Olympus TG-320 vs Olympus VG-160: A Hands-On, In-Depth Comparison for Every Photography Enthusiast

When it comes to picking the right camera, especially in the entry-level and compact categories, you often find yourself choosing between closely specced models that promise the moon but deliver different realities in the field. Today, let's dissect two Olympus compact cameras - the TG-320 and the VG-160 - both announced on the same day back in 2012. With an eye towards practical use, design, and performance in a variety of photography genres, I'll lean on my extensive experience testing thousands of cameras to guide you through their differences, strengths, and limitations.

Whether you’re a travel shooter, weekend portraitist, or cheapskate clubbing for the best bang-for-buck in a compact, this comparison covers everything that matters.

First Impressions: Size, Build, and Handling

Before you even get to toggling dials or fiddling with menus, a camera’s size and ergonomics shape your entire shooting experience. Let’s start here.

TG-320 punches well above its weight as a rugged, waterproof compact camera. Its dimensions, 96 x 63 x 23 mm, combined with a weight of 155g, make it notably bulkier than the VG-160, which clocks in at a lighter 125g and slimmer 96 x 57 x 19 mm.

The TG-320’s physical heft and grippy rubberized exterior scream “ready for adventure” - Olympus markets this as a rugged waterproof/sturdy camera that is shockproof and freezeproof. This builds confidence shooting poolside, on hikes, or in unpredictable weather.

Conversely, the VG-160 leans into traditional compact camera territory: slim, lightweight, and pocketable, but without any environmental sealing or robust protection.

If you prioritize shockproof, waterproof use (i.e., harsh outdoor, underwater, or travel where mishaps occur), the TG-320 feels reassuringly solid compared to the VG-160’s sleek but delicate build.

Control Layout and Top-Down Usability: Knobs vs Reckless Complexity

User interface matters - after all, it’s how you actually operate the camera in the heat of the moment.

Both cameras keep complexity low - no dials stacking clubs for your thumbs - but the TG-320 edges ahead with dedicated physical buttons for quick access, including a well-positioned shutter and zoom toggle. Its design prioritizes durability and intuitive handling, geared for photographers who want to spend less time navigating menus and more time shooting.

VG-160’s minimalist approach maximizes thinness, but its smaller buttons and fewer physical controls may frustrate users during rapid shooting, especially in dynamic environments like street photography or wildlife.

Neither camera offers full manual exposure modes, nor shutter/aperture priority modes, marking them squarely as ultra-beginners or casual shooters. But the TG-320’s rugged feel and button layout make it feel more purposeful in the hands of an enthusiast who demands durability alongside simplicity.

Sensor and Image Quality: The Technical Core

At their heart, these cameras share the same 1/2.3-inch CCD sensor measuring 6.17 x 4.55 mm, with a 14MP resolution and antialiasing filter - a pretty standard compact sensor size from their era.

What does this mean on the ground?

• Image quality: Expect similar base resolution (4288 × 3216 pixels) and dynamic range capabilities. Neither is a low-light hero - maximum ISO tops out at 1600, which is typically noisy on these sensors.
• Lens specs differ slightly: TG-320 sports a 28-102mm equivalent f/3.5-5.1 zoom, while VG-160 offers a slightly wider and longer reach at 26-130mm f/2.8-6.5. The VG-160’s faster aperture at the wide end (f/2.8 vs. f/3.5) theoretically lets in more light, aiding low-light stills and shallow depth-of-field shots - but the narrower aperture and higher zoom reach on the TG-320 balances things out as a versatile, if not spectacular, lens option.

It’s important to note both cameras lack RAW support and sophisticated image processing engines, so expect JPEG output with basic in-camera processing. The TG-320, equipped with Olympus’s older TruePic III+ processor, delivers acceptable JPEGs but doesn’t impress in clarity or detail retrieval.

LCD Screen and Viewfinder: What You See Is What You Get

Convenience in live composition depends heavily on screen size, clarity, and viewfinder availability.

The VG-160’s 3-inch 230k dot LCD provides a slightly larger and brighter window into your framing compared to the TG-320’s 2.7-inch 230k dot screen.

Neither camera offers an electronic or optical viewfinder, so you’re tied to the rear LCD exclusively. The smaller screen on the TG-320, paired with its rugged design, makes it a bit tougher to review shots under strong sunlight or while wearing gloves (outdoor adventure users, take note).

If you’re shooting street or travel photography and rely heavily on clear framing, the VG-160’s larger LCD screen improves that experience marginally.

Autofocus and Shooting Speed: What’s Under the Hood?

Autofocus reliability and shooting speed help dictate success rates - especially when you’re capturing fast-moving subjects like sports or wildlife.

Here’s the hard truth: neither camera will win any races here.

• The TG-320 offers single AF with face detection, along with contrast-detection autofocus. It lacks continuous AF and manual focus options. Its continuous shooting rate is 1 fps, which is painfully slow for any kind of action.

• The VG-160 also sports face detection and contrast-detection autofocus, but its official continuous shooting mode is unspecified or limited.

Both cameras lack phase-detection autofocus sensors, autofocus tracking, and advanced eye or animal eye autofocus systems. Their AF systems perform reasonably for stationary subjects in good light, but hunting and back-and-forth AF occur in low light or moving scenes.

Given these limitations, I’d recommend them primarily for portrait and casual photography, where AF demands are minimal, rather than for action, wildlife, or sports.

Flash and Low-Light Handling: Indoor Snaps and Night Out

Lights out indoors? Both have built-in flashes with a modest range:

• TG-320 flash range: approx 5.8 meters
• VG-160 flash range: approx 4.8 meters

Flash modes offer automatic, on, off, red-eye reduction, and fill-in, standard for basic compacts.

Interestingly, the TG-320 features sensor-shift image stabilization, which helps reduce blur in handheld low-light situations. The VG-160 doesn’t have any image stabilization.

In practical terms, the TG-320 allows for sharper handheld shots at slower shutter speeds, especially valuable since the max shutter speed is 1/2000 sec, with a slowest at 4 seconds - okay for casual night snaps but not specialized astro exposures.

I tested low-light indoor portraits and found the TG-320's stabilization a clear advantage, reducing motion blur more consistently. The VG-160 produces more noise at similar ISO and shutter combinations due to lack of stabilization and slower aperture at telephoto end.

Video Capabilities: Recording for Every Occasion?

Video remains important even in budget cameras, and these two deliver entry-level features.

• TG-320 records HD 720p video at 30 fps in MPEG-4 H.264 format.
• VG-160 also captures 720p video, but only in Motion JPEG format and at either 15 or 30 fps.

Neither has any form of external mic input or headphone output, limiting sound quality control. No 4K video or advanced stabilization during video is available on either.

From hands-on tests, TG-320’s video feels slightly smoother due to better compression and codec efficiency, but low-light capture remains noisy on both.

For casual family clips or simple video alongside stills, either camera suffices, but don’t expect professional-grade results or reliable autofocus during video recording.

Battery Life, Storage, and Connectivity: How Long and Where?

Both models use proprietary Lithium-ion battery packs - the TG-320 with LI-42B and VG-160 uses LI-70B.

• Battery life: TG-320 delivers about 150 shots per charge, while VG-160 claims slightly better with 165 shots.
• Storage: Both accept SD, SDHC cards, with TG-320 supporting SDXC as well.
• No wireless connectivity - no Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, or NFC - so file transfers require USB or card readers.
• TG-320 perks include an HDMI port for direct playback on TVs; VG-160 lacks this.

In fieldwork, the TG-320’s shorter battery life is offset by waterproofing and ruggedness, meaning you might take fewer risks outdoors. For typical indoor or travel use, VG-160’s marginally longer battery life combined with smaller size could be preferable.

Hands-On Genres: Where Each Camera Shines and Stumbles

Photography is diverse. How do these cameras fare across established genres?

Olympus TG 320 front Olympus TG 320 screen back Olympus VG 160 front Olympus VG 160 screen back

Portrait Photography

• TG-320: Face detection autofocus works decently in well-lit scenarios; stabilized sensor helps handheld shots. However, the fixed lens’ maximum aperture limits bokeh potential. Macro mode focusing down to 3cm is helpful for detail close-ups (think flowers, jewelry).
• VG-160: Slightly wider maximum aperture (f/2.8) at wide end offers more background blur potential, but focus range starts at 7cm, less impressive for true macro.

Neither excel in skin tone rendering due to basic sensors but produce relatively neutral colors with some tweaking in post. TG-320 has a softer look and slight noise reduction applied, while VG-160 outputs marginally crisper details but noisier shadows.

Landscape and Travel Photography

• TG-320: Ruggedness gives it a strong edge outdoors. Waterproofing to about 10m depth allows underwater shooting, something no casual travel bag can comfortably protect on a VG-160.
• VG-160: Slimmer design and longer zoom (up to 130mm equivalent) offer more framing flexibility during travel, but the lack of weather sealing wards off any adventures through rain or dust.

Dynamic range and resolution are close, with both limiting details under extreme contrast. Neither supports RAW - true landscape photographers will likely outgrow them quickly.

Wildlife & Sports Photography

Honestly, both cameras are not suited for demanding fast capture or detailed telephoto shots.

• AF speed and tracking fall short.
• Burst mode on TG-320 is a mere 1 fps, and VG-160 lacks clear specs on burst.
• Around 100mm equivalent telephoto reach on TG-320 is a bit shy; VG-160 extends to 130mm but with a slower aperture.

If you’re pursuing fast-moving subjects like birds or athletes, invest in a mid to high-end mirrorless or DSLR with phase-detection AF and faster frame rates.

Street Photography

• VG-160 wins here thanks to smaller, discreet size, silent shutter operation, and longer battery life.
• TG-320’s chunkier design and audible shutter might draw unwanted attention.
• Face detection on both helps lock focus quickly, but lack of manual controls limits creative exposure experimentation on the fly.

Nevertheless, the VG-160 suits casual street shooters best for quick snaps and portability.

Macro Photography

TG-320’s minimum macro distance (3cm) outperforms VG-160’s 7cm range, letting you get closer to tiny subjects like insects. Paired with sensor-shift stabilization, TG-320 better tames hand shake in close-ups.

VG-160 lacks image stabilization, so expect more blurred macro shots unless you use a tripod or rest the camera.

Night and Astro Photography

Neither model is optimized here, but the TG-320’s sensor-shift stabilization and slightly faster aperture at wide-angle helps handheld night shots (urban scenes, etc).

Both max out at ISO 1600 with fairly noisy results. Slow shutter options are capped at 4 seconds, insufficient for serious astrophotography requiring very long exposures.

Video Shooters

Neither camera is intended for serious videography, but for simple HD clips, the TG-320’s 30 fps at 720p with H.264 codec holds up better against VG-160’s Motion JPEG format and half the framerate options.

No microphone or headphone jacks mean audio quality depends solely on the built-in mic.

Professional Workflow Integration: Not Their Strong Suit

Both Olympus compacts lack advanced professional features:

• No RAW image support means post-processing flexibility is limited.
• File formats constrained to JPEG and basic MPEG-4 or Motion JPEG video.
• No tethering or wireless transfers.
• Basic USB 2.0 ports slow down file offload compared to latest USB-C.

Professionals requiring tight control, advanced color profiles, tethered shooting, or rapid throughput should look beyond these models to Olympus’s PEN or OM-D lineups.

Build Quality & Environmental Sealing: A Key Differentiator

If you shoot often outdoors or near water, the TG-320’s hardened construction protects investments better, justifying a price premium.

Price and Value: What Will You Pay?

The VG-160 retails around $90 (new or used), making it a budget-friendly entry point for casual shooters wanting a decent pocket camera with good zoom.

The TG-320 is typically more expensive due to composite rugged features and waterproofing, commanding a few extra dollars depending on availability. Given its specialized niche, the price reflects its protective design more than photographic prowess.

Summarizing the Numbers and Scores

Which Camera Fits Your Photography Style?

• Outdoor Adventurers & Travel Photogs: TG-320 for waterproof/sturdy build with stabilization.
• Street & Casual Shooters: VG-160 for lightweight, longer zoom, and bigger screen.
• Budget Beginners: VG-160 offers simplicity at low cost.
• Macro/Nature Shooters: TG-320’s close focusing and stabilization tip the scale.
• Video Starters: TG-320, albeit basic, slightly better for casual HD clips.
• Sports & Wildlife: Neither camera suits these enthusiasts (look elsewhere).
• Professional Use: Both fall short; look toward advanced mirrorless or DSLRs.

Final Verdict: Balancing Durability vs Portability with Olympus

When I put these cameras through their paces over days of handheld shooting, comparison portraits, some slow-motion hiking, and a little video capture, the choice crystallizes around your lifestyle:

• The Olympus TG-320 is a “jack of all rugged trades,” designed for those who need a camera that survives as much as it shoots. It’s got sensor-shift stabilization, waterproofing, shockproofing, and macro prowess - great outdoors, pool parties, and adventurous travel companions. Downsides include a smaller LCD and limited AF speed.

• The Olympus VG-160 is your classic lightweight take-anywhere pocket shooter, boasting a longer zoom, bigger screen, and slightly better battery. It suits indoor shoots, street photography, and users who prize portability over ruggedness. However, it feels fragile in demanding environments.

Neither camera delivers high-end image quality or manual control features, but for budget-conscious beginners or casual everyday use, each provides solid entry points with clear trade-offs.

In the end, if your photographic life’s rough-and-tumble and you want splash-proof peace of mind, the TG-320 wins. For those who want the sleekness to disappear into a crowd and a zoom lens to frame quietly, pick the VG-160.

Both fill distinct niches in Olympus’s compact line from a decade ago, and with a little awareness of their limits (don’t expect semi-pro performance), you’ll be set to capture moments your phone camera simply can’t manage.

Happy shooting!