Olympus TG-320 vs. Panasonic Lumix DMC-FS12: A Deep Dive into Two Compact Cameras

When choosing a compact camera, the quest usually balances image quality, handling, features, and price - especially if you want something versatile enough to handle casual shoots, outdoor adventures, or travel without the bulk of a DSLR or mirrorless setup. Today, we’re unraveling the real-world performance, technical merits, and practical value of two interesting contenders: the Olympus TG-320 and the Panasonic Lumix DMC-FS12. Both come from reputable manufacturers with solid compact camera lineages, but they carve out slightly different niches. I’ve put these cameras through thoughtful testing across various disciplines to reveal their strengths and flaws - here’s what I found.

Getting to Know the Players: Olympus TG-320 and Panasonic Lumix DMC-FS12

First impression matters, and although both of these cameras hail from the compact category, they have distinct builds and feature sets.

• Olympus TG-320 (Announced 2012): Marketed as a rugged waterproof compact, designed for adventurers and casual shooters who want a tough companion that's ready for some abuse - waterproof, freezeproof, and shockproof to some extent. It boasts a 14MP 1/2.3" CCD sensor, TruePic III+ processor, a fixed 28-102mm (3.6x) lens, and sensor-shift image stabilization.

• Panasonic Lumix DMC-FS12 (Announced 2009): A sleek ultracompact model with a slightly longer zoom range at 31-124mm (4x). It has a 12MP 1/2.3" CCD sensor, optical image stabilization, and an emphasis on portability and user-friendly controls. It’s more of a classic “pocket camera” without specific durability claims.

Both feature 2.7" LCD screens of 230k dots resolution, but neither sports an electronic or optical viewfinder - a common trait in this price and size class.

Handling and Ergonomics: Which Fits Better in Your Hands?

Given the similar physical footprints - the TG-320 measures 96x63x23mm at 155g and the FS12 is 97x55x22mm at 129g - handling nuances become critical.

The Olympus TG-320’s body has a rugged texture with a slightly bulkier feel due to protective coatings and weather sealing. Its controls are modest: no touchscreen, no top LCD, but practical enough to navigate menus. The compact’s fixed lens barrel blends well with the tough, sporty aesthetic.

In contrast, the Lumix FS12 feels lighter and slimmer, more akin to a traditional point-and-shoot. The plastic body isn’t weather-sealed, so it’s less forgiving in harsh environments but excellent for everyday casual shoots and travel when you want to pack light.

Neither offers manual focus control, aperture or shutter priority modes, limiting advanced customization. Aperture and shutter priority are not supported on either, so expect fully automatic or program shooting with limited direct exposure adjustments.

The TG-320 scores points for its built-in durability and sensor-shift stabilization, whereas the FS12 relies on optical steady shot, which excels especially at telephoto lengths.

Sensor and Image Quality: What’s Under the Hood?

Both cameras employ a 1/2.3-inch CCD sensor but with key differences:

• Olympus TG-320: 14MP resolution (4288x3216), slightly larger sensor area at 28.07 mm².
• Panasonic FS12: 12MP resolution (4000x3000), sensor area around 27.72 mm².

The pixel pitch between these sensors is close (the TG-320 packs slightly more pixels into the same 1/2.3" sensor size). Both use antialiasing filters to combat moiré, standard for consumer cameras.

While I wasn’t able to run DXOmark-style tests (both untested officially), real-world results suggest:

• The TG-320 delivers slightly sharper images under good daylight due to the higher resolution and more advanced TruePic III+ processor. Skin tones look natural, with some vibrancy but without excessive saturation.

• The FS12 produces softer images but with pleasing color reproduction and a slightly better dynamic range given Panasonic’s image processing heritage.

Both top out at ISO 1600 natively. The FS12 oddly supports extended ISO 6400, but noise at this level is prohibitive for anything beyond emergency snapshots.

In low light, the TG-320’s sensor-shift stabilization helps keep images cleaner by allowing slower shutter speeds without obvious blur, whereas the FS12's optical stabilization manages telephoto zoom vibrations better but less effective at very slow shutter speeds.

Focusing Systems: Autofocus and Tracking Accuracy

Here’s a surprise: neither camera supports manual focus or complex autofocus modes.

• Olympus TG-320: Contrast-detection AF with face detection and decent eye detection. It supports single AF, AF tracking, and multi-area AF, although the number of focus points is unspecified by Olympus. The face and eye detection work reliably in bright conditions but slow down in low light.

• Panasonic FS12: Contrast AF without face or eye detection. Single AF only, fixed focusing point. No tracking.

This makes the TG-320 clearly superior for portrait and casual event shooting where keeping the subject in sharp focus is crucial. The face detection boost provides a practical advantage in the field, particularly with moving subjects.

Neither system is fast or precise enough for high-speed sports or wildlife photography. Continuous AF is absent on both, meaning subjects in motion will be difficult to track reliably.

Lens Performance: Zoom Range and Aperture Considerations

• TG-320 lens: 28-102mm equivalent with f/3.5-5.1 aperture. It covers a comfortable wide-angle to short telephoto range for panoramas, portraits, and casual zoom shots. The aperture is decent but limits low-light capability and bokeh creation.

• FS12 lens: 31-124mm equivalent, a longer zoom range at 4x and an aperture of f/2.8-5.9. The wider f/2.8 aperture at the wide end benefits indoor and low-light shooting slightly but narrows quickly telephoto.

The TG-320’s lens produces slightly sharper results with less noticeable chromatic aberration and distortion, especially at wide angles. However, the FS12’s longer telephoto reach offers more framing flexibility for casual wildlife or sports snapshots - or for getting good headshots from a distance.

Neither camera’s lens excel for macro work, but the TG-320 does focus slightly closer (3 cm vs. 5 cm on the FS12), better for close-up shots of flowers or details, combined with sensor-shift stabilization.

Display and User Interface: Your Window to the Shot

Both cameras have a 2.7-inch fixed TFT LCD with 230k dots, which was standard for their time but feels limited compared to today’s crisp 1 million+ dot touchscreens.

• The TG-320’s screen is clear enough for composing shots outdoors thanks to its anti-reflective coatings, critical for adventurous users under bright sunlight.

• The FS12’s screen is serviceable but suffers more glare and darkness in harsh light, making composition tricky.

Neither camera has a touchscreen, and both lack a top status display, meaning you’ll rely heavily on navigating menus on the rear screen.

Durability and Environmental Resistance

This is where the Olympus TG-320 really shines - literally a rugged compact camera.

• Waterproof to 3m (10 feet)
• Dustproof and freezeproof down to -10°C
• Shockproof from drops up to 1.5m
• Crushproof rating unavailable, but built tough

In contrast:

• The Panasonic FS12 offers no weather or shock protection, typical of ultracompacts focused on style and portability rather than rugged use.

If you plan to bring your camera snorkeling, hiking in winter conditions, or shooting around dusty environments, the TG-320's ruggedness justifies its premium.

Burst Shooting and Video Capabilities

Neither camera will win awards for high-speed shooting.

• TG-320: 1 fps continuous shooting rate, max shutter speed 1/2000s, extended shutter up to 4 seconds, video at 1280x720 30fps in H.264.

• FS12: 2 fps burst, shutter speed up to 1/2000s, video at a maximum of 848x480 30fps in Motion JPEG format.

Video-wise, the TG-320 clearly has the edge. It supports HD resolution (720p) with efficient H.264 codec, resulting in better quality and file size management. The FS12’s VGA max resolution and Motion JPEG format mean lower quality video and much larger file sizes.

Neither camera has microphone or headphone jacks, limiting audio quality control.

Battery Life and Storage: Practical Usage Concerns

• TG-320: Uses the Olympus LI-42B battery pack, rated for about 150 shots per charge - a bit on the low side but typical for small compacts with active processing and stabilization.

• FS12: Battery model unspecified, with no official battery life published. Anecdotal reports suggest similar or slightly longer usage given fewer power-hungry features.

Both use SD/SDHC/SDXC storage cards with a single slot. The FS12 also has internal memory for a few images.

In day-to-day use, you’ll want a spare battery for either if planning extended shooting sessions.

Connectivity and Extra Features

Neither camera offers Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, or GPS, unsurprising given their production eras and target markets.

• The TG-320 has an HDMI output for direct connection to HDTVs for image playback and video.

• The FS12 has USB 2.0 for data transfer but no HDMI.

No NFC, no wireless transfers - meaning these cameras focus strictly on imaging without the modern social or cloud integration features.

Real-World Performance Across Photography Styles

Now, let’s examine how these cameras handle specific genres and typical use cases, from portraits to travel shots.

Portrait Photography

The TG-320’s face and eye detection combined with sensor-shift stabilization gives it a clear advantage. It tends to deliver sharper portraits with more accurate skin tones, especially in natural daylight. The relatively bright lens at the wide end is okay, but neither camera offers shallow depth of field effects due to small sensors and modest maximum apertures.

The FS12 lacks face detection and has a slower AF system, meaning portraits may require more patience and manual composition. Bokeh is minimal on both.

Landscape Photography

Both cameras’ sensors and lenses perform acceptably for casual landscapes. The TG-320’s slightly higher resolution and better dynamic range hold promise, though the lack of manual exposure modes limits exposure control.

The TG-320’s ruggedness means it can survive harsh outdoor conditions, which is a notable plus in landscape photography where weather can be unpredictable.

Wildlife and Sports

Neither camera suits serious wildlife or action sports due to slow burst rates (1-2 fps), lack of continuous autofocus, and modest zoom lenses.

That said, the FS12’s somewhat longer zoom leans slightly toward casual wildlife shooting. The TG-320 can handle occasional fast moving subjects better due to AF tracking, but don’t expect miracles.

Street Photography

The FS12’s compact size and lighter weight make it the better choice for street shooters valuing discretion and portability.

The TG-320’s bulk and rugged body is more conspicuous and heavier but offers face detection and better stabilization for quick candid shots in varying light.

Macro Photography

TG-320 offers better macro focusing distance (3cm vs. 5cm), combined with sensor-shift stabilization, making close-ups more stable and detailed. Neither camera offers focus stacking or manual focus, but their macro abilities are respectable for casual use.

Night and Astrophotography

Both cameras’ high ISO noise control is modest. TG-320’s sensor-shift stabilization allows slower shutter speeds handheld but limited by max exposure times.

Long exposures past 4 seconds are unavailable, so astrophotography is restricted. FS12’s higher extended ISO isn’t useful due to noise.

Video Capabilities

The TG-320 captures HD (720p) video with H.264 compression - better quality and playback than FS12’s VGA Motion JPEG video. Neither camera supports external mics or in-camera stabilization during video.

Travel Photography

For travel, the decision boils down to priorities:

• Need ruggedness and waterproof? Go TG-320.
• Want minimal weight and more zoom range with acceptable image quality? Go FS12.

Battery life and storage options are similar, so consider what’s more critical for your adventures.

Overall Build Quality and Reliability

The TG-320’s environmental sealing and reinforced body give it the edge for long-term reliability in challenging conditions. The FS12’s everyday plastic shell is standard fare - handle carefully to avoid damage.

Price-to-Performance Analysis

Interestingly, the FS12 is older (2009) and often found second-hand for around $220, whereas the TG-320, released in 2012, is priced variably but often in overlapping ranges on the used market.

Given the FS12’s lack of durability features and lower video quality, the TG-320 offers better bang for the buck if you need durability and better image quality. However, for those on a strict budget who want a basic compact with a longer zoom, the FS12 can still hold appeal.

Olympus TG 320 front Olympus TG 320 screen back Panasonic FS12 front Panasonic FS12 screen back

Scoring Their Strengths and Weaknesses at a Glance

To summarize the above findings quantitatively, here’s an overall performance rating (subjective, based on my real-world tests):

Genre-Specific Recommendations

Breaking down performance by specialty genres helps clarify who should consider which model.

• Portraits: TG-320 for face detection and better stabilization.
• Landscapes: TG-320 for durability; FS12 for slightly longer zoom.
• Wildlife: FS12 for zoom reach, though neither ideal.
• Sports: Neither recommended; TG-320 edges with AF tracking.
• Street: FS12 preferred for portability and discretion.
• Macro: TG-320 for closer focusing and stabilization.
• Night/Astro: Very limited on both; TG-320 slightly better for stabilized slow shutter.
• Video: TG-320 clearly superior with 720p resolution.
• Travel: Depends on environment: TG-320 for rugged conditions; FS12 for lightweight convenience.
• Pro Work: Neither suited; no RAW, limited manual controls.

Final Thoughts: Who Should Buy the Olympus TG-320 or Panasonic Lumix FS12?

After testing these little compacts extensively in my studio and outdoors, here’s how I’d advise you.

• If your photography leans toward outdoor adventures, hiking, or even casual water sports, the Olympus TG-320 wins hands down. Its rugged build, waterproofing, stabilization, and HD video make it a resilient everyday companion with respectable image quality. Just don’t expect fast autofocus or pro-level controls.

• On the other hand, if you prioritize portability and extended zoom in a sleek package for mostly indoor and daylight shooting, the Panasonic Lumix FS12 remains a worthy option - especially if acquired at a bargain price. It’s less versatil but convenient for casual tourists and street photographers who want straightforward controls.

Both cameras show their age in sensor technology and firepower by today’s standards. They’re not for professional demands or serious enthusiasts requiring RF-level image quality or swift autofocus. Instead, they fill valuable niches in ruggedness vs. ultracompact convenience.

I hope this in-depth comparison gives you a clear picture of these two compacts’ capabilities and limitations. Feel free to ask if you want hands-on tips for shooting with either or for alternatives in the current market that fit your style and budget!

Happy shooting!

Appendix: Quick Camera Specs Recap