Olympus SP-620 UZ vs Olympus Stylus SH-3: A Comprehensive Comparison for Photography Enthusiasts

When it comes to small sensor superzoom cameras, Olympus has consistently pushed the boundaries between portability and reach. Today, we'll dive deeply into two notable models from their compact lineup: the Olympus SP-620 UZ (announced in 2012) and the Olympus Stylus SH-3 (2016). Though both cater to the same broad category - compact superzoom with fixed lenses - they embody different eras of camera technology and user expectations. Having tested hundreds of similar cameras across various genres, I’ll guide you through the critical differences, strengths, and idiosyncrasies that set these two apart.

This side-by-side analysis covers everything from core technical specifications to real-world usability in portrait, landscape, wildlife, sports, street, and travel photography - plus video and professional work considerations. Our goal? To help you make an informed camera choice aligned with your photography needs and budget.

How They Feel in Your Hands: Size and Ergonomics

Let's start with the physicality of these cameras, often overlooked but absolutely critical in the field. Handling affects everything - from framing to quick reaction shots.

The SP-620 UZ measures approximately 110×74×74 mm and weighs 435 grams, powered by four AA batteries - making it somewhat chunky and slightly top-heavy, especially with its sizable zoom lens extended. The SH-3 is much more svelte at 109×63×42 mm and only 271 grams including its rechargeable battery, offering a more pocket-friendly, travel-oriented form factor.

Ergonomically, the SP-620's heft lends stability for telephoto shots but can fatigue your hands quickly. It has a more utilitarian grip profile, with plastic buttons that feel solid but dated. In contrast, the SH-3 reflects a more modern approach: compact, lighter, and with a design focused on grab-and-go shooting. Its touchscreen LCD and intuitive button layout (more on that soon) enhance quick setting changes on the fly.

Overall, if you value portability for long hikes or street scenes, the SH-3's form factor notably wins out. However, if you regularly shoot with heavy zoom reach and prefer the feel of a larger, grippier camera, the SP-620 remains a contender.

Layout and Controls: Navigating the Experience

Control layout matters especially when you need to operate the camera swiftly under pressure - say at a fast-moving wildlife encounter or during a night shoot.

Looking at the top view, the SP-620 UZ sports a traditional approach: standard mode dial, zoom toggle, and shutter release - simple but limited. There’s no dedicated manual exposure mode or aperture/shutter priority modes, making it mostly a point-and-shoot focused device. Conversely, the SH-3 offers manual exposure control - a rare privilege amongst compact superzooms - pushing it toward a more enthusiast-friendly bracket. The addition of shutter priority and exposure compensation enables greater creative control.

The SH-3’s touchscreen also enables tap-to-focus, menu navigation, and basic settings tweaks, which the SP-620 lacks entirely. That one feature alone can accelerate your workflow - especially in fast-evolving lighting or shooting conditions.

To sum this segment: If you want full manual control and quicker customization, the SH-3’s modernized interface and exposure flexibility make it a clear winner here. The SP-620 is for those comfortable with auto modes and simpler navigation.

Sensor and Image Quality: The Heart of the Matter

Both models stick with a 1/2.3-inch sensor measuring approximately 6.17×4.55 mm with 16-megapixel resolution - a common size for superzoom compacts. This physical sensor size dictates much of their image quality and low-light performance.

Despite the same sensor footprint and resolution, image quality differences are mostly driven by sensor technology and image processor systems. The SP-620 employs an older CCD sensor paired with the TruePic III+ processor, while the SH-3 features a more modern BSI-CMOS sensor combined with the TruePic VII processor.

BSI-CMOS (Backside-Illuminated CMOS) technology allows for improved light gathering, resulting in better noise control and increased dynamic range. The SH-3’s sensor can also push ISO sensitivity to a native max of 6400 (vs the SP-620’s 3200) and supports RAW output, which is invaluable for post-processing flexibility - a must-have for photography enthusiasts or pros shooting JPG-plus-RAW workflows.

In practical terms:

• Portraits and general photography: SH-3 offers cleaner images with finer detail retention in shadows and highlights.
• Low-light shooting: The SH-3 maintains usable ISO with less grain.
• Dynamic range: More forgiving in bright/dark contrasts on the SH-3.

The SP-620 will suffice for casual shooters constrained by budget, but image quality aficionados will likely find it limiting.

Viewing and Composing: LCD and Viewfinder Insights

Neither camera offers electronic viewfinders, a compromise typical for their class, putting the onus on the LCD for composition guidance.

Both have fixed 3-inch LCDs, but the SH-3’s screen boasts 460k resolution with touchscreen capability versus the SP-620’s lower-res 230k TFT without touch functionality. The higher resolution and better color accuracy on the SH-3’s screen help immensely in reviewing focus and exposure - the tactile control also enhances ease of use in settings and menus.

For outdoor shooting, neither LCD gets impressively bright, so careful shading helps, especially at telephoto zoom extremes where framing accuracy matters. The lack of any viewfinder means street and wildlife photographers may find these cameras less versatile compared to rivals sporting EVFs, but the SH-3’s touchscreen autofocus mitigates some of these compositional challenges.

Autofocus and Shooting Performance: Tracking the Moment

Autofocus capabilities can make or break shots, especially in action, wildlife, and sports photography.

The SP-620 UZ uses a contrast-detection AF system with face detection, multi-area focus, and single AF modes but no continuous AF. The SH-3, however, offers a more sophisticated contrast-detect AF with face and eye detection, single and continuous AF, selective and multi-area focus, and touch AF on live view. It also has an impressive max continuous shooting speed of 11.5 frames per second (fps), compared to the SP-620’s non-specified continuous shooting mode that appears to be limited or absent.

In the field, I have found:

• SP-620 UZ: Focuses well in good light on static subjects but struggles with fast motion and lower light. The absence of manual exposure or focus lock restricts control.
• SH-3: Handles moving subjects with greater confidence, thanks to continuous AF and touch AF capabilities. Its high frame rate allows capturing moments like bird flight or rapid sports actions more effectively.

Neither camera, however, will rival dedicated DSLRs or mirrorless cameras designed for high-end sports or wildlife shooting, but the SH-3 noticeably narrows the gap.

Lens Reach and Optical Versatility

Zoom range is an explicit selling point for both.

• The SP-620 UZ offers 21× optical zoom, from 25 mm wide-angle to 525 mm telephoto equivalent.
• The SH-3 extends this to 24× zoom, 25 mm to 600 mm equivalent focal length.

Olympus SP 620 UZ front Olympus SP 620 UZ screen back Olympus SH 3 front Olympus SH 3 screen back

In practical use, that extra 75 mm can matter for distant wildlife or sports subjects - especially since the SH-3 also has improved stabilization (sensor-shift type) to help offset camera shake in these longer focal lengths.

A caveat with the SP-620’s older lens technology is the aperture range: f/3.1–5.8, while the SH-3’s lens ranges f/3.0–6.9, slightly slower at the extreme telephoto end. For typical daylight shooting, this difference is negligible; however, low light combined with max zoom will challenge the SH-3’s smaller aperture, making supplemental light or higher ISO imperative.

Both cameras lack interchangeable lenses, but Olympus provides a wide selection of zoom supercompacts and interchangeable lens system cameras elsewhere. For fixed superzoom enthusiasts, these remain among the options balancing reach and portability.

Weather Resistance and Build Quality

Neither camera is weather sealed, splash proof, or freeze resistant - a disappointment if you are planning serious outdoor or travel use in inclement conditions. Both cameras have plastic bodies typical for compacts to contain weight, but the SH-3’s more modern build feels more durable and refined.

If environmental sealing is a priority, other Olympus models (such as Tough series or OM-D line) would be better suited, but bear in mind the tradeoffs in size and zoom reach.

Macro, Night, and Specialized Photography Features

• Macro Focus: The SP-620 boasts a very close macro focus range of 1 cm, excellent for detailed close-ups. The SH-3’s closest is 3 cm, still decent but less dramatic.
• Night/Astro Shooting: SH-3’s higher max ISO and manual exposure modes open more creative options for astrophotography, long exposure night landscapes, and low-light events. The SP-620’s max shutter speed is 1/1500s to 4s, while the SH-3 extends to 1/2000s to 30s, allowing more flexibility.
• Timelapse: Absent on the SP-620, available natively on the SH-3, adding another creative dimension.

Neither camera features raw support for video or advanced night modes, but the SH-3’s manual options and higher ISO ceiling make it better for experimental low-light shooting.

Video Capabilities: Moving Images for Still Photographers

If video plays a role in your workflow, the difference is stark.

• SP-620 UZ captures video only up to 720p HD at 30 fps in MPEG-4/H.264 codec - limited by its 2012-era sensor and processor.
• SH-3 ups the ante with 4K UHD (3840×2160) video at 15 fps, and Full HD 1080p at 60 fps and 30 fps, enabling smoother motion capture with much finer detail.

While 15 fps for 4K is not ideal for cinematic video, it can be useful for extracting still frames or slow-motion effects. The SH-3 also supports stabilization during video capture, helping keep handheld footage steady.

Neither camera sports microphone or headphone jacks, which limits advanced audio control - but for casual filming or supplementary video, the SH-3 provides clearly superior video specs.

Battery Life and Storage

The SP-620’s use of four AA batteries presents a double-edged sword. A major plus for travel and remote use where battery replacements are easy to find and carry spare batteries inexpensive. However, AA batteries add to bulk and weight and lack the long runtime of modern lithium-ion packs.

The SH-3 runs on the proprietary rechargeable LI-92B battery, rated for 380 shots per charge, which is quite respectable for a compact with extensive zoom and processing power. It also offers internal memory with SD card support.

Charging considerations matter if you plan extensive shooting days - SH-3’s rechargeable battery is more convenient, but dependability in the field requires carrying a charger or spares.

Connectivity and Additional Features

Wireless connectivity is modest on both, though the SP-620 includes Eye-Fi card support, allowing wireless transfer via compatible SD cards - a bit of a niche solution.

In contrast, the SH-3 has built-in Wi-Fi, streamlining photo sharing and remote control via smartphone apps. While neither features Bluetooth or NFC, this Wi-Fi support on the SH-3 aligns with 2016 technology trends favoring wireless integration.

Both cameras support HDMI and USB 2.0 for direct data transfer.

Performance Summary and Ratings

Drawing everything together, here’s how these two stack across the major photography types, based on in-depth field tests and standardized performance metrics:

Strengths and Weaknesses by Photography Style

For clarity, here’s a breakdown aligned with common use cases:

Portrait Photography

The SH-3’s improved sensor, face and eye detection AF, faster continuous shooting and RAW support make portraits sharper and skins tones more natural. The SP-620 tends to produce flatter colors and struggles with bokeh quality because of its lens aperture range and older sensor tech.

Landscape Photography

Both offer decent resolution for printing medium-sized photos, but the SH-3’s wider ISO range and improved dynamic range translate to richer landscapes with better highlight and shadow detail. Neither features weather sealing, so plan accordingly.

Wildlife

Neither is a true wildlife shooter, but the SH-3’s longer zoom, faster AF, and higher burst rate provide a marginal advantage. The SP-620’s slightly brighter lens helps with lighting but lacks shooting speed.

Sports

The SH-3’s continuous autofocus and fast frame rates enable decent tracking for casual sports photography, whereas the SP-620’s slower AF and lack of continuous shooting restrict capture options.

Street Photography

The SH-3’s compact size, lower weight, and discreet design suit street shooting better, plus the touchscreen speeds up focus acquisition. The SP-620 is bulkier and slower but remains usable in controlled settings.

Macro

SP-620’s fantastic 1 cm macro focusing outperforms the SH-3’s 3 cm capability. But the SH-3 offers more control for exposure and focus precision.

Night & Astro

SH-3’s manual modes, longer shutter speed, and higher ISO make it suitable for creative night shots. The SP-620’s limited ISO and exposure options restrict its usefulness here.

Video

SH-3 is head and shoulders above with 4K capability and 1080p at 60 fps, while SP-620’s maximum is 720p.

Travel

SH-3’s lighter weight, smaller dimensions, better battery life, and lens versatility make it a more practical travel companion.

Professional Use

Neither is a professional-grade camera, but SH-3’s RAW and manual controls allow limited pro workflows; the SP-620 is best reserved for casual documentation.

Pricing and Value: What You Get for Your Money

The SP-620 UZ launched at around $199, positioning it as an entry-level superzoom compact; perfect for beginners or budget buyers wanting extensive zoom and basic features.

The SH-3’s price point near $579 reflects its more ambitious feature set and updated technology tailored to the enthusiast market. It packs greater manual controls, higher video specification, better sensor tech, and improved ergonomics.

You pay for that modernity and flexibility. The SH-3 delivers strong value if you seek a compact, do-it-all camera and don’t want to dive into interchangeable lens systems.

Verdict: Matching the Camera to the Photographer

To sum up my experience testing both cameras through a rigorous, real-world criterion:

• Choose the Olympus SP-620 UZ if you want an affordable, straightforward superzoom camera for casual photography or travel where ultimate image quality and advanced features aren’t critical. Its extensive zoom and near-macro mode make it a decent point-and-shoot with punch.

• Opt for the Olympus Stylus SH-3 if you desire a more serious compact with manual exposure options, RAW capability, extended zoom, advanced autofocus with continuous modes, better video performance, and touch interface - all in a lighter, sleeker body. It’s a compact powerhouse perfect for enthusiasts who want versatility without the bulk of larger systems.

This comparison underscores how even within a single brand’s compact superzoom range, technology and user demands shape very different shooting experiences. From sensor innovation to ergonomic refinements and control sophistication, the SH-3 clearly benefits from four years of development since the SP-620.

In the end, your choice boils down to a balance between budget, portability, and how much creative control you want in your photography. Both cameras have their places, but I hope this in-depth review helps you weigh those considerations like a pro.

Happy shooting!