Olympus Stylus Tough 8000 vs Panasonic Lumix DMC-FP2: An Expert Hands-On Comparison for Photography Enthusiasts

In the world of compact cameras, choices often boil down to balancing ruggedness, image quality, and versatility - especially for enthusiasts who want a reliable pocketable companion. Today, we take an in-depth look at two cameras from the transitional era just before smartphones reshaped photography: the Olympus Stylus Tough 8000 (aka mju Tough 8000) and the Panasonic Lumix DMC-FP2. Both were announced within six months of each other (2009-2010), targeting different segments with distinct design philosophies.

With over 15 years of hands-on experience testing cameras across genres, I’m here to offer an authoritative comparison based on sensor technology, autofocus performance, build quality, ergonomics, and real-world usability. These cameras reflect a particular stage in consumer compact cameras - no raw support or advanced video modes, but enough features to serve beginners to casual hobbyists in various scenarios.

Let's dive in, section by section, to help you decide which might better suit your photography needs - or if one merits a spot in your collection today.

Getting to Know the Cameras: Design and Physical Handling

Size and Ergonomics

The Olympus 8000 is a classic rugged compact, explicitly designed to endure harsher environments with splashproof sealing, while the Panasonic FP2 emphasizes ultraportability and sleekness.

• Olympus Stylus Tough 8000:

  • Dimensions: 95 x 62 x 22 mm
  • Weight: 182 g
  • Weather resistance: Splashproof (not dustproof, shockproof, or freezeproof)
  • Build: More substantial, designed for semi-rugged use

• Panasonic Lumix DMC-FP2:

  • Dimensions: 99 x 59 x 19 mm
  • Weight: 151 g
  • Build: Slimmer and lighter, emphasizing portability
  • No environmental sealing

In my hands, the 8000 feels more substantial and reassuring, especially for outdoor travel or casual adventure shooting where a bit of moisture or rough handling may occur. The Panasonic FP2’s slim profile makes it ultra-easy to slip into a jeans pocket or small bag - ideal for street or travel photographers who prize discretion and weight.

Top Controls and Layout

Both models streamline controls to appeal to entry-level users, but with subtle differences:

• The Olympus 8000 has larger, more tactile buttons, appropriate for its rugged image and handling with gloves.
• The Panasonic FP2 features more compact buttons with a smooth finish suited to urban shooting and quick access but less feedback.

Neither camera offers manual exposure modes or aperture/shutter priority, limiting creative control but simplifying operation for casual shooters.

Quick Takeaway: Choose the Tough 8000 for rugged outdoor scenarios where durability counts. Opt for the FP2 if ultraportability and an unassuming profile are paramount.

Sensor and Image Quality: Can Small Sensors Deliver?

Image quality is critical, and both cameras rely on the tried-and-tested 1/2.3" CCD sensors, but with notable differences.

Resolution and ISO Performance

The FP2 outranks the Olympus in resolution by 2 MP, a subtle advantage beneficial for cropping or large prints. However, both cameras share the compromises inherent to small CCD sensors of that era:

• Moderate dynamic range
• Noticeable noise beyond ISO 400-800 on the 8000 and ISO 800-1600 on the FP2
• Limited high ISO detail retention despite the FP2’s 6400 ISO max

In practical terms, I found the Panasonic FP2’s sensor and Venus Engine IV processor handled noise reduction more aggressively, sometimes at the expense of detail, especially in shadow areas. The Olympus Tough 8000 delivered more natural-looking textures but with more visible noise at higher ISOs.

Color and Detail Rendering

The Olympus favors slightly warmer, more neutral skin tones, which benefits portraiture and travel snapshots. The FP2 tends toward a cooler, punchier output suited for vibrant street photography and daylight landscapes.

Lens Sharpness and Aperture

• The Olympus 8000 offers a 28-102 mm equivalent zoom (3.6x), slightly wider for landscapes.
• The Panasonic FP2’s 35-140 mm equivalent zoom (4x) favors telephoto reach, beneficial for candid or wildlife glimpses.

Neither lens is particularly fast, with max aperture dropping to f/5.1 and f/5.9 at the zoomed end, respectively, limiting low-light performance and bokeh potential.

In my testing, corner sharpness is acceptable but softens noticeably at long zooms on both cameras.

Display and Interface Experience

Both cameras sport 2.7-inch fixed LCDs with 230k-dot resolution - standard specs for entry-level compacts of that time.

• The Olympus 8000’s screen is adequate for framing but less vibrant, and the toughened glass resists scratches during adventure use.
• The Panasonic FP2’s screen offers slightly better brightness and saturation, aiding composition in indoor and daylight conditions.

Neither is touch-sensitive, and no electronic viewfinders are included, which some users might find limiting in bright sunlight or for precise framing.

Menus are straightforward in both cameras, although the FP2 offers slightly more custom white balance controls - a boon for varied lighting situations.

Autofocus and Shooting Responsiveness

Autofocus Technology

Both systems use contrast-detection AF, standard for compacts without phase detection.

The Panasonic FP2’s ability to use 9 AF points gives it marginally better framing precision in focusing, particularly helpful in street or macro photography. However, both cameras struggle in low contrast or low-light conditions, displaying the typical hunting behavior of contrast-detection AF of their time.

Shooting Speed and Burst Mode

• The Olympus 8000 lacks continuous shooting modes.
• The Panasonic FP2 supports 5 fps continuous shooting, useful for capturing fleeting moments in street or casual sports photography.

In real-world testing, the FP2 felt peppier and more responsive, but neither camera would satisfy advanced sports or wildlife shooters requiring fast action capture.

Specialized Uses: How Do They Handle Different Photography Genres?

Portrait Photography

• Skin Tones: The Olympus 8000’s warmer color rendering produces more flattering skin tones.
• Bokeh: Both cameras have limited shallow depth-of-field capability due to sensor size and lens speed; background blur is minimal.
• Eye Detection: Neither camera possesses face or eye detection AF.

Verdict: For casual portraits, the 8000 edges ahead aesthetically, but neither supports advanced portrait features.

Landscape Photography

• Dynamic Range: Both cameras show limited dynamic range performance due to their modest sensors.
• Resolution: The FP2’s 14 MP resolution captures finer details; however, image noise at high ISO can influence shadow recovery.
• Weather Sealing: The Olympus 8000’s splashproof design adds reassurance when shooting in unpredictable conditions - a major advantage.

Verdict: The 8000 favors outdoor environments, while the FP2’s slight resolution advantage benefits detail capture in controlled lighting.

Wildlife Photography

• Autofocus Speed: FP2’s slightly faster AF and multiple points offer better target acquisition.
• Telephoto Reach: FP2’s 35-140 mm equivalent zoom outperforms the 8000’s 28-102 mm for distant subjects.
• Burst Rate: FP2 supports 5 fps continuous burst; 8000 lacks this mode.

Verdict: While neither is ideal for serious wildlife photography, the FP2 performs better for casual wildlife shots.

Sports Photography

• Tracking Accuracy: Both lack tracking AF or fast phase-detection systems.
• Low Light: Neither excels; ISO limitations reduce performance.
• Frame Rates: FP2’s 5 fps burst shooting offers a marginal edge.

Verdict: Casual sports shooting possible with FP2, but expect limited success.

Street Photography

• Discreteness: FP2’s slim, light body ideal for candid shooting.
• Low Light: Similar challenges due to sensor constraints.
• Portability: FP2 is winner for grab-and-go street photography.

Macro Photography

• Magnification: Olympus 8000 offers a macro focus limit down to 2 cm; FP2 limits at 10 cm.
• Focus Precision: FP2’s 9 AF points help with composition.
• Stabilization: Both cameras include image stabilization, but type differs.

Verdict: Olympus 8000’s close macro focusing gives it an advantage for flower and insect shots.

Night and Astro Photography

• High ISO: FP2’s ISO 6400 limit higher but with noisy results.
• Long Exposure: Olympus 8000’s shutter speed max of 1/2000 sec with no bulb mode; FP2 max shutter speed topped at 1/1600 sec.
• Exposure Modes: Neither camera supports manual modes or bulb exposures limiting astro suitability.

Verdict: Neither camera excels here. Better dedicated or advanced compacts recommended.

Video Capabilities

FP2 offers a significant upgrade to HD video capture, making it preferable for casual video recording. The Olympus's low resolution video is dated even for its time.

Travel Photography

• Versatility: FP2’s longer zoom and higher resolution adventure-friendly.
• Battery Life: Neither camera lists official battery life; expect moderate endurance typical of compacts.
• Size/Weight: FP2's lighter, thinner form factor more convenient.

Verdict: FP2’s configuration and portability suit travel better, except for trips requiring ruggedness.

Professional Work Considerations

Neither model targets professional use. Absence of raw files, lack of manual exposure controls, limited autofocus sophistication, and absence of tethering or advanced connectivity all restrict professional workflows.

Build Quality and Durability

Olympus's splashproof rating positions the 8000 for active users exposed to moisture and light weather. Panasonic FP2 lacks any official environmental sealing, making it more delicate.

Neither camera offers shockproof, freezeproof, or crushproof features, so rugged use is limited.

Lens Ecosystem and Compatibility

Both cameras use fixed lenses, eliminating interchangeable lens considerations. Lens sharpness and versatility are fixed attributes.

Battery Life, Storage, and Connectivity

• Storage: Olympus uses xD Picture Card and microSD; Panasonic supports SD/SDHC/SDXC - the latter more convenient and broadly compatible.
• Connectivity: Neither offers Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, or HDMI outputs.
• Battery info is sparse; expect similar consumer-level runtimes.

Summarizing the Tech and Performance Scores

Olympus 8000 front Olympus 8000 screen back Panasonic FP2 front Panasonic FP2 screen back

In real-world tests, image outputs show both cameras produce passable JPEGs under good light, with limitations as described above.

According to performance benchmarks and my hands-on evaluation:

Who Should Choose the Olympus Stylus Tough 8000?

• Outdoor enthusiasts needing weather-resistant camera for snapshots.
• Macro lovers wanting close focusing.
• Users seeking robust handling over slimness.
• Beginners who value simplicity and durable construction.
• Those prioritizing color accuracy in portraits.

Who Should Choose the Panasonic Lumix DMC-FP2?

• Travelers and street photographers prioritizing portability.
• Users wanting better video quality and a longer zoom range.
• Casual wildlife or sports shooters tolerating modest AF and burst rates.
• Those who prefer more flexible storage with SD cards.
• Budget-conscious buyers (noting FP2’s significantly lower price).

Final Thoughts: Balancing Legacy Features and User Needs

While both cameras are over a decade old and lack many modern conveniences (such as raw support, touchscreens, advanced autofocus, or 4K video), they remain instructive as examples of compact camera design priorities at their time.

• Olympus Stylus Tough 8000: Excels in rugged reliability and macro capability. It’s best for those chasing durability and good-enough image quality in the outdoors.

• Panasonic Lumix DMC-FP2: Offers more bang for the buck in resolution, zoom reach, and video. A compelling choice for everyday carry and casual video recording.

If you want the latest imaging performance and features today, a new compact or mirrorless system camera will serve you better. But if you come across one of these used and your needs align with these strengths, they can still be enjoyable shooters.

Thank you for trusting my experience and analysis. Feel free to reach out with specific questions or for guidance on contemporary alternatives suited to your needs.

Appendix: Pros and Cons Summary

By carefully weighing your specific requirements - durability vs portability, zoom reach vs macro, video need vs color accuracy - you can choose the camera best aligned with your photographic ambitions.