Olympus XZ-2 iHS vs Samsung WB35F
85 Imaging
37 Features
67 Overall
49
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/d2439/d243927345de5a095aa4910f1a6bf1f8c46d0250" alt="Olympus XZ-2 iHS front Olympus XZ-2 iHS front"
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/52f91/52f9140fa7006285dc43ba7d1f1fb45d41f5684b" alt="Samsung WB35F front Samsung WB35F front"
93 Imaging
40 Features
33 Overall
37
Olympus XZ-2 iHS vs Samsung WB35F Key Specs
(Full Review)
- 12MP - 1/1.7" Sensor
- 3" Tilting Screen
- 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
- 2.7" Fixed Screen
- ISO 80 - 3200
- Optical Image Stabilization
- 1280 x 720 video
- 24-288mm (F3.1-6.3) lens
- 194g - 101 x 61 x 28mm
- Revealed January 2014
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/9df93/9df93b830615ba08ba0f7e31492fca23710a884c" alt=""
Olympus XZ-2 iHS vs Samsung WB35F Overview
Following is a in depth analysis of the Olympus XZ-2 iHS versus Samsung WB35F, former is a Small Sensor Compact while the latter is a Small Sensor Superzoom by rivals Olympus and Samsung. There exists a considerable gap between the image resolutions of the XZ-2 iHS (12MP) and WB35F (16MP) and the XZ-2 iHS (1/1.7") and WB35F (1/2.3") offer totally different sensor dimensions.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/427ef/427ef51d855b8f8d8523699aa2b0465afb765511" alt=""
The XZ-2 iHS was revealed 12 months prior to the WB35F which means that they are of a similar age. Both of the cameras have the same body design (Compact).
Before going straight to a detailed comparison, here is a simple overview of how the XZ-2 iHS scores against the WB35F when considering portability, imaging, features and an overall score.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/40b17/40b178b2c2a7887c950c5d80f9aa0bc017ad9376" alt=""
Olympus XZ-2 iHS vs Samsung WB35F Gallery
Below is a preview of the gallery images for Olympus XZ-2 iHS & Samsung WB35F. The full galleries are available at Olympus XZ-2 iHS Gallery & Samsung WB35F Gallery.
Reasons to pick Olympus XZ-2 iHS over the Samsung WB35F
XZ-2 iHS | WB35F | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
Screen type | Tilting | ![]() | Fixed | Tilting screen |
Screen dimensions | 3" | ![]() | 2.7" | Bigger screen (+0.3") |
Screen resolution | 920k | ![]() | 230k | Crisper screen (+690k dot) |
Touch friendly screen | ![]() | Quickly navigate |
Reasons to pick Samsung WB35F over the Olympus XZ-2 iHS
WB35F | XZ-2 iHS | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
Revealed | January 2014 | ![]() | December 2012 | More modern by 12 months |
Common features in the Olympus XZ-2 iHS and Samsung WB35F
XZ-2 iHS | WB35F | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
Focus manually | ![]() | Dial accurate focus | ||
Selfie screen | ![]() | Lack of selfie screen |
Olympus XZ-2 iHS vs Samsung WB35F Physical Comparison
In case you're planning to carry around your camera, you will want to factor in its weight and volume. The Olympus XZ-2 iHS features external dimensions of 113mm x 65mm x 48mm (4.4" x 2.6" x 1.9") having a weight of 346 grams (0.76 lbs) and the Samsung WB35F has sizing of 101mm x 61mm x 28mm (4.0" x 2.4" x 1.1") and a weight of 194 grams (0.43 lbs).
Check the Olympus XZ-2 iHS versus Samsung WB35F in our brand new Camera plus Lens Size Comparison Tool.data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/a6ef8/a6ef8f16e8deba30cb986caafd44d83681e96a75" alt="Camera Size Comparison with Lenses Camera Size Comparison with Lenses"
Remember that, the weight of an ILC will change based on the lens you are using at that moment. Underneath is a front view sizing comparison of the XZ-2 iHS versus the WB35F.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/51de9/51de9592d972718201c86f57195813fd51e8e653" alt="Olympus XZ-2 iHS vs Samsung WB35F size comparison Olympus XZ-2 iHS vs Samsung WB35F size comparison"
Looking at dimensions and weight, the portability rating of the XZ-2 iHS and WB35F is 85 and 93 respectively.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/6940a/6940a79bc7d1aa830b261d8923b3527c1772b042" alt="Olympus XZ-2 iHS vs Samsung WB35F top view buttons comparison Olympus XZ-2 iHS vs Samsung WB35F top view buttons comparison"
Olympus XZ-2 iHS vs Samsung WB35F Sensor Comparison
More often than not, it's difficult to envision the difference between sensor sizes merely by looking at specs. The pic below will give you a better sense of the sensor sizes in the XZ-2 iHS and WB35F.
All in all, each of these cameras provide different resolutions and different sensor sizes. The XZ-2 iHS having a bigger sensor will make achieving shallower DOF less difficult and the Samsung WB35F will give you greater detail because of its extra 4MP. Higher resolution can also let you crop pictures more aggressively. The more aged XZ-2 iHS is going to be disadvantaged with regard to sensor innovation.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/1647e/1647ead44c9b53d931098b9fb516cbd6db24ded0" alt="Olympus XZ-2 iHS vs Samsung WB35F sensor size comparison Olympus XZ-2 iHS vs Samsung WB35F sensor size comparison"
Olympus XZ-2 iHS vs Samsung WB35F Screen and ViewFinder
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/b6e19/b6e1995a494e8602a2152da254716a34616fe6e6" alt="Olympus XZ-2 iHS vs Samsung WB35F Screen and Viewfinder comparison Olympus XZ-2 iHS vs Samsung WB35F Screen and Viewfinder comparison"
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/6d588/6d5886e45f6ed46a44c58516180e79dc4c09297f" alt=""
Photography Type Scores
Portrait Comparison
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/09f89/09f89c6b5dc0c8e793ce323afb658e7f43d45612" alt=""
Street Comparison
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/c3338/c3338e925c8d47c26e739e490d039a1411046530" alt=""
Sports Comparison
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/85299/85299aa0d77ee8b6a2d3435fdb68ab0ccaabf584" alt=""
Travel Comparison
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/8876b/8876ba1234536f7f948b3ad54614ecbba59fd0b6" alt=""
Landscape Comparison
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/bfda9/bfda97b4ea42610c4d033bdc3102b7af07982c04" alt=""
Vlogging Comparison
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/4fad8/4fad8be6e5d8cb84d21f21424f73546c57bfca20" alt=""
Olympus XZ-2 iHS vs Samsung WB35F Specifications
Olympus XZ-2 iHS | Samsung WB35F | |
---|---|---|
General Information | ||
Brand Name | Olympus | Samsung |
Model type | Olympus XZ-2 iHS | Samsung WB35F |
Class | Small Sensor Compact | Small Sensor Superzoom |
Revealed | 2012-12-18 | 2014-01-07 |
Physical type | Compact | Compact |
Sensor Information | ||
Sensor type | CMOS | CCD |
Sensor size | 1/1.7" | 1/2.3" |
Sensor measurements | 7.44 x 5.58mm | 6.17 x 4.55mm |
Sensor area | 41.5mm² | 28.1mm² |
Sensor resolution | 12 megapixel | 16 megapixel |
Anti alias filter | ||
Aspect ratio | 4:3 | 4:3 and 16:9 |
Highest resolution | 3968 x 2976 | 4608 x 3456 |
Highest native ISO | 12800 | 3200 |
Lowest native ISO | 100 | 80 |
RAW pictures | ||
Autofocusing | ||
Manual focusing | ||
Touch focus | ||
Continuous autofocus | ||
Single autofocus | ||
Autofocus tracking | ||
Autofocus selectice | ||
Center weighted autofocus | ||
Autofocus multi area | ||
Live view autofocus | ||
Face detection focus | ||
Contract detection focus | ||
Phase detection focus | ||
Total focus points | 35 | - |
Cross type focus points | - | - |
Lens | ||
Lens mount type | fixed lens | fixed lens |
Lens zoom range | 28-112mm (4.0x) | 24-288mm (12.0x) |
Largest aperture | f/1.8-2.5 | f/3.1-6.3 |
Macro focusing distance | 1cm | - |
Crop factor | 4.8 | 5.8 |
Screen | ||
Screen type | Tilting | Fixed Type |
Screen diagonal | 3 inches | 2.7 inches |
Screen resolution | 920 thousand dots | 230 thousand dots |
Selfie friendly | ||
Liveview | ||
Touch capability | ||
Viewfinder Information | ||
Viewfinder | Electronic (optional) | None |
Features | ||
Slowest shutter speed | 60s | 8s |
Maximum shutter speed | 1/2000s | 1/2000s |
Shutter priority | ||
Aperture priority | ||
Expose Manually | ||
Exposure compensation | Yes | - |
Set white balance | ||
Image stabilization | ||
Integrated flash | ||
Flash distance | 8.60 m (ISO 800) | - |
Flash modes | Auto, On, Off, Red-Eye, Fill-in, Wireless | - |
External flash | ||
Auto exposure bracketing | ||
White balance bracketing | ||
Exposure | ||
Multisegment | ||
Average | ||
Spot | ||
Partial | ||
AF area | ||
Center weighted | ||
Video features | ||
Supported video resolutions | 1920 x 1080 (30 fps), 1280 x 720 (30 fps), 640 x 480 (30 fps) | 1280 x 720 |
Highest video resolution | 1920x1080 | 1280x720 |
Video data format | MPEG-4, H.264 | - |
Microphone port | ||
Headphone port | ||
Connectivity | ||
Wireless | Eye-Fi Connected | Built-In |
Bluetooth | ||
NFC | ||
HDMI | ||
USB | USB 2.0 (480 Mbit/sec) | none |
GPS | None | None |
Physical | ||
Environment sealing | ||
Water proofing | ||
Dust proofing | ||
Shock proofing | ||
Crush proofing | ||
Freeze proofing | ||
Weight | 346 gr (0.76 lbs) | 194 gr (0.43 lbs) |
Physical dimensions | 113 x 65 x 48mm (4.4" x 2.6" x 1.9") | 101 x 61 x 28mm (4.0" x 2.4" x 1.1") |
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 shots | - |
Battery type | Battery Pack | - |
Battery ID | Li-90B | BP70A |
Self timer | Yes (2 or 12 sec) | - |
Time lapse feature | ||
Storage type | SD/SDHC/SDXC | MicroSD, MicroSDHC, MicroSDXC |
Card slots | 1 | 1 |
Price at launch | $450 | $130 |