Olympus 1s vs Panasonic FZ35

Olympus Stylus 1s vs Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ35: A Hands-On Comparison of Two Superzoom Bridge Cameras

In the world of bridge cameras, enthusiasts and professionals alike may sometimes find themselves torn between models that offer all-in-one versatility but come from different generations and manufacturers. Today, I’m diving deep into a head-to-head comparison of two compact superzoom bridge cameras: the Olympus Stylus 1s, announced in 2015, and the Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ35, launched back in 2010. Both carry the SLR-like body style and promise flexibility with their long zoom ranges and fully integrated lenses, but they differ significantly in technical approach, feature sets, and intended use cases.

Having tested thousands of cameras across genres and price tiers, I understand how nuances in sensor technology, handling, autofocus, and image processing profoundly affect shooting experiences and outcomes. This comparison will cover critical aspects such as technical specs, real-world performance, and value propositions spanning portrait, wildlife, travel, and more. Buckle up for an expert’s take on which of these bridge cameras might be suited for your gear bag - or if neither quite hits the mark in today’s market.

Getting a Feel: Size and Ergonomics Matter

Before I even picked up the first photo, how a camera feels in your hands can shape the entire shooting experience. The Olympus Stylus 1s is relatively compact yet robust, while the Panasonic FZ35 maintains a traditional bridge camera heft but with some notable quirks.

As pictured above, the Olympus 1s measures 116x87x57 mm and weighs in at 402 grams, and the Panasonic FZ35 is a little wider (118x76x89 mm) but a touch lighter at 397 grams. That extra depth on the FZ35 gives it a more pronounced grip, though ergonomics favor the Olympus due to its tapered profile and thoughtful button layout. The tilting touch screen (something the Olympus boasts but the Panasonic omits) adds significant usability for compositional flexibility, especially for low/high-angle shooting, which I found invaluable outdoors.

The controls on the Olympus feel more refined and responsive, with dedicated dials for exposure compensation and aperture, making manual shooting a breeze. The Panasonic’s buttons are serviceable but lack illuminated feedback or the precision that modern shooters might expect, which could frustrate users who prefer intuitive tactile control during fast-paced shoots.

A Peek from Above: Control Layout and User Interface

Image playback and shooting settings depend enormously on interface design. From my hands-on tests, control layout can seriously enhance or diminish shooting efficiency, especially when trying to capture fleeting moments.

The Olympus Stylus 1s boasts an ergonomic top plate centered around a large mode dial and an ergonomic shutter button ring that controls zoom - clever design aimed at one-handed operation - while the Panasonic FZ35’s more conventional dial and zoom toggle fit traditional expectations but don’t innovate.

Interestingly, the Olympus’s touchscreen LCD facilitates focusing and menu navigation, which lifts its usability considerably when working quickly. The FZ35’s absence of touchscreen means you’ll rely more on physical buttons, which may slow things down but some purists may appreciate this “no frills” approach.

Sensor Technology and Image Quality: The Heart of the Camera

Let’s get technical. Both cameras sport a 12-megapixel sensor, but differences in sensor size and technology lead to important implications for image quality.

Olympus 1s features a 1/1.7” BSI-CMOS sensor measuring 7.44x5.58mm with an area of 41.52 mm², while the Panasonic FZ35 uses a smaller 1/2.3” CCD sensor at 6.08x4.56mm and a 27.72 mm² sensor area.

Why does that matter? The larger and back-illuminated CMOS sensor in the Olympus captures light more efficiently, translating to better low-light performance, dynamic range, and overall color depth. The smaller CCD sensor in the FZ35, though respectable for its time, tends to struggle with noise at higher ISO settings and offers less tonal latitude when shooting high-contrast scenes.

From lab testing with standardized charts and real-world trials, images from the Olympus reveal cleaner shadows, more detail retention, and smoother gradations compared to the Panasonic. This advantage becomes critical for genres like landscape and portrait photography where fine texture and tonal accuracy matter most.

Screen and Viewfinder Experience: Framing and Reviewing Your Shots

A bright, high-res display and usable viewfinder are essential for precise composition and review in various lighting conditions.

The Olympus Stylus 1s uses a 3-inch tilting touchscreen with 1,040k-dot resolution, making it vibrant and versatile for shooting at odd angles. The Panasonic FZ35's fixed 2.7-inch display with only 230k dots feels dimmer and less crisp by comparison, limiting usability in bright sunlight.

Both cameras have electronic viewfinders, but only the Olympus provides a sharp 1,440k-dot EVF with 100% coverage. This results in a much more immersive and accurate framing experience. The Panasonic’s EVF specs aren’t disclosed, but its age and sensor suggest a lower resolution and less detailed viewfinder.

For outdoor shooting, wildlife, or street photography where quick framing is crucial, the Olympus’s EVF and articulating screen offer a distinct advantage.

Portrait Photography: Rendering Skin Tones and Eye-Catching Bokeh

Portrait work demands flattering skin rendering, accurate autofocus, and pleasing background separation to make subjects pop.

Both cameras feature face detection autofocus (AF), but the Olympus 1s takes it further with contrast-detection AF across 35 focus points. It supports continuous AF and tracking well enough to lock onto eyes, even if it lacks modern eye-detection AI. The Panasonic FZ35’s AF system is more rudimentary, relying on single-point contrast detection with no continuous tracking.

Its fixed-lens Olympus’s constant f/2.8 aperture across a 28-300mm equivalent zoom lets you isolate subjects more easily regardless of focal length, enabling shallow depth of field and smooth bokeh. The Panasonic’s variable aperture range of f/2.8-4.4 reduces background blur at telephoto extremes and results in less creamy bokeh.

For skin tone accuracy, the Olympus's CMOS sensor and newer image processor deliver richer, more natural hues without oversaturation or harsh contrast. I found portraits taken with the Olympus more flattering under mixed lighting, whereas Panasonic images sometimes leaned flat or overly contrasty with its older CCD sensor.

Landscape Photography: Dynamic Range, Resolution, and Durability

When capturing sweeping vistas, sensor tech and build quality are frontline concerns.

The Olympus boasts 12 MP resolution with improved dynamic range and ISO 100-12,800 capability, while the Panasonic’s CCD tops out at ISO 6400, but image quality rapidly degrades above ISO 400. In tests shooting high-contrast landscapes (think bright skies and shadowed foregrounds), the Olympus preserved much more detail in highlights and shadows.

Neither camera offers weather sealing or rugged durability, limiting their appeal for extreme outdoor use. The Olympus has image stabilization paired with a fast f/2.8 lens, great for handheld shooting on dim days. The Panasonic’s stabilization lags behind in performance.

While both cameras lack ultra-high resolution, their 12MP counts are sufficient for prints up to A3 size, so texture and sharpness boil down to sensor quality and lens optics, where Olympus again holds a slight edge.

Wildlife and Sports: Autofocus, Zoom Reach, and Burst Speed

Superzoom bridge cameras often attract wildlife enthusiasts for their flexibility and ease compared to DSLR + telephoto setups.

The Panasonic FZ35’s focal range extends impressively farther to 486mm (35mm equivalent), compared to the Olympus’s 300mm max. This 1.6x reach difference could matter if your key subjects tend to lurk at a distance.

However, autofocus speed and tracking capabilities matter just as much. The Olympus 1s offers continuous AF with 35 focus points and tracking modes, enabling better focus retention on moving animals or athletes. The Panasonic’s contrast-detection AF system does not support continuous AF or tracking, meaning out-of-focus frames are more common during action shoots.

Burst rates favor the Olympus's 7 fps versus Panasonic's modest 2 fps continuous shooting. Over a long sequence, Olympus’s speed advantage helps capture that perfect wing beat or goal shot.

In sum: Panasonic wins zoom reach, Olympus wins AF sophistication and burst speed, making the latter better for fast wildlife and sports photography, while the former may satisfy casual telephoto needs.

Street Photography: Discretion, Speed, and Low-Light Handling

Street shooting benefits from compactness, whisper-quiet operation, and quick AF performance for candid moments.

Both cameras sport SLR-style bodies a bit bulky compared to dedicated street cameras, but their integrated lenses and compact form make them more portable than DSLRs with zooms.

The Olympus’s shutter sound is quieter, plus with its electronic viewfinder and articulating touchscreen, you can shoot more discreetly without raising the camera to your eye every time. Its superior low-light ISO performance results in cleaner nighttime captures.

Panasonic’s FZ35, with slower AF and no touchscreen, requires more deliberate handling, which could alert subjects or result in missed moments. Additionally, the smaller sensor struggles with noise in dim settings compared to Olympus.

For discreet street photography, Olympus edges ahead thanks to responsive controls and better image quality under varied lighting.

Macro Photography: Close-Up Capabilities and Stabilization

Close focusing is essential for macro, and both cameras tout macro modes with minimum focusing distances: 5 cm for Olympus, 1 cm (!) for Panasonic.

Though Panasonic gets exceptionally close, giving unique magnification, Olympus offers image stabilization to offset hand shake - a critical advantage at such tight focusing distances.

In practice, Olympus's stabilization coupled with better resolution and manual focus assist makes shooting insects, flowers, or textures more satisfying despite the slightly longer minimum focus distance.

Night and Astrophotography: ISO Performance and Exposure Flexibility

Nightscape and astro enthusiasts demand cameras that can perform in near darkness with minimal noise and long exposure options.

Olympus shines here with ISO 100–12,800 native range, optical stabilization (enabling slower shutter speeds handheld), and a 60-second maximum shutter that captures star trails beautifully. Plus, it offers intervalometer functionality for astrophotography time lapses.

Panasonic FZ35 lags with max ISO 6400 but notable image quality degradation at ISO 400+. Its maximum shutter speed also tops at 1/60s, limiting long exposures without a bulb mode, which it lacks. No timelapse recording further hampers night photography flexibility.

For long exposure enthusiasts, Olympus clearly takes the crown.

Video Capabilities: Recording Quality and Usability

Both cameras support video but vary in resolution and format choices.

Olympus offers Full HD 1080p at 30 fps with H.264 compression - solid quality for casual video, though lacking microphone and headphone jacks for external audio. Panasonic tops out at 720p HD with AVCHD Lite and Motion JPEG options, respectable but less future-proof.

Neither camera supports advanced stabilization during video; Olympus’s optical IS helps, but footage is not buttery smooth. No 4K capability exists on either.

For complementary video alongside stills, Olympus pulls ahead for sharper resolution and more modern codecs.

Travel Photography: Versatility, Battery Life, and Portability

Travelers prioritize a balance of image quality, zoom range, reliability, and battery endurance.

Olympus offers a 28-300mm f/2.8 constant aperture zoom which, combined with 450-shot battery life and tilting touchscreen, makes it versatile for varied scenes and shooting angles.

Panasonic's 27-486mm zoom covers longer reach but with a variable aperture limiting low-light shooting. Battery life info is unspecified but typically below Olympus’s owing to older tech.

The Olympus’s moderate size and lighter weight tip the scales in favor of comfort during extended trips.

Professional Considerations: RAW Support, Reliability, and Workflow

Both models offer RAW format capture - mandatory for post-processing flexibility. Olympus’s sensor and processor extract better color depth and dynamic range, giving professional editors more latitude to work with.

Build quality on both cameras feels solid but lacks comprehensive weather sealing, suggesting neither is ideal for rigorous professional fieldwork in adverse conditions.

Olympus’s USB 2.0 port and built-in WiFi facilitate faster transfers and image sharing, an edge for studios or photographers on deadline. Panasonic lacks wireless connectivity altogether.

Overall Performance Metrics and Genre Scoring

Time for a summary view. I applied standardized testing and real-world shooting across genres to evaluate performance comprehensively.

Olympus scores consistently higher for image quality, autofocus, video, and low-light handling. Panasonic holds its own in zoom reach and macro magnification but falls behind in most other key areas.

Breaking it down by photography type...

• Portrait: Olympus’s superior skin tone rendering and aperture consistency make it better suited.
• Landscape: Olympus edges with dynamic range and resolution.
• Wildlife: Panasonic’s reach is appealing, but Olympus’s AF and speed benefit action scenes.
• Sports: Olympus dominates due to burst rate and tracking AF.
• Street: Olympus delivers better discretion & low-light usability.
• Macro: Panasonic’s closer focusing is useful, but Olympus’s stabilization improves results.
• Night/Astro: Olympus is the clear winner.
• Video: Olympus offers better recording specs.
• Travel: Olympus balances features and size well.
• Professional Use: Olympus better integrates into workflows.

Final Thoughts: Which Bridge Camera Should You Choose?

Both the Olympus Stylus 1s and Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ35 bring a bundle of practical features to the table, but they’re tailored to somewhat different photography profiles and budgets.

Choose Olympus Stylus 1s if: You demand consistent image quality across diverse lighting, desire fast and flexible autofocus, value touchscreen controls, need respectable video, and want a camera that works well for portraits, landscapes, wildlife, and nighttime shooting. Its versatile 28-300mm f/2.8 zoom lens is a standout feature rarely found at this size and price.

Consider Panasonic Lumix FZ35 if: Your main priority is extended telephoto reach for casual wildlife or distant subjects and macro work with super close focusing appeal - and budget is tight or you prefer a simpler interface. The FZ35 shines with longer zoom range but sacrifices modern conveniences and image quality compared to the Olympus.

In my opinion, despite being older and less feature-packed, the Olympus Stylus 1s is a more rounded and capable bridge camera ideal for serious enthusiasts who want pocketable versatility without compromising too much on quality or control.

Dear Olympus and Panasonic, if you’re reading - please consider updating these lineups with larger sensors, faster processors, improved stabilization, and more ergonomic tricks to make bridge cameras truly shine in the mirrorless era.

Sample Gallery: See the Cameras in Action

To complete this review, here’s a direct comparison of sample images captured under varied conditions, from landscape vistas to indoor portraits, wildlife details to street candids.

Olympus 1s front Olympus 1s screen back Panasonic FZ35 front Panasonic FZ35 screen back

Look closely at noise in shadows, edge sharpness, color fidelity, and bokeh rendering. The Olympus Stylus 1s’s images maintain cleaner details and smoother tonal transitions, while the Panasonic’s show more grain and sometimes harsher contrast.

For hands-on users debating a versatile superzoom, the Olympus 1s emerges as my preferred pick - delivering years of growth in sensor and user experience wrapped in a comfortably compact design. If you want your bridge camera to handle most genres decently with a focus on quality and speed, it’s hard to beat.

Thanks for joining me on this detailed comparison - I hope it helps you make the right choice for your photographic pursuits!

If you have questions about specific aspects or want sample RAW files for your own tests, drop me a line. Happy shooting!