Olympus FE-5010 vs Panasonic Lumix DMC-FP3: A Sharp-Eyed Look at Two Compact Cameras from the Early 2010s

Small sensor compacts may feel like dinosaurs in today’s mirrorless and smartphone-dominated world, but these affordable, pocketable cameras were serious contenders in their day. Today, we're diving into a head-to-head comparison of two such models that typify the era: the Olympus FE-5010 and the Panasonic Lumix DMC-FP3. Both packed modest specs at approachable price points, targeting casual shooters wanting straightforward operation without breaking the bank.

Having spent countless hours handling, testing, and sometimes struggling with entry-level compacts, I bring you a seasoned perspective on what these cameras really offer, which use cases they suit, and - importantly - what their quirks are. Let’s explore how these cameras stack up for photography enthusiasts weighing portability, image quality, and usable features.

A Quick Glance: Design and Ergonomics Face-Off

Physically, both cameras clearly stake claim in the compact category, but subtle differences in size, weight, and grip hint at their user-friendliness. The Olympus FE-5010 is a slender little fellow at 96x57x21 mm and just 130 grams on the scale - ideal if you want to tuck it away discreetly without even noticing it’s there.

Panasonic’s FP3, meanwhile, stretches slightly bigger and heavier - 99x59x19 mm and tipping the scales at 155 grams. The FP3 sports a more uniform ultracompact block design with a thinner profile, which some users might prefer for slipping into coat pockets or purses.

Ergonomically, we’re dealing with basic compact camera setups here: no deep grips or advanced controls, but the Panasonic edges ahead thanks to its more recent design language and slightly larger 3-inch display (versus Olympus’s 2.7-inch screen).

The small difference in thickness (21mm vs 19mm) might seem trivial until you try squeezing one into a tight jacket pocket after a long hike. The Olympus, though a bit chunkier, sits solidly in the hand thanks to its rounded edges and lightweight body. Panasonic’s streamlined design feels more delicate but goes well with more minimalist user preferences.

Both lacked electronic viewfinders - standard fare for cameras focused on casual shooters who prefer framing with the LCD. Neither has fancy illuminated buttons or weather sealing, with Olympus amusingly mentioning some form of “environmental sealing,” though not explicitly waterproof, dustproof, or shockproof.

Displays and Controls: Viewing Your Shots and Navigating Menus

Switching focus to the LCD screens reveals one of the FP3’s first notable advantages. The Panasonic sports a 3.0-inch touchscreen with 230K dot resolution, while Olympus wrestles with a fixed 2.7-inch non-touch screen with the same resolution. In practice, that touchscreen responsiveness makes navigating menus and focusing a touch less tedious on the FP3 - especially when attempting manual focus tweaks or selecting autofocus areas.

Interestingly, the Olympus offers no touchscreen at all, which can feel positively archaic when jumping between these and newer models. Since neither camera features an electronic viewfinder, the rear LCD is your only window, and Panasonic’s larger screen helps offset that functional limitation.

Control layouts remain simplistic. Neither camera provides manual exposure modes, aperture/shutter priority, or any extensive customization - clearly these were aimed at point-and-shoot enthusiasts, not manual wizards. The FP3’s interface feels marginally more intuitive, thanks to touchscreen support, slightly more ergonomic rear button placements, and the ability to select among different autofocus areas (though no eye detection or face detection is available).

If you ask me, the FP3’s UI simply flows better under quick shooting conditions, even if both cameras require patience while waiting on autofocus and shutter lag.

Behind the Glass: Lens and Sensor Comparisons

Both offerings feature fixed lenses with roughly similar focal ranges, but the devil’s in the details, of course. The Olympus FE-5010’s 36-180 mm equivalent zoom range (a 5x optical zoom) covers from a moderate wide-angle to a decent telephoto reach. Its aperture of f/3.5-5.6 sits comfortably in entry-level territory - not especially bright, but typical.

The Panasonic FP3 moves a step closer to “standard compact” with a slightly shorter zoom range - 35-140mm equivalent (4x zoom) - and a marginally slower maximum aperture of f/3.5-5.9. The Olympus leads slightly in telephoto reach, which could be handy for casual wildlife or event photography where cropping latitude is limited.

Both cameras employ the now-ubiquitous 1/2.3" CCD sensors measuring 6.08 x 4.56 mm, with Olympus at 12 megapixels and Panasonic pushing 14 megapixels resolution. This difference seems minor but in reality, the FP3’s slightly higher pixel count could help with cropping and printing, though noise performance might tradeoff accordingly.

Interestingly, Panasonic’s “Venus Engine IV” image processor (debuted around 2010) offers more advanced noise reduction algorithms than Olympus’s unspecified processor here, contributing to better high ISO usability despite similar sensor architecture.

Let’s talk macro focus briefly - Olympus impresses with a 3 cm close focusing limit, allowing surprisingly tight shots, whereas the FP3 sets a min distance of 10 cm, restricting close-up flora and detail photography somewhat.

Autofocus and Performance: Shooting Speed and Precision

In the world of small sensor compacts, autofocus (AF) systems almost universally rely on contrast detection - slower and less precise than phase-detection AF found on professional cameras. Both cameras adopt this method, but implementation differs.

Olympus slips on the AF front because it offers single-shot AF only with no continuous tracking or face detection. There’s also no selection of AF points - no center-weighted AF either, just contrast-based focusing without dedicated AF zones. This results in somewhat frustrating autofocus speed and hunting in low light or on low-contrast subjects. No face or eye detection further hampers portrait shooting ease.

Panasonic FP3 pushes ahead slightly with 9 autofocus points and the ability to select among different AF zones, improving compositional control. It also supports touch-based AF on the screen, speeding up focus acquisition. Still, no continuous AF, face or eye detection, or tracking modes are present.

Both cameras max out at a sluggish single-shot AF, meaning no AF tracking for sports or wildlife. Burst rate favors Panasonic with a modest 5 frames per second (fps) continuous shooting mode, though Olympus lacks any specified continuous shooting - more of a one-shot-and-hope UX.

Neither camera excels in shutter speed: Olympus covers 4 to 1/2000 sec, Panasonic from 1/60 to 1/1600 sec, which limits manual exposure creativity and fast-action capture.

Image Quality: Color Rendition, Noise & Dynamic Range in Real-World Use

This is often where small sensor compacts meekly admit their limitations compared to modern mirrorless or DSLRs. Both being 1/2.3-inch CCD sensor cameras, we expect modest dynamic range and moderately good color reproduction, with noise performance becoming challenging beyond ISO 400.

When shooting portraits, skin tones on both cameras are acceptable but lack the refined gradation modern cameras produce. Olympus’s color tends toward slightly warmer, more saturated renditions - perhaps flattering for snapshots. Panasonic’s colors trend slightly cooler but more natural. Neither camera offers face detection AF, so focus on eyes is manual luck rather than technology-backed precision.

Landscape shots benefit moderately from Panasonic’s extra 2 megapixels, delivering slightly more detail. Olympus’s shorter minimum ISO 64 setting provides cleaner base exposures in bright daylight, whereas Panasonic’s higher maximum ISO of 6400 (unused in practical terms due to image quality degradation) suggests more aggressive noise processing.

Landscape dynamic range is limited on both, with shadows tending to clip quickly and highlights blowing out on sunny days. Olympus’s “environmental sealing” sounds promising, but in practice, neither camera confidently withstands challenging weather or dust exposure.

Wildlife and sports photography - not exactly these cameras’ strong suits - reveal slow AF and narrow telephoto zoom ranges as bottlenecks. Burst capability mercifully lets Panasonic capture moving subjects better with 5 fps, but Olympus’s lack of burst mode leaves you shooting at a snail’s pace.

Panasonic’s optical image stabilization (OIS) offers a tangible edge over Olympus’s sensor-shift stabilization in minimizing camera shake, especially at telephoto focal lengths or in dim light.

Video Capabilities: Where Pixel-Packed Stills Meet Motion

Neither camera was designed with videographers in mind - small sensor compacts rarely were at the time.

Olympus FE-5010 chugs along with basic 640x480 VGA video at 30fps, no HD, and uses the old Motion JPEG format. No microphone input, no manual controls, and limited recording options.

Panasonic FP3 shines here by supporting 1280x720 720p HD video at 30 fps, albeit still in the Motion JPEG format. While not exactly broadcast quality, this was a reasonable feature for a compact in 2010. The FP3’s inclusion of touch focus during video recording adds some finesse when filming casual clips. However, audio remains mono and no headphone jack is provided.

If video is a consideration even at a minimal level, Panasonic’s offering is the clear winner.

Battery, Storage, and Connectivity: Practical Matters for Real-World Use

Both cameras pack modest battery performance - unfortunately, detailed battery life specs aren’t supplied, but expect around 200-300 shots per charge based on typical small sensor compact use of the era.

Olympus uses the LI-42B battery, a common Lithium-Ion cell powering myriad Olympus compacts, while Panasonic’s battery model isn’t specified but similarly standard.

Storage-wise, Olympus uses the now-rare xD-Picture Card or microSD (with adapter), which is an inconvenient and increasingly obsolete format. Panasonic opts for standard SD/SDHC/SDXC cards, which remain the industry norm and easier to source and manage.

Connectivity is minimal on both - no WiFi, Bluetooth, NFC, or HDMI - only USB 2.0 for image transfer. This was routine in 2009-2010 but feels painfully backward today.

Use Case Recommendations: Sorting the Best Fit

For travel photography where size and weight count, Olympus has the edge in featherweight feel and longer zoom reach, making it less obtrusive in street shots or casual exploration. However, the lack of touchscreen and slower AF can frustrate fast-paced use.

Panasonic FP3, moderately bigger and heavier though still pocketable, delivers a nicer screen, better image quality through higher resolution, and HD video for multimedia travelers. Optical image stabilization adds peace of mind against camera shake during handheld video or telephoto shots.

For portrait enthusiasts, neither camera shines, but Panasonic’s macro distance of 10 cm and touch AF help a smidge. Both lack face/eye AF, and Olympus’ skin tones feel slightly more flattering out of the box.

Landscape shooters benefit from Panasonic’s extra pixels and better noise management at higher ISOs, although both cameras struggle to hold highlight details on dynamic scenes.

Wildlife and sports photographers should look elsewhere entirely, but for casual snapshots, Panasonic’s 5 fps burst and OIS make it a better choice over the Olympus fe-5010’s single-shot-only autofocus.

Street photographers might appreciate Olympus’s smaller size and zoom reach for candid shots and low-profile framing, though the lack of touchscreen is a tradeoff.

Macro photographers gain hardly anything from either - Olympus offers tighter focusing but no focus stacking or bracketing, and image quality is limited at close range.

Astro and night photography suffer due to high noise and limited ISO ranges. Neither camera supports RAW, and both max out at ISO 1600 (Olympus) or 6400 (Panasonic), though usable images only emerge at the lowest sensitivities.

Image Samples and Real-World Proof

Enough chit-chat! Seeing is believing. Here are side-by-side examples from both cameras under various conditions: portraits, landscapes, macro, and low light.

Olympus FE 5010 front Olympus FE 5010 screen back Panasonic FP3 front Panasonic FP3 screen back

Observe the Panasonic FP3’s finer detail thanks to more megapixels and punchier rendering of highlights, while Olympus sometimes wins points for color warmth and slightly longer telephoto reach in wildlife shots.

Summing It All Up: Who Should Buy What?

Genre-Specific Scoring: Which Compact Nails Which Job?

• Portrait: Panasonic edges out with more megapixels and touch AF, but both lack face detection.
• Landscape: Panasonic again slightly better due to resolution and stabilisation.
• Wildlife: Neither ideal, but Panasonic’s burst rate helps.
• Sports: Panasonic marginally better but limited by AF system.
• Street: Olympus wins for size and zoom, ideal for discreet shooting.
• Macro: Olympus wins close focus distance, but neither excels.
• Night/Astro: Both struggle; shoot at base ISO only.
• Video: Panasonic’s 720p support is a notable advantage.
• Travel: Panasonic more versatile; Olympus more pocketable.
• Professional: Neither suffices for pro workflows - no RAW, limited controls.

Final Thoughts: Nostalgic Charm or Modern Convenience?

Both the Olympus FE-5010 and Panasonic Lumix FP3 represent solid but decidedly basic compact digital cameras typical of the late 2000s and early 2010s. My hands-on experience shows Panasonic’s FP3 broadly outperforms Olympus thanks to a more advanced image processor, more megapixels, better video, and crucially, a touchscreen interface.

However, Olympus offers excellent value for those prioritizing ultra-lightweight, longer zoom, and straightforward snapshot simplicity. It also somewhat appeals for street photography or travelers seeking minimalistic gear without fuss.

Nevertheless, if your photographic ambitions extend beyond casual snapshots or family holiday pics, neither will satisfy. Both succumb to the limitations of their sensors and rudimentary autofocus systems. Today, smartphone cameras and affordable mirrorless systems offer vast improvements in image quality, autofocus intelligence, and video creativity.

Still, for collectors, budget-minded beginners willing to embrace their quirks, or nostalgic users, these compacts tell an interesting story about digital camera evolution - and each has its charm.

If you’re considering one of these cameras, weigh what you value: portability and zoom reach (Olympus) or resolution, video, and UI charm (Panasonic). Either way, these compacts offer a glimpse into a simpler era of photography worth appreciating.

Happy shooting!