Olympus TG-320 vs Olympus XZ-1
94 Imaging
38 Features
33 Overall
36
88 Imaging
35 Features
51 Overall
41
Olympus TG-320 vs Olympus XZ-1 Key Specs
(Full Review)
- 14MP - 1/2.3" Sensor
- 2.7" Fixed Display
- ISO 80 - 1600
- Sensor-shift Image Stabilization
- 1280 x 720 video
- 28-102mm (F3.5-5.1) lens
- 155g - 96 x 63 x 23mm
- Revealed January 2012
(Full Review)
- 10MP - 1/1.63" Sensor
- 3" Fixed Display
- ISO 100 - 6400
- Sensor-shift Image Stabilization
- 1280 x 720 video
- 28-112mm (F1.8-2.5) lens
- 275g - 111 x 65 x 42mm
- Released January 2011
Apple Innovates by Creating Next-Level Optical Stabilization for iPhone Olympus TG-320 vs Olympus XZ-1 Overview
Its time to look a little more closely at the Olympus TG-320 and Olympus XZ-1, one is a Waterproof and the other is a Small Sensor Compact and they are both produced by Olympus. There is a big difference between the resolutions of the TG-320 (14MP) and XZ-1 (10MP) and the TG-320 (1/2.3") and XZ-1 (1/1.63") use totally different sensor dimensions.
Sora from OpenAI releases its first ever music videoThe TG-320 was announced 12 months after the XZ-1 and they are of a similar generation. Both of the cameras come with the identical body type (Compact).
Before delving in to a thorough comparison, below is a concise synopsis of how the TG-320 grades against the XZ-1 when considering portability, imaging, features and an overall mark.
Samsung Releases Faster Versions of EVO MicroSD Cards Olympus TG-320 vs Olympus XZ-1 Gallery
Below is a sample of the gallery pictures for Olympus TG-320 and Olympus XZ-1. The whole galleries are viewable at Olympus TG-320 Gallery and Olympus XZ-1 Gallery.
Reasons to pick Olympus TG-320 over the Olympus XZ-1
| TG-320 | XZ-1 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Released | January 2012 |  | January 2011 | Newer by 12 months |
Reasons to pick Olympus XZ-1 over the Olympus TG-320
| XZ-1 | TG-320 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Manually focus |  | Very exact focus | ||
| Display dimension | 3" |  | 2.7" | Larger display (+0.3") |
| Display resolution | 614k |  | 230k | Clearer display (+384k dot) |
Common features in the Olympus TG-320 and Olympus XZ-1
| TG-320 | XZ-1 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Display type | Fixed |  | Fixed | Fixed display |
| Selfie screen |  | No selfie screen | ||
| Touch friendly display |  | Neither features Touch friendly display |
Olympus TG-320 vs Olympus XZ-1 Physical Comparison
When you are going to travel with your camera regularly, you will have to take into account its weight and volume. The Olympus TG-320 enjoys outside dimensions of 96mm x 63mm x 23mm (3.8" x 2.5" x 0.9") with a weight of 155 grams (0.34 lbs) whilst the Olympus XZ-1 has sizing of 111mm x 65mm x 42mm (4.4" x 2.6" x 1.7") with a weight of 275 grams (0.61 lbs).
Compare the Olympus TG-320 and Olympus XZ-1 in the latest Camera and Lens Size Comparison Tool.
Take into account, the weight of an Interchangeable Lens Camera will change depending on the lens you are utilising at that moment. Below is the front view physical size comparison of the TG-320 and the XZ-1.
Taking into account size and weight, the portability score of the TG-320 and XZ-1 is 94 and 88 respectively.
Olympus TG-320 vs Olympus XZ-1 Sensor Comparison
Oftentimes, it can be difficult to see the gap between sensor dimensions simply by going over a spec sheet. The image here might give you a better sense of the sensor dimensions in the TG-320 and XZ-1.
Clearly, both the cameras posses different megapixels and different sensor dimensions. The TG-320 using its tinier sensor will make shooting shallower depth of field harder and the Olympus TG-320 will offer extra detail with its extra 4 Megapixels. Greater resolution will also let you crop pics somewhat more aggressively. The more modern TG-320 will have a benefit with regard to sensor technology.
Olympus TG-320 vs Olympus XZ-1 Screen and ViewFinder
Meta to Introduce 'AI-Generated' Labels for Media starting next month Photography Type Scores
Portrait Comparison
Body cameras now worn by bakery staff to deter stealingStreet Comparison
Photography GlossarySports Comparison
Snapchat Adds Watermarks to AI-Created ImagesTravel Comparison
Photobucket discusses licensing 13 billion images with AI firmsLandscape Comparison
President Biden pushes bill mandating TikTok sale or banVlogging Comparison
Japan-exclusive Leica Leitz Phone 3 features big sensor and new modes
Olympus TG-320 vs Olympus XZ-1 Specifications
| Olympus TG-320 | Olympus XZ-1 | |
|---|---|---|
| General Information | ||
| Make | Olympus | Olympus |
| Model type | Olympus TG-320 | Olympus XZ-1 |
| Category | Waterproof | Small Sensor Compact |
| Revealed | 2012-01-10 | 2011-01-26 |
| Physical type | Compact | Compact |
| Sensor Information | ||
| Powered by | TruePic III+ | TruePic V |
| Sensor type | CCD | CCD |
| Sensor size | 1/2.3" | 1/1.63" |
| Sensor dimensions | 6.17 x 4.55mm | 8.07 x 5.56mm |
| Sensor area | 28.1mm² | 44.9mm² |
| Sensor resolution | 14 megapixel | 10 megapixel |
| Anti alias filter | ||
| Aspect ratio | - | 1:1, 4:3, 3:2 and 16:9 |
| Highest resolution | 4288 x 3216 | 3664 x 2752 |
| Highest native ISO | 1600 | 6400 |
| Min native ISO | 80 | 100 |
| RAW images | ||
| Autofocusing | ||
| Focus manually | ||
| Autofocus touch | ||
| Continuous autofocus | ||
| Autofocus single | ||
| Tracking autofocus | ||
| Selective autofocus | ||
| Autofocus center weighted | ||
| Autofocus multi area | ||
| Autofocus live view | ||
| Face detect autofocus | ||
| Contract detect autofocus | ||
| Phase detect autofocus | ||
| Total focus points | - | 11 |
| Cross type focus points | - | - |
| Lens | ||
| Lens mount type | fixed lens | fixed lens |
| Lens zoom range | 28-102mm (3.6x) | 28-112mm (4.0x) |
| Largest aperture | f/3.5-5.1 | f/1.8-2.5 |
| Macro focusing range | 3cm | 1cm |
| Focal length multiplier | 5.8 | 4.5 |
| Screen | ||
| Display type | Fixed Type | Fixed Type |
| Display diagonal | 2.7" | 3" |
| Display resolution | 230k dots | 614k dots |
| Selfie friendly | ||
| Liveview | ||
| Touch screen | ||
| Display technology | TFT Color LCD | OLED |
| Viewfinder Information | ||
| Viewfinder | None | Electronic (optional) |
| Features | ||
| Lowest shutter speed | 4 secs | 60 secs |
| Highest shutter speed | 1/2000 secs | 1/2000 secs |
| Continuous shooting rate | 1.0 frames/s | 2.0 frames/s |
| Shutter priority | ||
| Aperture priority | ||
| Manual mode | ||
| Exposure compensation | - | Yes |
| Set white balance | ||
| Image stabilization | ||
| Integrated flash | ||
| Flash distance | 5.80 m | 8.60 m (ISO 800) |
| Flash settings | Auto, On, Off, Red-Eye, Fill-in | Auto, On, Off, Red-Eye, Fill-in |
| Hot shoe | ||
| Auto exposure bracketing | ||
| White balance bracketing | ||
| Exposure | ||
| Multisegment exposure | ||
| Average exposure | ||
| Spot exposure | ||
| Partial exposure | ||
| AF area exposure | ||
| Center weighted exposure | ||
| Video features | ||
| Video resolutions | 1280 x 720 (30 fps), 640 x 480 (30 fps), 320 x 180 (30fps) | 1280 x 720 (30 fps), 640 x 480 (30 fps) |
| Highest video resolution | 1280x720 | 1280x720 |
| Video format | MPEG-4, H.264 | Motion JPEG |
| Mic support | ||
| Headphone support | ||
| Connectivity | ||
| Wireless | None | None |
| Bluetooth | ||
| NFC | ||
| HDMI | ||
| USB | USB 2.0 (480 Mbit/sec) | USB 2.0 (480 Mbit/sec) |
| GPS | None | None |
| Physical | ||
| Environmental sealing | ||
| Water proofing | ||
| Dust proofing | ||
| Shock proofing | ||
| Crush proofing | ||
| Freeze proofing | ||
| Weight | 155 gr (0.34 lb) | 275 gr (0.61 lb) |
| Dimensions | 96 x 63 x 23mm (3.8" x 2.5" x 0.9") | 111 x 65 x 42mm (4.4" x 2.6" x 1.7") |
| DXO scores | ||
| DXO All around rating | not tested | 34 |
| DXO Color Depth rating | not tested | 18.8 |
| DXO Dynamic range rating | not tested | 10.4 |
| DXO Low light rating | not tested | 117 |
| Other | ||
| Battery life | 150 photos | 320 photos |
| Type of battery | Battery Pack | Battery Pack |
| Battery ID | LI-42B | Li-50B |
| Self timer | Yes (2 or 12 sec, pet auto shutter) | Yes (2 or 12 sec) |
| Time lapse recording | ||
| Type of storage | SD/SDHC/SDXC | SD/SDHC/SDXC |
| Card slots | 1 | 1 |
| Cost at launch | $0 | $567 |
