to Know the Contenders: Form Factor and Handling

When we compare cameras, the physical feel is often the initial threshold for acceptance. Size, weight, and layout can make or break shooting comfort, particularly for prolonged sessions.

The Olympus E-400 is a compact DSLR designed for enthusiasts looking for an easy transition to interchangeable lenses without carrying too much bulk. Measuring 130x91x53mm and weighing 435 grams, its magnesium alloy-bodied frame offers a traditional pentamirror optical viewfinder and a reassuring DSLR grip. The ergonomics favor smaller hands without compromising manual controls significantly.

In contrast, the Panasonic FZ35, at 118x76x89mm and 397 grams, is a bridge camera sporting an SLR-inspired body but with a fixed zoom lens. It’s slightly smaller in surface area but considerably deeper, owing to the large, complex lens barrel extending from the front. Its design attempts to blend DSLR handling with the convenience of a superzoom, featuring a pronounced grip and thumb rest.

From my tests cycling between both, the E-400’s control layout is cleaner but more minimalistic due to its entry-level positioning - no illuminated buttons or customizable dials, just essential exposure modes (shutter and aperture priority) and straightforward menus. The FZ35 offers additional manual exposure controls, including full manual mode and exposure compensation, approachable via dedicated dials and buttons, which continue to feel intuitive despite the camera's petite size.

Verdict on handling: The Olympus E-400 wins on sheer portability for DSLR users craving lens flexibility, while the FZ35’s design suits photographers prioritizing one-handed shooting convenience with vast zoom reach. For street and travel photographers, controlling weight and shape is a personal choice here.

Sensor Technology and Image Quality: The Heart of the Matter

Sensor size and resolution profoundly influence image quality, dynamic range, noise performance, and depth of field control - the trifecta of picture fidelity.

The Olympus E-400 sports a Four Thirds 17.3x13 mm CCD sensor yielding 10 megapixels. At the time, this sensor size balanced decent low-light capability with a compact body form. The Four Thirds system’s 2.1x crop factor enforces a tighter field of view, meaning lenses must be shorter to achieve equivalent composition compared to full-frame cameras - beneficial for portability.

Meanwhile, the Panasonic FZ35 houses a much smaller 1/2.3" CCD sensor (6.08x4.56 mm) clocking 12 megapixels. The minuscule sensor surface (about 27.7 mm² versus 224.9 mm² of the Olympus) severely impacts light-gathering capability and noise control, although pixel density is higher.

Despite the FZ35’s higher nominal resolution, my shooting tests confirm the Olympus E-400 produces richer, cleaner images especially in low to moderate ISO settings. Its larger sensor size enables superior dynamic range and color depth. The pixel pitch of the E-400’s sensor helps maintain tonal gradations, making it better suited for fine portraiture and landscape capture.

The smaller sensor on the FZ35 forces aggressive noise reduction that can smudge fine details in dim scenes but offers the undeniable advantage of extraordinary focal length reach from the 27-486mm (18x) lens - coverage impossible without switching lenses on the Olympus.

Summary: For photographers chasing ultimate image quality, particularly in portraits, landscapes, or night scenes, the E-400’s Four Thirds sensor excels. For wildlife or travel shooters valuing zoom versatility over resolution, the FZ35’s sensor and lens combo offer a ready solution despite image compromises.

Autofocus and Shooting Performance: Speed and Precision in Action

Autofocus systems critically shape user experience and shot reliability, especially in dynamic scenarios such as sports and wildlife photography.

The Olympus E-400 features a 3-point phase-detection autofocus system with continuous AF capability. While not top-tier even at its launch, this system provides reasonable accuracy when focusing on static or moderately moving subjects, though tracking fast action is challenging.

The Panasonic FZ35, leveraging contrast-detection autofocus more common in compacts and bridge cameras, offers face detection, live view AF, and macro focus down to 1 cm - a distinct advantage for close-ups - though continuous AF is absent. It has no AF tracking but provides usable focus speed for everyday shooting.

Sustained shooting speeds differ materially: the Olympus can manage 3 frames per second (fps), suitable for casual sports or burst needs, while the FZ35 slows to 2 fps, enough for general-purpose sequences but limiting for high-action scenarios.

In practice: I found the E-400 more dependable sport and wildlife photography partner when paired with suitable telephoto lenses, balancing AF speed and burst capability for moderate motion capture. The FZ35 excels as a versatile snapshot tool with solid macro close-up potential and face-aware focus, though less suited for precise tracking or rapid bursts.

The Optics Equation: Lens Ecosystem vs Fixed Superzoom

Lens options are perhaps the most significant ecosystem consideration.

Olympus E-400 mounts Micro Four Thirds lenses. While the E-400 predates Micro Four Thirds standardization and technically interfaces with Four Thirds lenses via adapters, Olympus’s system eventually amassed over 45 native lenses of superb quality. This includes primes optimized for bokeh-rich portraits, ultrawides for landscapes, and professional telephotos.

The Panasonic FZ35’s 27-486 mm f/2.8-4.4 fixed zoom lens is a marvel of optics engineering for this class, covering from wide-angle to extreme telephoto with a reasonably bright aperture. Built-in optical image stabilization substantially aids handheld telephoto sharpness.

In direct testing, I appreciated the Olympus’s interchangeable lens benefit for disciplines needing distinctive optics - macro, portrait - where lens speed and bokeh quality are paramount. The fixed zoom of the FZ35, however, shines in versatility for travel or casual wildlife where lens swaps aren’t practical.

Viewing and Interface: Finding Your Frame and Setting with Confidence

With the Olympus E-400, the optical pentamirror viewfinder delivers about 95% frame coverage at 0.46x magnification - a bit tight and a little dim compared to top-tier DSLRs, but serviceable for accuracy in daylight.

Meanwhile, the FZ35 offers an electronic viewfinder (EVF), providing real-time exposure previews and focus magnification during manual focusing. Although resolution is modest (not specified), this EVF aligns with modern preferences for immediate feedback, especially in variable lighting.

Rear LCD screens differ slightly: 2.5" at 215k dots on the Olympus versus 2.7" at 230k dots on the Panasonic. Neither are touch-enabled nor exceptionally high-res by today’s standards, but both support live view with the Panasonic offering a distinct advantage.

Usability note: The live view on the FZ35 combined with EVF integration unlocks greater flexibility for tripod use or discreet shooting, especially in macro or wildlife scenarios.

Build, Durability, and Connectivity

Neither model features weather sealing or ruggedization, so both demand careful handling outdoors.

The Olympus reflects classic DSLR build quality with solid feel and reliable shutter mechanics (1/60 to 1/4000 sec speeds), while the FZ35, designed as a bridge compendium, balances build solidity with compactness.

Storage-wise, the E-400 accepts Compact Flash and xD Picture Cards - an artifact of its era - whereas the FZ35 uses SD/SDHC cards plus internal memory, offering more contemporary ecosystem convenience.

Connectivity is limited for both: USB 2.0 ports (no wireless or Bluetooth), HDMI only on the FZ35, and no microphone or headphone jacks, reflecting the pre-wireless generation of digital cameras.

Exploring Practical Photography Genres: Strengths and Constraints

To lend clarity, I evaluated the cameras across popular photography subjects to see which fits best per genre.

Portrait Photography

The E-400’s Four Thirds sensor, combined with selective autofocus and a capable lens lineup, offers superior bokeh quality and skin tone rendition. Eye detection autofocus is absent, but manual or single AF offers effective framing with quality primes. The FZ35’s small sensor and fixed lens hamper bokeh and dynamic tonal control, making portraits less creamy and more clinical.

Landscape Photography

Here the E-400’s sensor resolution and dynamic range advantage truly show. Its ability to shoot uncompressed RAW with broad tonal latitude makes it the preferred tool for landscapes. The FZ35’s superzoom can capture distant landmarks but at the cost of image detail and color fidelity, limiting final print quality.

Wildlife Photography

Paradoxically, despite the FZ35’s small sensor, its 486mm equivalent zoom and image stabilization enable striking wildlife shots without lens swaps. The E-400 must rely on telephoto lenses - which can be costly and heavy but yield higher quality images when mastered. Burst rate and AF tracking edge favor the E-400.

Sports Photography

The E-400’s 3 fps continuous shooting and phase-detection AF provide modest sports performance for amateurs. The FZ35’s 2 fps and slower contrast-detect AF limit its candidacy here.

Street Photography

The smaller size and quiet operation of the Olympus appeal to street shooters. The FZ35, while somewhat bulkier due to the lens length and zoom mechanism, gives flexibility with zoom reach in urban environments where quick framing counts.

Macro Photography

Panasonic FZ35’s 1 cm macro focus range combined with optical stabilization provides strong close-up capabilities out of the box. The E-400 depends on specialized prime or macro lenses, which can produce higher resolution results but at added expense.

Night and Astro Photography

The Olympus E-400’s larger sensor and support for ISO 100-1600 facilitate better low-light shooting and longer exposures, while the FZ35’s high native ISO of up to 6400 is tempting but noisy. Neither has specialized astro modes, but the E-400’s RAW file flexibility helps post-processing astronomers.

Video Capabilities

The FZ35 supports HD video (1280x720 at 30fps), a strength over the E-400’s total lack of video. However, audio input is none for both models, and absence of advanced stabilization or codec options limits video production quality.

Travel Photography

This is where the FZ35 really shines: all-in-one zoom, moderate weight, live view, image stabilization, and built-in flash. The Olympus offers higher image quality but demands extra lenses and gear weight, possibly less ideal for light travel.

Professional Work

The Olympus’s RAW support, manual controls, lens mounts, and superior image quality make it a more viable choice for professional still photographers on a budget. The FZ35 serves better as a casual or secondary camera for quick shots or video snippets.

Battery Life and Storage Options: Staying Power in the Field

Neither camera wellbeing specs are fully detailed, but user reports suggest the Olympus E-400 uses proprietary lithium-ion packs with solid longevity for DSLR use. The FZ35’s uses rechargeable lithium polymer cells with similar endurance but benefits from SD card ubiquity over the E-400’s dual Compact Flash/xD format.

Pricing and Value: Where Do These Cameras Fit Today?

At launch, the Olympus E-400 retailed near $600 body-only, making it a competitive entry-level DSLR for quality-conscious buyers. The Panasonic FZ35 commanded a $999 price for its impressive zoom and feature set.

Nowadays, both appear primarily on secondary markets at bargain prices. If opting for either, consider the E-400 for image quality and lens ecosystem potential; the FZ35 if camera weight and zoom versatility are priorities.

Performance Scores and Genre Breakdown

I synthesized our observations alongside benchmark-style assessments:

Here, the Olympus E-400 scores higher for image quality, portrait and landscape photography, and general DSLR reliability. The Panasonic FZ35 leads in macro, travel convenience, and video capabilities.

Conclusion: Which Camera Should You Choose?

If I distill over a decade of empirical experience and lab testing into a few sentences:

• Choose the Olympus E-400 if you want authentic DSLR quality with interchangeable lenses, shooting flexibility, better low-light, and professional-grade image output. Ideal for portrait, landscape, and controlled studio environments.

• Choose the Panasonic Lumix FZ35 if you value convenience, extensive zoom reach, built-in stabilization, and moderate video functionality. Suited to travel shooters, casual hobbyists, and macro admirers who prefer an all-in-one solution with live view/EVF.

Both cameras display their age technologically but remain interesting study cases in balancing sensor capability, lens design, and user needs. Whether you prioritize image fidelity or versatility, these two highlight foundational trade-offs still relevant in today’s camera market.

Sample Image Gallery: Seeing is Believing

I’ve included side-by-side sample shots illustrating differences in image quality, colors, and sharpness.

Olympus E 400 front Olympus E 400 screen back Panasonic FZ35 front Panasonic FZ35 screen back

Throughout this comparison, I’ve leaned on first-hand shooting experience, detailed spec analysis, and photographic genre testing. Hopefully, it arms you with practical insights to make an informed decision or simply deepen appreciation of these two distinct photographic tools.

If you’re aiming to add either the Olympus E-400 or Panasonic FZ35 to your collection or workflow, know the strengths and limitations upfront so your creative vision isn’t hampered by gear expectations.

Happy shooting!