Olympus E-500 vs. Panasonic Lumix DMC-FH2: A Tale of Two Cameras Across Eras and Genres

When you stack up the Olympus E-500 against the Panasonic Lumix DMC-FH2, you’re essentially watching a cultural clash between two distinct photographic philosophies and time periods. The Olympus E-500, an advanced DSLR announced in 2005, was designed at an era when the DSLR was king, promising versatility, manual controls, and solid image quality to enthusiasts hungry for control. Meanwhile, the Panasonic FH2 emerged six years later, in 2011, riding the wave of compact, easy-to-use point-and-shoots with a feature set focused more on convenience and casual shooting.

But is it fair to compare a mid-2000s advanced DSLR to a 2011 entry-level compact? Well, I’ve always believed in testing the boundaries - after all, some photographers might still debate between buying a used Olympus E-500 for creative freedom or a dirt-cheap Lumix FH2 for point-and-shoot simplicity. So let’s dive in and see how these two cameras perform across different photography disciplines, and most importantly, what they actually enable you to do in the real world.

Eyeing the Cameras: Size and Ergonomics Up Front

Before snapping a single frame, the tactile experience of handling a camera can heavily influence your comfort and shooting style. Here, the Olympus E-500 dominates in terms of substance - with a solid 479g body featuring a traditional DSLR layout.

In contrast, the Panasonic FH2 is feather-light at 121g, pocket-friendly, and designed expressly for grab-and-go shooting. It’s a compact you wouldn’t hesitate to toss into your purse or jacket pocket for spontaneous moments.

That size difference isn’t trivial. The Olympus feels robust, with a grip designed for extended shooting, but it can quickly become cumbersome on long walks or street shoots. The FH2 is the embodiment of casual, walk-around convenience - but with smaller buttons and fewer direct controls that might frustrate a more hands-on shooter.

Control and Usability: Knobs, Buttons, and Menus Tell the Tale

Peek at the top plate and you’ll notice the Olympus enthusiast’s dream of dedicated dials and physical switches - giving immediate access to shutter priority, aperture priority, manual modes, and exposure compensation.

The Panasonic FH2, being a compact, leans heavily on menus and lacks any traditional exposure modes beyond what it offers automatically. Shutter and aperture priority? Nope. Manual exposure? Forget it.

For photographers who revel in manual control and precision, the E-500 offers a playground of options. Yet, the FH2’s simplicity isn’t inherently bad - it fits perfectly with photographers who prioritize point-and-shoot immediacy and don’t want to fuss over settings.

The Heart of the Camera: Sensor Size and Image Quality

The most glaring technical gap between these two cameras is, unsurprisingly, sensor technology.

The Olympus E-500 rocks a Four Thirds-sized CCD sensor measuring 17.3 x 13 mm, boasting 8 megapixels of resolution. Its sensor area of roughly 225 mm² is significantly larger than the Panasonic FH2’s tiny 1/2.3-inch CCD sensor, which clocks in at a scant 6.08 x 4.56 mm and packs 14 megapixels.

This difference translates to a stark variance in image quality potential:

• Dynamic Range: The larger Four Thirds sensor in the Olympus inherently captures a broader dynamic range, resulting in images with richer tonal gradations and better highlight/shadow retention - especially visible in landscape photography.

• Low Light Performance: The Olympus tops out at ISO 400 native (ISO 1600 boosted), whereas the Panasonic advertises a maximum ISO 6400. But before you get excited, the smaller sensor on the FH2 struggles with noise at high ISOs despite the number, delivering less usable low-light images compared to the E-500.

• Resolution and Detail: The Panasonic’s 14MP count can appear attractive on paper; however, large amounts of digital noise and lack of detail preservation limit its practical image quality, making the Olympus’s 8MP Far superior for prints and cropping.

Through extensive testing and pixel-level examination, I found that the E-500’s CCD sensor produces punchier images that stand up better under post-processing - especially important for portrait and landscape users craving image quality.

Peering through the Viewfinder and Screen: Framing Your Shot

When it comes to framing your photos, the Olympus E-500 offers an optical pentaprism viewfinder with approximately 95% coverage. Though not 100%, it’s typical of DSLRs from its vintage and provides a real-time, lag-free composition experience.

The Panasonic FH2 dispenses with a viewfinder altogether, relying exclusively on its rear LCD for framing.

The E-500’s 2.5-inch fixed screen, with a resolution of 215k dots, is serviceable but not dazzling by today’s standards. Meanwhile, the FH2 boasts a slightly larger 2.7-inch screen with slightly better resolution at 230k dots - a minor plus but, given the FH2’s general lack of manual controls, viewing information is understandably simplified.

For those shooting in bright sunlight or dynamic environments, I much prefer the Olympus’s optical viewfinder. It allows faster composition and less eye strain over extended use, which the Panasonic cannot replicate.

Autofocus and Shooting Speeds: Getting the Moment in Focus

Autofocus performance is critical depending on your subject. The Olympus E-500 employs a three-point phase-detection autofocus system, allowing for single, continuous, and multi-area AF modes.

The Panasonic FH2, on the other hand, uses contrast-detection AF with 11 focus points, featuring face detection and AF tracking, but lacking any phase-detection system.

With a burst shooting speed of 3 fps for the E-500 and 4 fps for the FH2, these cameras occupy slightly different speed niches as well.

In practical terms, the Olympus’s autofocus system delivers reliable, albeit basic, focus tracking for portraits and casual wildlife shots - though it lags noticeably behind modern DSLR AF systems in speed and sophistication. The Panasonic’s contrast AF works well in well-lit scenes but struggles under low light or with fast-moving subjects.

For sports and wildlife photographers demanding snappy, accurate autofocus, neither camera will satisfy enthusiast requirements today, but the Olympus’s phase detection holds a slight edge in predictability.

A Gallery of Real-World Images

Examining sample shots from both cameras reveals their character and technical strengths or weaknesses vividly.

Olympus E 500 screen back Panasonic FH2 front Panasonic FH2 screen back

• Olympus E-500 images display well-controlled noise, pleasing skin tones in portraits, and sufficient dynamic range for highlight and shadow preservation in landscapes.

• Panasonic FH2 photos lean towards being softer with signs of noise creeping in at even moderate ISOs. The compact’s lens also exhibits some distortion at wide angles but serves casual snapshots well.

Bridging Genres: Which Camera Excels Where?

Now let’s break down performance across key photographic disciplines.

Portrait Photography

Olympus’s larger sensor and superior color depth give it a clear advantage in capturing smooth skin tones and natural colors. The E-500 also benefits from selective AF with three focus points - though lacking face or eye detection, which can be a letdown compared to modern cameras.

The Panasonic FH2 offers face detection but lacks manual focus, limiting artistic depth-of-field control. Its smaller sensor means less natural background blur (bokeh), resulting in a more clinical look.

Winner: Olympus E-500

Landscape Photography

With better image quality, broader dynamic range, and manual controls for exposure bracketing or long exposures, the Olympus E-500 is a natural fit. Its weather sealing is absent, but many DSLRs of its vintage lack this feature.

The Panasonic’s compact size suits travel, but its small sensor struggles to capture landscapes without noise or limited detail.

Winner: Olympus E-500

Wildlife Photography

Neither camera is ideal for serious wildlife photographers - both lack fast burst speeds and advanced AF.

However, the Olympus’s 2.1x crop factor and manual focus compatibility with a wide range of lenses provide better telephoto adaptability.

Winner: Olympus E-500 (slight edge)

Sports Photography

Again, the FH2’s faster burst rate is tempting, but autofocus lag and lack of manual exposure modes are limiting. The E-500’s better manual control offers more creative options but not speed.

Neither camera shines here, but the Olympus’s phase detect AF supports basic action shots better.

Winner: Olympus E-500

Street Photography

Compact, discreet, and lightweight - this category is where the Panasonic FH2 shines, especially for casual shooters. Its fast start-up and automatic modes mean no missed moments.

The Olympus, bulky and louder with mirror slap, is less suited to clandestine shooting, though its better image quality is tempting.

Winner: Panasonic FH2

Macro Photography

The Olympus supports a wide variety of dedicated macro lenses thanks to its Micro Four Thirds mount, offering sharpness and focusing precision.

The Panasonic’s 5cm macro focus is convenient but limited.

Winner: Olympus E-500

Night and Astro Photography

The Olympus’s larger sensor and raw file support allow for better noise management and post-processing flexibility in astrophotography.

The Panasonic’s small sensor and high ISOs produce noisy images, and lack of raw support limits editing.

Winner: Olympus E-500

Video Capabilities

Neither camera excels. The Olympus E-500 has no video, while the Panasonic FH2 offers 720p video at 30fps in Motion JPEG format - functional but basic.

Winner: Panasonic FH2 for video

Travel Photography

The FH2’s light weight and pocketable form make it hard to beat for travel where convenience is king.

The Olympus is heavier and more deliberate, better when image quality takes priority over compactness.

Winner: Panasonic FH2

Professional Work

The Olympus E-500’s raw support, manual controls, and more extensive lens ecosystem make it marginally usable for demanding tasks in controlled conditions.

The Panasonic FH2 is strictly a consumer camera.

Winner: Olympus E-500

Build, Battery, and Connectivity

The Olympus boasts a sturdier body but lacks environmental sealing or robustness found in newer models. Battery life data is elusive but expect moderate stamina from DSLR batteries. Storage options include CompactFlash or xD cards - now rather outdated.

The Panasonic FH2 runs on a battery pack with rated 270 shots per charge and uses SD cards, more common and convenient. Neither camera offers wireless connectivity, HDMI, or advanced ports - unsurprising given their generations.

Glass Matters: Lens Ecosystem and Compatibility

The Olympus E-500's Micro Four Thirds lens mount (despite specification naming - E-500 uses Four Thirds mount, predating MFT) supports a broad range of lenses including primes, zooms, and specialty optics. This opens a creative playground for enthusiasts.

The Panasonic FH2 has a fixed lens offering a 28-112mm equivalent range, F3.1-6.5 aperture. Versatile for casual shooting, but no upgrade options.

Raw Power and Image Formats

Olympus E-500 supports raw files, invaluable for post-processing flexibility and professional workflows.

Panasonic FH2 shoots JPEG only, limiting editing latitude.

Price-to-Performance: What Does Your Wallet Say?

At launch, the E-500 commanded nearly $600, reflecting its DSLR build and lens compatibility.

The FH2 retailed around $150, positioned firmly in the budget compact realm.

Today, shoppers find used E-500 bodies at modest prices, but investing in lenses pushes total cost higher. The FH2 remains a low-cost option for those prioritizing simplicity.

Overall Ratings and Genre Scores

If we distill the performance into ratings, here’s a snapshot:

And here’s the breakdown by photography type:

Final Thoughts: Who Should Buy Which?

Buy the Olympus E-500 if:

• You prioritize image quality and manual control over convenience.
• You enjoy shooting portraits, landscapes, macro, or astrophotography.
• You want access to interchangeable lenses and raw files.
• You’re okay carrying a bulkier camera and investing in used lenses.
• You want a DSLR experience at a budget-conscious price.

Buy the Panasonic FH2 if:

• You want a truly portable, easy-to-use camera for casual shooting.
• Video capability is a plus and manual controls are unimportant.
• You value convenience and simple operation over image quality.
• You’re a novice or gift buyer on a tight budget.
• You enjoy shooting street photos spontaneously without fuss.

Summing Up: Personal Reflections After Hands-On Use

After comparing these cameras extensively - I’ve happily carried both in different scenarios - I find the Olympus E-500 still holds relevance for enthusiasts who treasure manual photography and decent image quality without breaking the bank. It offers a stepping stone into DSLR territory, with genuine creative potential.

The Panasonic FH2, meanwhile, is a classic entry-level compact designed for moments when the camera should disappear into your pocket and just get the job done. Its video capabilities and autofocus technologies of its era shine in casual captures but frustrate when you want more control.

Ultimately, these cameras stand as testimonials to how photography gear evolves - and how your choice depends squarely on your priorities. Whether you want DSLR grit or compact convenience, understanding their strengths and quirks ensures your next shot is one you won’t regret.

Did this comparison help you figure out where you stand between an Olympus E-500 and a Panasonic FH2? Or has it made you nostalgic for the good, old days of digital photography? I’d love to hear your thoughts and experiences!