Olympus XZ-2 iHS vs Samsung WB350F
85 Imaging
37 Features
67 Overall
49
![Olympus XZ-2 iHS front Olympus XZ-2 iHS front](https://pxlmag.com/db/images/cameras/gallery/medium/Olympus-XZ-2-iHS/Olympus-XZ-2-iHS-front.jpg)
![Samsung WB350F front Samsung WB350F front](https://pxlmag.com/db/images/cameras/gallery/medium/Samsung-WB350F/Samsung-WB350F-front.jpg)
90 Imaging
40 Features
46 Overall
42
Olympus XZ-2 iHS vs Samsung WB350F Key Specs
(Full Review)
- 12MP - 1/1.7" Sensor
- 3" Tilting Display
- ISO 100 - 12800
- Sensor-shift Image Stabilization
- 1920 x 1080 video
- 28-112mm (F1.8-2.5) lens
- 346g - 113 x 65 x 48mm
- Revealed December 2012
(Full Review)
- 16MP - 1/2.3" Sensor
- 3" Fixed Display
- ISO 80 - 3200
- Optical Image Stabilization
- 1920 x 1080 video
- 23-483mm (F2.8-5.9) lens
- 276g - 114 x 65 x 25mm
- Launched January 2014
![](https://pxlmag.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/photography-glossary-218x150.jpg)
Olympus XZ-2 iHS vs Samsung WB350F Overview
Below, we are contrasting the Olympus XZ-2 iHS vs Samsung WB350F, one is a Small Sensor Compact and the other is a Small Sensor Superzoom by companies Olympus and Samsung. There is a sizeable difference between the sensor resolutions of the XZ-2 iHS (12MP) and WB350F (16MP) and the XZ-2 iHS (1/1.7") and WB350F (1/2.3") possess totally different sensor measurements.
![](https://pxlmag.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/LP3_cut_13f_0212-218x150.jpg)
The XZ-2 iHS was unveiled 12 months earlier than the WB350F which means that they are of a similar generation. Both cameras come with the identical body type (Compact).
Before we go in to a step-by-step comparison, below is a brief synopsis of how the XZ-2 iHS grades against the WB350F in relation to portability, imaging, features and an overall mark.
![](https://pxlmag.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/tiktok-218x150.jpg)
Olympus XZ-2 iHS vs Samsung WB350F Gallery
Below is a sample of the gallery pictures for Olympus XZ-2 iHS and Samsung WB350F. The full galleries are available at Olympus XZ-2 iHS Gallery and Samsung WB350F Gallery.
Reasons to pick Olympus XZ-2 iHS over the Samsung WB350F
XZ-2 iHS | WB350F | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
Display type | Tilting | ![]() | Fixed | Tilting display |
Display resolution | 920k | ![]() | 460k | Crisper display (+460k dot) |
Reasons to pick Samsung WB350F over the Olympus XZ-2 iHS
WB350F | XZ-2 iHS | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
Launched | January 2014 | ![]() | December 2012 | Newer by 12 months |
Common features in the Olympus XZ-2 iHS and Samsung WB350F
XZ-2 iHS | WB350F | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
Manual focus | ![]() | More precise focus | ||
Display dimension | 3" | ![]() | 3" | Identical display measurements |
Selfie screen | ![]() | Neither features selfie screen | ||
Touch display | ![]() | Easily navigate |
Olympus XZ-2 iHS vs Samsung WB350F Physical Comparison
For anybody who is aiming to travel with your camera often, you will need to think about its weight and dimensions. The Olympus XZ-2 iHS enjoys exterior dimensions of 113mm x 65mm x 48mm (4.4" x 2.6" x 1.9") with a weight of 346 grams (0.76 lbs) whilst the Samsung WB350F has dimensions of 114mm x 65mm x 25mm (4.5" x 2.6" x 1.0") along with a weight of 276 grams (0.61 lbs).
Check out the Olympus XZ-2 iHS vs Samsung WB350F in the latest Camera and Lens Size Comparison Tool.![Camera Size Comparison with Lenses Camera Size Comparison with Lenses](https://pxlmag.com/db/assets/camera-size-comparison-animation.gif)
Keep in mind, the weight of an Interchangeable Lens Camera will differ dependant on the lens you are utilizing during that time. The following is the front view dimensions comparison of the XZ-2 iHS against the WB350F.
![Olympus XZ-2 iHS vs Samsung WB350F size comparison Olympus XZ-2 iHS vs Samsung WB350F size comparison](https://pxlmag.com/db/images/camera-compare/Olympus-XZ-2-iHS-vs-Samsung-WB350F-size-comparison.jpg)
Considering size and weight, the portability score of the XZ-2 iHS and WB350F is 85 and 90 respectively.
![Olympus XZ-2 iHS vs Samsung WB350F top view buttons comparison Olympus XZ-2 iHS vs Samsung WB350F top view buttons comparison](https://pxlmag.com/db/images/camera-compare/Olympus-XZ-2-iHS-vs-Samsung-WB350F-top-view-buttons-comparison.jpg)
Olympus XZ-2 iHS vs Samsung WB350F Sensor Comparison
Often, it can be hard to envision the difference between sensor dimensions just by looking at specifications. The picture underneath may provide you a more clear sense of the sensor sizes in the XZ-2 iHS and WB350F.
Plainly, each of the cameras posses different megapixel count and different sensor dimensions. The XZ-2 iHS having a larger sensor will make shooting shallower DOF simpler and the Samsung WB350F will resolve more detail having an extra 4 Megapixels. Greater resolution can also make it easier to crop photos somewhat more aggressively. The more aged XZ-2 iHS is going to be disadvantaged with regard to sensor innovation.
![Olympus XZ-2 iHS vs Samsung WB350F sensor size comparison Olympus XZ-2 iHS vs Samsung WB350F sensor size comparison](https://pxlmag.com/db/images/sensor-compare/Olympus-XZ-2-iHS-vs-Samsung-WB350F-sensor-size-comparison.png)
Olympus XZ-2 iHS vs Samsung WB350F Screen and ViewFinder
![Olympus XZ-2 iHS vs Samsung WB350F Screen and Viewfinder comparison Olympus XZ-2 iHS vs Samsung WB350F Screen and Viewfinder comparison](https://pxlmag.com/db/images/camera-compare/Olympus-XZ-2-iHS-vs-Samsung-WB350F-screen-back-comparison.jpg)
![](https://pxlmag.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Approach-to-AI-Generated-Content-218x150.jpg)
Photography Type Scores
Portrait Comparison
![](https://pxlmag.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/snapchat-218x150.jpg)
Street Comparison
![](https://pxlmag.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/No-Surprise-Pentax-17-Pre-Orders-218x150.jpg)
Sports Comparison
![](https://pxlmag.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/maxresdefault-218x150.jpg)
Travel Comparison
![](https://pxlmag.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/ai-licence-218x150.jpg)
Landscape Comparison
![](https://pxlmag.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/samsung-evo-microsd-cards-featur-218x150.jpg)
Vlogging Comparison
![](https://pxlmag.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/iphone-optical-stabilization-218x150.jpg)
Olympus XZ-2 iHS vs Samsung WB350F Specifications
Olympus XZ-2 iHS | Samsung WB350F | |
---|---|---|
General Information | ||
Manufacturer | Olympus | Samsung |
Model type | Olympus XZ-2 iHS | Samsung WB350F |
Type | Small Sensor Compact | Small Sensor Superzoom |
Revealed | 2012-12-18 | 2014-01-07 |
Body design | Compact | Compact |
Sensor Information | ||
Sensor type | CMOS | BSI-CMOS |
Sensor size | 1/1.7" | 1/2.3" |
Sensor measurements | 7.44 x 5.58mm | 6.17 x 4.55mm |
Sensor surface area | 41.5mm² | 28.1mm² |
Sensor resolution | 12 megapixels | 16 megapixels |
Anti alias filter | ||
Aspect ratio | 4:3 | 4:3 |
Highest resolution | 3968 x 2976 | 4608 x 3456 |
Highest native ISO | 12800 | 3200 |
Min native ISO | 100 | 80 |
RAW photos | ||
Autofocusing | ||
Manual focusing | ||
AF touch | ||
Continuous AF | ||
AF single | ||
AF tracking | ||
AF selectice | ||
Center weighted AF | ||
AF multi area | ||
Live view AF | ||
Face detect AF | ||
Contract detect AF | ||
Phase detect AF | ||
Total focus points | 35 | - |
Cross type focus points | - | - |
Lens | ||
Lens support | fixed lens | fixed lens |
Lens zoom range | 28-112mm (4.0x) | 23-483mm (21.0x) |
Max aperture | f/1.8-2.5 | f/2.8-5.9 |
Macro focusing range | 1cm | - |
Focal length multiplier | 4.8 | 5.8 |
Screen | ||
Display type | Tilting | Fixed Type |
Display diagonal | 3" | 3" |
Display resolution | 920 thousand dot | 460 thousand dot |
Selfie friendly | ||
Liveview | ||
Touch operation | ||
Viewfinder Information | ||
Viewfinder type | Electronic (optional) | None |
Features | ||
Slowest shutter speed | 60 seconds | 16 seconds |
Maximum shutter speed | 1/2000 seconds | 1/2000 seconds |
Shutter priority | ||
Aperture priority | ||
Expose Manually | ||
Exposure compensation | Yes | Yes |
Set WB | ||
Image stabilization | ||
Built-in flash | ||
Flash distance | 8.60 m (ISO 800) | - |
Flash modes | Auto, On, Off, Red-Eye, Fill-in, Wireless | - |
Hot shoe | ||
AEB | ||
White balance bracketing | ||
Exposure | ||
Multisegment exposure | ||
Average exposure | ||
Spot exposure | ||
Partial exposure | ||
AF area exposure | ||
Center weighted exposure | ||
Video features | ||
Supported video resolutions | 1920 x 1080 (30 fps), 1280 x 720 (30 fps), 640 x 480 (30 fps) | 1920 x 1080 |
Highest video resolution | 1920x1080 | 1920x1080 |
Video file format | MPEG-4, H.264 | - |
Microphone jack | ||
Headphone jack | ||
Connectivity | ||
Wireless | Eye-Fi Connected | Built-In |
Bluetooth | ||
NFC | ||
HDMI | ||
USB | USB 2.0 (480 Mbit/sec) | USB 2.0 (480 Mbit/sec) |
GPS | None | None |
Physical | ||
Environmental seal | ||
Water proofing | ||
Dust proofing | ||
Shock proofing | ||
Crush proofing | ||
Freeze proofing | ||
Weight | 346 grams (0.76 pounds) | 276 grams (0.61 pounds) |
Dimensions | 113 x 65 x 48mm (4.4" x 2.6" x 1.9") | 114 x 65 x 25mm (4.5" x 2.6" x 1.0") |
DXO scores | ||
DXO All around rating | 49 | not tested |
DXO Color Depth rating | 20.4 | not tested |
DXO Dynamic range rating | 11.3 | not tested |
DXO Low light rating | 216 | not tested |
Other | ||
Battery life | 340 photos | - |
Battery form | Battery Pack | - |
Battery ID | Li-90B | SLB-10A |
Self timer | Yes (2 or 12 sec) | - |
Time lapse feature | ||
Storage media | SD/SDHC/SDXC | MicroSD, MicroSDHC, MicroSDXC |
Storage slots | 1 | 1 |
Pricing at launch | $450 | $260 |