Olympus Stylus 5010 vs Panasonic Lumix DMC-FX48: A Practical Comparison of Two 2010-Era Compacts

In the world of compact digital cameras from the late 2000s, two contenders from Japanese giants Olympus and Panasonic stand out for their blend of portability and versatility: the Olympus Stylus 5010 (also known as the mju 5010) and the Panasonic Lumix DMC-FX48 (a.k.a. Lumix DMC-FX40). Both cameras share some common ground as fixed-lens, small sensor compacts designed for casual users, yet a deeper dive reveals subtle but consequential differences.

Having spent considerable time testing both models side-by-side under various shooting conditions, I want to share an in-depth analysis that goes beyond spec sheets to help you, the photography enthusiast or professional looking for a reliable travel-friendly secondary camera, understand which might be a better fit depending on your priorities.

First Impressions: Size, Handling, and Ergonomics

Any camera buy starts with how it feels in hand - that tactile connection often shapes the entire user experience. The Stylus 5010 and Lumix FX48, despite their similar compact classifications, differ notably in design ethos and tactile execution.

The Olympus 5010 is a true ultracompact, measuring a slender 95x56x20 mm and weighing only 126 grams. Its rounded edges and smooth contours favor pocketability and subtlety, making it well-suited for discreet street photography or casual vacation shots where bulk is unwelcome.

In contrast, the Panasonic FX48 occupies a slightly larger footprint (95x53x22 mm) and weighs about 150 grams. The FX48's body has a bit more heft and a firmer grip area, which gives it a reassuring solidity despite still maintaining relatively pocketable dimensions. This can be beneficial for users who prioritize stability when handholding longer zoom shots.

From an ergonomic standpoint, the Olympus’s minimalistic layout lacks dedicated control wheels or advanced toggles, leaning on simplicity rather than customizability. Panasonic on the other hand, offers manual exposure options and exposure compensation - rare features at this tier - adding flexibility and control for more engaged shooters.

For those who prioritize effortless carry and unobtrusive design, Olympus wins; for those wanting a touch more manual override and grip confidence, Panasonic takes the edge.

Visual Command Center: Screens and Viewfinders

Checking how each camera relays imagery back to the photographer is next. Both models opt out of optical or electronic viewfinders, relying on rear LCD screens exclusively for composing and reviewing images.

The Olympus 5010’s fixed 2.7-inch LCD is marginally larger than the Panasonic’s 2.5-inch screen, though both share the same modest 230k pixel resolution. It's not Retina display quality, so outdoor visibility under direct sun is a challenge on either camera. Neither screen offers touchscreen capability, meaning navigation through menus can feel dated and occasionally cumbersome.

The Olympus screen’s slightly larger size helps with composition clarity, but I found the Panasonic’s interface more intuitive and responsive overall. Panasonic also supports more aspect ratios (4:3, 3:2, 16:9) giving shooters framing options rarely seen at this price point in 2010.

In a practical scenario, both cameras demand careful angle selection to avoid glare, but Olympus edges marginally for size, while Panasonic wins on flexibility and user interface accessibility.

Peeking Inside: Sensor and Image Quality Dynamics

The heart of any digital camera’s performance lies in its sensor and image processing. Both cameras feature the ubiquitous 1/2.3” CCD sensors typical of their generation, but there are crucial distinctions worth unpacking.

Resolution and Sensor Characteristics

• Olympus 5010: 14-megapixels, sensor size 6.08 x 4.56 mm, with an anti-aliasing filter.
• Panasonic FX48: 12-megapixels, identical sensor size, also with an anti-aliasing filter.

The higher nominal resolution of the Olympus gives a theoretical edge for image detail, especially when printing larger format photos. In practice, though, the Panasonic’s slightly lower pixel density translates to marginally better noise management - critical in low light, as the FX48 supports ISO boost up to 6400 versus Olympus’s 3200 max.

Image Processing and Color Rendering

Olympus integrates its proprietary TruePic III processor aimed at enhancing color fidelity and noise reduction. Panasonic’s processor, while not explicitly detailed, supports custom white balance and has face detection autofocus, enhancing real-world usability.

When shooting test charts and realistic scenes:

• Olympus images are crisp with vibrant colors, though occasionally pushing saturation.
• Panasonic balances color tones with more natural transitions, slightly better in skin tones and subtle gradations.

Despite the FX48’s lower megapixel count, the image quality tradeoff is nuanced. For large-format cropping, Olympus’s extra pixels help, but overall noise and color uniformity favors Panasonic in many scenarios.

Lenses and Zoom Versatility

Both cameras come with fixed lenses and similar zoom ranges, but slight differences affect usability across culture, travel, and wildlife photography.

• Olympus 5010: 26-130 mm (35mm equivalent), F2.8–6.5 maximum aperture.
• Panasonic FX48: 25-125 mm, F2.8–5.9 maximum aperture.

The Olympus starts off equal on the wide end but loses a bit of brightness at telephoto, while Panasonic maintains a somewhat faster aperture throughout more of its zoom range.

Closer focusing is also slightly better on Panasonic with a 5 cm macro range versus 7 cm on Olympus - valuable for still-life or macro enthusiasts chasing minute details.

Both lenses use contrast-detection autofocus:

• Olympus supports face detection but not eye detection.
• Panasonic supports face detection but lacks animal eye or face tracking.

In real use, the Olympus lens feels marginally sharper in the wide angle stops, whereas Panasonic offers a tad more reach at maximum aperture and better macro flexibility.

Autofocus: The Eye Behind the Shutter

Through real-world experience under varied lighting and movement conditions, autofocus performance reveals another compelling difference.

Olympus 5010 employs contrast-detection AF with multi-area and tracking options but without face or eye detection. It struggles a bit in low light or fast-moving scenes, often hunting before locking focus.

Panasonic FX48 improved on this by integrating face detection and an 11-point AF array, significantly enhancing accuracy for portraits and casual candid shooting. It misses animal eye AF but holds steady on people.

While neither is tailored for professional sports or wildlife photography requiring rapid tracking, Panasonic's autofocus system handles everyday motion better, translating to more in-focus captures for active subjects.

Speed, Burst Mode, and Shutter Range

Speed across capture chains influences usability, especially for event photographers and fast action shooters.

• Olympus 5010 offers only 1 frame per second continuous shooting - adequate for quiet, contemplative shooting but ill-suited for dynamic scenes or sports.
• Panasonic FX48 doubles this to 2 frames per second - a modest improvement but still limited.

Shutter speed range is slightly more generous on Panasonic (60 to 3000 ms) compared to Olympus (4 to 2000 ms), allowing more creative control in exposure extremes, like long exposures and night photography.

Flash Capabilities and Low-Light Shooting

Integrated flash is a staple on both, but there are differences in range and modes:

• Olympus flash range tops around 4.7 meters with basic auto and red-eye reduction modes.
• Panasonic manages a 6-meter flash range, plus slow sync and red-eye reduction, beneficial for balanced fill-flash environmental portraits.

Sensor stabilization also diverges:

• Olympus uses sensor-shift stabilization, generally effective within its hardware constraints.
• Panasonic opts for optical image stabilization, reputedly superior at minimizing blur in handheld shooting.

In practical terms, Panasonic handles dim indoor and twilight shooting with fewer blurred shots, while Olympus’s stabilization is useful but less dependable under challenging conditions.

Video Features: To Movie or Not to Movie?

Neither camera should be confused with modern video powerhouses, but assessing video might be crucial for some users.

• Olympus 5010 shoots HD video at 1280x720 pixels (720p) at 30 fps - respectable for a 2010-era compact.
• Panasonic FX48 caps video recording at 848x480 pixels (WVGA), lacking HD resolution.

Both use Motion JPEG codec, leading to large file sizes and limited editing flexibility. Neither supports external microphones, and there are no headphone jacks - limiting audio quality and monitoring.

Therefore, if lightweight HD video clip capture is a priority, Olympus offers an advantage, albeit marginal.

Connectivity, Storage, and Battery Life

Connectivity options are minimal on both cameras; neither offers Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, or NFC. However, HDMI output available on Olympus 5010 is a plus for quick media playback on TVs, whereas Panasonic FX48 lacks this functionality.

Storage formats differ only slightly:

• Olympus supports SC/SDHC cards.
• Panasonic supports SD/SDHC cards plus MMCs (a minor but worth noting compatibility detail).

Battery details are opaque. Olympus uses proprietary Li-50B, Panasonic unspecified. Real-world usage suggests modest endurance typical of such compacts - begging users to carry spares if anticipating heavy shooting days.

Performance Rundown Across Photography Genres

What do all these specs and tests mean across real photographic disciplines? Let’s examine how these cameras stack up for various shooting genres.

Portrait Photography

Here Panasonic's face detection autofocus and natural color reproduction excel, producing better skin tones and reliable focusing on eyes and faces. Olympus lacks face detection, sometimes missing lock-on, which can be frustrating when shooting groups or children. However, Olympus offers slightly wider zoom reach for tightly framed portraits and more megapixels for cropping.

Recommendation: For casual to moderate portraiture, Panasonic provides a smoother experience.

Landscape Photography

High resolution and dynamic range are key here. Olympus’s 14 MP sensor provides finer detail, but dynamic range is limited by the CCD tech. Panasonic’s marginally better noise handling at higher ISOs can help in low-light landscapes.

Neither is weather-sealed, so exposure to harsh elements is risky. Both have limited aperture control, constraining depth-of-field creativity.

Recommendation: Olympus might edge out slightly if you prioritize resolution, but overall both are modest performers.

Wildlife Photography

Neither camera is built for fast action. Olympus’s limited burst rate and no face detection for animals hamper candid wildlife shots. Panasonic’s 2 fps burst and face detection marginally improve capture odds, but autofocus speed remains a bottleneck on both.

Telephoto reach is similar, but Panasonic’s brighter aperture at telephoto benefits low-light animal observation.

Recommendation: Neither ideal, but Panasonic suits casual wildlife better.

Sports Photography

Fast tracking and high fps are needed here. With 1 or 2 fps burst and slow contrast AF, both cameras fall short for serious sports shooting. Low-light autofocus and frame rate limitations compound issues under gym or evening conditions.

Recommendation: Avoid both for dedicated sports photography.

Street Photography

This is where Olympus thrives - the ultracompact size, silent operation, and quick startup make it discreet and pocket-friendly for candid street shooting. Panasonic’s larger body and slower response can be a hindrance in fast-paced environments.

Both lack viewfinders, so composing via LCD must be handled carefully.

Recommendation: Olympus is a definite go-to for street photographers valuing discretion.

Macro Photography

Panasonic’s 5cm minimum focusing distance is advantageous over Olympus’s 7cm, allowing closer, more detailed macro shots without additional attachments. Both rely on software stabilization to help in shooting at these distances.

Recommendation: Panasonic has a slight coup here.

Night and Astro Photography

Long shutter speeds are possible on both, but Olympus’s max shutter speed of 2 seconds is limiting compared to Panasonic’s 3 seconds. Both are constrained by sensor size and noise characteristics for astrophotography.

ISO boost on Panasonic to 6400 compared to Olympus’s 3200 may permit slightly brighter low-light shots, but noise quickly degrades quality.

Recommendation: Panasonic edges night shooting slightly; neither are true astro tools.

Video Capabilities

Olympus shoots decent 720p HD video; Panasonic is restricted to standard definition. For casual video capture, Olympus is clearly superior.

Travel Photography

Considering size, weight, versatility, and battery, Olympus is notably lighter and slimmer - ideal for extended travel excursions. Panasonic offers more manual controls and stabilization but at the expense of bulk.

Recommendation: For minimalist travel, Olympus. For those wanting more exposure flexibility, Panasonic.

Professional Use

Neither camera supports RAW image capture or advanced connectivity. Limited manual modes on Panasonic offer some workflow advantages, but neither truly satisfies professional needs.

Technical Verdict with Essential Scores

When quantifying performance, here’s a snapshot:

• Image Quality: Olympus (+) higher resolution; Panasonic (+) noise control
• Autofocus: Panasonic (+) face detection, AF points
• Body & Handling: Olympus (+) pocketability; Panasonic (+) grip and manual control
• Video: Olympus (+) HD recording
• Battery & Storage: Tie, modest endurance and standard SD card slots
• Value: Olympus ($150) significantly cheaper than Panasonic ($325), but with fewer features

Final Recommendations - Which Camera for Whom?

• Buy Olympus Stylus 5010 if:

  • You want the smallest, lightest, and most pocketable camera.
  • Your shooting is primarily casual, street, or landscape photography.
  • You prioritize higher resolution for prints.
  • You want a budget-friendly, straightforward point-and-shoot.

• Buy Panasonic Lumix FX48 if:

  • You desire more exposure control and manual override.
  • Your focus is on portraits with reliable face detection.
  • You shoot macro or still-life needing closer focus.
  • You prefer slightly better image stabilization and low-light performance.
  • You can accept a bigger body for enhanced handling.

Wrapping Up - Contextualizing Compact Camera Choices in 2010

Both Olympus and Panasonic built cameras that reflect the transitional moment in compact camera history: the era before smartphones completely displaced casual cameras, yet still constrained by smaller sensors and limited processing power.

The Olympus Stylus 5010 shines as a pure ultracompact offering, excelling in portability and resolution at an attractive price. The tradeoffs mostly involve autofocus sophistication and low-light grace.

The Panasonic Lumix FX48 appeals to slightly more engaged shooters with its manual controls, face detection, and improved image stabilization but demands a willingness to pay nearly double the price and carry a larger body.

Neither camera satisfies professional workflows or high-speed photography needs, but each holds value as a reliable backup/newbie-friendly compact.

For those who cherish genuine portability and quick candid snaps, Olympus’s 5010 "mju" keeps its dogged charm alive. Panasonic FX48 tries to be "a good boy" with added features, trading some compactness for flexibility.

Olympus 5010 front Olympus 5010 screen back Panasonic FX48 front Panasonic FX48 screen back

In examining sample images side-by-side, both yield respectable output for their time, but subtle preferences in color tone and sharpness tailors choice further to personal tastes.

If you are browsing 2010-era compacts, be sure to handle both if possible. Their tactile differences and feature sets influence satisfaction as much as specs.

Ultimately, these cameras narrate a shared story of compact convenience timestamped in a pre-smartphone era - and while technology has marched on, these models remain interesting case studies in balancing size, speed, and image quality.

I hope this comparison helps you navigate your longstanding compact camera curiosities or guides retro gear acquisitions with precise, experience-based clarity. If you want to discuss specific use cases or dive deeper into test images, I’m happy to share further insights.

Happy shooting!