Olympus E-520 vs Panasonic Lumix DMC-FH2: A Detailed Comparison From Sensor to Street

Choosing between the Olympus E-520 DSLR and the Panasonic Lumix DMC-FH2 compact camera can feel like bridging two very different worlds. Having spent countless hours hands-on with DSLRs and compacts alike over the last 15 years, I'll walk you through how these cameras compare across various photographic disciplines and technical attributes. From sensor performance to ergonomics, and real-world use in portraits, landscapes, wildlife, and even video, this thorough breakdown will help you pick the tool best suited to your creative ambitions and budget.

Getting a Feel: Size and Handling in Practice

When we start, the physical form factor sets the stage for everything else.

The Olympus E-520, launched back in 2008, embodies the classic entry-level DSLR profile, chunky but manageable, weighing approximately 552g with dimensions around 136x92x68mm. It fits comfortably in the hand thanks to a modest grip and well-placed dials, making the control layout easy to navigate even for beginners stepping into manual shooting.

Conversely, the Panasonic FH2 is a pocketable marvel, tipping the scales at a mere 121g and measuring just 94x54x19mm. This diminutive size means it slips into any jacket or pants pocket unnoticed, perfect for street photographers and travelers who prioritize discretion and portability. However, the tradeoff here is less robust ergonomics - the smaller chassis can feel cramped during extended handheld sessions or when navigating complex menus.

Neither camera offers rugged weather sealing, so for outdoor pursuits involving moisture or dust, additional protective measures are wise.

Control and Interface: Top-down and Behind the Scenes

Handling is one thing; smooth interaction often makes or breaks user experience during fast-paced shoots.

Looking from above, the Olympus E-520 showcases a well-configured DSLR layout with a mode dial featuring PASM modes, shutter and exposure compensation dials, and an exposure meter. This allows photographers to make real-time exposure adjustments on the fly with tactile confidence - a feature many enthusiasts appreciate compared to menu diving.

The Panasonic FH2, by contrast, trades physical controls for simplified operation. Its fixed lens and compact body mean the controls are reduced to a mode dial mainly for scene selections and a four-way pad for settings. Manual exposure modes are absent, which limits creative control but streamlines shooting for users who prefer full-auto or scene presets.

The rear LCDs on both cameras are identically sized at 2.7 inches with 230k dots resolution - adequate but modest by today's standards.

The Olympus, however, offers a fixed type screen without touchscreen capabilities, while the Panasonic includes a touch-enabled focus point selector, facilitating faster AF point selection when composing shots. Both have live view modes, though Olympus DSLRs generally excel in this area with clearer feedback and faster refresh rates.

Inside the Frame: Sensor Technology and Image Quality

Arguably the most critical piece of any camera is its sensor. The imaging sensor is where resolution, low-light performance, and dynamic range come to life.

The Olympus E-520 features a Four Thirds sensor measuring 17.3x13mm, a substantial leap over smaller compact sensors. It sports a 10-megapixel resolution with a native ISO span of 100-1600, supporting RAW capture - a significant advantage for photographers who demand post-processing flexibility. Its sensor exhibits an anti-aliasing filter to reduce moiré, a standard design choice for DSLRs of its era.

The Panasonic FH2 uses a much smaller 1/2.3-inch CCD sensor (6.08x4.56mm), which inherently limits light-gathering ability and, consequently, image quality, especially in low-light conditions. While boasting a higher 14-megapixel count, the physical pixel size is tinier, contributing to increased noise at higher ISOs. Moreover, the FH2 lacks RAW support, recording only JPEG formats, limiting dynamic range recovery potential.

The practical implication of this is clear: in controlled lighting, both cameras deliver competent images, but when pushing ISOs beyond 400 or engaging in shadows and highlights, the E-520 maintains image integrity far better. This is reflected in independent DXO Marking scores - the E-520 earns a solid 55 overall with impressive color depth (21.4 bits) and dynamic range (10.4 EV), whereas the FH2 remains untested by DXO but is known to fall short in these areas given its sensor class.

Autofocus Capabilities: Responsiveness in Action

Autofocus (AF) determines who captures which fleeting moment, especially crucial for wildlife and sports shooters.

The Olympus E-520 uses a hybrid AF system combining phase-detection and contrast-detection, with 3 AF points supporting multi-area and face detection modes. It features continuous AF for tracking moving subjects, though not particularly aggressive by modern standards. The E-520's AF system shines when paired with Olympus’s native lenses, providing reliable focus acquisition in daylight and moderate low-light conditions.

The Panasonic FH2 features contrast-detection AF only, with 11 focus points and face detection. Its lack of phase detection means AF can be slower and prone to hunting, especially in lower lighting or with moving subjects. Moreover, it offers no manual focus override, restricting fine-tuning opportunities.

Despite the compact’s compromises, it surprised me with decent AF accuracy in still-life and street environments, though tracking fast action was not really feasible.

Burst Shooting and Shutter Performance

For action and wildlife photography, burst rate and shutter responsiveness are pivotal.

• Olympus E-520 shoots up to 4 frames per second (fps), respectable for an entry-level DSLR of its time. Shutter speeds range from 60s to 1/4000s, accommodating long exposures and fast freezing of motion.
• Panasonic FH2 matches 4 fps burst but caps shutter speed at 1/1600s, limiting its ability to stop very fast motion. In practice, its burst shooting felt slightly lagged, partly due to slower buffer clearing and limited AF tracking.

Lens Ecosystem: The Breadth of Optical Choices

Nothing illustrates the divide between DSLR and compact systems like the lens mount and available glass.

Olympus’s Micro Four Thirds mount presents a vibrant ecosystem - over 45 lenses ranging from ultra-wides to telephotos, primes to high-zoom zooms. This level of versatility empowers photographers across genres: macro, wildlife telephoto, fast portraits, even specialty lenses like tilt-shift or fisheye.

The Panasonic FH2, with its fixed focal length zoom of 28-112mm equivalent (4x zoom) and aperture range of f/3.1-6.5, limits your framing options to a modest walk-around range. While the lens excels at general snapshots and casual portraits, its slower aperture and lack of interchangeable optics restricts creative potential.

Portrait Photography: Rendering Skin and Eyes

Turning toward portraits, the E-520’s larger sensor size yields more natural depth of field control and better bokeh smoothness, crucial for isolating subjects from backgrounds. The camera’s eye detection AF added in live view mode - though rudimentary - helps keep focus locked on faces.

The FH2’s smaller sensor and slower lens aperture both contribute to a deeper depth of field, keeping more of the scene in focus but limiting artistic subject separation. Face detection AF is competent, but the camera lacks any eye-tracking features. Skin tone rendition in good light is acceptable but can appear flatter due to limited sensor dynamic range.

Landscape Photography: Dynamic Range and Resolution

Landscape photographers prize resolution and great dynamic range to capture shadow detail and highlight nuance.

The E-520’s 10MP sensor might not sound large by modern standards but provides enough resolution for modest print sizes and cropping. Its excellent dynamic range (10.4 EV) means better preservation of sunrise and sunset scenes, as well as foliage detail in shadows. Weather sealing isn’t present, so caution in harsh elements is necessary.

The FH2’s smaller sensor and JPEG-only pipeline limit its landscape prowess. While it captures sufficient detail in bright, evenly lit conditions, shadows often render muddy and highlights can clip easily, resulting in fewer recoverable stops.

Wildlife and Sports: Autofocus and Speed in the Field

Wildlife and sports photographers rely heavily on rapid AF and reliable burst rates.

The Olympus E-520’s 4 fps is serviceable for moderate action, augmented by 3 cross-type points aiding focus accuracy. It copes best under daylight or open shade, but tracking erratic movement is a stretch.

The FH2 falls short here - slow contrast-detection AF and limited shutter speed curtail its use in fast-action settings. At best, it fares as a casual wildlife camera where patience compensates for gear.

Street Photography: Discretion and Speed

Street photography demands a nimble, unobtrusive tool.

Panasonic’s FH2 shines in this domain due to slim profile and light weight. Its silent operation, along with touch AF, makes it a stealthy companion for candid moments. The fixed zoom lens covers versatile focal lengths, from moderate wide-angle to moderate telephoto, ideal for diverse street scenes.

Olympus E-520, though manageable, is a more conspicuous beast with audible mirror slap and more deliberate handling required - ideal when presence isn’t a concern.

Macro Capabilities: Close Focusing and Detail

For those chasing tiny subjects, focusing precision and magnification matter.

The FH2 offers a close macro focus as near as 5cm, yielding respectable detail for a compact at short distances, though image quality softens at minimum focus range.

The E-520, paired with Olympus’s dedicated macro lenses, unlocks superior close-up capabilities. Sensor-based image stabilization aids handheld shooting, and manual focus override lets you fine-tune focus critical at high magnifications.

Night and Astro Photography: ISO and Exposure Modes

Night shooters demand high ISO usability and robust exposure options.

The E-520’s native ISO ceiling of 1600 might seem modest, but its sensor noise at this max ISO is well controlled. Slow shutter speeds down to 60 seconds enable star trails and long exposures. The availability of shutter and aperture priority modes plus manual exposure unlocks creative freedom.

The FH2 pushes ISO up to 6400 but with the usual compact sensor noise penalty; practical low-light shooting is typically limited to ISO 400 or 800. It does not offer manual exposure modes, constraining night photography potential.

Video Capabilities: Recording Quality and Usability

With video increasingly key, it’s notable the E-520 offers no video recording at all - a limitation of its era and design.

The Panasonic FH2 captures HD video at 1280x720p at 30fps in Motion JPEG format, delivering decent casual clips. Optical image stabilization aids handheld recording, though lack of microphone input prevents improved audio capture. This makes FH2 better suited to multiplurpose users wanting stills and quick video.

Travel and Everyday Carry: Battery Life and Storage

Battery longevity and storage media underpin reliability on the go.

The Olympus DSLR runs on proprietary rechargeable battery packs lasting up to 650 shots per charge, impressive for a DSLR. It uses CompactFlash and xD Picture Cards, though CF cards are less common now.

Panasonic’s compact is powered by a smaller pack with around 270 shots per charge, relying on the more current SD card storage format. Weighing less than a quarter of the E-520, it is an outstanding travel companion when packing light matters most.

Professional Workflow Integration: File Format and Reliability

Professionals seek workflow-friendly cameras offering RAW capture and consistent reliability.

The Olympus E-520’s RAW support (12-bit) and respectable dynamic range enable detailed post-processing flexibility. Its sturdy DSLR build, comprehensive PASM modes, and external flash support integrate well into studio or location shoots.

The Panasonic FH2’s JPEG-only output limits professional retouching potential, and its entry-level compact design provides no serious weather sealing or robustness required for high-demand professional use.

Summarizing Performance Across Disciplines

Let’s take a look at overall performance ratings and genre-specific scores to ground our evaluation.

While the Olympus E-520 scores solidly across categories such as landscape, portrait, and macro, especially excelling in image quality and workflow adaptability, the Panasonic FH2 performs modestly, showing strength in street photography and casual travel use.

Sample Image Gallery: Seeing Is Believing

To round this out, seeing sample images side by side reveals sensory and color processing differences.

Olympus E 520 front Olympus E 520 screen back Panasonic FH2 front Panasonic FH2 screen back

Notice how Olympus delivers richer color depth and controlled highlights, while Panasonic’s images sometimes look flatter, though still pleasing given its sensor class.

Final Verdict: Who Should Buy Which?

If image quality, creative control, and growth potential matter most: The Olympus E-520 DSLR remains a compelling choice, especially for enthusiasts seeking an affordable entry into interchangeable-lens photography with solid manual controls and RAW capabilities. It’s trustworthy for portraits, landscapes, macro, and moderate action.

If portability, ease of use, and casual photography/top-notch street discretion rank higher: The Panasonic FH2 is a charming compact for everyday snapshots and travel, excelling in ease and stealth but sacrificing advanced controls and image quality.

Closing Thoughts From the Testing Bench

My personal tests with both cameras confirm that despite their age, each holds value in its domain. The DSLR E-520 is no speed demon by modern standards, but its imaging foundation and control layout offer a gratifying learning curve and creative outlet.

Panasonic’s FH2 may feel limited in enthusiast eyes but remains a pocketable powerhouse for casual users prioritizing simplicity and portability.

Whichever path you choose, your camera should fit your photographic intentions and lifestyle. These two represent divergent answers to that question - and having assessed their strengths and compromises firsthand, I hope this comparison aids you in making your own informed decision.

Thanks for reading this in-depth look - happy shooting out there!