Olympus TG-320 vs Panasonic Lumix DMC-FP3: A Thorough Comparison for the Practical Photographer

In the world of compact cameras, choices abound, but not all are created equal. Today, I’m diving into a detailed comparison between two compact models - the Olympus TG-320 and the Panasonic Lumix DMC-FP3. Both have their quirks and appeal, though they target slightly different user profiles. Drawing from my decade-and-a-half of hands-on camera testing (thousands of cameras, mind you), I’ll walk you through their core capabilities, real-world performance, and ultimately help you decide which suits your shooting style and budget best.

Whether you’re after a rugged camera for adventure, an easy-to-carry travel buddy, or a simple point-and-shoot for everyday moments, by the end of this article, you’ll have a clear understanding of the strengths and compromises of each.

Getting to Know the Players: Physical Build and Handling

First impressions do matter! Handling and ergonomics often make or break user experience, especially when you want a camera ready to grab at a moment’s notice.

Olympus TG-320: Built for Adventure

The TG-320 is positioned squarely as a waterproof, shockproof, freezeproof compact, designed to go outdoors without a blink. Weighing just 155 grams and measuring 96mm by 63mm by 23mm, it’s pocket-friendly but feels rugged in your hand. The durable environmental sealing is a standout here - perfect if you’re hiking, skiing, or caught in unexpected weather.

From personal experience, the TG series handles well especially with gloved fingers (winter shoots, anyone?), thanks to simple, responsive buttons and a decent grip. It isn’t bulky and doesn’t get in the way during active sports or macro exploration.

Panasonic FP3: Slim with Flair

On the other hand, the Panasonic FP3 is an ultracompact with a similar weight but noticeably slimmer profile (99mm by 59mm by 19mm). It’s a bit sleeker and geared more toward portability than durability. While it lacks environmental sealing (no waterproofing or shock resistance), it’s perfect for urban use or casual travel when you want to keep a camera close without adding weight.

Control-wise, the FP3 sports a touchscreen, which might appeal if you prefer tapping your way through menus, although tactile responsiveness isn’t the fastest I’ve encountered.

Design and Controls: Who’s In Charge?

Buttons, dials, screens - these define your tactile interaction.

Neither camera sports an electronic viewfinder, leaning on their rear LCD for framing. The TG-320 uses a fixed 2.7” TFT color LCD without touch, while the FP3 ups the ante with a larger 3” fixed LCD with touchscreen capability. The touchscreen on the FP3 feels basic but functional - useful for quick focusing or menu navigation if you prefer that interface.

Olympus opts for dedicated physical buttons around the TG-320’s rear - more feedback and quicker operation when your fingers are cold or you’re in a hurry. Panasonic’s FP3 shares some buttons but leans more on the touchscreen, which might slow things a bit if you’re used to traditional controls.

Sensor and Image Quality: The Heart of the Matter

Ultimately, image quality rests heavily on sensor performance.

Both cameras use 1/2.3" CCD sensors of comparable size (roughly 28 mm² sensor area) and resolution (14MP). This is a common compact sensor size, offering a balance between cost and decent image quality. They both have an anti-aliasing filter to reduce moiré patterns but at the possible expense of some sharpness.

The TG-320’s sensor is slightly larger in area, but such differences are minuscule in practice. The Panasonic FP3, however, boasts a boosted maximum ISO rating of 6400 (versus the TG’s 1600), indicating better higher-ISO handle on paper. But remember, higher ISO in compact CCD sensors often introduces noise quite aggressively.

From real-world shooting:

• TG-320: Produces punchy colors, especially in daylight, with decent detail preserving usability up to ISO 400 before noise becomes troubling. Exposure latitude isn’t expansive, so bright outdoor shots fare better.

• FP3: Slightly better in low light thanks to higher ISO ceiling and Venus Engine IV processor, yielding smoother noise reduction and better dynamic range in tricky lighting. The color rendition feels more muted but balanced, indicating more natural skin tones.

Neither camera supports RAW shooting, limiting post-processing latitude, which is standard for cameras in this category and era.

Zoom Lenses and Aperture: Versatility vs. Speed

When you cannot change lenses, your zoom and aperture zoom range become critical.

• Olympus TG-320: Features a 28-102mm equivalent lens (3.6x zoom) with a sharpness sweet spot towards the wide end and competitive macro capabilities down to 3cm.

• Panasonic FP3: Offers a slightly longer zoom, 35-140mm equivalent (4x zoom) but starts at a narrower wide angle.

The TG’s wider field of view is friendlier for landscapes and indoor shots. Panasonic’s longer reach favors portraits and casual telephoto shots but makes tight indoor fits a bit trickier.

Both cameras have maximum apertures around f/3.5 at the widest, narrowing to about f/5.1–5.9 at full zoom. These modest apertures restrict depth-of-field control and low light capabilities but are typical for compacts.

Autofocus and Shooting Speed: Capturing the Moment

Speed and accuracy of autofocus (AF) truly matter, especially in fast or unpredictable environments.

The Olympus TG-320 uses contrast-detection AF with face and eye detection, along with AF tracking. It can handle stationary portraits reliably, but its continuous shooting caps at a snail’s pace - just 1 fps - making action shots impractical.

The Panasonic FP3, also with contrast-detection, has no face detection but offers faster continuous shooting at 5 fps (single AF), which can help with casual burst photography. However, its AF tracking is limited.

Touch focus on the FP3 adds a tactical edge for quickly selecting focus points, which is missing on the TG-320. But in challenging lighting or subjects with chaotic backgrounds, both cameras suffer from “hunting” typical for contrast–only systems of that time.

Image Stabilization: Steady Hands Welcome

Both models sport image stabilization, crucial in handheld shooting.

• Olympus TG-320 relies on sensor-shift stabilization, physically moving the sensor to counteract shake.

• Panasonic FP3 uses optical image stabilization (OIS) via lens shift.

From hands-on experience, optical stabilization tends to deliver more effective shake reduction at longer focal lengths, meaning FP3’s stabilization edges out the TG as you zoom in. However, the TG’s sensor-shift system is very handy in macro and close-up work, where tiny vibrations ruin shots.

Video Capabilities: Do They Hold Up?

Both cameras record HD video at 720p30, a respectable feature for their release years.

• TG-320 encodes video in MPEG-4 H.264, which is efficient for file size and quality.

• FP3 records in Motion JPEG, resulting in larger files and less video compression efficiency.

Neither camera supports external microphones or advanced video features like slow motion, 4K, or high frame rates. Both come without headphone jacks.

In my testing, video from TG-320 appears sharper with less compression artifacting, while FP3’s video seems softer but smoother, appealing to casual shooters.

Battery Life and Storage: How Long and How Much?

The TG-320 uses a dedicated LI-42B battery pack, rated for about 150 shots per charge. Not impressive by today’s standards, so you’ll need spare batteries if you’re out capturing all day.

The FP3 doesn’t specify battery life, but it uses a proprietary battery with similarly modest endurance. Both accept microSD/SDHC cards - FP3 additionally supports internal storage (handy for emergency shots).

Connectivity and Features Extra

Neither camera supports wireless (Wi-Fi, Bluetooth) or GPS. The TG-320 includes an HDMI port for video out, the FP3 does not. Given their era and price points, these omissions are expected.

Both support removable storage with one card slot each.

How Do These Cameras Perform Across Photography Genres?

Let’s break down their suitability across popular photography types:

Portrait Photography

• TG-320’s face and eye detection help frame well-focused portraits. The wider lens (28mm) enables indoor group shots, coupled with respectable color skin tones. Bokeh control is minimal as expected.

• FP3’s longer zoom end suits tight portraits but no face detection limits AF accuracy. Colors more neutral, possibly preferable for skin rendering but slower AF can frustrate.

Landscape Photography

• The TG-320’s wider lens and rugged sealing make it ideal for outdoors and rough weather conditions. The 14MP sensor produces adequately detailed images for casual and enthusiast use.

• FP3’s narrower wide angle reduces dramatic landscapes unless you’re zoomed out fully. Lack of sealing might discourage adventurers.

Wildlife and Sports Photography

• TG-320’s slow continuous shooting (1 fps) hampers capturing action, despite AF tracking.

• FP3’s 5 fps burst helps but AF tracking is limited; zoom range to 140mm is modest for wildlife.

Neither is a dedicated sports camera, but FP3 offers a slight edge for casual fast shooting.

Street Photography

• FP3’s slender body and touchscreen favor discreet, quick shots.

• TG-320 is bulkier, designed for tougher environments.

Both perform similarly at low ISO but lack rapid AF acquisition that professionals demand.

Macro Photography

• TG-320 shines with 3cm macro focus and sensor-shift stabilization for crisp handheld close-ups.

• FP3’s macro starts at 10cm, less versatile.

Night and Astro Photography

• Both limited by sensor size and ISO performance.

• TG-320 caps at ISO 1600, FP3 at 6400, but noise degrades fast.

Neither camera has specialized astro modes.

Video

• TG-320 offers better compression standard (H.264) and HDMI out.

• FP3 offers touchscreen in video mode but lower compression.

Travel Photography

• TG-320 is rugged, weather-sealed, and ready for rough conditions.

• FP3 is sleeker, lighter, and more pocketable for urban travel.

Professional Work

• Neither targets pro markets - no RAW, no advanced controls.

• Both cameras are great as casual shooters or backup gear but do not replace interchangeable lens systems.

Olympus TG 320 front Olympus TG 320 screen back Panasonic FP3 front Panasonic FP3 screen back

These sample images show the TG-320’s punchier colors and the FP3’s slightly muted but more balanced tones. Notice the TG’s wider framing versus FP3’s tighter crop at maximum zoom, affecting composition choices.

Overall Performance and User Satisfaction

Considering sensor quality, lens versatility, shooting speed, and ruggedness, the TG-320 scores higher for durability and outdoor use, while the FP3 edges forward on shooting speed and video compression.

• Portraits & Macro: TG-320 wins due to AF face detection and macro range.

• Sports & Wildlife: Slight advantage to FP3 with better burst rates.

• Landscape & Travel: TG-320 favored by landscape shooters, FP3 better in urban travel.

• Video: TG-320 marginally better compressed video format and output.

Final Verdict: Which Should You Choose?

Making a choice between the Olympus TG-320 and Panasonic FP3 boils down to your priorities:

• Choose the Olympus TG-320 if:

  • You value ruggedness and want a camera that can handle water, dust, drops, and freezing temperatures.

  • You shoot outdoors frequently and want a wider lens for landscapes and group portraits.

  • You desire better macro capabilities and stabilized handheld shooting.

  • You prefer physical controls over touchscreens for quick operation.

• Choose the Panasonic Lumix FP3 if:

  • You want a sleek, pocketable ultracompact with a slightly longer zoom.

  • You prioritize faster burst shooting for casual action shots.

  • You appreciate touchscreen control for ease of use.

  • You seek slightly better video format efficiency and dynamic range in low light.

A Quick Note on Price and Value

While the TG-320 lacks a current market price (likely discontinued), its rugged features give it unique value, especially in secondhand markets for outdoorsy photographers.

The Panasonic FP3, priced around $180 on release, is affordable for a general ultracompact, especially if you prefer a more stylish, touchscreen camera for everyday street and travel photos.

Parting Thoughts

Reviewing cameras of this vintage is a fascinating dive into how compact designs flirt with portability, ruggedness, and image quality. Neither the Olympus TG-320 nor the Panasonic FP3 will replace professional systems, but they excel in their niches.

If you want a go-anywhere, tough little shooter you can trust to keep working in the worst weather, the TG-320 is a solid pick.

If you want something sleek and faster for casual shooting, with the convenience of a touchscreen, then the FP3 may fit your bill.

Either way, both are fine starters for budding photographers who want easy handling and solid results without fuss.

If you want to explore more cameras with interchangeable lenses or higher sensor performance, drop me a line or check my in-depth reviews of mirrorless and DSLRs. For now, I hope this hands-on comparison has made your choice between these two compacts clearer and more confident!

Happy shooting!

End of article.