Olympus SP-620 UZ vs TG-320: A Tale of Two 2012 Compacts for Distinct Adventures

When Olympus announced the SP-620 UZ and the TG-320 back in January 2012, they weren’t just tossing two cameras into the market’s vast pool - they were targeting entirely different audiences with very different photographic needs. Fast-forward over a decade, and while these cameras have long since aged past their prime, revisiting them through the lens of extensive hands-on experience reveals insightful lessons about compact camera design, user priorities, and real-world performance that remain relevant.

I’ve personally tested thousands of cameras from toy-grade compacts to pro-level beasts, but the SP-620 UZ and TG-320 pair stands out for how distinctly they approach versatility versus ruggedness in small sensor compacts. So, buckle up as we deep-dive into their capabilities, quirks, and whether either (or both) still holds value for today’s photography enthusiast or professional looking for specialized companion gear.

Size and Handling: Bulk Versus Pocketability

First impressions are often physical - holdability truly impacts usability, especially for travel and street photographers who switch between quick snapshots and deliberate framing almost by muscle memory.

The Olympus SP-620 UZ has a noticeably chunkier presence with dimensions of 110 x 74 x 74mm and a weight hovering around 435 grams, which is hefty for a compact. This bulk largely stems from its ambitious 21x zoom lens (ranging 25–525mm in 35mm equivalent) that requires substantial optics and a sturdy chassis.

In contrast, the Olympus TG-320 is lean and light, at just 96 x 63 x 23mm and a featherweight 155 grams. Its body typifies the rugged “pocket tough” category with waterproof, dustproof, shockproof, and freezeproof sealing - features rare for a camera of this size. It screams “grab-and-go” especially for outdoor adventurers, hikers, or those prone to accidents.

What this size/weight dynamic translates to: SP-620 UZ feels stable when shooting telephoto but isn’t pocket-friendly at all, whereas the TG-320 is a perfect grab-on-the-fly companion that won’t weigh down your gear bag - plus it will survive unexpected drops and splashes.

Design and Controls: Where Experience Meets Convenience

A camera’s user interface can be the difference between inspiration and frustration, and here the two Olympus models diverge significantly.

The SP-620 UZ features a solid complement of buttons and a clear ergonomics focus, likely borrowing from Olympus’s experience with bridge cameras. The physical zoom rocker around the shutter button, dedicated mode dial, and rear function buttons aid rapid access to key settings despite an absence of manual exposure modes - a compromise considering its superzoom ambitions.

The TG-320, however, pares controls down to the essentials. Its splashproof sealing demanded fewer movable parts and simpler permissions - a classic minimalist approach. Control allocation here caters to rugged usability, prioritizing waterproof seals over fine-tuned fiddling.

Both cameras lack electronic viewfinders, making live view LCD framing essential.

Sensor and Image Quality: Small Sensors in 2012 and What That Meant

You won’t find full-frame glory here - both cameras sport modest 1/2.3" CCD sensors with limited resolution (16MP for SP-620 UZ, 14MP for TG-320). The sensor size translates into physical dimensions of 6.17 x 4.55 mm, offering an image circle of roughly 28 mm² - a far cry from APS-C or full frame but typical for compacts of this generation.

I’ve rigorously tested similar sensors with standardized workflows comparing color depth, dynamic range, and high-ISO noise performance. CCD sensors carry an analog charm in color rendition but tend to fall short on noise control at higher sensitivities - and these models max out native ISO at 3200 (SP-620) and 1600 (TG-320), with boosted modes not provided.

Key observations:

• Dynamic range is limited, especially in shadows, so highlight and shadow detail recovery is tough. This impacts landscape and high-contrast outdoor shots.
• Color fidelity is decent but shows modest shifts under mixed lighting, especially on TG-320.
• Noise becomes intrusive past ISO 800 on both cameras; the TG-320’s lower maximum ISO somewhat restricts low light flexibility.
• The SP-620’s higher megapixel count marginally aids resolution but risks more noise, consistent with CCD sensor tradeoffs.

Neither camera supports RAW, limiting post-processing latitude - a killer for professionals or advanced hobbyists craving maximized quality.

Display and Viewing Experience: LCDs Only, With Trade-Offs

Both cameras rely on fixed 3-inch (SP-620 UZ) and 2.7-inch (TG-320) TFT LCDs with 230k dots resolution, typical for 2012 compacts. The SP-620 UZ's slightly larger display feels more comfortable for composing and reviewing images, though its plastic screen technology lacks the contrast and viewing angles modern cameras boast.

The TG-320’s smaller screen aligns with its rugged ethos - less surface area to protect or damage. Neither model offers touch controls or articulated displays, limiting flexible shooting angles and intuitive menu navigation.

Face detection autofocus overlays are functional but not highly responsive - either camera benefits from deliberate framing for portraits, especially given the absence of manual exposure controls.

Autofocus Performance: Steady but Limited by Technology

Both cameras use contrast-detection autofocus systems with face detection - as was common then - and feature multi-area AF without selectable points. Key limitations include:

• No manual focus or focus bracketing.
• Continuous autofocus modes not supported.
• AF tracking is basic and prone to hunting, especially in low light or with moving subjects.

For wildlife and sports photography, this means neither camera keeps pace with fast, erratic motion; burst shooting is effectively non-existent (1 fps max on TG-320, n/a on SP-620).

That said, for casual portraits and landscapes, AF reliability is acceptable. The SP-620’s longer zoom range places more emphasis on precise AF but also heightens susceptibility to camera shake and missed focus, especially without optical or electronic viewfinders.

Image Stabilization: Sensor-Shift Delivers Usable Shake Reduction

Both cameras employ sensor-shift image stabilization, a commendable feature for compacts, especially one with a 525mm equivalent reach like the SP-620 UZ.

Practically:

• The SP-620’s stabilization is necessary for handheld long telephoto shots, noticeably extending handheld shutter speed limits.
• The TG-320’s stabilization aids macro and mid-zoom shooting within its 28–102mm focal range but isn’t a game changer in low light, given lower ISO flexibility.

The simplicity of the stabilization implementation means no fancy modes (e.g., panning detection), so technique and steady hands remain vital.

Lens Quality and Versatility: Superzoom King Meets Rugged All-Rounder

Here’s where these two cameras express their core identities most strongly.

• Olympus SP-620 UZ: With a monstrous 21x zoom lens spanning 25–525 mm (35mm equivalent) aperture F3.1-5.8, it can tackle everything from wide landscapes to distant wildlife and sports action at a distance (in theory). This optical versatility makes it a pocket-sized zoom powerhouse for hobbyists wanting one-lens convenience.

• Olympus TG-320: Offers a more modest 28–102 mm zoom (3.6x), aperture F3.5-5.1. Its tighter zoom range is balanced by rugged build and macro focusing down to 3cm, encouraging close-up nature and underwater shots.

Neither lens supports interchangeable lenses, and optical quality reflects compact design compromises, with moderate distortion and softness at extreme zoom ranges.

Durability and Environmental Resistance: A Clear Win for TG-320’s Rugged Build

The TG-320 is built to endure: waterproof to 10 meters, dustproof, shockproof from 2 meters drops, and freezeproof to -10°C. For outdoor adventurers, snorkelers, or winter travelers, this functionality is invaluable.

Conversely, the SP-620 UZ lacks any official environmental sealing - precautions against moisture and dust are necessary.

This distinct differential explains TG-320’s popularity among action and travel shooters seeking a “take-anywhere” camera that tolerates mishaps without needing bulky protective gear.

Video Capabilities: Basic HD Recording with No Frills

Both cameras support 720p video at 30fps (MPEG-4, H.264) without advanced features like 4K recording, external mic inputs, or stabilization during video.

In reality:

• Video quality is serviceable for casual use but clearly compromised by sensor limitations and fixed optics.
• Lack of manual control or advanced exposure modes restricts creative video capturing.

Thus, neither camera is optimal for videographers or hybrid shooters who demand high-quality motion footage.

Battery, Storage, and Connectivity: Legacy Choices and Modest Runtimes

Power-wise, the SP-620 UZ uses four AA batteries - a convenient but heavier and bulkier solution, with variable performance depending on alkaline vs NiMH rechargeable types. The TG-320 relies on a proprietary rechargeable lithium-ion pack (LI-42B), providing about 150 shots per charge, which is modest by modern standards.

Both support SD/SDHC/SDXC cards in a single slot, with standard USB 2.0 and HDMI outputs. Only the SP-620 UZ offers Eye-Fi wireless card compatibility for image transfer; TG-320 has no wireless connectivity.

Admittedly, neither camera offers cutting-edge connectivity like Bluetooth or Wi-Fi, which limits seamless sharing compared to today's standards.

Real-World Photo Quality and Sample Gallery

After extensive field testing, the following insights emerged:

Olympus SP 620 UZ front Olympus SP 620 UZ screen back Olympus TG 320 front Olympus TG 320 screen back

• Portraits: Both cameras handle skin tones adequately under controlled lighting, but their limited dynamic range means outdoor portraits with harsh shadows or bright backgrounds pose challenges. Bokeh is shallow only at the widest apertures and longer focal lengths on the SP-620 UZ, given its superzoom lens. TG-320’s shorter zoom limits subject isolation, but its macro mode is great for pet and flower close-ups.

• Landscapes: SP-620 UZ’s wider angle and higher resolution capture more scene detail, but noise and limited dynamic range reduce latitude for editing. TG-320's protective properties allow confidently shooting in challenging weather - albeit at lower resolution.

• Wildlife and Sports: Neither is ideally suited for fast action due to slow and basic AF and low burst rates. The SP-620’s zoom range aids composition flexibility, but autofocus and stabilization limit sharpness on moving subjects.

• Street Photography: TG-320’s compact size, light weight, and ruggedness make it the better street camera, offering discretion and peace of mind - even if image quality is modest.

• Macro and Night: TG-320 shines in macro, with close focusing down to 3cm, benefiting detail-hungry nature shooters. Night and astro photography is constrained by poor high ISO performance and lack of long exposure modes beyond 4 seconds.

Performance Scoring and Genre-Specific Ratings: Where Each Camera Excels and Lags

After thorough testing under standardized conditions and comparative benchmark analysis, I consolidated ratings as follows:

• SP-620 UZ scores higher overall thanks to zoom versatility and image resolution.
• TG-320 excels in durability, travel, macro, and street categories.
• Both lag in sports, night, and professional workflow integration due to dated tech and limited controls.

Who Should Buy Which? Clear-Cut Recommendations

• Choose Olympus SP-620 UZ if:

  • You want a versatile superzoom compact for travel, landscape, and casual wildlife photography.
  • You prioritize zoom reach and resolution over ruggedness.
  • You shoot primarily in good light and want easy automated operation without manual exposure fiddling.
  • You’re on a very tight budget (priced ~ $200 secondhand) but want a point-and-shoot with respectable reach.

• Choose Olympus TG-320 if:

  • You need a tough, waterproof camera for outdoor, adventure, and underwater photography.
  • Portability and resilience outweigh maximum zoom or image quality.
  • You value macro capabilities for close-up nature shots.
  • You want a non-intimidating, reliable point-and-shoot with simple controls.

• Avoid both if you:

  • Demand advanced autofocus for sports or wildlife.
  • Need RAW shooting or significant post-processing flexibility.
  • Require modern video features or extensive manual controls.
  • Crave long battery life or wireless connectivity.

Wrapping Up: Two Cameras, Two Philosophies, One Brand Legacy

Reflecting on the Olympus SP-620 UZ and TG-320 showcases not just an evolution in compact camera technology but a snapshot of manufacturer strategy focusing on differentiated user priorities - versatility versus ruggedness. The SP-620 curses the absence of manual controls with a rich zoom but falls short for rapid, professional work or extreme environments. The TG-320 sacrifices zoom reach for survivability and user peace of mind, ideal for casual adventurers.

While neither camera will dazzle today's pros or tech enthusiasts, their enduring value comes from understanding the trade-offs absolutely essential to compact camera design. In 2024’s camera landscape dominated by smartphone imaging and mirrorless innovation, these Olympus compacts remain fascinating case studies for anyone curious about how far technology and creativity can stretch within tight engineering and budgetary constraints.

If you stumble upon one of these on clearance or secondhand, consider your photographic priorities - are you chasing versatile zoom or rugged freedom? Either way, you get an Olympus badge of honor built on decades of photographic expertise.

I hope this deep dive helped you navigate the nuanced divide between these two Olympus 2012 compacts! Feel free to share your own experiences or questions below - I love geeking out on gear as much as shooting with it.