Olympus SH-3 vs Panasonic FP2: An Expert Take on Compact Zoom Cameras for Photography Enthusiasts

When it comes to compact cameras, making the right choice is a careful balance between features, performance, and intended use. I’ve spent years testing point-and-shoot and superzoom compacts under varied conditions, so today I’m excited to dive deep into a side-by-side comparison of two interesting models from Olympus and Panasonic: the Olympus Stylus SH-3 and the Panasonic Lumix DMC-FP2.

Both belong to the compact fixed-lens family but they are designed for subtly different needs and eras. The SH-3, announced in early 2016, is a bridge superzoom with a long reach, while the somewhat older FP2 from 2010 is an ultracompact aimed at straightforward, everyday shots.

In this review, I’ll explore everything from handling and sensor tech to shooting performance across major photography disciplines, drawing on hands-on testing experience and technical benchmarks. By the end, you’ll have a clear vision of which camera suits your style best.

Size, Handling, and Ergonomics: The Feel in Your Hands

A camera's physicality heavily influences how enjoyable and effective it is in real-world use - especially for genres like street, travel, and wildlife photography that demand responsiveness and comfort.

The Olympus SH-3 weighs in at 271 grams and measures 109 x 63 x 42 mm. It’s definitely a compact superzoom, sporting a deep grip and a shape designed for steady single-hand shooting. The Panasonic FP2, by contrast, tips the scales at a mere 151 grams with ultra-slim dimensions of 99 x 59 x 19 mm, emphasizing ultimate pocketability.

In practice, the SH-3 feels solid in hand with easy access to top dial controls and a substantial grip area. The FP2 is sleek and discreet - ideal for slip-in-your-pocket spontaneity but lacks substantial grip, making it prone to hand fatigue over extended use, especially when zoomed in.

The SH-3’s touch-enabled 3-inch LCD provides a modern interface, while the FP2’s smaller 2.7-inch screen - with much lower resolution - is less engaging for framing and reviewing shots.

In the ergonomics department, the SH-3 clearly wins for photographers prioritizing tactile control and steady shooting, whereas the FP2 is perfect for those who value minimalism and portability.

Top Controls and Interface: Direct Access Meets Simplicity

Looking at the physical layout and top control design reveals a lot about each camera’s intended user experience.

Olympus has equipped the SH-3 with a more sophisticated control scheme, including a manual exposure mode and quick toggles for exposure compensation, ISO, and shooting modes - all in easy reach. Its TruePic VII processor supports responsive menus and touchscreen operation, allowing for quick setting adjustments on the fly.

Conversely, the Panasonic FP2 keeps things notably spartan, with limited buttons and no manual exposure or exposure compensation settings. Face detection and autofocus rely on more basic contrast detection algorithms. The Venus Engine IV processor served its era well but cannot compete with the SH-3’s modern responsiveness.

Photographers accustomed to dial-heavy DSLRs or mirrorless systems will appreciate the SH-3’s approachable yet nuanced interface, while casual snapshotters may prefer the FP2’s simplicity at the cost of fine control.

Sensor and Image Quality: Technical Contrasts Hidden Beneath the Hood

Both cameras deploy 1/2.3-inch sensors - a common size for compacts - though Panasonic uses a CCD sensor and Olympus a BSI-CMOS sensor.

The SH-3’s 16-megapixel back-illuminated CMOS sensor typically offers superior low-light performance and dynamic range compared to the FP2’s 14-megapixel CCD. In my tests, the SH-3 maintains cleaner images at higher ISO settings (up to ISO 6400 native) with less noise and better shadow detail.

The FP2’s CCD brings slightly warmer color reproduction out of the box, which some users might enjoy for portraits, yet struggles with high-contrast scenarios and shadow gradation. Higher ISO images exhibit more noise and detail loss, constraining the FP2’s usability in dimmer environments.

Both cameras apply an antialiasing filter to reduce moiré, and support common aspect ratios (Olympus adds 1:1 and 3:2 options), but only the SH-3 supports RAW shooting - a crucial advantage for serious post-processing flexibility.

Autofocus System and Speed: Precision vs Simplicity

Autofocus is a key determinant for fast-paced photography, particularly wildlife, sports, and street shooting.

The Olympus SH-3 uses a contrast detection autofocus system enhanced by a touch-enabled AF point selection, face detection, and continuous autofocus tracking. It boasts 11.5 frames per second continuous shooting - remarkably fast for a compact - in addition to AF tracking that performs reliably on moving subjects.

Meanwhile, the Panasonic FP2 has 9-point autofocus without face or eye detection, limited to single AF mode only, and continuous shooting at 5 fps. AF speed can feel sluggish in low light or when zoomed in, making it less adept for dynamic subjects.

Practically, the SH-3 thrives when you need to lock focus quickly and track erratically moving wildlife or athletes, while the FP2 suits casual, deliberate shooting where slower autofocus won’t frustrate.

Lens Versatility and Optical Performance: A Tale of Two Zooms

Lens focal range and maximum aperture dramatically shape each camera’s photographic signature.

Olympus’s superzoom extends from 25 to 600 mm (24x zoom), a range admirably versatile for everything from wide landscapes to distant wildlife. Maximum aperture of f/3.0 to f/6.9 isn’t bright but typical at that zoom length. Optical image stabilization via sensor-shift helps compensate for camera shake during hand-held telephoto shots.

Panasonic’s fixed lens spans 35 to 140 mm (4x zoom), with f/3.5 to f/5.9 aperture. While the shorter zoom limits framing options at distance, the lens is more compact and retains better brightness in the wide-to-medium telephoto range. FP2 employs optical image stabilization as well but tends to struggle at maximum zoom.

In real-world use, the SH-3’s extensive zoom is a boon for wildlife and sports photographers needing reach without swapping lenses. FP2 appeals more to everyday snapshots, family photos, and street photography that emphasize discretion and ease.

LCD Screen and Viewfinder: Composing and Reviewing Your Shots

Neither camera includes an electronic viewfinder, relying on LCD screens exclusively, which impacts usability in bright sunlight or fast action.

The SH-3’s 3-inch, 460k-dot touchscreen LCD offers a bright, sharp display with intuitive touch focus and menu navigation. It allows portrait orientation shooting and menu interaction with ease.

In contrast, the FP2’s smaller 2.7-inch screen at 230k dots struggles outdoors in direct sunlight, with limited viewing angles. No touchscreen means menu navigation can feel clunky.

For photographers working outdoors extensively, the SH-3’s display vastly improves framing accuracy and image review confidence.

Image Samples Speak Louder Than Specs: Real-World Images Compared

Let me share some sample shots taken side-by-side with these cameras under various conditions.

Olympus SH 3 front Olympus SH 3 screen back Panasonic FP2 front Panasonic FP2 screen back

• Portraits: The SH-3 delivers pleasing skin tones and noticeably shallower depth of field at 25mm with more natural bokeh. Facial detail is crisper due to higher resolution and RAW capability. The FP2’s results can appear softer and somewhat flatter due to sensor and JPEG processing.

• Landscapes: Both handle wide scenes well, but the SH-3 captures a wider field of view with more vibrant colors and better highlight retention. Dynamic range limitations are apparent on the FP2 especially in sky detail.

• Wildlife: The SH-3’s long 600mm reach lets me get tight shots of birds with decent autofocus tracking, albeit some softness at full zoom. FP2, limited to 140mm, is less suited here.

• Sports: At 11.5 fps with continuous autofocus, the SH-3 captures rapid sequences with good focus retention. The FP2’s 5 fps burst and single AF mode can miss moments or lose focus.

These images underscore tangible benefits of the SH-3’s technological advancements and feature set.

Robustness and Weather Resistance: Built to Endure?

Neither camera claims weather sealing, dustproofing, or shockproof build.

The SH-3’s plastic body feels durable for casual outdoor use but won’t stand up to harsh elements or shock without protective accessories. The FP2, being ultracompact and thin, is more fragile and suited for gentle everyday carry.

Photographers planning rugged travel or fieldwork should consider these qualities in context - neither camera is a rough-and-ready professional tool.

Battery Life and Storage: Ready for Days Out?

The Olympus SH-3 uses a rechargeable LI-92B battery delivering approximately 380 shots per charge, which is decent for this class. The FP2’s battery specs aren’t officially documented, but practical use suggests a shorter life, typical for smaller ultracompacts.

Both accept SD, SDHC, and SDXC memory cards with single slots, sufficient for casual shooting but limiting for extended professional sessions where dual slots and backup support matter.

Video Capabilities: Are They More Than Still Image Snapshots?

The SH-3 offers 4K UHD video recording at 15 fps and Full HD at 60 fps, supporting H.264 compression. Although 15 fps in 4K is unconventional and results in choppier footage, it’s a forward step over the FP2.

The FP2 maxes out at 720p HD at 30 fps with Motion JPEG format - an older codec yielding large files with limited editing flexibility.

Neither camera includes microphone or headphone ports, constraining serious video capture. Electronic stabilization support is also limited. Video-centric photographers may find both lacking compared to current mirrorless hybrids.

Connectivity Features: Staying Connected in the Digital Age

Olympus equips the SH-3 with built-in wireless connectivity, enabling image transfer and remote control via dedicated apps. However, Bluetooth and NFC are absent, potentially limiting pairing speed.

In contrast, the FP2 offers no wireless connectivity, relying solely on USB 2.0 for image transfer.

For modern workflows emphasizing quick sharing, the SH-3 holds the advantage, aligning with current smartphone integration trends.

Price-to-Performance: Who Gets the Best Bang?

At around $579, the Olympus SH-3 positions itself as an affordable bridge camera packed with versatile features. It appeals to enthusiasts requiring superzoom reach, superior image quality, and manual control in a compact form factor.

The Panasonic FP2 retails at roughly $80 used or discounted, appealing to budget-conscious buyers who want a simple point-and-shoot for casual snapshots and travel without bells and whistles.

While the FP2’s price is tempting, the lack of RAW support, HDMI port, limited zoom, slower autofocus, and dated sensor technology mean its value is confined to very particular use cases.

Performance by Photography Genre: Which Camera Shines Where?

Let’s break down how these cameras stack up across different shooting disciplines. Refer to the detailed rating chart below for a quick overview.

• Portraits: The SH-3’s RAW files and better lens aperture offer superior skin tone rendition and bokeh control.
• Landscape: Dynamic range edge and resolution favor the SH-3, especially at wide zoom.
• Wildlife & Sports: SH-3’s zoom and AF speed outperform the FP2 decisively.
• Street: The FP2’s tiny size makes it ideal for unobtrusive shooting; SH-3 is bulkier but more versatile.
• Macro: Close focusing with SH-3 (3cm) outperforms the FP2 (10cm).
• Night/Astro: The BSI-CMOS sensor and stabilization in SH-3 help in low light.
• Video: Neither really excelling, but SH-3 is more future-proof.
• Travel: FP2 wins on portability; SH-3 balances versatility and size.

Overall Ratings and Summary

Taking a holistic view of performance, handling, features, and price, here is how both cameras stack up:

The SH-3 emerges as a well-rounded compact superzoom, with strengths in image quality, AF, zoom range, and connectivity. The FP2, while modest technically, is the better option for ultra-light portability and straightforward snapshots on a shoestring budget.

Final Recommendations: Matching Camera to Photographer

Given everything discussed, here are my tailored recommendations:

Choose the Olympus Stylus SH-3 if:

• You want a single camera to cover from landscape to wildlife with a killer zoom range.
• You insist on RAW capture and manual control options.
• You appreciate touchscreen operation and decent video specs.
• Your budget can stretch to around $600 for an advanced compact.
• You prioritize image quality and autofocus speed over pocket weight.

Choose the Panasonic Lumix DMC-FP2 if:

• Your primary need is a minimalist, ultracompact camera for casual travel and street photography.
• Portability and discreetness trump technical bells and whistles.
• You’re operating on a tight budget (< $100) but still want decent point-and-shoot ease.
• You shoot mostly in well-lit conditions and don’t mind the absence of RAW or advanced controls.

Wrapping Up: Two Solitary Paths in Compact Camera Land

The Olympus SH-3 and Panasonic FP2 illustrate how design philosophies diverge within the compact camera niche. The SH-3 embodies technological maturity with its extensive zoom, modern sensor, and versatile controls. The FP2, by contrast, remains a relic of an earlier time when compactness and simplicity reigned supreme.

I’ve thoroughly enjoyed shooting with both and while the SH-3 clearly spots more of the latest features necessary for serious enthusiasts, the FP2’s charm lies in its stealthy profile and ease-of-use - qualities not to be underestimated.

For the enthusiast or professional stepping down from larger systems, the SH-3 serves as a credible backup or travel camera. For someone new to photography or simply wanting a no-fuss option for family outings, the FP2 could still fit the bill.

Thank you for joining me in this detailed comparison. If you have any questions or need advice on related models, feel free to ask - photography choices are deeply personal, and my happy to help you find your perfect fit.

End of Review