Olympus SP-620 UZ vs. Pentax X90: A Deep Dive into Small Sensor Superzoom Cameras

In the world of small sensor superzoom cameras, the choices often come down to balancing zoom capability, image quality, ergonomics, and advanced features - all wrapped in a moderately priced package. Today I’m putting the Olympus SP-620 UZ and Pentax X90 head-to-head. Both have carved out niches since their early 2010s launches, yet they approach the superzoom concept with distinct philosophies. I’ve spent hours testing, shooting, and comparing these compact giants across diverse photographic tasks, so let’s unpack their strengths and limitations through the lens of practical experience and technical analysis. By the end, you’ll know exactly which one suits your style and budget best.

First Impressions: Handling Size and Ergonomics

Before diving into specs, it’s crucial to address a camera’s “feel.” Handling dictates how long you’ll want to shoot, how fast you can react, and the overall shooting experience.

The Olympus SP-620 UZ favors compactness with its straightforward pocket-friendly body. Its dimensions - 110 x 74 x 74 mm - make it notably smaller and lighter compared to the Pentax X90, which measures 111 x 85 x 110 mm, tipping the scale slightly heavier. The X90’s bulkier, SLR-style design gives a firmer grip and more physical controls, enhancing handling for enthusiast photographers who like tactile dials and buttons.

The Olympus’s more minimalist, streamlined shape appeals to travelers and street photographers wanting discretion and easy carry. In contrast, the Pentax feels more deliberate, its larger grip and more substantial body signifying a bridge camera that’s ready to engage in longer shooting sessions. Both forgo interchangeable lenses but provide extensive zoom ranges, and their body designs reflect how users might deploy them differently in real scenarios.

Control Layout and Top-View Design

Upon picking each camera up, how controls are laid out can make or break your quick-access experience. The Pentax X90’s SLR-esque top design is busier, featuring more physical buttons and dials that let you switch modes, adjust exposure compensation, and set shutter speed or aperture priority without diving into menus.

The Olympus’s top is simpler, optimizing for beginners or casual shooters who might find too many controls intimidating.

In practice, this translates to faster operation on the Pentax when switching between manual modes or tweaking exposure. Olympus’ TruePic III+ processor aims to streamline operation but lacks dedicated buttons for many settings, making it more of a point-and-shoot in handling philosophy. For pros used to dials and shortcut keys, the Pentax wins hands down; Olympus caters better to novices wanting quick, uncomplicated shooting.

Sensor and Image Quality: Playing with the Same Cards

Both cameras use a 1/2.3" CCD sensor, a common size for compact superzooms of their generation, but Olympus has a resolution advantage at 16 megapixels versus Pentax’s 12 megapixels. The actual sensor areas differ marginally - Olympus at 28.07 mm² versus Pentax’s 27.72 mm², a negligible discrepancy in real terms.

CCD technology, while older than CMOS, can deliver pleasant colors but generally struggles with low light and dynamic range compared to modern sensors. Expect similar limitations from both here - including noise creeping in above ISO 800, and somewhat limited shadow recovery. The Olympus’s higher megapixel count offers more detailed images at base ISO but also accentuates noise at higher sensitivities.

Real-world testing reveals the Pentax’s sensor paired with its Prime processor yields slightly cleaner RAW-like JPEGs at high ISO, though neither camera supports RAW output natively - a notable limitation for advanced post-processing. Olympus’s JPEG engine leans towards punchier contrast and saturation, which can appeal for social media sharing but reduces flexibility.

LCD Screen and Viewfinder

Visual feedback is essential, especially with tiny sensor cameras where framing precision and focus confirmation matter a lot.

The Olympus SP-620 UZ features a 3-inch fixed TFT LCD screen with modest 230k-dot resolution. It’s bright enough for most daylight conditions but lacks touchscreen functionality or variability in angle.

Pentax goes for a slightly smaller 2.7-inch screen with the same 230k-dot resolution but compensates with an electronic viewfinder - a game changer for shooting in bright light or when you want steadier handling. The EVF helps mimic an SLR experience, aiding composition and autofocus accuracy.

For outdoor photography or prolonged use, the Pentax’s EVF trumps the Olympus’s screen-only approach, improving framing precision and stability. Yet, the Olympus’s bigger screen size provides more visual real estate for review. Neither offers touchscreen or articulated screens, which restricts certain shooting angles and menu navigation.

Autofocus Systems: Precision Meets Speed at Telephoto

Now this is critical in superzooms where subjects tend to be at a distance or moving.

Neither camera boasts sophisticated phase-detection autofocus technologies, relying on contrast-detection AF, common for small sensor compacts. However, the Pentax features 9 autofocus points compared to Olympus’s indeterminate number (manufacturer doesn’t specify, but functionality is multi-area contrast-detection).

Olympus includes face and simple eye detection, improving performance for portraits - best for casual users who want decent focus on faces without fiddling. The Pentax lacks face detection but offers continuous autofocus tracking, which benefits moving subjects like wildlife or sports photographers, though with limitations.

In practical use, the Pentax's autofocus feels more responsive in live view and tracking due to its slightly more advanced Prime processor and cleaner UI feedback. The Olympus occasionally hunts more aggressively, particularly at zoom extremes where AF contrast diminishes.

Optical Zoom and Lens Aperture: Reach and Brightness

Zoom capabilities define superzoom cameras, and here the two models vie closely.

• Olympus SP-620 UZ lens: 25-525 mm equivalent (21x zoom), f/3.1–5.8 maximum aperture
• Pentax X90 lens: 26-676 mm equivalent (26x zoom), f/2.8–5.0 maximum aperture

Pentax edges Olympus in zoom reach by about 150mm in the telephoto domain and boasts a brighter aperture at wide-angle, beneficial in low light and depth of field control.

Olympus SP 620 UZ front Olympus SP 620 UZ screen back Pentax X90 front Pentax X90 screen back

I tested both lenses in natural light conditions shooting landscapes, wildlife, and portraits. The Olympus’s lens delivered slightly sharper wide-angle shots, with pleasant bokeh at longer focal lengths; however, its maximum aperture climbs quickly to f/5.8 at telephoto, limiting background separation and shutter speeds in dim environments.

Pentax X90’s f/2.8 aperture at the wide end lets in more light, which can help freeze motion and produce creamier out-of-focus backgrounds, albeit its telephoto end narrows similarly to Olympus.

Image sharpness across zoom ranges favors Pentax slightly due to its more advanced Prime processor and lens coating, but neither lens challenges true DSLR optics - image softness and chromatic aberrations creep in beyond mid-zoom ranges.

Burst Shooting and Shutter Speeds

For action photography in sports or wildlife scenarios, frame rates and shutter speeds are significant.

Both cameras lack robust continuous shooting modes - no high-speed burst modes like you’d find in enthusiast DSLRs or mirrorless cameras. The Olympus does not specify continuous shooting capabilities, effectively limiting it for fast sequences.

The Pentax X90 permits shutter speeds from 4 seconds to 1/4000 sec (compared to Olympus’s max 1/1500 sec). That allows Pentax to better freeze fast subjects or shoot in bright sunlight with wider apertures.

Neither camera features silent or electronic shutter options, and none has continuous autofocus burst capabilities, so for serious sports or wildlife photographers, these are compromises.

Battery Life and Storage Support

Both cameras use removable batteries but differ in type:

• Olympus SP-620 UZ runs on 4 x AA batteries.
• Pentax X90 uses a rechargeable D-L106 lithium-ion battery.

AA batteries in Olympus make it convenient when traveling in remote locations - you can quickly replace cells anywhere but at the cost of weight and inferior longevity.

Pentax’s proprietary battery offers longer shooting per charge and reduced weight but mandates specific replacements and charging infrastructure.

Both cameras accept SD/SDHC/SDXC cards, with Olympus adding support for Eye-Fi wireless cards for image transfer. The Pentax includes internal storage options in addition to SD slots, allowing some image buffering, a nice touch for catastrophe recovery.

Video Capabilities and Multimedia Features

Neither camera focuses heavily on video, but minimal functionality exists:

Both max out at 1280x720 (HD) at 30fps (Pentax adds a 15fps option). Olympus uses MPEG-4 with H.264 compression; Pentax relies on Motion JPEG - a less efficient codec resulting in larger file sizes and shorter recording times.

No external microphone inputs or headphones are available, so audio recording is basic at best.

Given the limited video specs, neither is suitable for serious videography, but casual HD clips are feasible.

Environmental Sealing and Durability

For outdoor, adventure, or landscape photographers, build quality and weather sealing matter a great deal.

Both cameras lack environmental sealing, dustproofing, waterproofing, or any shock/freeze ratings. Their plastic bodies mean careful handling in adverse conditions is required.

While the Olympus’s smaller size may encourage lightweight travel, it also means potentially weaker build robustness compared to the heavier, grippier Pentax.

Connectivity and Workflow Integration

Connectivity is limited in both; neither offers Bluetooth or NFC, but both support Eye-Fi cards for wireless image upload, a feature partially ahead of its time for their launch period.

USB 2.0 and HDMI ports enable basic tethering and playback on external devices but fall short of modern wireless or app integration standards.

No GPS functionality is built-in, which may deter travel or landscape shooters who rely on geotagging.

Detailed Performance Ratings and Genre-Specific Scores

We compiled a comprehensive scoring matrix based on hands-on testing in multiple photography disciplines, assessing resolution, dynamic range, low light capability, autofocus speed, ergonomics, and value.

Portrait Photography

• Olympus: Offers face detection, decent skin tone rendering with its TruePic III+ image processing, and smooth bokeh at long zooms, making it suitable for casual portraits. Lack of manual exposure hampers refinement.
• Pentax: No face detection but better manual exposure control and faster aperture at wide-angle for softer backgrounds. Eye-catching color reproduction but less automated assistance.

Landscape Photography

• Olympus: Higher resolution sensor aids cropping, but limited dynamic range compression results in blown highlights/shadows.
• Pentax: Slightly better dynamic range, broader aspect ratio options, and sturdier build encourage landscape shooting despite lower megapixels.

Wildlife & Sports Photography

• Neither excels due to slow autofocus and limited continuous shooting. Pentax’s longer zoom and faster shutter speeds give it a slight advantage.

Street Photography

• Olympus’s compact size and lighter weight make it more discreet and quicker to whip out for spontaneous moments. Pentax’s larger body makes it more conspicuous.

Macro Photography

• Both shine with 1cm macro focusing but Olympus’s sensor-shift stabilization adds steadiness at close distances.

Night and Astro Photography

• Both cameras falter here due to CCD sensor noise and lack of long exposure modes. Pentax’s slower minimum ISO (80) and longer shutter speed range provide modest leverage.

Video Use

• Minimal; Olympus edges out marginally with superior codec efficiency.

Travel Photography

• Olympus’s lightweight, compact form and AA battery advantage suit travelers needing field flexibility.
• Pentax’s better handling and zoom range cater to those prioritizing versatility over size.

Professional Work

• Neither supports RAW - a major shortfall for serious pros. Workflow integration via Eye-Fi is basic.

Wrapping Up: Who Wins?

While these two cameras compete in the same market segment, they serve subtly different audiences.

The Olympus SP-620 UZ is a nimble, budget-friendly option for casual shooters diving into superzoom photography without steep learning curves. Its compact frame, good zoom, and ease of use suit travelers, street photographers, and anyone wanting good point-and-shoot flexibility.

The Pentax X90 appeals to enthusiasts needing more control: manual modes, electronic viewfinder, broader zoom reach, and faster lenses. Its heavier body and better processing engine permit more deliberate photography - ideal for serious hobbyists and generalist shooters willing to carry extra weight.

Final Recommendations

• Choose Olympus SP-620 UZ if you:

  • Prioritize portability and light travel gear.
  • Want simple, automatic shooting with some zoom flexibility.
  • Value budget-friendliness.
  • Shoot mostly outdoors in good light.

• Opt for Pentax X90 if you:

  • Desire manual exposure modes and finer control.
  • Need a wider zoom range and faster aperture.
  • Prefer having an electronic viewfinder.
  • Shoot wildlife, sports, or landscapes requiring longer reach.

Closing Thoughts from My Experience

Both cameras reflect compromises inherent in the small sensor superzoom category circa early 2010s, and neither replaces a dedicated enthusiast mirrorless or DSLR system. Yet, their unique strengths mean they hold value for very specific use cases: Olympus excels with simplicity and travel-friendliness; Pentax leans into control and versatility.

Choosing between them comes down to how much control you want and what size/weight tradeoffs you accept. In my testing, I found the Pentax more rewarding when experimenting manually, while the Olympus radiated reliability and ease of use - qualities that can’t be overstated for casual shooters or travel photographers who don’t want distractions from complex menus.

If you prioritize photo quality above all, neither is a replacement for full-frame or APS-C options; if zoom range and convenience win out, these cameras might just be the pocketable telescopes you’ve been hunting for.

Happy shooting!

Image Credits

1. size-comparison.jpg – physical size and ergonomics visualization
2. top-view-compare.jpg – control layouts, vital for UX differences
3. sensor-size-compare.jpg – sensor technology and image quality analysis
4. back-screen.jpg – LCD and EVF comparison
5. cameras-galley.jpg – side-by-side sample photos from both cameras
6. camera-scores.jpg – aggregated performance scores across categories
7. photography-type-cameras-scores.jpg – genre-specific performance breakdowns