Olympus SP-565UZ vs Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZS10: A Hands-On Comparison for Superzoom Enthusiasts

Over my 15 years of hands-on photography equipment testing, I've seen more superzoom compact cameras come and go than I can count. Yet, these small-sensor giants remain popular for travelers, casual shooters, and anyone wanting versatility in a pocketable body. Today I’m diving deep into two intriguing models from the golden era of these cameras: the Olympus SP-565UZ from early 2009 and the Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZS10 released in 2011. Both are fixed-lens, long-zoom compacts with overlapping user bases, but each brings its own philosophy, features, and quirks to the table.

If you’ve ever wrestled with the decision between these cameras - or just want to understand what mattered in that rapidly evolving segment - this detailed comparison aims to clear the fog. I evaluated these cameras side-by-side through technical analysis, practical shooting tests, and usability assessment. Here’s my experience distilled for you, covering every major photographic discipline and real-world scenario you might dream of.

Size, Ergonomics, and Handling: Compact with Character

When you pull these two cameras out, their physical presence and handling reveal a lot about their design priorities. The Olympus SP-565UZ carries a chunky, solid feel with a somewhat boxier, robust form factor. The dimensions of 116 x 84 x 81 mm and weight of 413 grams place it noticeably heavier than Panasonic’s sleeker contender.

The Panasonic ZS10, at just 105 x 58 x 33 mm and 219 grams, is almost half the mass and substantially slimmer. Its smaller body, combined with a narrower grip and more streamlined design, speaks to a more travel-friendly and pocketable approach.

Both cameras offer fixed lenses with broad zoom ranges (Olympus with an impressive 20x, Panasonic 16x), but their ergonomics diverge. The Olympus has a small electronic viewfinder (though not full spec’d), giving you an option for eye-level composing, valuable for bright conditions or when steady framing is critical. Panasonic completely forgoes a viewfinder, relying solely on its larger rear LCD.

This size and control layout difference impacts handling comfort during extended use in my experience. The Olympus feels more stable for heavier lenses and longer shooting sessions. Compare the compactness visually here:

Both cameras feature fixed lenses, so weight is largely on the body - Olympus is a strikingly solid camera for a compact, Panasonic is light and neat.

Design Evolution at a Glance: Control and Display

Shifting focus to controls and user interface, the Olympus and Panasonic cameras show the design trends between 2009 and 2011. Olympus relies on fairly tactile buttons and dials, with an array of physical controls for ISO, exposure compensation, and shooting modes - ideal for photographers who appreciate manual adjustments on the fly.

Panasonic takes a more modern approach, including a 3-inch touchscreen with 460k resolution versus Olympus’s 2.5-inch fixed screen with 230k resolution. The Panasonic’s higher-resolution display, combined with touchscreen functionality, makes navigating menus and selecting focus points quicker and more intuitive.

The Olympus includes an electronic viewfinder, which compensates for the smaller LCD, while Panasonic’s omission means all framing is done on the crisp, large screen or through live view.

This top-down view comparison illustrates their different UI philosophies clearly:

Users who prioritize tactile responsiveness and a viewfinder might lean towards Olympus. In contrast, those who want a vibrant, responsive touchscreen will appreciate Panasonic’s design.

Sensor and Image Quality Breakdown

Peeling back the technical layers, the sensor technologies and resulting image quality are perhaps the most critical differentiators here.

Both cameras use the same sensor size, which fundamentally limits high-ISO performance and dynamic range. However, the Olympus uses an older CCD sensor, while Panasonic’s CMOS sensor typically offers improved noise handling and faster readout speeds.

Though Panasonic’s DxOMark scores aren’t available, my practical tests showed the Panasonic’s 14MP sensor delivers finer detail and less noise at moderate ISO settings (up to ISO 400) compared to the Olympus. The Olympus is decent for daylight and controlled lighting but struggles more in dim scenes where noise and color fidelity degrade noticeably.

Olympus’s raw capability provides an edge for post-processing latitude, particularly for landscape photographers seeking to recover shadows or fine-tune colors. Panasonic, lacking raw support, limits flexibility but benefits from more straightforward JPEG processing optimized via the Venus engine.

This visualization clarifies sensor and image quality differences:

For photographers who value tunability in post, Olympus remains attractive; those prioritizing cleaner out-of-camera JPEGs might lean Panasonic.

Composing and Reviewing Your Shots: Screen and Interface

A standout area where Panasonic shines is rear-screen experience. The 3-inch, 460k touchscreen is vibrant, easily visible in various lighting conditions, and responsive to taps for focus or menu navigation. Olympus’s smaller 2.5-inch, 230k non-touch screen feels dated and less versatile by comparison.

For photographers who frequently use live view and rely on the rear LCD for framing, Panasonic offers a noticeably better experience. The touchscreen also enhances focus selection, especially for moving subjects or macro work.

That said, Olympus’s slight edge goes to its electronic viewfinder, albeit basic, which is invaluable for steady shooting in bright environments or tighter compositions.

Here’s a side-by-side look at their rear screen interfaces in action:

Image Samples From the Field: The Proof is in the Pictures

The ultimate test comes down to actual image quality and versatility across shooting conditions. I put both cameras through their paces in portrait, landscape, wildlife, street, and low light environments.

The Olympus’s 20x zoom excels in reaching distant subjects, although sharpness and autofocus speed lag behind Panasonic, especially at telephoto extremes.

The Panasonic’s wider aperture range (F3.3-5.9 versus Olympus’s brighter F2.8-4.5) means Olympus handles wide-angle low light slightly better. However, Panasonic’s faster and continuous autofocus system really comes alive in action and burst shooting situations.

Take a look at this gallery of sample images from both cameras illustrating their strengths and limitations:

Olympus SP 565UZ front Olympus SP 565UZ screen back Panasonic ZS10 front Panasonic ZS10 screen back

• Portraits: Olympus’s wider aperture and raw support aid in rendering smooth skin tones and natural bokeh, whereas Panasonic’s JPEGs deliver sharp eyes and well-balanced colors without fuss.
• Landscapes: Olympus offers better control over exposure latitude with raw, but Panasonic’s higher resolution reveals more texture.
• Wildlife/Sports: Panasonic’s faster AF and 10fps burst capture fast-moving subjects more effectively.
• Street: Panasonic’s smaller size and discreet operation proved more comfortable and spontaneous.
• Night: Neither excels in high ISO, but Panasonic’s CMOS sensor manages noise better.

Autofocus and Burst Performance: Speed Matters

In my tests, autofocus is a crucial deciding factor for wildlife and sports shooters.

• Olympus SP-565UZ uses contrast-detection autofocus with 143 focus points but only single AF mode – slower and more deliberate, better suited to static or landscape subjects.
• Panasonic ZS10 introduces autofocus tracking, continuous AF, and 23 focus points - a smaller count but more intelligent system overall, enabling subject tracking and burst shooting at 10fps.

This contrast makes Panasonic much more capable for fast action scenarios like kids at play, wildlife, or sports, where Olympus’s single-shot AF and minimal burst speed of 1 fps yields too many missed frames.

Video Capabilities: Moving Pictures in the Mix

For hybrid shooters who want stills and decent video in one package, this is an important side note.

• Olympus shoots basic 640x480 VGA video at 30fps, with no HD or external microphone input. Very limited by modern standards.
• Panasonic delivers progressive HD recording up to 1080p60, with AVCHD and MPEG-4 formats, plus an HDMI output for external monitors and playback.

Though neither camera is a dedicated video powerhouse, Panasonic’s features significantly outclass Olympus in video quality, usability, and future-proofing.

Battery Life and Storage: Practical Considerations

Panasonic’s proprietary lithium-ion battery delivers about 260 shots per charge, sufficient for a day of travel and casual shooting.

Olympus uses readily available 4x AA batteries, convenient for on-the-go replacement but less efficient and heavier. Actual shot counts vary greatly depending on battery quality.

For files, Olympus accepts less common xD Picture Cards, which today are harder to find and slower compared to Panasonic’s support for ubiquitous SD/SDHC/SDXC cards.

Connectivity and Extras

Nothing fancy here - neither camera supports WiFi, Bluetooth, or NFC. Panasonic has built-in GPS, enabling geotagging, which is a fantastic travel bonus.

Panasonic includes HDMI out; Olympus does not.

Weather Sealing and Durability

Neither camera offers weather sealing, waterproofing, or rugged features. This limits serious outdoor or adventure use unless careful protection is provided.

Pricing and Value: What’s Your Budget?

At retail, these cameras are similarly priced ($400 Olympus vs $350 Panasonic), often found refurbished or used for under $200 today - a nod to the rapid tech evolution.

Olympus’s raw support and larger zoom appeal to image purists on a budget, while Panasonic’s video, autofocus, and touchscreen make it an all-rounder for casual shooters and travelers who want flexibility.

Overall Performance Scores and Genre-Specific Breakdown

To wrap the technical assessments neatly, here’s a summarized scoring graphic based on my evaluations:

And this next chart reflects how each camera performs across photography types:

My Personal Recommendations

1. For Travel and Everyday Use: Panasonic ZS10 wins with compact size, GPS, touchscreen, and brisk autofocus. Ideal for point-and-shoot joy and versatility.
2. For Landscape Photographers and Editors: Olympus SP-565UZ’s raw support and wider aperture help extract more tonal control in post.
3. For Wildlife and Sports: Panasonic’s superior AF tracking and burst rate make it a more reliable companion.
4. For Video Enthusiasts: Panasonic’s HD video capability and HDMI out clearly lead.
5. For Budget Buyers or Backup: Both cameras offer good value used; choose based on priority features (raw files vs video and speed).

Final Thoughts: Which Superzoom Wins Your Pocket?

In my thorough testing and long-term evaluation, the Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZS10 edges out the Olympus SP-565UZ in most real-world scenarios thanks to responsiveness, better video, and an enhanced shooting experience. However, the Olympus remains a compelling choice for budget-conscious photographers who want to squeeze maximum raw potential from a superzoom compact and value a longer focal reach.

If you want a travel-friendly camera that’s simple to carry, quick to frame, and versatile across diverse photo and video disciplines, the Panasonic likely fits the bill. If mixed-format shooting, manual control, and extended reach weigh more in your priorities, Olympus holds valuable ground.

I hope this detailed side-by-side, grounded in real use and measured testing, helps you find the right camera to tell your photographic stories.

Disclosure: I have no affiliations with Olympus or Panasonic and have tested these cameras as standalone units to ensure impartial evaluation. My goal is simply to empower readers with honest, practical insights that tech specs and press releases often gloss over.

Thank you for reading - feel free to ask any questions or share your experiences with these cameras!