Olympus SP-600 UZ vs Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZS3: A Hands-On Superzoom Showdown

In the fast-moving world of compact superzoom cameras, discerning enthusiasts and budget-conscious pros alike often find themselves at a crossroads when choosing a model that balances zoom reach, image quality, and portability. Today, I’m diving deep into a head-to-head comparison between two stalwarts from the late 2000s compact superzoom class: the Olympus SP-600 UZ and the Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZS3 (also known as the Lumix DMC-TZ7 in some regions).

Both cameras sat near the top of the affordable, travel-friendly superzoom segment in their day. While each has carved out its niche, they approach photography from different angles. I've personally tested hundreds of compact and bridge cameras in my career, including these two, and here is my thorough breakdown - complete with real-world practical advice - for those considering either model today.

First Impressions: Size, Handling, and Ergonomics

Before even firing a shot, the form factor can make or break your overall experience - especially with superzooms whose size can quickly graduate from pocketable to "club for your thumb."

Olympus SP-600 UZ feels notably chunkier and heavier:

• Dimensions: 110 x 90 x 91 mm
• Weight: 455 grams

In contrast, the Panasonic ZS3 is significantly more compact and lighter:

• Dimensions: 103 x 60 x 33 mm
• Weight: 229 grams

From shoulder to waist, the space savings on the ZS3 make it more travel-friendly and discreet for street photography or just carrying all day. The SP-600 UZ has a more substantial grip and somewhat larger physical controls, which benefits those who prefer a firm, tactile feel - though it’s less stealthy in crowds or casual outings.

Control layout for both models stays relatively simple, consistent with their compact ambitions, but Olympus leans toward bigger buttons, making it easier for clumsy fingers or gloved hands. Panasonic’s buttons and dials are smaller but well-organized - more modern feeling, honestly.

Let’s take a look at their top control layouts for comparison:

The SP-600 UZ offers a dedicated zoom toggle around the shutter button and an accessible mode dial, while the ZS3 opts for a cleaner top, employingmenus and quick buttons on the back screen for many functions - more touchscreen evolution ahead in the Lumix line, but neither here.

If you prize compactness and ease of carry, the Panasonic wins hands down. For ergonomics with larger hands or more deliberate control, Olympus takes the nod.

Sensor and Image Quality: Same Chips, Different Stories

Both cameras rely on 1/2.3" CCD sensors, measuring 6.08 x 4.56 mm, delivering roughly the same physical imaging area of 27.72 mm²:

• Olympus SP-600 UZ: 12 megapixels, max ISO 1600
• Panasonic ZS3: 10 megapixels, max ISO 6400

The resolution difference is minimal but meaningful: Olympus offers a slight edge in pixels, but Panasonic compensates with a Native ISO range starting at 80 (helpful in bright conditions for better dynamic range) and a boosted ISO ceiling up to 6400 - even if noise kicks in above 800 ISO, it’s still helpful for low-light snaps.

Both CCD sensors excel at delivering punchy colors and good mid-tone rendition but fall behind CMOS counterparts in dynamic range and noise at higher ISOs.

The Olympus sensor, paired to a TruePic III processor, prioritizes vibrant yet sometimes punchily sharp images, creating a signature "pop" in landscapes and portraits but occasionally amplifying noise in shadows. Panasonic’s sensor, though older, handles noise marginally better at modest high ISO settings.

Recent testing I performed shows the following trends:

• Olympus excels slightly in daylight with crisp edges and better detail.
• Panasonic wins in low light due to higher ISO capability and better noise control.

In real-world scenarios, for portraits or landscapes under good light, you won’t be disappointed by either. Panasonic’s edge becomes apparent indoors or twilight outings, especially handheld.

Viewing and Composing Shots: LCD Quality and Usability

Neither camera includes viewfinders - a missed convenience for bright outdoor shooting but expected for compacts from their era. The LCD screen stands as the sole window to your framing and menus.

Olympus SP-600 UZ has a modest 2.7" fixed LCD with 230k dots, whereas Panasonic ZS3 boasts a 3.0" fixed LCD at 460k dots - double the resolution:

The ZS3’s screen is brighter, sharper, and easier to see under direct sunlight, a real usability perk in travel or street shooting. The higher resolution offers finer detail in menus and image review, contributing to an overall friendlier user experience.

Olympus's lower-res screen tends to wash out in bright conditions, making manual focusing or precise framing tougher - which matters with superzoom lenses! If you use live view shooting extensively (likely here, since no viewfinders), Panasonic’s panel is a resolute winner.

Lens, Zoom Range and Optical Performance: The Core Superzoom Battle

Both Olympus and Panasonic equip superzoom fixed lenses but differ widely in design priorities:

The Olympus SP-600 UZ’s longer zoom range, stretching to a whopping 420 mm equivalent, is a highlight for wildlife and distant action amateurs who want reach without extra bulk. It really lets you squeeze in close without lugging long, heavy lenses.

However, this longer zoom comes at the cost of slower maximum apertures and the lack of image stabilization - something that will challenge handholding stability as focal length increases. You’ll want a really steady setup or good light to keep images sharp past 200 mm unless you use a tripod.

The Panasonic ZS3, conversely, cuts its max zoom to 300 mm equivalent, but compensates with optical image stabilization. As someone who’s tested many stabilized lenses, I can attest this feature significantly improves handheld usability in low light or longer focal lengths - often the dividing line between a usable or blurry shot.

As for macro shooting, Olympus offers an impressively close 1 cm capability, great for close-ups. Panasonic’s minimum focus at 3 cm is decent but less dramatic.

In optical quality, reviews and my tests on both units show them better optimized for their intended zoom ranges. Olympus maintains good sharpness and contrast throughout the zoom range but softness creeps in at the extreme telephoto end without stabilization. Panasonic renders crisp images at wide to mid-zoom but trails off after 250-300 mm.

Autofocus and Speed: Capturing the Moment

Autofocus systems often determine whether your shot is missed or nailed, especially in wildlife, sports, or street photography.

• Olympus SP-600 UZ: 143 contrast-detection AF points, single AF mode with tracking
• Panasonic ZS3: 11 contrast-detection AF points, single AF only (no tracking)

Notably, Olympus’s 143 AF points might look impressive on paper, but the system’s responsiveness lags noticeably behind more modern or higher-end cameras I’ve tested - or its own successor models. It can hunt in low-contrast or low-light, causing frustrating delays.

Panasonic’s fewer focus points are less flexible but autofocus is marginally quicker and more consistent in tracking static subjects.

Continuous shooting speeds:

• Olympus offers 10 fps burst (albeit with quality and buffer caveats)
• Panasonic manages a steady 2 fps burst

While Olympus’s high burst rate sounds fantastic, in practice, it’s only usable at lower JPEG resolutions and buffer fills quickly. Panasonic’s slower burst is more reliable albeit limited in length.

For action and wildlife shooters needing fast, predictive AF tracking and burst shooting, neither camera truly shines. But Olympus edges slightly ahead in raw burst potential, while Panasonic offers more consistent focus on static subjects.

Video Features: HD Enough for Casual Use

Both cameras provide 720p HD video options - Olympus at 24 fps and Panasonic at a more fluid 30 fps.

Video-wise, Panasonic has better format support with AVCHD Lite, which uses more efficient encoding than Olympus’s older H.264 scheme. Panasonic’s videos tend to have smoother motion and slightly better compression quality for the same bitrate.

Both cameras lack microphone inputs, headphone jacks, or external flash. So no serious video work here, but for casual family or travel movies, Panasonic’s slightly better stabilization and frame rate make it more appealing.

Battery Life and Storage: Practical Considerations

Both cameras rely on proprietary batteries, no surprises here. Neither offers stellar battery life by modern standards. Olympus is feisty enough to manage fair shots on a charge, but the heavier zoom demands more power. Panasonic’s smaller body and stabilized lens drain less rapidly, often netting more shots per battery.

Storage-wise:

• Olympus accepts SD/SDHC + internal memory
• Panasonic adds MMC format compatibility alongside SD/SDHC

This flexibility is minor but welcoming for users with legacy cards lying around.

Durability and Weather Sealing: For the Everyday Shooter

Neither camera offers weather resistance, waterproofing, dust/shock proofing or freezeproof capabilities - common for this compact range in this era. If you’re shooting outdoors in varied conditions, plan to protect either carefully.

Real World Photography Tests: What Each Camera Brings to the Table

Portrait and Skin Tone Reproduction

Neither camera features face or eye detection AF, which is a bummer for portraiture where focus priority on eyes is critical for professional results. Panasonic’s more accurate and faster AF helps slightly for casual portraits.

Olympus produces slightly more vibrant but sometimes oversaturated skin tones. Panasonic tends to stay more neutral, perhaps better for natural looks, though colors may feel less lively.

Neither camera creates creamy bokeh typical of larger sensors or fast lenses; both rely on background separation at longer focal lengths and widest apertures (which are modest here).

Landscape and Resolution Utility

Landscape shooters will appreciate Olympus’s higher resolution (12 MP vs. 10 MP), translating to a bit more detail for prints.

Panasonic’s lower noise at base ISOs helps in HDR or shadow-heavy scenes, although the maximum apertures are roughly the same, limiting low-light landscape options.

Neither camera has in-body stabilization except Panasonic’s optical effort, meaning tripod use is essential for the highest quality.

Wildlife and Telephoto Performance

Olympus’s 420 mm equivalent zoom gives it the edge for distant subjects. But without stabilization or robust continuous autofocus, handheld wildlife shooting is a challenge - you’ll be more tripod-bound and patient.

Panasonic’s shorter zoom limits reach, but stabilized, quicker focusing enables more decisive captures on moderate wildlife or birding subjects - especially if you prioritize portability.

Sports and Action Shooting

Neither camera is ideal for high-speed action due to limited AF tracking, slower burst on Panasonic, and somewhat clunky autofocus on Olympus.

I recommend neither for sports-focused users, but Olympus’s higher burst rate might serve casual sports photographers with static plays.

Street and Travel Photography

Panasonic’s lightweight, compact frame makes it extremely convenient for street shooting - easy to pocket, quick to pull out unnoticed, and less bulky.

Olympus acts more like a "bridge" camera with its heft, making it less discreet, but its long reach and rugged build suit travel photographers who prioritize zoom and robust controls over stealth.

Macro and Close-Up Shooting

Olympus’s 1 cm macro minimum focusing distance beats Panasonic’s 3 cm, enabling dramatic near-life close-ups - flowers, insects, textures.

Without manual focus or focus peaking, both struggle with precise macro focusing, but Olympus clearly offers an advantage for enthusiasts dabbling in macro.

Night and Astro Photography

Limited by small sensors and max ISO ceilings, neither perform spectacularly here. Panasonic’s higher ISO limit (up to 6400) helps, but noise quickly undermines image quality over 800-1600 ISO ranges.

Long exposure options are minimal, as both max out at 1/2 s (Olympus) or 1/60 s minimum (Panasonic). They lack bulb modes or dedicated astro features.

Professional Work and Workflow Integration

Neither model supports RAW capture - one of the most critical omissions for professionals requiring full control in post-processing. Both output JPEGs with limited in-camera processing control.

Connectivity options are basic: USB 2.0 and HDMI out with no wireless features, limiting workflow flexibility.

Summary of Strengths and Weaknesses

Olympus SP 600 UZ front Olympus SP 600 UZ screen back Panasonic ZS3 front Panasonic ZS3 screen back

Who Should Buy Which Camera? Practical Recommendations

Choose the Olympus SP-600 UZ if:

• You want the longest zoom range possible in a compact form for wildlife or telephoto travel shots.
• You prefer bigger buttons and a more solid grip for controlled shooting gestures.
• Macro photography at very close focus distances interests you (think small insects or flowers).
• You’re okay with slower autofocus and no stabilization but want manual focus option.
• You don’t mind a heavier camera and slightly dimmer LCD.

Choose the Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZS3 if:

• Compact size and travel convenience top your priority list.
• You want dependable optical stabilization to help handheld shooting at telephoto lengths.
• Better video frame rates and smoother encoding are important for casual movies.
• You prefer a brighter, higher-resolution LCD for composing in bright light.
• You shoot portraits, street photos, or travel documentaries needing quick, consistent autofocus.
• You appreciate marginally better low-light performance with higher ISO available.

Breaking It Down by Photography Type

To help you slot each camera into your personal shooting habits, here’s a quick look at their performance across genres:

• Portrait: Panasonic edges ahead with better AF consistency and natural color tone.
• Landscape: Olympus’s higher resolution and zoom range give it a slight advantage for detail and composition.
• Wildlife: Olympus’s zoom wins for reach, but Panasonic’s quicker AF and stabilization make it more reliable.
• Sports: Neither ideal, but Olympus’s burst speed might sway casual sports shooters.
• Street: Panasonic’s compactness and discreetness make it a clear winner.
• Macro: Olympus’s closer focusing distance is better.
• Night/Astro: Panasonic’s higher ISO support offers better low-light capability.
• Video: Panasonic’s 720p 30fps, stabilized capture is preferable.
• Travel: Panasonic offers the better all-around package for portability and versatility.
• Professional Work: Neither fully satisfies pro expectations due to lack of RAW and limited controls.

Closing Thoughts: Value for Money in Today’s Used Market

Both cameras cost around the $190-$200 mark on typical used or discounted markets. That's budget-friendly indeed - and a great starter or travel compact superzoom. However, in my hands-on experience, the Panasonic ZS3 delivers a better balance for most people: sharper viewfinder, stabilization, and smoother video help it outperform the SP-600 UZ in real-world everyday shooting.

Still, if you prioritize zoom reach or slightly better macro capability, the Olympus SP-600 UZ holds its ground, especially if you’re shooting in good light with a tripod or steady hands.

For cheapskates on a budget looking to upgrade beyond smartphone snapping without jumping into bulky DSLRs, either camera offers a solid upgrade - even if some compromises are unavoidable.

Thanks for reading this detailed comparison! If you have questions about specific use cases or want advice on alternative models, feel free to reach out. Happy shooting!

End of article.