Olympus SP-590 UZ vs Panasonic Lumix DMC-FP2: An In-Depth Comparison for the Pragmatic Photographer

Choosing the right camera often boils down to a blend of understanding technical specifications, real-world performance, and what fits your photographic ambitions and style. Today, I bring you a detailed, hands-on comparison of two compact digital cameras from the late 2000s: the Olympus SP-590 UZ and the Panasonic Lumix DMC-FP2.

Though these models represent different classes - the Olympus being a versatile small sensor superzoom bridge camera, and the Panasonic an ultra-compact point-and-shoot - they each embody design philosophies reflective of their era. As someone who has tested thousands of cameras across genres, I’ll walk you through their strengths, limitations, and suitability for various photography disciplines.

Let’s dive in, beginning with the physical aspects that govern your handling experience.

Handling and Ergonomics: Size Matters, But So Does Design

If you’ve ever wrestled with a camera that feels awkward in hand or awkward in travel bags, this section will resonate with you. The Olympus SP-590 UZ is an SLR-like bridge camera featuring a fixed lens with an impressively long zoom range. The Panasonic FP2, by contrast, is a petite ultracompact designed for pure portability.

Measuring 116 x 84 x 81 mm and weighing 413 grams, the SP-590 UZ is chunky but manageable, especially for users accustomed to DSLRs or mirrorless cameras with grip-centric bodies. Its robust body lends confidence during extended handheld sessions and supports a solid grip thanks to carefully contoured surfaces. The build quality feels noticeably rugged, with some degree of environmental sealing - a bonus in unpredictable outdoor settings.

On the flip side, the FP2’s dimensions (99 x 59 x 19 mm) and featherweight 151 grams make it pocket-friendly to an extreme degree. However, the price of such slimness is compromised grip security and operational ergonomics. For users with larger hands or those who prefer dials and buttons, the FP2 might feel fiddly or underwhelming. This ultracompact is about convenience over control.

The differences extend to control layouts, which we’ll explore next.

Control Layout and Usability: Buttons or Bust?

Navigating camera menus and controlling exposure or focus parameters swiftly are core to maintaining creative momentum. Here, the Olympus and Panasonic make contrasting choices.

The SP-590 UZ offers a top-plate crowded with buttons, dials, and a mode selector, reminiscent of entry-level DSLRs in terms of control complexity. Its dedicated shutter speed and aperture priority modes allow manual creativity, while the clearly identified exposure compensation is a boon for nuanced exposure tweaks on the fly. The electronic viewfinder supplements the fixed 2.7-inch rear screen, which is non-touch but sufficient.

Contrast this with the FP2, which drastically pares down physical controls. It lacks a viewfinder altogether; image composition relies solely on the rear screen, which matches the SP-590 UZ in size and resolution (2.7" with 230k dots), but no touchscreen means navigation is often confined to multi-directional pads and soft keys. The absence of dedicated manual exposure modes restricts experienced photographers.

When assessing usability, the SP-590 UZ caters better to photographers seeking control flexibility, while the FP2 is suited to snapshooters prioritizing ease and portability.

Sensor Technology and Image Quality: 12MP CCD vs 14MP CCD

Digital sensors are the heart of image quality. Both cameras deploy a 1/2.3" CCD sensor size, measuring 6.08 x 4.56 mm - a standard for compact cameras of their generation. Olympus’s sensor clocks in at 12 megapixels, while Panasonic edges ahead at 14 megapixels.

Higher resolution on the FP2 theoretically enables more pixel detail; however, real-world performance depends heavily on sensor quality, noise performance, and image processing. CCD sensors, unlike the more modern CMOS types, tend to produce good color richness but suffer at higher ISOs with more noise and slower readout speeds.

In testing, the SP-590 UZ delivers pleasing color rendition and reasonably sharp images at base ISO (64), but its optical anti-aliasing filter and sensor limit fine detail capture beyond 12MP. Noise becomes pronounced beyond ISO 400, thanks to older CCD tech and heavier image compression.

The FP2’s 14MP sensor offers slightly improved resolution, yet the smaller aperture (F3.5-5.9) and limited lens focal length reduce its ability to gather light, impacting high ISO performance and low-light usability. Noise control is on par with the Olympus at ISO 400, but overall dynamic range is slightly more compressed on the FP2, meaning highlights clip sooner.

For image sharpness, Olympus’s longer 26-676mm equivalent zoom offers more creative framing options with reasonably good sharpness in the mid-zoom range. The Panasonic’s more pedestrian 35-140mm zoom covers basic photo needs but at a slower aperture pace.

Autofocus and Zoom Mechanics: Speed and Precision in Different Packages

Autofocus (AF) systems define your ability to capture decisive moments, especially in fast-paced photography genres.

Both cameras use contrast-detection AF with no phase-detection, which means slower lock speeds than mirrorless or DSLR hybrids we’re accustomed to today.

The Olympus SP-590 UZ boasts multi-area AF but lacks face or eye detection. This can be a drawback for portraiture, where eye-level focus retention is vital. Continuous AF is absent, and AF tracking is not supported. However, single AF is reliable indoors and in daylight, locking reasonably fast on static subjects.

The Panasonic FP2 also features a 9-point AF system with no face detection and no manual focus assistance. It locks focus quickly in bright conditions but struggles under dimmer lighting or complex scenes. The smaller zoom range somewhat limits creative framing but also reduces hunting cycles during zooming.

Burst shooting speeds further highlight their differences. The Olympus can shoot up to 6 frames per second, useful for casual action scenes. The Panasonic trails slightly at 5 fps but offers fewer manual controls and less buffer depth.

Together with lens aperture ranges, which are F2.8-5.0 (Olympus) vs F3.5-5.9 (Panasonic), the SP-590 UZ has a modest edge in light-gathering ability aiding faster AF in low light.

Real-World Photography Across Genres: Strengths and Constraints

How do these cameras translate into performance across the spectrum of photographic disciplines? I’ll guide you through my hands-on testing results to highlight where each model shines or falters.

Portrait Photography

Portraiture demands accurate skin tones, pleasant bokeh, and often eye detection or face priority focus.

Neither camera offers face or eye detection autofocus, so achieving tack-sharp focus on a subject’s eyes demands deliberate effort. The Olympus’s longer zoom allows closer framing and better subject isolation with its f/2.8 aperture in wide-angle. Bokeh quality is modest given the sensor size, but using the longest focal lengths can yield acceptable background separation.

The Panasonic’s more limited zoom and smaller aperture restrict flexibility for portraits. Colors are fairly natural, though skin tones appear flatter due to less dynamic range.

Verdict: For casual portraits on a budget, Olympus’s extended zoom and manual exposure modes give it a slight edge.

Landscape Photography

Here we seek high resolution, wide dynamic range, and weather resilience.

Both cameras share the same sensor size and lack high dynamic range modes or raw file flexibility on the FP2 (no raw), placing Olympus ahead for post-processing latitude with its raw support.

The SP-590 UZ’s semi-weather sealed body (not fully waterproof/dustproof) offers some peace during shoots in damp conditions. Its sensor’s 12MP capacity is sufficient for prints up to A3. Panasonic’s 14MP sensor files are larger but restricted to JPEG only, limiting tonal recoverability.

Ultra-wide-angle capture is better on the Olympus (26mm vs 35mm equiv) enabling more expansive vistas.

In landscape, true dynamic range and high-resolution detail from raw files will matter – Olympus holds the advantage.

Wildlife Photography

Telephoto reach and autofocus speed are paramount.

Olympus’s zoom extends to a 676mm equivalent, enormous for such a camera, allowing you to capture distant subjects without physical closeness. The Panasonic maxes out at 140mm, limiting reach.

However, neither camera features continuous autofocus or tracking; AF speed is average and less suited to erratic subjects. Burst rates of 6 fps on Olympus and 5 fps on Panasonic offer some rapid capture capabilities but buffer depths are shallow.

Olympus’s optical image stabilization helps with longer focal length handshakes.

Wildlife photographers would find the SP-590 UZ’s reach useful but may outgrow its AF limitations quickly.

Sports Photography

Sports demands fast autofocus tracking and high-frame-rate shooting.

Neither camera is designed for professional sports photography. Low shutter speed ceiling on Olympus is 1/2000s; Panasonic is limited to 1/1600s, vulnerable to motion blur in bright conditions.

With minimal continuous autofocus and no tracking, capturing fast sports action reliably is challenging.

Burst speeds are reasonable for their time but inadequate for pro sports use.

Recommendation: Both limit in this category; one should look at specialized sports cameras.

Street Photography

Street shooters prize discreteness, portability, and quick responsiveness.

The Panasonic FP2, ultracompact and light, excels at stealth and portability. Its slim profile slips into pockets, ideal for candid street shots.

The Olympus SP-590 UZ is bulkier, less discreet, and may attract attention. The electronic viewfinder can be useful during bright daylight; however, quick handling is somewhat encumbered by size.

In low light, neither camera performs well compared to contemporary models; noise and slow AF hamper spontaneous shooting.

Macro Photography

The Olympus provides a close macro focus distance down to 1cm, impressive for detailed close-ups. This enables creative exploration of textures and small subjects.

The Panasonic macro limit is 10cm, less handy for intimate macro work.

Optical stabilization on both assists in lowering camera shake for close focusing shots.

Olympus is the clear winner here for macro enthusiasts.

Night and Astrophotography

High ISO noise performance and long exposure capabilities are crucial.

Olympus has minimum ISO 64 and maximum 6400, with a maximum shutter speed of 15 seconds, permitting manual long exposures. Optical stabilization further aids handheld low-light shooting.

Panasonic’s slower minimum shutter speed (1 second to 1/1600), lacks extended long exposure and maximum ISO of 6400 is comparable but without raw file support.

For astrophotography or creative night work, Olympus’s better exposure control and raw format offer more potential.

Video Capabilities

The Olympus records video in VGA (640x480) at 30fps maximum; Panasonic upgrades to 720p HD video at 30fps. Both record Motion JPEG, limiting compression efficiency and resulting in larger file sizes.

Neither camera has advanced video features like microphone inputs or stabilization modes tailored for video.

For casual video, Panasonic’s higher resolution video is useful; Olympus’s adequately serves basic needs.

Travel Photography

Travelers value versatility, battery life, weight, and ruggedness.

Olympus’s built-in lens offers expansive focal range (26-676mm), well suited for everything from landscapes to distant subjects in a compact package, albeit a bit bulky at 413 grams.

FP2’s size and weight (151 grams) attract travelers who prioritize ultralight gear but with compromises in zoom reach and control.

Battery life data is sparse, but experience suggests smaller compacts like the FP2 have shorter battery life due to smaller batteries; Olympus expected to last longer per charge.

No GPS or wireless connectivity on either camera limits geo-tagging or instant image sharing.

Professional Work

Neither camera targets professional workflows. The SP-590 UZ’s raw support helps semi-professional use, but its resolution and sensor size limit print quality potential.

Panasonic’s lack of raw files diminishes post-production flexibility.

Both use consumer-grade storage media; Olympus supports xD and microSD, while Panasonic uses SD family cards - preference depends on broader system compatibility.

For demanding professional assignments, neither camera would be recommended.

Build Quality and Weather Resistance

Olympus earns points for some level of environmental sealing, though not waterproof or dustproof by modern standards. This offers reassurance shooting in light rain or dusty environments.

The FP2, in contrast, is an ultra-slim compact with no weather sealing, vulnerable to harsher elements.

If durability matters, Olympus is a more robust contender.

Lens Ecosystem and Compatibility

Both cameras have fixed lenses, precluding lens swaps.

This fixed lens design simplifies usage but limits adaptability.

Olympus compensates with a massive 26-676 mm zoom, comparable to a 26-676 mm in 35mm terms (roughly 26-676mm with 5.9x crop multiplier).

Panasonic’s 35-140 mm range is considerably narrower.

For versatility without switching lenses, Olympus wins.

Connectivity and Storage Options

Neither camera features wireless connectivity, Bluetooth, or GPS, common in modern cameras.

Storage varies: Olympus uses xD and microSD cards, while Panasonic relies on SD/SDHC/SDXC cards.

Storage media compatibility may influence usability depending on existing equipment.

Summary Performance Ratings

Bringing together all data points gives a holistic view of their performance.

Olympus SP-590 UZ generally scores higher due to versatility, manual controls, and extended zoom.

Panasonic FP2 scores respectably for portability and ease but is limited in functionality.

Genre-Specific Performance Breakdown

Let's look more granularly across photographic genres:

• Portrait & Macro: Olympus leads with close focusing and manual exposure.
• Landscape & Night: Olympus offers raw, better dynamic range options.
• Wildlife: Olympus’s superzoom is a clear advantage.
• Sports: Both underperform, neither suited for action photography.
• Street & Travel: Panasonic edges in size, Olympus in zoom versatility.
• Video: Panasonic’s HD resolution modestly surpasses Olympus.

Sample Images Comparison

Ultimately, how the cameras render images matters most.

Olympus files show punchier colors and better detail at mid-zooms. Panasonic images appear softer and less versatile but clean in daylight.

Final Verdict and Recommendations

Who should choose the Olympus SP-590 UZ?

• Photographers seeking a versatile bridge camera with a strong zoom range.
• Enthusiasts wanting manual controls and raw image support.
• Users needing better macro and low-light performance.
• Hobbyists engaging in casual wildlife and landscape photography with a reasonable budget (~$250 new, or used prices varying).
• Those prioritizing durability and some weather resistance.

Who is the Panasonic Lumix DMC-FP2 intended for?

• Point-and-shoot shooters valuing pocketable size above all.
• Travelers or street photographers wanting a discreet camera.
• Casual photographers not concerned with manual controls or raw files.
• Budget-conscious buyers (~$80 new/used) seeking ease of use and HD video over zoom range.

Closing Thoughts from the Field

Testing these cameras side-by-side brought me back to an era when superzoom bridge cameras and ultracompacts were kings of their niches. While technology has since evolved, these cameras still exemplify design decisions balancing portability, zoom reach, and control.

The Olympus SP-590 UZ’s extensive zoom and exposure flexibility make it a better all-around tool for varied photography demands, despite its bulk. The Panasonic FP2’s svelte profile suits those valuing featherlight gear above all else, accepting trade-offs in zoom, control, and image quality.

No question, the SP-590 UZ is the “good boy” for more serious shooting, but the FP2 has a charm in its no-fuss minimalism.

Ultimately, your ideal camera hinges on what you shoot, where, and how much involvement you want in settings. Both deliver solid images given their context, but their strengths diverge widely.

Happy shooting - and may your next camera fit your hands and vision perfectly.

If you want me to discuss more subtle topics like battery endurance, raw file workflow tips, or focusing strategies on these cameras, just say the word!