Olympus SP-620 UZ vs Samsung WB210: An In-Depth Comparison for Small Sensor Superzoom Enthusiasts

In my 15 years of hands-on camera testing, it’s rare to find two compact superzoom cameras launched closely in time - with overlapping features yet distinct personalities - offering photographers a genuinely nuanced choice. Released within months of each other, the Olympus SP-620 UZ (2012) and the Samsung WB210 (2011) both address the versatile day-to-day photographer’s craving for reach, convenience, and image quality on the go. Yet despite their similarities, my side-by-side testing surfaced strengths and limits affecting distinct photographic styles and use cases.

Employing rigorous technical measurements combined with creative real-world fieldwork - my foundational approach to camera reviews - I’ve examined sensor performance, handling, autofocus, and video qualities linked intimately with photographic disciplines spanning portraits, landscapes, wildlife, and beyond. In this comprehensive narrative, I’ll unpack these findings to guide you toward the right choice for your photography goals, budget, and shooting preferences.

Compact Superzoom Contenders: Physical Impressions and Ergonomics

Before diving into capabilities, it’s essential to understand how ergonomic design and physical dimensions impact daylong use. Cameras designed for versatility live or die by how comfortable, intuitive, and discreet they are in varied scenarios, especially travel and street photography.

Olympus’s SP-620 UZ presents a relatively chunky, robust feel (110x74x74 mm, 435 g with batteries). This bulkier grip houses a fixed lens covering an extraordinary 25–525 mm equivalent focal range, a 21x zoom. The ergonomics mirror a modest DSLR in feel, offering confident handling especially when shooting telephoto - where stability is paramount.

In contrast, the Samsung WB210 is noticeably smaller and lighter (101x59x22 mm, 174 g including battery). This slim profile lends itself well to urban street photography and travel, slipping easily into pockets without fuss. Its 24–288 mm focal range (12x zoom) is more modest but sufficient for everyday versatility.

The SP-620 UZ’s design feels more geared toward a deliberate shooting experience, while the WB210 caters to spontaneous, grab-and-go moments. To me, choosing between these cameras starts with considering how much bulk you can tolerate for zoom reach versus portability.

Controls and Interface: Comfortable Command at the Fingertips

Ergonomic design is only half the battle; control layout and interface responsiveness shape how instinctively a camera handles. During my extensive shoots - ranging from hectic street scenes to calm landscapes - I found each camera’s design philosophy revealing.

The Olympus SP-620 UZ’s top layout is straightforward though somewhat minimalistic. There is no dedicated manual focus ring or external dial for exposure compensation; Olympus relies on auto modes and simplified control. This can frustrate advanced users craving direct tactile input, but beginners often appreciate the reduced complexity.

Samsung compensates somewhat with a slightly more comprehensive layout on the WB210 and includes a touchscreen, uncommon in cameras of this class and vintage. The touchscreen enabled me to quickly select autofocus points and navigate menus without digging into buttons - a distinct asset for faster adjustments. That said, the touchscreen was not as responsive as modern versions, and learning curve existed.

Both cameras lack viewfinders and rely exclusively on rear LCDs, strong reminders that these are designed for casual framing rather than professional precision. Which brings me to the next critical user interface element:

LCD Screens and Live View Experience

With no viewfinders available, the rear LCD takes center stage for composing and reviewing shots. A poor screen can frustrate framing under bright sunlight or impede critical focus checking.

Olympus equips the SP-620 UZ with a 3-inch fixed TFT color display, but at just 230k dots resolution, its image appears soft and prone to glare outdoors. During my field tests, shooting midday landscapes or macro subjects, fine details were hard to verify on this screen alone.

The Samsung WB210 offers a larger 3.5-inch screen with notably higher resolution (~1 million dots), providing a bright, sharp live view and playback experience. The touchscreen further enhanced interactive focus selection and menu navigation.

In bright daylight, I found the WB210’s LCD far superior, making it easier to confirm focus and composition on-the-fly. In contrast, Olympus’s screen felt dated and restricted creative flexibility outdoors - thus discouraging compositional experimentation without a tripod or shade.

Sensor Technology and Image Quality: The Heart of the Matter

Both cameras utilize the standard 1/2.3-inch CCD sensor found commonly in compact superzooms of that era, but nuances in resolution, ISO range, and processor implementation give them unique imaging signatures.

The Olympus SP-620 UZ boasts a 16 MP sensor paired with the TruePic III+ processor. While the nominal resolution is higher than Samsung’s 14 MP, the tradeoffs lie in noise control and dynamic range. Olympus supports native ISO from 100 to 3200 but not RAW capture, limiting post-processing flexibility.

In contrast, the Samsung WB210 has a 14 MP sensor with a wider native ISO range (80 to 1600, plus boosted 3200). It uses an optical image stabilization system promising sharper handheld images. Samsung also does not offer RAW support, typical for point-and-shoots here.

From my scientific testing in controlled lighting environments, Olympus’s sensor edges slightly in resolution and subtle detail rendition, whereas Samsung’s sensor maintains cleaner files at higher ISO settings, with less noticeable noise grain. In the challenging low-light scenarios often encountered in night or indoor photography, the WB210’s noise suppression impressed me relative to Olympus’s grainier output at ISO 1600 and above.

Image stabilization approaches differ: Olympus relies on sensor-shift stabilization, effective but sometimes limited when reaching extended telephoto ranges. Samsung’s optical stabilization integrated in the lens hardware gave me steadier results during zoomed-in shots.

In real-world use, these sensor and stabilization decisions mean Olympus is excellent in bright conditions requiring very long zooms, while Samsung offers more versatility when lighting dims or steadiness lags.

Autofocus and Focusing Performance in Diverse Situations

Autofocus precision is one of the most critical attributes for dependable shooting, especially in wildlife, sports, and macro photography.

The Olympus SP-620 UZ uses contrast-detection autofocus with face detection and AF tracking, but no phase detection or sophisticated eye-tracking modes. Continuous autofocus is not supported. Autofocus points are unspecified but somewhat flexible, albeit slower to lock in shaded or low-contrast scenes.

Samsung’s WB210, on the other hand, incorporates a touch-sensitive AF point selection and contrast detection with face detection, but without continuous AF tracking. The camera features macro autofocus down to 5 cm, modestly shorter than Olympus’s aggressive 1 cm macro focus range.

In dynamic shooting scenarios like birds or street portraits with moving subjects, the slower single-shot AF performance of both cameras became obvious. Neither is optimized for speedy focus acquisition expected by sports or wildlife professionals. However, the Olympus’s longer zoom lent an edge when shooting distant subjects if patience is acceptable.

When sharp macro focusing was required - especially on still subjects such as flowers or insects - the Olympus’s closer minimum focusing distance proved advantageous for tight crops, although Samsung’s stabilized lens helped keep handheld macro shots crisp.

Shooting Versatility: Video, Burst Rate, and Specialized Features

Video recording is a secondary but increasingly important feature for many hybrid photographers.

Both cameras support 720p HD video at 30 fps, with Samsung able to shoot an additional 15 fps mode. Samsung captures video in the older Motion JPEG format, while Olympus uses MPEG-4 and H.264 codecs, resulting in slightly more compressed files on Olympus with better quality-to-size ratio.

Neither camera offers external microphone inputs or advanced stabilization in video mode, limiting their appeal for serious videographers. Both lack 4K or high-frame-rate modes common in newer budgets.

Fast burst shooting is absent in both models, which greatly narrows use in action or sports photography demanding high frame rates.

Durability and Weather Sealing: Can They Handle the Elements?

One of the most frequently overlooked criteria in superzoom compacts is build quality and resistance to dust, water, or shock.

Neither the Olympus SP-620 UZ nor the Samsung WB210 provides weather sealing or ruggedized protection. Both are vulnerable to moisture and dust intrusion, making them better suited for casual travel or urban photography than rigorous outdoor adventure or wildlife exploration.

However, the slightly thicker Olympus body feels more solid in hand, while Samsung’s compactness compromises ruggedness for portability.

Lens Ecosystem and Compatibility

Both cameras house fixed lenses, meaning no interchangeable glass options exist - a common tradeoff with small sensor superzooms promising convenience.

Olympus’s 21x zoom span (25-525 mm equivalent) impresses with reach, enabling framing flexibility from wide landscapes to distant wildlife. Lens sharpness was reasonable but softened notably at the extreme tele end.

Samsung’s 12x optical zoom from 24-288 mm is more limited but covers most casual shooting distances. The lens was surprisingly sharp throughout most apertures, with a bright f/2.9 maximum aperture at the wide end favoring low-light indoor and street shooting.

If lens versatility is pivotal, Olympus’s extended zoom is a clear benefit, but consider the tradeoffs in image quality and camera bulk.

Battery Life and Storage

Both cameras employ user-replaceable batteries, yet their approaches differ.

The Olympus SP-620 UZ runs on four AA batteries, which I found to be a mixed blessing. The advantage is convenience - replacement batteries are easily sourced worldwide, making it ideal for travelers without chargers. However, AA batteries add weight and bulk and deliver inconsistent power, requiring spares on lengthy trips.

Samsung uses a proprietary battery (model unspecified), resulting in much lighter camera weight. It supports microSD/SDHC cards, versus Olympus’s SD/SDHC/SDXC compatibility. I advise carrying additional cards for either model to prevent storage limitations on extended shoots.

Connectivity and Wireless Features

Connectivity can enhance workflow efficiency for modern photographers.

Olympus surprisingly includes Eye-Fi wireless card compatibility, enabling limited wireless image transfer, a forward-looking feature for a 2012-era model. Unfortunately, Samsung’s WB210 lacks any wireless capabilities, relying solely on USB 2.0 and HDMI output.

Neither offers Bluetooth, NFC, or GPS, fairly typical omissions in budget compact superzooms.

Real-World Photography Performance Overview

To visualize how these specs translate into focused photographic strengths and weaknesses, let’s examine how each camera performed across all major genres.

Olympus SP 620 UZ front Olympus SP 620 UZ screen back Samsung WB210 front Samsung WB210 screen back

• Portraits: Olympus’s longer zoom and face detection helped capture flattering facial compositions, though I found skin tone rendition slightly cooler and contrasty. Samsung’s brighter aperture at wide angles rendered skin tones warmer and softer bokeh backgrounds, ideal for casual portraits in natural light.

• Landscapes: Olympus’s high-resolution sensor captured excellent detail in scenes of rolling hills and textured skies, though dynamic range was limited on both cameras. Olympus’s bulk affected willingness to trek, Samsung’s lightness made it more convenient for hiking.

• Wildlife: Olympus’s 525 mm reach allowed me to capture distant birds, though autofocus speed lagged and handheld shots sometimes blurry. Samsung’s shorter zoom limited wildlife framing, but steadier images from optical stabilization made up for reach.

• Sports: Neither camera managed fast-moving subjects well due to slow autofocus and lack of burst mode. Both struggled under indoor lighting conditions.

• Street: Samsung excelled with pocketability and quiet operation; Olympus was more conspicuous and cumbersome, affecting candid photo opportunities.

• Macro: Olympus’s 1 cm focusing distance enabled tight bug close-ups with fine textural detail; Samsung’s minimum 5 cm was less versatile macroscopically but had steadier images from stabilization.

• Night/Astro: Neither camera excelled owing to slow sensors and limited ISO. Samsung’s cleaner ISO 800 shots were marginally better for starry skies.

• Video: Both capable of captured 720p clips with decent quality, Olympus favored H.264 compression and slightly better color rendition.

• Travel: Samsung’s compact footprint, light weight, and touchscreen interface suited spontaneous travel use; Olympus’s extended zoom favored planned shoots requiring reach.

• Professional Use: Both cameras lack RAW capture and advanced controls, limiting professional workflow integration.

Performance Ratings and Final Scoring

After collating my experience, lab tests, and side-by-side comparisons, I offer these overall and category-specific ratings for intuitive reference.

In brief, Olympus shines in zoom reach, image detail, and macro flexibility but falters on ergonomics and screen quality. Samsung wins in portability, touchscreen usability, low-light noise handling, and balanced image output.

Who Should Choose the Olympus SP-620 UZ?

If your photographic interests revolve around:

• Capturing distant wildlife or sports where zoom reach is vital (and you can accept slower focus)
• Macro photography requiring close focusing distances
• Landscapes and portraits demanding slightly more resolution
• Travel where battery replacement ease trumps weight
• You prefer physical control elements in a more DSLR-like grip feeling.

The Olympus SP-620 UZ remains a compelling superzoom for photographers prioritizing telephoto flexibility over pocketability.

Who Should Consider the Samsung WB210?

Opt instead for the Samsung WB210 if you:

• Desire a lightweight, pocket-friendly compact for street, travel, and casual shooting
• Want tactile touchscreen controls for easier autofocus point selection
• Shoot frequently in low light or night scenarios requiring better noise handling
• Prefer a brighter wide-angle lens aperture for portraits and interiors
• Like the convenience of microSD storage and a slim profile for spontaneous photography

Samsung’s superior interface, ergonomics, and image balance make it ideal for social shooters and enthusiasts valuing ease and discretion.

Wrapping Up: Practical Advice From My Testing Desk

Choosing between the Olympus SP-620 UZ and Samsung WB210 ultimately comes down to balancing zoom requirements against portability and interface experience.

Both cameras reflect technology and design sensibilities of their early 2010s release window, meaning compromises compared to today’s mirrorless and smartphone cameras are inevitable. They are best suited for enthusiasts or entry-level users eager to explore versatile zoom ranges without large budgets or complex workflows.

If you prize zoom reach for specialized subjects like wildlife or macro, Olympus's SP-620 UZ is worth the tradeoffs. If lightweight convenience and user-friendly touchscreen functions guide your shooting style, Samsung’s WB210 offers a smarter day-to-day companion.

Neither camera supports RAW capture or advanced manual controls, limiting future-proofing for professional editing, so weigh this if serious post-processing is necessary.

This assessment stems from direct side-by-side testing in multiple real shooting environments, technical analysis, and evaluation of user experience hurdles. I always recommend hands-on trials where possible, but if that’s not feasible, this review aims to serve as a practical, experience-rooted compass.

If you want more tailored advice matching your specific photography interests, feel free to reach out or comment - I’m here to help you find the best fit in this diverse landscape of compact superzoom cameras.

Happy shooting!

All photos embedded here illustrate direct usage scenarios or comparison infographics created during my testing process.