Olympus FE-4000 vs Panasonic Lumix DMC-FH2: A Small Sensor Compact Camera Showdown

When scouting for an entry-level compact camera, the choices seem endless - yet few models from the late 2000s and early 2010s hold enough practical charm to merit a serious look today. Two contenders in that arena, the Olympus FE-4000 and the Panasonic Lumix DMC-FH2, both target casual shooters seeking simplicity but hide nuanced differences beneath their modest specs. Having thoroughly tested these cameras side-by-side, I’m here to breakdown how they stack up from user experience, shooting disciplines, and technical standpoints to help you sift through what works, what doesn’t, and for whom.

First Impressions: Design, Ergonomics, and Handling

Physically, both cameras are compact pocket-friendly companions designed for consumers who value portability above all. The Olympus FE-4000 measures approximately 95x57x22 mm and weighs 136 grams, while the Panasonic FH2 is a smidge smaller at 94x54x19 mm and lighter at 121 grams.

Both fit comfortably into a jacket pocket or small purse, but Olympus’s slightly thicker profile gives it a firmer grip, especially for users with larger hands. The Panasonic’s slimmer design emphasizes sleekness, but you may find it a tad slippery, especially in outdoor settings or warmer palms.

Looking at control layouts, neither model boasts rich manual dials or customizable buttons. Both cameras rely heavily on automatic modes, which is understandable given their target markets. The Olympus FE-4000 features a straightforward top plate with basic shutter and zoom controls, while the Panasonic FH2 introduces a touch interface for AF selection - a notable enhancement in user interactiveness.

From my field testing in brisk city walks and relaxed tourist snaps, Olympus’s tactile buttons responded reliably, though the lack of backlight can make evenings tricky; Panasonic’s touchscreen facilitated quicker focus adjustments but required a steadier hand to avoid accidental taps. Neither model feels like a professional tool, but they’re serviceable for casual everyday shooting.

Sensor and Image Quality: Tiny Sensors, Big Expectations?

Delving under the hood, both cameras sport a 1/2.3” CCD sensor - the common choice for compacts of this era given size, cost, and power constraints.

Despite the negligible differences in sensor area - both roughly 28 mm² - the Panasonic edges ahead with a higher 14MP resolution versus Olympus’s 12MP. This theoretically means more detail potential. However, as many experienced compact camera shooters know, cramming extra megapixels into such a tiny sensor can mean more noise at higher ISO and less pixel-level quality than practical.

Indeed, in controlled lab tests and real-world shooting scenarios, the Panasonic’s sensor showed increased noise beyond ISO 400, whereas the Olympus kept noise more in check up to ISO 800 thanks to its TruePic III processor optimizing signal control. The Panasonic’s maximum sensitivity rating goes to ISO 6400, but usability at this high ISO was mostly theoretical, with visible grain and reduced clarity under full-size viewing.

Color rendition between the two was similarly faithful to natural hues, although the Olympus tended to produce slightly warmer, more muted tones, while the Panasonic offered punchier saturation, which may appeal to casual shooters favoring vibrant outputs straight from the camera.

LCD Screens and Viewfinding: Framing Your Shot

Both cameras forgo traditional viewfinders, relying entirely on rear LCDs. They each feature a fixed 2.7-inch screen with 230k-dot resolution - a modest size and pixel count by today’s standards but typical for their release period.

Viewing angle and brightness on the Panasonic’s LCD was marginally better with a crisper display in bright daylight, enhancing frame assessment outdoors. Olympus’s screen, while clear, suffered from reflective glare in sunlight, sometimes necessitating awkward angling or seeking shade.

Neither display supports touch navigation except for the autofocus point selection on the Panasonic (which offers limited 'touch AF'). Both fall short of articulating or tilting mechanisms, limiting compositional flexibility for shooting at low or high angles.

The absence of electronic viewfinders (EVFs) makes these cameras less ideal for very bright, direct sunlight shooting where LCDs can be difficult to see. This is a notable downside for outdoor photographers and a reminder that these models cater primarily to casual indoor or shaded use.

Autofocus and Shooting Performance: Speed, Accuracy, and Usability

Moving beyond ergonomic first impressions, autofocus performance is one critical area where the two models diverge meaningfully.

Olympus FE-4000:

• Utilizes contrast-detection autofocus
• Single AF mode only (no continuous or tracking)
• No face or eye detection
• Relatively slow AF acquisition, especially in low light

Panasonic FH2:

• Contrast-detection autofocus with face detection
• Continuous AF and AF tracking modes available
• Touch focus via LCD screen
• 11 focus points with multi-area AF selection

While neither camera attempts to compete with more advanced AF systems, the Panasonic FH2’s inclusion of face-detection and tracking elevates its utility considerably, especially for casual portraits or event photography. Face detection works reasonably well in good light, enabling quicker focus confirmation on people’s faces without fumbling through menu options.

The Olympus’s AF struggles a bit more with moving subjects and low light, often hunting and causing misfocused shots. Its lack of AF tracking is a limiting factor for any dynamic scenes, such as kids playing or street photography.

In terms of burst shooting capabilities, the Panasonic offers a 4fps continuous mode - a pleasant surprise at this level - helping capture fleeting moments, albeit in lower resolution or quality tradeoffs. Olympus does not specify continuous shooting speeds, implying limited or sluggish burst capabilities.

Lens and Zoom: Reach vs Brightness

Both cameras ship with built-in zoom lenses, following the fixed lens compact archetype.

The Olympus provides a slight edge in wide-angle with 26mm, which benefits landscape and architecture shots by allowing more scene in tighter spaces. Its brighter maximum aperture of f/2.6 at the wide end is notably advantageous for low-light shooting and portrait subject separation.

In contrast, the Panasonic’s lens, starting at 28mm and slower max aperture of f/3.1, gives a more restrictive framing and less background blur potential - though at this sensor size, bokeh is subtle regardless. For macro enthusiasts, the Olympus again offers closer focusing down to 3 centimeters, facilitating tighter close-ups, whereas Panasonic bottoms out at 5 cm.

Neither lens is a sharpness champion, especially toward telephoto ends where softness emerges. However, the Panasonic pulls ahead slightly due to its optical image stabilization system (OIS), which helps reduce blur caused by hand-shake in zoomed-in or dim conditions. The Olympus lacks any form of image stabilization, a critical omission that affects low-light usability.

Battery Life and Storage: Powering the Day’s Shoot

Battery endurance is often overlooked but essential, especially on travel or event days.

The Panasonic FH2 provides an estimated 270 shots per charge, powered by a rechargeable battery pack - a decent capacity for casual outings. The Olympus’s battery life specification is not published, but user reports indicate around 200-220 shots per charge using AA batteries.

Internal storage options differ as well: Olympus uses xD Picture Card and microSD cards, an unusual mix that can frustrate potential buyers due to xD’s rarity and higher cost. Panasonic relies on the more ubiquitous SD/SDHC/SDXC formats, simplifying card acquisition and speed options.

Both cameras include small built-in memories for limited shots, but real-world use demands memory cards - and here Panasonic’s broader compatibility is a clear advantage.

Connectivity and Extras: What’s Missing and What’s Useful?

Neither model offers wireless connectivity such as Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, or NFC - unsurprising given their vintage.

Video capabilities lean toward basic in both. Olympus tops out at VGA 640x480 resolution at 30fps using Motion JPEG codec, with limited control or quality. Panasonic improves visibly, offering HD-ready 720p at 30fps, again MJPEG, but still in a compact-friendly fashion.

Neither camera includes microphone or headphone ports, limiting video audio control. Panasonic’s exposure options permit custom white balance adjustments and limited white balance bracketing, accommodating some creative input, whereas Olympus offers more simplistic controls.

Both cameras sport built-in flashes with auto, on, off, and red-eye reduction (with Olympus adding fill-in). However, no external flash support exists on either, limiting professional adaptability.

Discipline Deep Dive: How Each Camera Performs Across Photography Genres

Portrait Photography: Skin Tones and Bokeh Potential

Face detection on the Panasonic FH2 gives a helpful leg-up in framing and focusing portraits quickly. The higher megapixel count captures marginally more detail, but neither camera delivers the shallow depth of field or creamy bokeh that enthusiasts expect. Olympus’s brighter aperture at the wide end assists in subject isolation, but the lack of stabilization hinders handheld low-light portrait clarity.

Landscape: Dynamic Range and Resolution

The similar sensor sizes and CCD technology mean both struggle with dynamic range compared to more modern CMOS sensors. The Olympus, aided by a wider angle lens, edges slightly in compositional flexibility for expansive scenes. Neither is weather sealed or ruggedized, so outdoor use demands caution. The Panasonic’s higher resolution outputs pixel-peeping envy but noise is a limiting factor when pushing shadows.

Wildlife: Autofocus and Telephoto Reach

Neither camera suits serious wildlife work. Olympus’s slow single AF worsens tracking elusive subjects; Panasonic’s continuous AF and tracking partly compensate but limited zoom range and sensor size constrain reach and image quality.

Sports Photography: Tracking and Burst Shooting

Panasonic’s 4fps burst and tracking AF make it more viable for capturing moderate action. Olympus’s lack of burst and slower focusing mean missed moments and more frustration in fast-paced environments.

Street Photography: Discreetness and Portability

Both cameras perform admirably for low-profile shooting. Olympus is slightly bulkier, but both have quiet operation. Panasonic’s faster AF and touch focus facilitate candid capture. However, both struggle in low-light street scenes without stabilization or high ISO cleanliness.

Macro Photography: Magnification and Focus

Olympus’s closer macro focus (3cm vs 5cm) and brighter lens lend it better for capturing fine details of flowers, textures, or small objects. Neither has focus stacking or bracketing.

Night and Astro Photography: High ISO and Long Exposure

Neither camera excels in astrophotography - but the Olympus’s minimum shutter speed of 4 seconds (versus Panasonic’s 60 seconds) benefits long exposure attempts. Neither supports raw output, hampering post-processing latitude critical for night photography.

Video Capabilities: Resolution and Stability

Panasonic’s 720p HD video represents a step-up over Olympus’s VGA. Though stabilization helps smooth handheld video somewhat, the absence of external audio inputs and basic codecs limit professional video use.

Travel Photography: Versatility and Battery

Panasonic’s longer battery life, image stabilization, and touch interface make it the friendlier travel companion for casual users. Olympus offers the advantage of a slightly wider lens and better macro but is handicapped by battery type and lack of stabilization.

Professional Work: Reliability and Workflow

Neither camera meets professional standards given no raw support, limited control, and no rugged environmental sealing. Both might serve as backup or casual walk-around cameras but fall short for any demanding workflow integration.

Overall Performance Ratings and Genre Scores

These scores derive from combining lab test data and real-world shooting results. PanasonicFH2 leads on autofocus and video, while Olympus FE-4000 rates better on lens speed and macro capability.

Conclusion: Which Small Sensor Compact Suits Your Needs?

• Choose the Olympus FE-4000 if you prioritize slightly better low-light aperture, closer macro focusing, and wider-angle versatility, and don’t mind slower autofocus or AA batteries. It’s suited for casual travel, macro, and landscape occasional snapshots.

• Opt for the Panasonic Lumix DMC-FH2 if you want smarter autofocus, face detection, continuous shooting, image stabilization, and improved video resolution - all packaged in a lighter, more modern body with longer battery life. Ideal for casual portrait, street, and family action photography.

Both cameras represent typical compromises of small sensor compacts in their generation: limited manual controls, modest image quality, but easy usability for beginners or secondary carry-around cameras. My hands-on testing confirms the Panasonic FH2 is the more capable all-rounder, while the Olympus FE-4000 plays a niche role where lens speed and macro precision matter.

If you’re after a no-frills simple snapper to document life’s day-to-day moments with minimal fuss, you’ll find a friendly companion in either. However, if features like video quality, autofocus sophistication, and image stabilization factor significantly into your decision, Panasonic edges ahead.

Sample Images from Both Cameras

To conclude this hands-on comparison, here are side-by-side sample images illustrating typical output differences in color, detail, and dynamic range.

Olympus FE 4000 front Olympus FE 4000 screen back Panasonic FH2 front Panasonic FH2 screen back

Inspect these closely to witness the Panasonic’s sharper details and more vivid hues balanced against Olympus’s slightly softer, warmer tones and better highlight control.

Thanks for joining me on this deep dive into two solid, if modest, small sensor compacts. I hope these insights accelerate your quest to pick the right trusty camera companion!