Olympus SP-820UZ vs Pentax XG-1: A Hands-On Deep Dive into Two Small Sensor Superzooms

Having spent over 15 years testing cameras across all genres, I understand how challenging it is to find the right superzoom bridge camera that fits your needs - whether you crave long reach, image quality, or versatility. Today, I’ll share my detailed comparison between two compact superzoom models: the Olympus SP-820UZ and the Pentax XG-1.

Though both cameras fall within the small sensor superzoom category, their feature sets, ergonomics, and performance differ significantly. I’ve extensively tested these cameras in a variety of settings, from landscapes bathed in golden hour light to fast-paced wildlife scenes and low-light street photography - all while weighing their technical specs, real-world handling, and image quality. In this review, you’ll find an unvarnished, practical comparison designed to help you choose the best fit for your photographic ambitions and style.

First Impressions: Ergonomics and Physical Presence

The first thing you’ll notice when picking up these two is how differently they feel in the hand. The Olympus SP-820UZ has a compact, pocketable shape that almost invites casual shooting. In contrast, the Pentax XG-1 sports a robust, SLR-like “bridge” design that exudes a more serious photographic aura.

At 117x78x93 mm and 485 grams, the Olympus is lighter and slimmer, making it more travel-friendly if you’re carrying it all day. The XG-1, measuring 119x89x98 mm and weighing 567 grams, is noticeably larger and bulkier, which might deter ultralight shooters but provides a more substantial grip experience, especially important during long zoom usage.

The Olympus’s built-in grip recess works well with small hands, but I found its controls a bit cramped. The XG-1’s larger body offered improved balance with extended telephoto use. Having tested countless cameras this predicament reinforced my conclusion: If portability is king, Olympus wins; if in-hand stability is your priority, Pentax is where you look.

Control Layout and Usability: Intuitive or Overwhelming?

Physical button layout, dials, and menus profoundly impact daily shooting ease. I spent extended sessions operating both cameras to judge how effortless it was to adjust settings under pressure.

Examining the top-view, the Olympus features a minimalist control scheme with only essentials accessible - zoom toggle, shutter release, and basic menu activation. It lacks dedicated manual exposure controls and no tactile dials, meaning most functionality is menu-driven. This makes it approachable for casual users, but less satisfying for photographers craving quick manual tweaks.

Conversely, the Pentax XG-1 impresses with dedicated manual, aperture, and shutter priority modes, alongside an exposure compensation dial, lending greater creative control. The electronic viewfinder (not present on Olympus) adds a valuable shooting option in bright conditions.

My takeaway from using these cameras side-by-side: the SP-820UZ feels more “point-and-shoot” friendly, while the XG-1 caters better to photographers who desire greater exposure and focus control without going fully DSLR.

Sensor and Image Quality: What Does the Small Sensor Deliver?

Both cameras employ a 1/2.3” sensor format - a small chip common in bridge cameras but naturally limiting compared to larger mirrorless or DSLR sensors. Let’s zoom into their sensor specs.

The Pentax’s sensor resolution is slightly higher at 16 MP, versus 14 MP for the Olympus. Pentax uses a BSI-CMOS sensor, which typically offers better low-light performance and higher throughput, whereas the Olympus relies on a regular CMOS sensor. Both cameras include an anti-aliasing filter to reduce moiré, but this can slightly soften fine detail.

In practical testing, I found the Pentax’s files yielded marginally better sharpness and richer colors, especially under good lighting conditions, whereas the Olympus images were slightly less crisp with more muted dynamic range. Both cameras struggled in low light, exhibiting notable noise beyond ISO 400, but here the Pentax’s inverse crop and sensor technology gave it a subtle edge.

However, neither camera supports RAW shooting - a significant limitation for enthusiasts who want maximum editing latitude. If post-production flexibility is a priority, you will need to look elsewhere.

Monitoring Your Shot: Screens and Viewfinders

Neither camera targets professional ergonomics, but their visual interfaces differ.

The Olympus sports a 3.0-inch fixed TFT LCD screen of moderate resolution (460k dots). It’s bright enough for general use but suffers in direct sunlight. The lack of touchscreen or articulating mechanism is disappointing for composing tricky angles.

The Pentax features a screen of the same size and resolution but importantly supplements it with a 200k-dot electronic viewfinder (EVF). This EVF proved essential when shooting outdoors in harsh sun or rapid movements, enabling framing precision beyond the LCD’s limits.

My testing confirms: if you work mostly outdoors or need fast framing accuracy under various light conditions, the Pentax’s EVF is a decisive advantage. Casual match-and-shooters will find the Olympus LCD adequate.

Autofocus and Shooting Speed: Catching the Moment

A camera’s ability to focus quickly and reliably is paramount across genres. Here’s where both cameras reveal their budget superzoom DNA.

The Olympus SP-820UZ has contrast-detection autofocus with face detection, but no continuous AF or tracking modes. Its continuous shooting speed is a slow 2 fps, restricting action photography potential.

The Pentax XG-1 also relies on contrast detection but lacks face or tracking detection. However, its continuous shooting rate clocks in at 9 fps, which is remarkable for this category. During wildlife and casual sports attempts, the Pentax’s responsiveness offered more keepers.

Neither camera features phase-detection autofocus or eye-detection, both now common even in budget models. So while the Pentax is faster, the Olympus is more limited for dynamic photography. Manual focus capability on the Pentax is a plus for macro or creative control, where the Olympus offers none.

Lens Reach and Aperture: Zoom Range vs Brightness

Both come with fixed superzoom lenses sporting gargantuan zoom factors.

• Olympus SP-820UZ: 22-896 mm equivalent (40x zoom), f/3.4–5.7
• Pentax XG-1: 24-1248 mm equivalent (52x zoom), f/2.8–5.6

The Pentax’s extended zoom range, reaching a whopping 1248 mm, gives you a genuine telephoto reach for distant wildlife or sports subjects that surpasses the Olympus by over 300 mm.

Olympus SP 820UZ front Olympus SP 820UZ screen back Pentax XG 1 front Pentax XG 1 screen back

On aperture, the Pentax slightly outperforms Olympus at the wide end with f/2.8 versus f/3.4. This wider aperture affords better low-light and shallow depth-of-field capabilities, crucial for portraits and indoor shooting.

At full telephoto, both lenses get quite slow (f/5.6 or higher), so natural light is necessary for sharp images.

In bright daylight, the Olympus lens delivered usable sharpness throughout the zoom range, but the Pentax’s improved optics occasionally yielded more contrast and finer details, especially at wider focal lengths.

Versatility Across Photography Genres

Let’s break down how these specs and real-world performance translate into each photography style.

Portrait Photography

Portraits demand accurate skin tones, pleasing bokeh, and preferably eye detection.

• Olympus: The fixed lens has a moderate f/3.4 max aperture, and bokeh quality is average. Face detection helps, but the lack of eye AF and manual exposure limits creative control over depth or highlight retention.
• Pentax: Slightly faster wide aperture and manual control modes offer better exposure fidelity. No eye AF, but the longer lens range allows creative compression. Bokeh is acceptable but not stunning due to small sensor size.

Neither camera excels for professional portraiture, but Pentax’s control edge tips balance in its favor.

Landscape Photography

Key factors: resolution, dynamic range, and weather sealing.

• Both cameras have a 1/2.3" sensor with fixed anti-aliasing filters, limiting resolution and dynamic range compared to larger formats.
• Neither Olympus nor Pentax offers weather sealing - a drawback for outdoor landscape shooters exposed to elements.
• Pentax’s marginally higher resolution and broader aspect ratio support (including 3:2) lend some compositional flexibility.

If landscapes are your priority, investing in a camera with a larger sensor and weather sealing is advisable. These models serve casual outdoor photography adequately but won’t satisfy demanding landscape shooters.

Wildlife and Sports Photography

Autofocus speed, tracking, burst shooting, and telephoto reach are vital here.

• The Pentax XG-1 shines due to its 52x zoom, higher burst rate (9fps), and stabilization, enabling better subject capture at distance and motion.
• Olympus’s sluggish 2 fps frame rate and lack of stabilization reduce its utility in fast-action shooting.
• Autofocus on both is contrast-detection, which won’t rival modern phase-detection systems for critical tracking, but Pentax’s speed advantage matters greatly.

Wildlife enthusiasts on a budget might find the Pentax more forgiving; Olympus is better suited to less demanding static subjects.

Street Photography

Stealth, size, and low-light handling define this niche.

• Olympus’s smaller size and lighter weight make it far less obtrusive on the street.
• The fixed lens allows quick operation; however, no touchscreen or EVF may slow framing.
• Pentax’s bulk and louder zoom/operation hinder discretion, but faster burst rate aids capturing fleeting moments.
• Low-light capabilities are limited for both, but Pentax’s slightly better sensor and stabilization help.

If unseen blending and portability are priorities, Olympus is the go-to. For capturing fast sequences with telephoto reach, the Pentax grants more confidence.

Macro Photography

Both offer close-focusing down to 1cm - impressive for superzooms.

• Olympus lacks manual focus, so achieving precise macro focus can be challenging.
• Pentax’s manual focus and stabilization support more precise macro work.

In my own macro testing, Pentax’s flexibility led to sharper close-ups, especially handheld.

Night / Astrophotography

Low light demands high ISO headroom and specialized exposure modes.

• Both cameras cap native ISO at 6400 (Olympus) and 3200 (Pentax), but noise proliferates beyond ISO 400-800 in all my tests.
• No special long exposure modes or bulb shooting features on either.
• Olympus’s lack of stabilization handicaps handheld night shots versus Pentax’s sensor-shift stabilization.
• Neither supports RAW, constraining noise reduction or exposure recovery in postproduction.

Neither camera is a keen astro-photography tool, though Pentax slightly outperforms Olympus in handheld low light.

Video Capabilities

Both record Full HD at 30fps, but codecs and ancillary features differ.

• Olympus offers H.264 compression, considered efficient for quality footage.
• Pentax uses Motion JPEG, a bulky format less suited for prolonged shooting or efficient storage.
• Neither camera provides 4K video, external mic inputs, or advanced stabilization.
• Olympus records 1080p/30fps, with slower frame rates only at lower resolution.
• Pentax adds 720p 60fps, offering slightly smoother slow motion.

Video enthusiasts will find neither camera suitable for professional or creative work, but Olympus’s codec and formats slightly edge out Pentax.

Travel Photography

In travel, weight, zoom versatility, and battery life matter.

• The Olympus SP-820UZ’s lightweight, compact body makes it easy to carry and quick to whip out.
• Pentax’s larger size poses slightly more bulk, offset by its extraordinary zoom length.
• Pentax’s battery life (240 shots) is specified, though Olympus’s is unspecified; in my usage, Olympus seemed to run out faster due to older power management.
• Both rely on SD card storage; no wireless options on Olympus, whereas Pentax supports Eye-Fi for wireless transfers.

I personally found Olympus more hassle-free for roaming cities and landscapes, while Pentax excels for long-range shooting itineraries.

Professional Work Considerations

Neither camera is designed with professional-grade features like robust build, raw support, or LUT workflows in mind.

• Olympus is missing manual exposure modes altogether.
• Pentax adds exposure compensation, aperture priority, shutter priority, and manual modes but falls short on focus tracking and sensor size.
• Both lack weather sealing and offer limited file flexibility.
• For serious paid work or high-end output, neither is recommendable as the sole camera.

Build Quality and Durability

Both are plastic-bodied and lack any environmental sealing.

The Pentax’s thicker grip and SLR-style shape feel a little more robust, but none of these cameras can be counted on for rough weather or heavy field use. Both would benefit from protective cases if you expect challenging conditions.

Stabilization and Battery Life

One major distinction:

• The Pentax XG-1 employs sensor-shift image stabilization, facilitating steadier photos especially at long focal lengths.
• The Olympus SP-820UZ has no image stabilization, a conspicuous drawback in a handheld superzoom.

Regarding battery, Pentax’s quoted 240 shots per charge is standard fare. Olympus doesn’t specify, but my tests indicated similar or slightly less endurance.

Connectivity and Storage

Both cameras take standard SD cards; neither supports dual slots.

• Pentax’s Eye-Fi compatibility does provide an alternative for wireless image transfer, albeit relying on third-party cards.
• Neither offers Bluetooth, NFC, GPS, or HDMI output.
• USB 2.0 connectivity is identical and slow by modern standards.

Thus, connectivity is limited on both models.

Putting It All Together: Overall Performance Scoring

Using key parameters - image quality, autofocus, zoom range, ergonomics, and usability - I scored these cameras across a 10-point scale. The Pentax XG-1 edges ahead by a narrow margin due to better zoom, manual controls, and stabilization, but both lag behind modern mirrorless or DSLR benchmarks.

As this genre analysis shows:

• Pentax excels in wildlife, sports, and telephoto-required situations.
• Olympus makes gains in portability, street, and travel contexts.
• Neither camera thrives at professional macro, night astro, or video demands.

Who Should Buy Which Camera?

Olympus SP-820UZ is for you if:

• You value lightweight, compact design for casual travel or street photography.
• You prefer automatic shooting with minimal manual fuss.
• Your subjects are mostly still or slow-moving (landscapes, casual portraits).
• You want an affordable, all-in-one zoom for snapshots and vacations.
• You don’t mind limited control over exposure or focus.

Pentax XG-1 suits you if:

• You need a camera with a very long zoom (52x!) for distant subjects like birds or sports.
• You appreciate built-in stabilization and manual exposure options.
• You want faster continuous shooting for action sequences.
• You don’t mind slightly larger body size and higher price.
• You’re an enthusiast seeking some creative control without DSLR complexity.

Final Thoughts and Recommendations from My Experience

In my hands-on use, the Pentax XG-1 emerges as the more versatile and capable superzoom between these two, largely due to its broader zoom range, faster burst rate, stabilization, and manual controls. These features translate into tangible benefits for wildlife, sports, and more deliberate photography.

The Olympus SP-820UZ remains a competent choice for those prioritizing lightness and simplicity, making it a good companion for easy travel, street scenes, and casual family snapshots - particularly at a lower price.

However, both cameras exhibit major limitations inherent to small sensor superzooms released nearly a decade ago. Lack of RAW capture, modest sensors, limited AF sophistication, no weather sealing, and limited video capability mean that if you’re aiming for serious creative photography or professional use, more modern mirrorless systems or APS-C superzooms are recommended.

I hope this detailed comparison helps illuminate the real-world strengths and shortcomings of these two cameras from my extensive testing experience. Feel welcome to ask any follow-up questions, and I encourage you to match the camera’s features to your own photographic goals rather than only the specs on paper.

Happy shooting!

• James Anders, Professional Camera Reviewer and Enthusiast Photographer