Olympus E-600 vs. Olympus XZ-2 iHS: A Hands-On Comparison for Modern Photography Enthusiasts

When Olympus announced the E-600 back in 2009, it targeted entry-level DSLR users eager to explore photography beyond the point-and-shoot realm. Fast forward a few years, and the XZ-2 iHS joins the fray as a compact powerhouse with advanced features packed into a pocket-sized body. Both carry distinct design philosophies and technology tailored to different photography approaches. But which one serves you best in real-world shooting, and how do they stack up technically and practically?

Having tested thousands of cameras over my 15+ years of experience - pushing sensors, autofocus, and ergonomics in diverse scenarios - I’m here to parse out the nuances between these two Olympus gems. Let’s dive deep into sensor performance, handling, shooting disciplines, and more with the aim of helping you make a confident buying decision.

A First Look: Size, Design, and Handling Matter

Picking up both cameras side by side gives you an immediate tactile sense of their design intent.

The Olympus E-600 is a compact DSLR with a sturdy body measuring roughly 130×94×60 mm and weighing about 515 grams. It offers the familiar heft and grip of a camera meant to be handled deliberately - ideal if you like a more substantial feel in your hands with direct access to physical controls.

In contrast, the XZ-2 iHS tips the scales at a featherweight 346 grams and squeezes into a smaller footprint (113×65×48 mm). This camera is all about portability without sacrificing advanced features and manual control options - a favorite for street and travel photographers who prize discretion and mobility.

Both cameras support manual focus, but the E-600 boasts a Micro Four Thirds interchangeable lens mount, appealing to enthusiasts wanting flexibility to experiment with different optics. The XZ-2's fixed 28-112 mm f/1.8-2.5 zoom lens, meanwhile, provides a versatile focal range suitable for general photography without the hassle of swapping lenses.

Moving on to control layout, take a glance from the top to get a feel for button placement and accessibility.

The E-600’s control scheme caters to entry-level DSLR users: it sports dedicated dials for shutter speed and aperture along the top, a mode dial for quick scene selections, and a substantial shutter button placement that complements its overall ergonomics. Meanwhile, the XZ-2 condenses controls but incorporates a tilting 3-inch touchscreen (more on that shortly), offering a modern interface that fits the compact's slimmer body.

The Heart of the Camera: Sensor Technology and Image Quality

Image quality ultimately hinges on sensor size, resolution, and processing. Let’s place the two Olympus models side-by-side on their imaging cores.

The E-600 sports a Four Thirds sensor measuring 17.3×13 mm with a 12-megapixel resolution - notable for its large sensor area of approximately 225 mm². Larger sensors inherently gather more light per pixel, which translates to reduced noise, improved dynamic range, and better color depth. I’ve repeatedly found that Four Thirds DSLRs like this retain impressive detail and tonal richness, especially important in portrait and landscape work.

Conversely, the XZ-2 iHS employs a 1/1.7-inch sensor (7.44×5.58 mm) at roughly 12 megapixels as well, but with a significantly smaller sensor area of 41.5 mm². While smaller sensors struggle more in low light, the XZ-2 partially compensates with faster f/1.8-2.5 aperture lenses and advanced noise reduction algorithms in its processor. It also extends native ISO to 12800, surpassing the E-600’s maximum 3200 native ISO ceiling.

Measurement-wise, DXO Mark ratings reflect this trade-off: the E-600 scores a solid 55 in overall score and excels in low-light ISO performance, while the XZ-2 records a 49 score with higher dynamic range but compromised low-light strength. You’ll find the E-600 captures shadows more cleanly and delivers richer color depth - factors critical when printing large or undertaking serious post-processing. If pixel-peeping or cropping is your jam, the larger sensor size wins hands down here.

Interface: Crafting the Photographer’s Workflow

Body ergonomics are important, but so too is the interface for framing and reviewing your images. Here the cameras take different approaches.

The E-600 offers a modest 2.7-inch articulated HyperCrystal LCD with 230k dot resolution. Its fully articulating design offers flexibility for shooting at odd angles - which macro and street shooters will appreciate. However, the relatively low resolution means the playback and menu screens lack crispness by today’s standards.

The XZ-2’s screen immediately impresses: a 3-inch tilting display boasting a razor-sharp 920k dot resolution along with touchscreen controls. This makes menu navigation more intuitive and live view focusing precise - especially useful when manually focusing macro shots or fine-tuning exposure via touch. Its screen is also brighter and more responsive, which aides shooting in bright sunlight.

Neither camera features an electronic viewfinder natively, but the XZ-2 supports an optional external EVF accessory, whereas the E-600 relies on an optical pentamirror viewfinder with 95% frame coverage and 0.48x magnification. While I personally prefer optical viewfinders for their zero lag and natural rendering, the limited coverage and brightness of the E-600’s eyepiece falls short for critical framing compared to modern standards.

Let’s Talk Autofocus: Accuracy and Speed Under Pressure

Critical in real-world shooting scenarios, especially fast-moving subjects like wildlife and sports, autofocus (AF) performance can make or break your shooting success.

The E-600 provides 7 AF points using a hybrid contrast and phase-detection AF system - quite respectable for an entry-level DSLR. Its AF can switch seamlessly between single (AF-S) and continuous modes (AF-C), though it lacks advanced face or animal eye detection. In my testing, the E-600 delivered reliable focus tracking on moderately paced subjects at 4 fps burst shooting, yet struggled in low-light or fast action sports shoots.

The XZ-2 upgrades the AF coverage dramatically, offering 35 contrast-detection AF points with face and tracking capabilities. Although it lacks phase-detection AF, the camera’s speedy contrast-based autofocus in live view performs admirably for a compact, aided by the fast lens. However, continuous AF is not supported, limiting action shooting somewhat.

Bottom line? For wildlife or sports photographers who depend heavily on precision and speed, the E-600 remains preferable despite its lower point count. But for urban explorers enjoying street or travel photography, the XZ-2’s quick talk-to-focus, backed by tracking and face detection, shines brightly.

Exploring Genres: Which Camera Excels Where?

No camera is a jack-of-all-trades. Let’s break down how they match up across major photography disciplines.

Portrait Photography

Skin tone rendition and pleasing bokeh separate an average portrait from a stunning one. Thanks to its Four Thirds sensor and interchangeable lenses, the E-600 delivers natural skin tones with better color depth, smoother gradients, and the ability to use fast prime lenses for creamy out-of-focus backgrounds. Its 7 AF points coupled with face detection assist framing eyes attractively, although no eye AF limits reaching the latest DSLR standards.

The XZ-2, with a smaller sensor, yields less background separation despite its bright f/1.8 front lens. It’s a savvy choice for quick portraits on the move thanks to compactness, but expect slightly flatter color rendering and less nuanced bokeh.

Landscape Photography

Dynamic range and resolution are key here. The E-600’s Four Thirds sensor and decent 12 MP resolution capture wide tonal ranges and rich shadow detail, aided by 10.3 stops of dynamic range as per DXO Mark. Weather sealing or environmental protection is missing, so caution is advised shooting in adverse conditions.

The XZ-2 offers a higher dynamic range rating (11.3 stops), which sounds promising. However, its smaller sensor yields noisier images at low ISO. Thanks to its portable size and focal flexibility, it can still produce share-worthy landscapes, especially when stopped down for depth of field.

Wildlife and Sports Photography

Speed is everything. The E-600 beats the XZ-2 in burst shooting (4 fps vs. unlisted but slower in the XZ-2), autofocus tracking, and telephoto lens compatibility (thanks to Micro Four Thirds mount with a 2.1x crop factor). Its solid low light capability and metadata-rich RAW files make it a better fit for professionals or serious hobbyists chasing action.

The XZ-2’s autofocus lags behind for sports and wildlife owing to the lack of continuous AF and slower burst capacities, making it more a casual shooter’s tool for these genres.

Street and Travel Photography

Here, the XZ-2 pulls ahead thanks to its compactness, quieter operation, and touchscreen interface. Quick startup and portability synergize with a versatile zoom lens that covers wide-angle to short telephoto, supporting diverse urban and travel shots. Battery life is slightly shorter (340 shots vs. 500), but the smaller weight compensates.

The E-600, while bulkier, is also manageable for travel, especially if you value lens swaps for adapting to varied scenarios.

Macro Photography

The XZ-2’s impressive minimum focusing distance of just 1 cm gives it a clear edge for macro shooters. Its sensor-shift image stabilization further improves handheld close-up sharpness. The E-600 lacks built-in stabilization and depends on lens IS, which narrows lens options significantly.

Night and Astro Photography

The E-600’s better noise performance at high ISO and manual exposure modes make it the go-to option for astro shooters. The native max ISO of 3200 and sensor quality unlock detailed low-light captures. The XZ-2, despite offering ISO 12800, suffers from significant noise due to sensor size, limiting astrophotography unless noise is mitigated in post.

Video Capabilities

Here the gap is clear: the E-600 lacks video recording entirely - an expected limitation for its era. The XZ-2 records full HD 1080p at 30fps, with MPEG-4/H.264 compression, microphone input, and HDMI output - useful for vloggers or casual filmmakers. Its sensor-shift IS helps smooth handheld footage, making it the better choice if video is relevant.

Professional Workflows and Reliability

For pros, the E-600 offers the value of native RAW support, solid build quality, and expandable lens systems crucial for adapting to assignments from studio portraits to events. Storage options include Compact Flash and xD cards, both reliable but increasingly obsolete formats.

The XZ-2 uses SD cards, more convenient but less favored by pros needing speedy write times. Wireless connectivity is minimal on both - the XZ-2 supports Eye-Fi for Wi-Fi card functionality; the E-600 has none. Neither offers weather sealing, limiting rugged outdoor use.

Build Quality, Weather Resistance, and Battery Life

Despite their entry-level and compact class designations, the E-600 and XZ-2 have robust builds but no effective environmental sealing. Neither camera is dust- or waterproof, so plan accordingly for demanding conditions.

Battery life favors the DSLR concept, with the E-600 rated for ~500 shots - solid for prolonged shooting days. The XZ-2’s 340 shots reflect typical compact battery constraints but remains ample for daily street or travel shooting with spares.

Lens Ecosystem and Expandability

The E-600 taps directly into the Micro Four Thirds ecosystem, boasting around 45 compatible lenses ranging from ultra-wide primes to super-telephoto zooms. This versatility is a decisive factor if you plan on growing your system and experimenting with genres.

The XZ-2’s fixed lens is sharp and bright but limits focal length flexibility. However, it covers a practical 28–112 mm equivalent range, which is quite usable for everyday photography.

Connectivity and Storage - Are They Future-Ready?

The E-600 sticks to USB 2.0 and lacks wireless features, while the XZ-2 offers an Eye-Fi Wi-Fi compatible slot alongside HDMI. For photographers who need instant sharing or tethering, the XZ-2’s connectivity shines, although still dated by current standards.

Storage types differ: Compact Flash/xD (E-600) versus SD/SDHC/SDXC (XZ-2). SD is now standard and easier to source, another plus for the latter.

Price-to-Performance: Is the Value Right?

The E-600 is no longer available new but can be found secondhand at budget-friendly prices, making it an attractive DSLR entry with solid image quality. The XZ-2’s retail price hovers near $450, offering respectable features for a compact enthusiast camera.

If absolute image quality and lens flexibility top your list, the E-600’s value is undeniable. But if you prioritize portability, modern features like HD video, and touchscreen control, the XZ-2 represents a compelling, well-rounded package.

Wrapping It Up: Which Olympus Should You Choose?

The ultimate verdict hinges on your photography style and priorities. Let me summarize the highlights with some visual aid to help you decide.

Olympus E 600 screen back Olympus XZ 2 iHS front Olympus XZ 2 iHS screen back

In portrait, landscape, wildlife, and sports disciplines requiring versatility and image fidelity, the Olympus E-600 shines: larger sensor, interchangeable optics, superior low-light qualities, and a robust autofocus system. Its entry-level DSLR status means it’s a little bulkier but better equipped for pro and enthusiast workflows.

Where the Olympus XZ-2 iHS wins is in convenient, on-the-go portability with an excellent lens for general photography, a standout tilting touchscreen, full HD video recording, and user-friendly controls. Its slightly smaller and less refined sensor places it behind the E-600 in pure image quality but ahead in compactness and multimedia features.

For photographers leaning towards a balanced all-round camera for casual to enthusiast use with an emphasis on travel or street photography, the XZ-2 measures up well. But if you want to dive deeper into serious photography, swapping lenses, or shooting demanding subjects under varied lighting, the E-600 is my pick.

Additional Thoughts Before You Buy

I encourage you to try holding each camera and consider you’re prioritizing: Do you want a system that can grow, or a sleek compact with all-in-one convenience? My experience teaches that handling and interface often are deal-breakers when shooting for hours. The E-600’s articulated screen and viewfinder comfort reward patience, while the XZ-2’s touchscreen encourages creativity on the fly.

Also, consider your post-processing workflow: both cameras shoot RAW, but the E-600’s output is more robust for advanced editing. Video fans will easily choose the XZ-2, which finally brings Olympus compacts into the Full HD era with practical features.

One curious note: neither camera supports modern wireless standards like Bluetooth or NFC, nor do they have GPS. In today’s connected world, this limits convenience but not image quality.

Olympus packed two distinctly different cameras into the market with the E-600 and the XZ-2 iHS - each excelling in different corners of the photography spectrum. Armed with this review, I hope you feel empowered to choose confidently.

Happy shooting!