Olympus VR-320 vs Panasonic GF1
94 Imaging
37 Features
35 Overall
36
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/b7e98/b7e986b748f8a3574682ef0ffce60a8d7bbbe4e3" alt="Olympus VR-320 front Olympus VR-320 front"
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/ab3e2/ab3e2b95d505b4b0ff0bfe0dc0d284b98f4a2d41" alt="Panasonic Lumix DMC-GF1 front Panasonic Lumix DMC-GF1 front"
85 Imaging
47 Features
47 Overall
47
Olympus VR-320 vs Panasonic GF1 Key Specs
(Full Review)
- 14MP - 1/2.3" Sensor
- 3" Fixed Screen
- ISO 80 - 1600
- Sensor-shift Image Stabilization
- 1280 x 720 video
- 24-300mm (F3.0-5.9) lens
- 158g - 101 x 58 x 29mm
- Announced July 2011
- Replacement is Olympus VR-330
(Full Review)
- 12MP - Four Thirds Sensor
- 3" Fixed Display
- ISO 100 - 3200
- 1280 x 720 video
- Micro Four Thirds Mount
- 385g - 119 x 71 x 36mm
- Released October 2009
- Newer Model is Panasonic GF2
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/4fad8/4fad8be6e5d8cb84d21f21424f73546c57bfca20" alt=""
Olympus VR-320 vs Panasonic GF1 Overview
Its time to look closer at the Olympus VR-320 vs Panasonic GF1, one being a Small Sensor Superzoom and the other is a Entry-Level Mirrorless by brands Olympus and Panasonic. The resolution of the VR-320 (14MP) and the GF1 (12MP) is very close but the VR-320 (1/2.3") and GF1 (Four Thirds) boast different sensor dimensions.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/8876b/8876ba1234536f7f948b3ad54614ecbba59fd0b6" alt=""
The VR-320 was launched 22 months later than the GF1 making them a generation apart from each other. Both of these cameras feature different body design with the Olympus VR-320 being a Compact camera and the Panasonic GF1 being a Rangefinder-style mirrorless camera.
Before delving straight to a step-by-step comparison, here is a brief summary of how the VR-320 scores against the GF1 with regard to portability, imaging, features and an overall grade.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/6d588/6d5886e45f6ed46a44c58516180e79dc4c09297f" alt=""
Olympus VR-320 vs Panasonic GF1 Gallery
This is a sample of the gallery pics for Olympus VR-320 and Panasonic Lumix DMC-GF1. The complete galleries are viewable at Olympus VR-320 Gallery and Panasonic GF1 Gallery.
Reasons to pick Olympus VR-320 over the Panasonic GF1
VR-320 | GF1 | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
Released | July 2011 | ![]() | October 2009 | More recent by 22 months |
Reasons to pick Panasonic GF1 over the Olympus VR-320
GF1 | VR-320 | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
Manual focus | ![]() | Dial precise focusing | ||
Display resolution | 460k | ![]() | 230k | Sharper display (+230k dot) |
Common features in the Olympus VR-320 and Panasonic GF1
VR-320 | GF1 | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
Display type | Fixed | ![]() | Fixed | Fixed display |
Display size | 3" | ![]() | 3" | Same display sizing |
Selfie screen | ![]() | Neither comes with selfie screen | ||
Touch friendly display | ![]() | Neither comes with Touch friendly display |
Olympus VR-320 vs Panasonic GF1 Physical Comparison
For anybody who is intending to lug around your camera, you will want to take into account its weight and volume. The Olympus VR-320 comes with external measurements of 101mm x 58mm x 29mm (4.0" x 2.3" x 1.1") accompanied by a weight of 158 grams (0.35 lbs) whilst the Panasonic GF1 has sizing of 119mm x 71mm x 36mm (4.7" x 2.8" x 1.4") with a weight of 385 grams (0.85 lbs).
Check the Olympus VR-320 vs Panasonic GF1 in the all new Camera with Lens Size Comparison Tool.data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/a6ef8/a6ef8f16e8deba30cb986caafd44d83681e96a75" alt="Camera Size Comparison with Lenses Camera Size Comparison with Lenses"
Do not forget, the weight of an Interchangeable Lens Camera will differ based on the lens you use at the time. Following is a front view measurements comparison of the VR-320 versus the GF1.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/dc480/dc4805f78060180884c629fa2a83acf9afabafce" alt="Olympus VR-320 vs Panasonic GF1 size comparison Olympus VR-320 vs Panasonic GF1 size comparison"
Taking into account size and weight, the portability rating of the VR-320 and GF1 is 94 and 85 respectively.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/8dbed/8dbede95288c8d50f531494ed144a7443c67c39d" alt="Olympus VR-320 vs Panasonic GF1 top view buttons comparison Olympus VR-320 vs Panasonic GF1 top view buttons comparison"
Olympus VR-320 vs Panasonic GF1 Sensor Comparison
Often, it can be difficult to visualize the contrast in sensor measurements purely by looking through specs. The visual below will help give you a better sense of the sensor measurements in the VR-320 and GF1.
All in all, both of those cameras come with different megapixels and different sensor measurements. The VR-320 because of its smaller sensor is going to make achieving bokeh more challenging and the Olympus VR-320 will provide you with extra detail utilizing its extra 2MP. Greater resolution will make it easier to crop images a good deal more aggressively. The fresher VR-320 provides an advantage with regard to sensor innovation.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/29e92/29e92a912166d7f8fe15880ddec41eb1c9cc45c3" alt="Olympus VR-320 vs Panasonic GF1 sensor size comparison Olympus VR-320 vs Panasonic GF1 sensor size comparison"
Olympus VR-320 vs Panasonic GF1 Screen and ViewFinder
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/8e182/8e182a8290eeed03ff0f1d57dd07753ebf9fae34" alt="Olympus VR-320 vs Panasonic GF1 Screen and Viewfinder comparison Olympus VR-320 vs Panasonic GF1 Screen and Viewfinder comparison"
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/bfda9/bfda97b4ea42610c4d033bdc3102b7af07982c04" alt=""
Photography Type Scores
Portrait Comparison
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/09f89/09f89c6b5dc0c8e793ce323afb658e7f43d45612" alt=""
Street Comparison
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/9df93/9df93b830615ba08ba0f7e31492fca23710a884c" alt=""
Sports Comparison
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/427ef/427ef51d855b8f8d8523699aa2b0465afb765511" alt=""
Travel Comparison
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/40b17/40b178b2c2a7887c950c5d80f9aa0bc017ad9376" alt=""
Landscape Comparison
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/85299/85299aa0d77ee8b6a2d3435fdb68ab0ccaabf584" alt=""
Vlogging Comparison
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/c3338/c3338e925c8d47c26e739e490d039a1411046530" alt=""
Olympus VR-320 vs Panasonic GF1 Specifications
Olympus VR-320 | Panasonic Lumix DMC-GF1 | |
---|---|---|
General Information | ||
Brand Name | Olympus | Panasonic |
Model | Olympus VR-320 | Panasonic Lumix DMC-GF1 |
Category | Small Sensor Superzoom | Entry-Level Mirrorless |
Announced | 2011-07-19 | 2009-10-14 |
Body design | Compact | Rangefinder-style mirrorless |
Sensor Information | ||
Powered by | TruePic III | Venus Engine HD |
Sensor type | CCD | CMOS |
Sensor size | 1/2.3" | Four Thirds |
Sensor measurements | 6.17 x 4.55mm | 17.3 x 13mm |
Sensor surface area | 28.1mm² | 224.9mm² |
Sensor resolution | 14 megapixels | 12 megapixels |
Anti aliasing filter | ||
Aspect ratio | 4:3 | 1:1, 4:3, 3:2 and 16:9 |
Highest resolution | 4288 x 3216 | 4000 x 3000 |
Highest native ISO | 1600 | 3200 |
Lowest native ISO | 80 | 100 |
RAW files | ||
Autofocusing | ||
Focus manually | ||
AF touch | ||
AF continuous | ||
AF single | ||
AF tracking | ||
AF selectice | ||
Center weighted AF | ||
Multi area AF | ||
Live view AF | ||
Face detection AF | ||
Contract detection AF | ||
Phase detection AF | ||
Number of focus points | - | 23 |
Lens | ||
Lens mount | fixed lens | Micro Four Thirds |
Lens focal range | 24-300mm (12.5x) | - |
Highest aperture | f/3.0-5.9 | - |
Macro focus range | 1cm | - |
Number of lenses | - | 107 |
Focal length multiplier | 5.8 | 2.1 |
Screen | ||
Range of screen | Fixed Type | Fixed Type |
Screen diagonal | 3 inches | 3 inches |
Screen resolution | 230 thousand dot | 460 thousand dot |
Selfie friendly | ||
Liveview | ||
Touch friendly | ||
Screen tech | TFT Color LCD | TFT Color LCD with wide-viewing angle |
Viewfinder Information | ||
Viewfinder | None | None |
Features | ||
Lowest shutter speed | 4s | 60s |
Highest shutter speed | 1/2000s | 1/4000s |
Continuous shooting speed | - | 3.0fps |
Shutter priority | ||
Aperture priority | ||
Expose Manually | ||
Exposure compensation | - | Yes |
Change WB | ||
Image stabilization | ||
Built-in flash | ||
Flash range | 4.70 m | 6.00 m |
Flash settings | Auto, On, Off, Red-Eye, Fill-in | Auto, On, Off, Red-Eye, Slow Sync |
External flash | ||
AE bracketing | ||
WB bracketing | ||
Highest flash sync | - | 1/160s |
Exposure | ||
Multisegment exposure | ||
Average exposure | ||
Spot exposure | ||
Partial exposure | ||
AF area exposure | ||
Center weighted exposure | ||
Video features | ||
Supported video resolutions | 1280 x 720 (30, 15fps), 640 x 480 (30, 15 fps), 320 x 240 (30, 15fps) | 1280 x 720 (30 fps), 848 x 480 (30 fps), 640 x 480 (30 fps), 320 x 240 (30 fps) |
Highest video resolution | 1280x720 | 1280x720 |
Video file format | Motion JPEG | AVCHD Lite |
Microphone jack | ||
Headphone jack | ||
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 seal | ||
Water proof | ||
Dust proof | ||
Shock proof | ||
Crush proof | ||
Freeze proof | ||
Weight | 158 gr (0.35 pounds) | 385 gr (0.85 pounds) |
Physical dimensions | 101 x 58 x 29mm (4.0" x 2.3" x 1.1") | 119 x 71 x 36mm (4.7" x 2.8" x 1.4") |
DXO scores | ||
DXO All around score | not tested | 54 |
DXO Color Depth score | not tested | 21.2 |
DXO Dynamic range score | not tested | 10.3 |
DXO Low light score | not tested | 513 |
Other | ||
Battery life | - | 380 photos |
Battery form | - | Battery Pack |
Battery model | LI-42B | - |
Self timer | Yes (2 or 12 sec) | Yes (2 or 10 sec, 10 sec (3 images)) |
Time lapse feature | ||
Storage media | SD/SDHC | SD/SDHC/MMC |
Storage slots | 1 | 1 |
Launch cost | $179 | $400 |