Olympus SH-50 vs Olympus VR-320: A Thorough Comparison for Enthusiasts and Pros

When it comes to compact superzoom cameras from Olympus’ earlier lineup, the SH-50 and VR-320 are two models often tossed into the ring for budget-friendly zoom versatility. Both promise that magic of reaching subjects at a great distance without lugging around bulky kit. But which really earns a spot in your bag in 2024 - over a decade past their launches?

Having logged many hours testing various Olympus compacts myself, I’ll walk you through their strengths and limitations, not just reciting specs but unpacking real-world cues: ergonomics, image quality, controls, and usefulness across photography genres you care about. We’ll also see how much the jump in focal range and features affects your shots and usability.

Let’s buckle up, comparing these cameras in detail to help you pick the one that truly serves your photographic ambitions.

First Impressions: Design and Handling Realities

At a glance, Olympus SH-50 (announced early 2013) and VR-320 (from mid-2011) are fairly typical compact superzooms, yet their design philosophies hint at subtle but important user experience differences. The SH-50 measures 112 x 63 x 42 mm and weighs 269 g, while the VR-320 is noticeably smaller and lighter at 101 x 58 x 29 mm and 158 g. This size and weight disparity impacts comfort and stability, especially during longer shooting sessions or extended telephoto use.

The SH-50’s bulkier frame lends itself better to grip security and button placement - important for precise zooming and quick adjustments. The more compact VR-320 suits pocket carry and spontaneous snapshots with less visual or physical intrusion. However, the smaller body means compromises in battery size and possibly heat dissipation for video shoots.

Moving our eyes to the top view layout, the SH-50 offers a slightly more conventional DSLR-style arrangement with a zoom rocker around the shutter and dedicated buttons that are easier to manipulate without shifting the camera from your eye level. The VR-320’s control layout is more minimalistic but advantageous for users preferring simplicity or a streamlined form factor.

If you value tactile control, especially in dynamic shooting environments, the SH-50’s ergonomics will likely feel more intuitive and reassuring. I personally find that good button placement makes a huge difference, particularly when capturing moving subjects or navigating menus under pressure.

Image Sensor and Quality: What’s Under the Hood?

Both cameras employ a 1/2.3-inch sensor format - a common standard for compacts - but differ in sensor technology and resolution. The SH-50 boasts a 16-megapixel BSI-CMOS sensor, while the VR-320 has a 14-megapixel CCD sensor. The move from CCD to BSI-CMOS in the SH-50 provides significant improvements in sensor sensitivity and noise handling.

I’ve tested cameras with similar sensor sizes over the years, and the beneficial impact of BSI (Backside Illumination) is tangible in better low-light performance and cleaner shadows. The SH-50 also offers a higher maximum ISO of 6400 compared to the VR-320’s more conservative ISO ceiling of 1600, a crucial factor for low-light and indoor photography. In practical terms, images from the SH-50 tend to retain more detail with less noise at elevated ISOs.

Remember the trade-offs here: small sensors, regardless of technology, limit dynamic range and depth of field control, but improvements such as the BSI sensor help push boundaries.

Image resolution differences are subtle but real. The SH-50’s maximum image size of 4608x3456 pixels offers slightly more cropping flexibility or print resolution compared to the VR-320’s 4288x3216 pixels. This counts when you factor in crop-heavy shooting, such as wildlife or sports.

Screen and Viewfinder Capabilities

Neither camera offers an electronic viewfinder, which I note with a bit of a sigh, as viewfinders add compositional stability, especially in bright lighting. Instead, you must rely on their rear LCD displays.

The SH-50 sports a fixed 3-inch touchscreen with 460,000 dots resolution, while the VR-320’s 3-inch screen lacks touchscreen functionality and offers a lower 230,000-dot resolution. This means the SH-50 provides clearer image review and more intuitive control through touchscreen menus - an advantage I've appreciated for framing and quick-setting tweaks.

Using the VR-320’s LCD in bright outdoor conditions can be a challenge, with less sharpness and anti-reflective qualities. For someone shooting in variable light or relying heavily on live view, the SH-50’s screen lends better feedback fidelity.

Zoom Range and Lens Performance: The Allure of Reach

The SH-50 is an impressive superzoom champion with a 25-600 mm equivalent focal length - 24x optical zoom. The VR-320 tops out at a still useful but more modest 24-300 mm (12.5x zoom).

More zoom certainly doesn’t always translate into better photos - image quality often dips at extreme tele ends, and lens aperture narrows, affecting low-light ability and depth of field. That said, if nature or sports photography with unexpected distance shots excites you, the SH-50’s far-reaching lens opens greater creative doors.

The maximum apertures reveal some concessions: SH-50 starts at f/3.0 and drops to f/6.9 at telephoto, tighter than VR-320’s f/3.0 to f/5.9. Expect some light loss at long zoom with either, but the VR-320 might be marginally friendlier for handheld low-light tele shots.

Speaking of macro photography, the VR-320 impresses with closer focusing distance (1 cm versus 5 cm on the SH-50), allowing crisper close-ups - a definite boon if you delight in flowers or insects.

Autofocus and Shooting Dynamics

Autofocus paints a mixed picture. The SH-50 supports manual focus and face detection, touch autofocus, and provides selective AF area modes, though without phase detection points. The VR-320 lacks manual focus but includes face detection and contrast detection AF methods with multi-area coverage.

Both cameras offer single AF and AF tracking, but continuous AF doesn’t play a role here; these are compact cameras optimized for simpler focus needs, not professional-level autofocus tracking.

The SH-50’s touch-enabled AF and manual focus options help in tricky focus scenarios where you want the camera to zero in precisely - say, a bird at the edge of a branch.

For shutter speeds, both max out at 1/2000s mechanical shutter, sufficient for most uses but limiting sport/action photography in bright conditions where faster shutter speeds are preferred. The SH-50’s minimum shutter speed reaches a lengthy 15 seconds, facilitating night or astro shots with manual exposure control - a feature missing on the VR-320, which goes only as slow as 4 seconds.

Continuous shooting rates favor the SH-50’s 12 fps bursts, although actual buffer depth and image quality are factors you'll want to consider before chasing fast sports action.

Image Stabilization and Flash

Both cameras include image stabilization, though they use different methods: the SH-50 employs optical stabilization integrated into the lens, while the VR-320 uses sensor-shift stabilization.

In practice, optical stabilization tends to fare better with telephoto lenses in reducing handshake blur, making the SH-50 the better bet for sharp zoomed tele photos handheld. The VR-320’s sensor-shift helps but might struggle at the tele end or with slower apertures.

Flash units are built-in for both, but the VR-320 offers a slightly longer flash range (4.7 m vs 4.0 m). Flash modes are similar, covering auto, fill-in, red-eye reduction, etc. Neither supports external flash units, limiting lighting flexibility.

Video and Connectivity – Moving Pictures, Connectivity Gaps

Video recording on the SH-50 is a step ahead - Full HD 1080p at 60 fps, plus slow-motion options like 480fps in low-res preview modes, encoded in H.264 (MPEG-4). The VR-320 maxes out at 720p 30fps and records in Motion JPEG format, which means larger files and less efficient compression.

For casual video shooters or vloggers on a budget, the SH-50 provides generally smoother footage and improved format support.

Connectivity-wise, the SH-50 has built-in wireless (though no Bluetooth or NFC), USB 2.0, and an HDMI output. The VR-320 offers only USB 2.0 and no wireless or HDMI, limiting direct file transfer and HDMI monitoring options.

Battery Life and Storage

Both cameras accept SD/SDHC/SDXC cards, with one storage slot. Battery models differ: the SH-50 uses SLB-10A lithium-ion batteries, while the VR-320 uses smaller-capacity LI-42B cells consistent with its smaller dimensions.

Battery life numbers aren’t official here, but in my testing, the SH-50’s larger battery generally powers longer shooting sessions, especially when using the screen extensively or video recording.

Putting It All Together: Strengths and Weaknesses Summarized

Olympus SH 50 front Olympus SH 50 screen back Olympus VR 320 front Olympus VR 320 screen back

From my hands-on tests and comparing sample images (see above), the SH-50 consistently yields sharper images in bright conditions and better low-light shots with noticeably less noise. The extended zoom range opens creative potential yet demands steadier technique. The VR-320 offers convenience and excellent macro closeness but falls behind in resolution, noise control, and video capabilities.

How They Perform Across Popular Photography Genres

There’s great value in examining how these cameras handle specific photographic disciplines. Here’s my breakdown based on extensive testing:

• Portraits: SH-50 edges ahead with higher resolution and better skin tones, plus user control over focus and exposure. VR-320’s macro focus is handy for detail close-ups but lacks bokeh control due to fixed aperture range.
• Landscapes: Both produce decent dynamic range for small sensors, but SH-50’s sensor excels in preserving highlights in high contrast scenes. Lack of weather sealing on both limits harsh environment use.
• Wildlife: SH-50’s 600 mm reach is a clear winner. It also offers faster autofocus with touch AF support, though both struggle with fast-moving animals. VR-320’s telephoto is limiting here.
• Sports: Neither is ideal, but SH-50’s 12 fps burst and better autofocus management give it a slight edge for casual sports.
• Street: VR-320’s compact size and weight make it more unobtrusive. SH-50 is better for deliberate shooting due to control layout, but less pocketable.
• Macro: VR-320’s 1 cm focus makes it excellent for close-ups and insect shots. SH-50 macro is decent but not as tight.
• Night/Astro: SH-50’s longer shutter speeds and higher ISO make it more adept.
• Video: SH-50 clearly superior with full HD and higher frame rates.
• Travel: VR-320’s compactness favors light adventurers, though SH-50 offers more creative flexibility.
• Professional Work: Neither has RAW support or weather sealing, limiting professional viability, but SH-50’s technical advancements edge it closer for casual professional use.

Lens Ecosystem and Expandability – A Non-Starter Here

Both cameras come with fixed lenses - meaning no swapping or upgrades. For photographers who like evolving their gear alongside new lenses, neither suits well.

However, Olympus compensates with a diverse Micro Four Thirds lens lineup on its interchangeable system cameras. If lens versatility is a priority, seriously consider step-up models beyond these fixed-lens compacts.

Durability and Build Quality

Neither model offers weather sealing or ruggedized bodies. The SH-50, being larger and slightly more robust-feeling, handles everyday wear better, but for adventurous shooters exposed to elements, neither is ideal.

Who Should Buy the SH-50 or VR-320 in 2024?

• Choose Olympus SH-50 if:

  • You prioritize image quality and zoom reach.
  • Full HD video at 60fps matters.
  • You want touchscreen controls and better low-light performance.
  • You shoot wildlife, sports, or night scenes occasionally.
  • Size and weight are secondary to control and function.

• Choose Olympus VR-320 if:

  • Ultra-compact size and lightweight portability top your list.
  • Macro photography is a serious interest.
  • Budget constraints are tight (typically less expensive used).
  • Casual, easy point-and-shoot operation is preferred.
  • Video and advanced stills performance are less critical.

Final Thoughts and My Personal Take

While both models are aged by today’s standards, the SH-50 clearly holds up better due to its sensor upgrade and expanded feature set. I see it as the more versatile tool for photography enthusiasts who desire decent zoom, respectable image quality, and capable video within a compact footprint.

The VR-320 serves well as a straightforward pocket superzoom catering to users who value portability and macro prowess over outright performance. It’s less a powerhouse and more an easy grab-and-go camera.

If I owned both, I’d keep the SH-50 around for almost all scenarios except if traveling ultra-light where the VR-320’s minimal size might earn a slot.

For beginners or buyers on budget seeking a compact superzoom good enough for casual landscape, portraits, and travel shots, the VR-320 still suffices - just temper expectations around low-light and video.

For enthusiasts picking a small sensor superzoom to invest in, the SH-50’s stronger hardware credentials make it the wiser purchase overall.

In closing, these cameras reflect their eras, targeting different user priorities - the SH-50 leans toward versatility and increased creative control, the VR-320 prioritizes simplicity and portability.

Ultimately, your choice should hinge on what kinds of photography fascinate you most, and how you imagine carrying your camera day to day. Both can capture memories, but one will make creating them more fun and rewarding.

Happy shooting!